Federal Register Vol. 81, No.12,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 12 (January 20, 2016)

Page Range2967-3288
FR Document

81_FR_12
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 3205 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 3224 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 3123 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 3134 - Sunshine Act; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 3086 - Wireline Competition Bureau Extends Comment and Reply Comment Deadlines in Business Data Services (Special Access) Rulemaking ProceedingPDF
81 FR 3100 - Foreign-Trade Zone 243-Victorville, California; Application for Subzone Expansion; Subzone 243A; Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc.; Rialto, CaliforniaPDF
81 FR 3100 - Grant of Authority; Establishment of a Foreign-Trade Zone Under the Alternative Site Framework; Central PennsylvaniaPDF
81 FR 3100 - Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Klaussner Furniture Industries, Inc.; Subzone 230D; (Upholstered Furniture); Asheboro and Candor, North CarolinaPDF
81 FR 3229 - U.S. Department of State Advisory Committee on Private International Law (ACPIL): Public Meeting on Family LawPDF
81 FR 3115 - Certain Uncoated Paper From Brazil: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
81 FR 3104 - Certain Uncoated Paper From Indonesia: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty DeterminationPDF
81 FR 3105 - Certain Uncoated Paper From Portugal: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Determination of Critical CircumstancesPDF
81 FR 3101 - Certain Uncoated Paper From Indonesia: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
81 FR 3230 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Application for Employment as a Locally Employed Staff or Family MemberPDF
81 FR 3112 - Certain Uncoated Paper From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
81 FR 3108 - Certain Uncoated Paper From Australia: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, In PartPDF
81 FR 3130 - Good Neighbor Environmental Board; Notification of Public Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 2989 - Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River, MO and ILPDF
81 FR 3149 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0052PDF
81 FR 3152 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0027PDF
81 FR 3110 - Certain Uncoated Paper From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty DeterminationPDF
81 FR 3230 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Peter Fischli David Weiss: How to Work Better” ExhibitionPDF
81 FR 3150 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0048PDF
81 FR 3151 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0047PDF
81 FR 3167 - Excepted Service; Consolidated Listing of Schedules A, B, and C ExceptionsPDF
81 FR 3148 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0023PDF
81 FR 3231 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Asia in Amsterdam” ExhibitionPDF
81 FR 3120 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 3097 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Requested-Review of Child Nutrition Data and Analysis for Program ManagementPDF
81 FR 3121 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 3231 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “A Japanese Constellation: Toyo Ito, SANAA and Beyond” ExhibitionPDF
81 FR 3231 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Van Dyck, Rembrandt, and the Portrait Print” ExhibitionPDF
81 FR 3232 - Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of WaterPDF
81 FR 3121 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 3082 - Establishing a Deductible for FEMA's Public Assistance ProgramPDF
81 FR 3165 - Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 3121 - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Code Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 3146 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 3033 - Importation of Fresh Apple and Pear Fruit Into the Continental United States From Certain Countries in the European UnionPDF
81 FR 3234 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Freeport-McMoRan, Inc.PDF
81 FR 3135 - Information Collection; Contractors' Purchasing Systems ReviewsPDF
81 FR 3134 - Submission for OMB Review; Value Engineering RequirementsPDF
81 FR 3153 - U.S.-Russia Polar Bear Commission; Maintenance of Annual Taking Limit for the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear PopulationPDF
81 FR 3235 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: FAA Acquisition Management System (FAAAMS)PDF
81 FR 3095 - Information Collection Request; Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program and Report of AcreagePDF
81 FR 3242 - Agency Information Collection (Application for Adaptive Sports Grant, VA Form 10096) Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 3244 - Agency Information Collection (Pre-Discharge Compensation Claim) Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 3243 - Agency Information Collection (VA/DOD Joint Disability Evaluation Claim) Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 3241 - Agency Information Collection (Application for Benefits for Certain Children With Disabilities Born of Vietnam and Certain Korea Service Veterans) Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 3241 - Agency Information Collection (Income Verification) Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 3243 - Agency Information Collection (Verification of VA Benefits) Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 3240 - Agency Information Collection (Claim for Repurchase of Loan) Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 3208 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of No Objection to Advance Notice Filing, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Concerning The Options Clearing Corporation's Non-Bank Liquidity FacilityPDF
81 FR 3235 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: FAA Airport Master RecordPDF
81 FR 3234 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Damage Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation of Composite Rotorcraft StructuresPDF
81 FR 3134 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 3166 - Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation Branch Technical PositionPDF
81 FR 3206 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee SchedulePDF
81 FR 3123 - Current Power & Gas Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 3125 - Kingbird Solar B, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 3126 - PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Technical ConferencePDF
81 FR 3127 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
81 FR 3126 - Notice of FilingPDF
81 FR 3123 - Notice of FilingPDF
81 FR 3125 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
81 FR 3127 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 2967 - Exportation of Live Animals, Hatching Eggs, and Animal Germplasm From the United StatesPDF
81 FR 3069 - Treatment of Certain Transfers of Property of Foreign Corporations; HearingPDF
81 FR 3117 - Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction MeetingPDF
81 FR 3099 - Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA) for the Section 533 Housing Preservation Grants for Fiscal Year 2016PDF
81 FR 3138 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
81 FR 3157 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey, New MexicoPDF
81 FR 3154 - Notice of Public Meeting, Dakotas Resource Advisory Council MeetingPDF
81 FR 3087 - Federal Acquisition Regulations: FAR Case 2014-004, Payment of SubcontractorsPDF
81 FR 3155 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; North DakotaPDF
81 FR 3156 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; North DakotaPDF
81 FR 3023 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Listing Determinations on Proposal To List the Banggai Cardinalfish and Harrisson's Dogfish Under the Endangered Species ActPDF
81 FR 3159 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Previously Approved CollectionPDF
81 FR 3162 - Request for Letters of Intent To Apply for 2015 Technology Initiative Grant FundingPDF
81 FR 3136 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 3139 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 3140 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 3144 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 3142 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 3160 - Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety StandardsPDF
81 FR 3242 - MyVA Federal Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 3125 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
81 FR 3157 - Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products From China; Institution of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase InvestigationsPDF
81 FR 3131 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
81 FR 3131 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
81 FR 3130 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
81 FR 3229 - Kansas Disaster #KS-00095PDF
81 FR 3085 - Request for Comment on Petition for Rulemaking Filed by IDT Telecom, Inc., Regarding Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service Fund ContributionPDF
81 FR 3148 - National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 3031 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2015 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Greater AmberjackPDF
81 FR 3118 - Nominations for the General Advisory Committee and the Scientific Advisory Subcommittee to the United States Delegation to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna CommissionPDF
81 FR 3203 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 8.3 Relating to Appointment CostsPDF
81 FR 3213 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 804(g)PDF
81 FR 3217 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 804(g)PDF
81 FR 3218 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 11.27 Regarding the Data Collection Requirements of the Tick Size Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 3213 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Market Data Fees for the NYSE Arca Options ProductPDF
81 FR 3225 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Market Data Fees for the NYSE Amex Options ProductPDF
81 FR 3210 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to COPSPDF
81 FR 3218 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Regarding the Acknowledgment of End-of-Day Net-Net Settlement Balances by Settling BanksPDF
81 FR 3220 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Chapter XV, Entitled “Options Pricing”PDF
81 FR 3195 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 14.11(i), Managed Fund Shares, To List and Trade Shares of the REX VolMAX Long VIX Weekly Futures Strategy ETF and the REX VolMAXX Inverse VIX Weekly Futures Strategy ETF of the Exchange Traded Concepts TrustPDF
81 FR 3158 - Irwin August, D.O.; Decision and OrderPDF
81 FR 3238 - Credit for Indian Coal Production and Inflation Adjustment Factor for Calendar Year 2015PDF
81 FR 3239 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue Procedure 2006-31PDF
81 FR 3238 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue Procedure 2003-39PDF
81 FR 3239 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 6198PDF
81 FR 3122 - National Energy Technology Laboratory; Notice of Intent to Grant Exclusive LicensesPDF
81 FR 3147 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 3240 - Pricing Changes for 2016 United States Mint ProductsPDF
81 FR 3147 - Announcement of the Award a Single-Source Program Expansion Supplement Grant to BCFS Health and Human Services in San Antonio, TXPDF
81 FR 3155 - Notice of Application for Withdrawal and Opportunity for Public Meeting; ArizonaPDF
81 FR 3236 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; LeasingPDF
81 FR 3237 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; Securities Exchange Act Disclosure Rules and Securities of Federal Savings AssociationsPDF
81 FR 3099 - Forestry Research Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 3078 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the Lower Beaver Valley Nonattainment Area for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality StandardPDF
81 FR 3069 - Safety Zones; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan ZonePDF
81 FR 3094 - Local Food Directories and Survey: Notice of Request for Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection and To Merge the Collection of National Farmers Market Directory and Survey With Modules and Local Food Directories and SurveyPDF
81 FR 3128 - Tetrachlorvinphos Registration Review; Draft Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 3165 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection Request: Guidelines for Grants to States Program Five-Year EvaluationsPDF
81 FR 3245 - Members of Federal Home Loan BanksPDF
81 FR 2993 - Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; San Joaquin Valley; Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5PDF
81 FR 3042 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 3053 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 3038 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 3061 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 2991 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Allegheny County's Adoption of Control Techniques Guidelines for Four Industry Categories for Control of Volatile Organic Compound EmissionsPDF
81 FR 3056 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 3051 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 3045 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 3059 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 3066 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 2986 - Revocation and Establishment of Class E Airspace; Bowman, NDPDF
81 FR 2988 - Privacy Act; STATE-09, Records Maintained by the Office of Civil RightsPDF
81 FR 2987 - Modification of VOR Federal Airway V-443; North Central United StatesPDF
81 FR 3001 - VNT1 Protein in Potato; Amendment to a Temporary Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
81 FR 3004 - Federal Awarding Agency Regulatory Implementation of Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards; Technical AmendmentsPDF

Issue

81 12 Wednesday, January 20, 2016 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Local Food Directories and Survey, 3094-3095 2016-00859 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Commodity Credit Corporation

See

Farm Service Agency

See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Forest Service

See

Rural Housing Service

Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service RULES Exportation of Live Animals, Hatching Eggs, and Animal Germplasm From the United States, 2967-2986 2016-00962 PROPOSED RULES Importation of Fresh Apple and Pear Fruit Into the Continental United States From Certain Countries in the European Union, 3033-3038 2016-00992 Army Army Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 3121 2016-01003 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 3120 2016-01006 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 3136-3146 2016-00940 2016-00955 2016-00936 2016-00937 2016-00938 2016-00939 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 3146-3147 2016-00994 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 3147 2016-00889 Single-Source Program Expansion Supplement Grant Awards: BCFS Health and Human Services in San Antonio, TX, 3147-3148 2016-00886 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River, MO and IL, 2989-2991 2016-01017 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone, 3069-3078 2016-00865 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 3148-3153 2016-01008 2016-01010 2016-01011 2016-01014 2016-01016 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Commodity Credit Commodity Credit Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program and Report of Acreage, 3095-3097 2016-00984 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Leasing, 3236-3237 2016-00884 Securities Exchange Act Disclosure Rules and Securities of Federal Savings Associations, 3237-3238 2016-00883 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulations: FAR Case 2014-004, Payment of Subcontractors, 3087-3093 2016-00950 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 3121-3122 2016-00999 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Contractors' Purchasing Systems Reviews, 3135-3136 2016-00989 Value Engineering Requirements, 3134-3135 2016-00988 Meetings: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Code Committee, 3121 2016-00995
Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Decisions and Orders: Irwin August, D.O., 3158-3159 2016-00895 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Intents To Grant Exclusive Licenses, 3122 2016-00890
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; San Joaquin Valley; Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 2993-3001 2016-00739 Pennsylvania; Allegheny County's Adoption of Control Techniques Guidelines for Four Industry Categories for Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions, 2991-2993 2016-00656 Tolerance Requirements; Exemptions: VNT1 Protein in Potato, 3001-3003 2016-00419 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the Lower Beaver Valley Nonattainment Area for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 3078-3082 2016-00871 NOTICES Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments: Tetrachlorvinphos Registration Review, 3128-3130 2016-00849 Meetings: Good Neighbor Environmental Board, 3130 2016-01018 Farm Service Farm Service Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program and Report of Acreage, 3095-3097 2016-00984 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Modification of VOR Federal Airway V-443: North Central United States, 2987-2988 2016-00521 Revocation and Establishment of Class E Airspace: Bowman, ND, 2986-2987 2016-00627 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 3045-3051, 3053-3056, 3061-3069 2016-00632 2016-00634 2016-00697 2016-00699 Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 3038-3042 2016-00698 Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes, 3042-3045, 3051-3053, 3056-3061 2016-00633 2016-00636 2016-00637 2016-00700 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Damage Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation of Composite Rotorcraft Structures, 3234-3235 2016-00974 FAA Acquisition Management System, 3235-3236 2016-00985 FAA Airport Master Record, 3235 2016-00975 Petitions for Exemptions; Summaries: Freeport-McMoRan, Inc., 3234 2016-00991 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Petitions for Rulemaking: IDT Telecom, Inc., Regarding Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service Fund Contribution, 3085-3086 2016-00910 Wireline Competition Bureau Extends Comment and Reply Comment Deadlines in Business Data Services (Special Access) Rulemaking Proceeding, 3086-3087 2016-01082 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 3130-3134 2016-00926 2016-00927 2016-00928 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency PROPOSED RULES Establishing a Deductible for FEMA's Public Assistance Program, 3082-3085 2016-00997 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 3125, 3127-3128 2016-00932 2016-00963 2016-00964 2016-00967 Filings United Illuminating Co., 3126 2016-00966 United Illuminating Co. et al., 3123 2016-00965 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Current Power and Gas Inc., 3123 2016-00970 Kingbird Solar B, LLC, 3125-3126 2016-00969 Meetings: PJM Interconnection, LLC; Technical Conference, 3126-3127 2016-00968 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 3123-3125 2016-01113 Federal Housing Finance Agency Federal Housing Finance Agency RULES Members of Federal Home Loan Banks, 3246-3288 2016-00761 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 3134 2016-00973 Federal Retirement Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 3134 2016-01105 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Maintenance of Annual Taking Limit for the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Population, 3153-3154 2016-00987 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Review of Child Nutrition Data and Analysis for Program Management, 3097-3099 2016-01005 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Establishments of Foreign-Trade Zones Under the Alternative Site Framework: Central Pennsylvania, 3100 2016-01035 Proposed Production Activities: Klaussner Furniture Industries, Inc., Subzone 230D, Asheboro and Candor, NC, 3100-3101 2016-01031 Subzone Expansion Applications: Black and Decker U.S., Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 243, Victorville, CA, 3100 2016-01039 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Forestry Research Advisory Council, 3099 2016-00882 General Services General Services Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulations: FAR Case 2014-004, Payment of Subcontractors, 3087-3093 2016-00950 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Contractors' Purchasing Systems Reviews, 3135-3136 2016-00989 Value Engineering Requirements, 3134-3135 2016-00988 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

RULES Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards: Technical Amendments, 3004-3023 2015-32101
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Institute of Museum and Library Services Institute of Museum and Library Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Guidelines for Grants to States Program Five-Year Evaluations, 3165 2016-00768 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Treatment of Certain Transfers of Property of Foreign Corporations; Hearing, 3069 2016-00961 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 3238-3240 2016-00891 2016-00892 2016-00893 Credit for Indian Coal Production and Inflation Adjustment Factor for Calendar Year 2015, 3238 2016-00894 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Uncoated Paper From Indonesia, 3104-3105 2016-01026 Certain Uncoated Paper From the People's Republic of China, 3110-3112 2016-01013 Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Uncoated Paper From Australia, 3108-3110 2016-01019 Certain Uncoated Paper From Brazil, 3115-3117 2016-01028 Certain Uncoated Paper From Indonesia, 3101-3104 2016-01023 Certain Uncoated Paper From Portugal, 3105-3108 2016-01024 Certain Uncoated Paper From the People's Republic of China, 3112-3115 2016-01020 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products From China, 3157-3158 2016-00931 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 3159-3160 2016-00942
Labor Department Labor Department See

Mine Safety and Health Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Applications for Withdrawals of Public Lands: Yuma, AZ, 3155-3156 2016-00885 Meetings: Dakotas Resource Advisory Council, 3154-3155 2016-00953 Plats of Surveys: New Mexico, 3157 2016-00954 North Dakota, 3155-3156 2016-00946 2016-00948 Legal Legal Services Corporation NOTICES Request for Letters of Intent To Apply for 2015 Technology Initiative Grant Funding, 3162-3165 2016-00941 Mine Mine Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Petitions for Modifications of Applications of Existing Mandatory Safety Standards, 3160-3162 2016-00935 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulations: FAR Case 2014-004, Payment of Subcontractors, 3087-3093 2016-00950 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Contractors' Purchasing Systems Reviews, 3135-3136 2016-00989 Value Engineering Requirements, 3134-3135 2016-00988 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

Institute of Museum and Library Services

National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction, 3117-3118 2016-00959 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 3148 2016-00908 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Banggai Cardinalfish and Harrisson's Dogfish; Final Listing Determinations on Proposal To List, 3023-3031 2016-00943 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: South Atlantic Greater Amberjack; Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure, 3031-3032 2016-00907 NOTICES Requests for Nominations: General Advisory Committee and the Scientific Advisory Subcommittee to the United States Delegation to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, 3118-3120 2016-00906 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee, 3165-3166 2016-00996 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation Branch Technical Position, 3166-3167 2016-00972 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Excepted Service: Consolidated Listing of Schedules A, B, and C Exceptions, 3167-3195 2016-01009 Rural Housing Service Rural Housing Service NOTICES Solicitations of Applications: Section 533 Housing Preservation Grants for Fiscal Year 2016, 3099-3100 2016-00957 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 3205-3206, 3224-3225 2016-01129 2016-01130 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 3195-3203, 3218 2016-00896 2016-00902 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 3203-3205, 3210-3213 2016-00899 2016-00905 Depository Trust Co., 3218-3220 2016-00898 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 3217-3218 2016-00903 ISE Gemini, LLC, 3213 2016-00904 Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, 3206-3207 2016-00971 NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 3220-3224 2016-00897 NYSE Arca, Inc., 3213-3217 2016-00901 NYSE MKT, LLC, 3225-3229 2016-00900 Options Clearing Corp., 3208-3210 2016-00976 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Kansas, 3229 2016-00921 State Department State Department RULES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 2988-2989 2016-00557 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Employment as a Locally Employed Staff or Family Member, 3230-3231 2016-01021 Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: A Japanese Constellation: Toyo Ito, SANAA and Beyond Exhibition, 3231 2016-01002 Asia in Amsterdam Exhibition, 3231 2016-01007 Peter Fischli David Weiss: How To Work Better Exhibition, 3230 2016-01012 Van Dyck, Rembrandt, and the Portrait Print Exhibition, 3231 2016-01001 Meetings: Department of State Advisory Committee on Private International Law, 3229-3230 2016-01029 Susquehanna Susquehanna River Basin Commission NOTICES Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of Water, 3232-3234 2016-01000 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Internal Revenue Service

See

United States Mint

U.S. Mint United States Mint NOTICES Pricing Changes for 2016 Products, 3240 2016-00887 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Adaptive Sports Grant, VA Form 10096, 3242-3243 2016-00983 Application for Benefits for Certain Children With Disabilities Born of Vietnam and Certain Korea Service Veterans, 3241-3242 2016-00980 Claim for Repurchase of Loan, 3240-3241 2016-00977 Income Verification, 3241 2016-00979 Pre-Discharge Compensation Claim, 3244 2016-00982 VA/DOD Joint Disability Evaluation Claim, 3243 2016-00981 Verification of VA Benefits, 3243 2016-00978 Meetings: MyVA Federal Advisory Committee, 3242 2016-00934 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Federal Housing Finance Agency, 3246-3288 2016-00761 Reader Aids

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

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

81 12 Wednesday, January 20, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 91 [Docket No. APHIS-2012-0049] RIN 0579-AE00 Exportation of Live Animals, Hatching Eggs, and Animal Germplasm From the United States AGENCY:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are revising the regulations pertaining to the exportation of livestock from the United States. Among other things, we are removing most of the requirements for export health certifications, tests, and treatments from the regulations, and instead directing exporters to follow the requirements of the importing country regarding such processes and procedures. We are retaining only those export health certification, testing, and treatment requirements that we consider necessary to have assurances regarding the health and welfare of livestock exported from the United States. We also are allowing pre-export inspection of livestock to occur at facilities other than an export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, under certain circumstances, and replacing specific standards for export inspection facilities and ocean vessels with performance standards. These changes will provide exporters and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) with more flexibility in arranging for the export of livestock from the United States while continuing to ensure the health and welfare of the livestock. Additionally, if APHIS knows that an importing country requires an export health certificate endorsed by the competent veterinary authority of the United States for any animal other than livestock, including pets, or for any hatching eggs or animal germplasm, we are requiring that the animal, hatching eggs, or animal germplasm have such a health certificate to be eligible for export from the United States. This change will help ensure that all animals, hatching eggs, and animal germplasm exported from the United States meet the health requirements of the countries to which they are destined. Finally, we are making editorial amendments to the regulations to make them easier to understand and comply with.

DATES:

Effective February 19, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Jack Taniewski, Director for Animal Export, National Import Export Services, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-3300.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

Under the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA, 7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the exportation of any animal, article, or means of conveyance if the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the dissemination of any pest or disease of livestock from or within the United States. The AHPA also authorizes the Secretary to prohibit: (1) The exportation of any livestock if the Secretary determines that the livestock is unfit to be moved; (2) the use of any means of conveyance or facility in connection with the exportation of any animal or article if the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the dissemination of any pest or disease of livestock from or within the United States; and (3) the use of any means of conveyance in connection with the exportation of livestock if the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary because the means of conveyance has not been maintained in a clean and sanitary condition or does not have accommodations for the safe and proper movement and humane treatment of livestock.

The Secretary has delegated this authority to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Pursuant to this authority, APHIS has issued the regulations in 9 CFR part 91, “Inspection and Handling of Livestock for Exportation” (“the regulations”).

We had not substantively amended these regulations for many years and some revisions were needed. Some provisions, such as those that require pre-export inspection of livestock at an export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation and those that set forth specific construction and maintenance standards for export inspection facilities and ocean vessels, sometimes interfered with exports. Other requirements, particularly those that required certain tests and certifications for all livestock intended for export from the United States, were not always required by importing countries or necessary for us to have assurances regarding the health and welfare of the livestock at the time of export.

For these reasons, on February 26, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 10398-10417, Docket No. APHIS-2012-0049) a proposed rule 1 to remove requirements that we determined to be unnecessary or overly prescriptive from the regulations in order to provide exporters and APHIS with more options for inspecting and handling livestock intended for export.

1 To view the proposed rule, its supporting documents, or the comments that we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0049.

Additionally, we proposed to amend the regulations so that, when an importing country is known to require an export health certificate for any animal other than livestock or for any animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, or gametes intended for export to that country, the animal or other commodity would have to have an export health certificate in order to be eligible for export from the United States.

Finally, we proposed to group certain provisions that were located in disparate sections of the regulations, and to make certain other editorial changes to make the regulations easier to read.

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending April 27, 2015. We received 48 comments by that date. They were from exporters, brokers, non-profit animal welfare organizations, and private citizens. We discuss the comments that we received below, grouped by topic in the following order:

• General comments on the proposed rule;

• Comments regarding specific sections of the proposed rule; and

• Comment regarding the Program Handbook.

General Comments on the Proposed Rule

One commenter stated that we had issued the proposed rule based on the erroneous assumption that the AHPA allows APHIS to regulate exports of livestock solely in order to protect and promote the welfare of the animals to be exported. The commenter stated that the AHPA does not delegate such authority to APHIS. In the commenter's opinion, the AHPA limits the scope of APHIS' regulation of livestock exports to those requirements that are necessary to ensure that livestock arrive in the importing country in acceptable condition and do not disseminate diseases or pests of livestock within or from the United States. Moreover, the commenter stated that, within these parameters, APHIS may only issue regulations with the intent of protecting and promoting international markets for U.S. livestock. The commenter stated that this is reflected in section 8301 of the AHPA, which provides that regulation of exports pursuant to the Act is necessary in order to “prevent and eliminate . . . burdens on foreign commerce” and to “protect the economic interests of the livestock and related industries of the United States.” The commenter concluded that the rule should be withdrawn on the grounds that APHIS had exceeded its statutory authority in issuing it.

We agree with the commenter that the primary purpose of the AHPA is to ensure that livestock that are imported into, exported from, or moved interstate within the United States do not contribute to the dissemination of pests or diseases of livestock within or from the United States. However, we disagree with the commenter's interpretation of the AHPA with regard to livestock exports.

As we noted earlier in this document, the AHPA authorizes the Secretary to prohibit the exportation of any livestock if the Secretary determines that the livestock is unfit to be moved and to prohibit the use of any means of conveyance in connection with the exportation of livestock if the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary because the means of conveyance has not been maintained in a clean and sanitary condition or does not have accommodations for the safe and proper movement and humane treatment of livestock. The section of the AHPA that contains these authorizations, 7 U.S.C. 8304, does not limit our authority in the manner suggested by the commenter.

Additionally, we disagree with the commenter that the Congressional findings in section 8301 of the AHPA necessarily imply such limitations. In addition to the findings cited by the commenter, Congress also finds in that section that “the health of animals is affected by the methods by which animals are transported in interstate commerce or foreign commerce.” We note, in that regard, that the AHPA does not define the term “health,” either explicitly or contextually.

The same commenter asserted that APHIS had overstated the rigidity of the previous regulations in part 91. The commenter pointed out that, at the time the proposed rule was issued, § 91.4 of the regulations provided that the Administrator may permit the exportation of livestock not otherwise permitted under the regulations, under such conditions as the Administrator may prescribe to prevent the spread of livestock diseases and to insure the humane treatment of the animals while in transit. The commenter also pointed out that paragraph (b) of § 91.14 had allowed for the use of temporarily designated ports of embarkation in conjunction with such exports. Because of these two provisions, the commenter asserted that the regulations allowed for any variances APHIS saw necessary to implement, that there was, accordingly, no need for the proposed rule, and that APHIS should therefore withdraw it.

The provisions of § 91.4 and paragraph (b) of § 91.14 were intended for specific unusual or unforeseen situations. They were not intended as a means to establish generally applicable exemptions from the regulations or alternate conditions for the exportation of livestock from the United States. Given that we considered numerous revisions to the regulations to be necessary, and given the scope of the revisions that we proposed, we consider it to have been appropriate and necessary to issue a proposed rule.

The same commenter stated that, while we had cited a recent and appreciable increase in the volume of livestock exports from the United States as part of the reason for the rule, we had provided no evidence that the previous regulations could not accommodate this increase.

The proposed rule pointed to several inefficiencies in the previous regulations that were exacerbated by the recent increase in the volume of livestock exports from the United States. For example, we pointed out that the regulations required all animals offered for exportation to undergo pre-export inspections within 24 hours of embarkation at an export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation and additionally required most animals to be afforded 5 hours of rest at this export inspection facility. We also stated that, in our experience, it can take more than 24 hours to unload a large lot of animals into an export inspection facility for inspection. We stated that this sometimes creates a tight timeframe for unloading the animals into the facility and subsequently loading the animals for export, increased the possibility of hastened loading and unloading, and increased the likelihood that the animals could become injured or distressed because of this haste. Finally, we pointed out that some export inspection facilities associated with ports of embarkation simply lack the ability to accommodate a large lot of livestock.

Several commenters stated that we should prohibit the export of livestock, prohibit the use of shipping containers to transport livestock, set an annual limit on the number of livestock exported from the United States, prohibit the export of livestock for slaughter, or prohibit any movement of animals to slaughter. Similarly, a number of commenters suggested that we prohibit the export of horses for slaughter purposes.

Such prohibitions are outside the scope of our statutory authority.

One commenter stated that we should make an inquiry regarding the use of the livestock to be exported. The commenter pointed out that, under section 8314 of the AHPA, APHIS may “gather and compile information” that APHIS “considers to be necessary for the administration and enforcement” of the AHPA, and that such an inquiry would be consistent with this statutory authority.

We disagree with the commenter that such an inquiry is within our statutory authority. With regard to livestock exports, the section of the AHPA that the commenter cited allows APHIS to gather and collect information in order to administer the section of the AHPA that pertains to live animal exports and the inspections related to such exports. Accordingly, we can collect and gather information in order to have assurances that: (1) Animals exported from the United States will not disseminate pests of diseases of livestock within or from the United States; (2) livestock exported from the United States are fit to be moved; (3) the means of conveyance or facilities used in conjunction with the exportation of such livestock will not contribute to the dissemination of pests and diseases of livestock within or from the United States; and (4) the means of conveyance used in conjunction with the export of such livestock has been maintained in a clean and sanitary condition and has accommodations for the safe and proper movement and humane treatment of the livestock. Inquiring regarding the intended use of the livestock in the importing country does not further any of these goals and is, accordingly, outside the scope of our statutory authority.

That being said, many countries have different importation requirements for various classes of livestock. To facilitate the export of livestock to those countries, as part of our export health certification processes, we inquire regarding the intended use of the livestock in the importing country. It is important to note, however, that in such instances, this inquiry is a service that we provide at the behest of the importing country.

Several commenters asked us to modify the proposed rule to prohibit the export by sea of horses for slaughter. One commenter pointed out that, under 15 CFR 754.5, the Department of Commerce (DOC) prohibits the export by sea of horses for slaughter, and states that they will consult with USDA in order to enforce this prohibition.

While APHIS is committed to coordinating with DOC to enforce this prohibition, we do not consider it necessary to modify the proposal in such a manner. This is due to the manner in which DOC enforces 15 CFR 754.5. Under the section, exporters who wish to export horses for slaughter must obtain a short supply license from DOC. One of the conditions on the license itself prohibits the exportation by sea of horses for slaughter, and makes the licensee subject to possible revocation of his or her license, as well civil and criminal penalties, for noncompliance with this prohibition. Based on our interaction with DOC and knowledge of the slaughter horse industry, these conditions have proven to be successful, and slaughter horses are currently exported from the United States via aircraft or overland conveyance.

Several commenters asked us whether the rule pertains to animals temporarily exported from the United States for a particular event or exhibition. If it did not, they asked that provisions regarding temporary exportation of livestock and other animals be added to this final rule.

The regulations in part 91 do not pertain to the export of livestock or other animals for a temporary show or exhibition. However, requirements for the temporary export and subsequent reimportation of several species of animals are contained in 9 CFR part 93. For example, paragraph (b) of § 93.317 of the 9 CFR contains requirements for horses exported to Canada for subsequent reimportation into the United States within a period of 30 days, and paragraph (f) of § 93.101 of the 9 CFR contains requirements for U.S.-origin birds intended for reimportation into the United States following a particular theatrical performance or exhibition in Canada or Mexico.

One commenter suggested that the regulations in part 91 should state that APHIS may collaborate with other Federal agencies to implement and enforce the regulations.

Since section 8310 of the AHPA explicitly authorizes such collaboration, we do not consider it necessary to include this statement in part 91.

One commenter suggested modifying the proposed rule to require exporters to maintain contingency plans to respond to adverse events that may befall a shipment of livestock during movement from their premises of export to the port of embarkation.

We see merit in such a requirement, particularly when pre-export inspection of the livestock intended for export is conducted at a facility other than the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation. Accordingly, in this final rule, we require that, in order for us to authorize pre-export inspection at such facilities, among other requirements, the exporter must maintain contact information for a veterinarian licensed in the State of embarkation to perform emergency medical services, as needed, on the animals intended for export.

The same commenter also suggested modifying the proposed rule to specify that APHIS personnel must visually monitor aircraft and ocean vessels as they depart from the port of embarkation.

The commenter did not explain how such monitoring would promote or safeguard the health and safety of the livestock aboard the aircraft or ocean vessels, nor is the purpose of such monitoring readily apparent to us.

Finally, one commenter stated that APHIS had insufficient resources to implement the rule. The commenter's assertion, however, was based in large part on the stated assumption that APHIS would not abide by provisions of the rule that make certain of our services contingent on the availability of APHIS personnel. We will, however, adhere to these provisions.

Comments Regarding Specific Sections of the Proposed Rule Comments Regarding Proposed § 91.1 (“Definitions”)

In proposed § 91.1, we proposed definitions of terms that would be used in the revised regulations. We received several comments on our proposed definitions.

We proposed to define date of export as “the date animals intended for export are loaded onto an ocean vessel or aircraft, or if moved by land to Canada or Mexico, the date the animals cross the border.”

One commenter pointed out that several foreign countries define the term differently in their import requirements. In such instances, the commenter asked whether exporters should abide by the importing country's understanding of the term or APHIS'.

In such instances, exporters should abide by the importing country's understanding of the term. However, APHIS continues to collaborate with our trading partners to harmonize their definitions regarding U.S. livestock exports with our own.

We proposed to define livestock as “horses, cattle (including American bison), captive cervids, sheep, swine, and goats, regardless of intended use.”

One commenter pointed out that the AHPA defines livestock as “all farm-raised animals,” and that our proposed definition was significantly more restrictive than the AHPA's definition. The commenter asked whether our definition should be considered a statement of Agency policy regarding the animals APHIS considers to be livestock. If so, the commenter expressed concern that it could adversely impact ongoing domestic surveillance and disease control efforts in other species of animals that APHIS has traditionally considered to be livestock.

The definition of livestock that we proposed in § 91.1 pertains solely to the regulations in part 91, and is not intended as a statement of general APHIS policy. The restrictive definition of livestock reflects the classes of livestock that can feasibly be inspected at an export inspection facility associated with a port of embarkation. Moreover, these are the primary classes of livestock exported from the United States.

We proposed to replace premises of origin, used in the previous part 91, with premises of export. We stated that this was because premises of origin is often used in common speech to mean the premises where animals were born and/or raised, whereas we meant the premises where the animals are assembled for pre-export isolation (if such isolation is required by the importing country) or, if the importing country does not require pre-export isolation, the premises where the animals are assembled for pre-export inspection and/or testing, or the germplasm is collected and stored, before being moved to a port of embarkation or land border port.

One commenter stated that exporters do not construe premises of origin to mean the premises where animals are born and/or raised. For this reason, the commenter stated that we should retain the term premises of origin within the regulations.

While it may be true that, in the commenter's experience, exporters do not construe the term premises of origin to mean the premises where animals are born and/or raised, this is a misconstrual that we do encounter as an Agency from time to time.

The same commenter stated that, if we retain the term premises of origin, we should also retain the term origin health certificate, which we proposed to replace with the term export health certificate. Since we have decided not to retain premises of origin, however, we are also not retaining the term origin health certificate.

Comments Regarding Proposed § 91.3 (“General Requirements”)

In proposed § 91.3, we proposed general requirements for the export of livestock, animals other than livestock, and animal germplasm.

Paragraph (a) of proposed § 91.3 concerned the issuance of export health certificates. In proposed paragraph (a)(1) of § 91.3, we proposed that livestock would have to have an export health certificate in order to be eligible for export from the United States.

One commenter suggested that we should instead require export health certificates for livestock when either APHIS or the exporter is aware that the importing country requires such certificates. If APHIS is not aware of such a requirement, the commenter suggested that we should authorize the export of the animals based on a good-faith effort by the exporter to determine whether the importing country requires export health certificates for the animals.

We are making no revisions in response to this comment. As we stated in the proposed rule, regardless of whether a foreign country allows livestock to be imported into their country without an export health certificate, pursuant to the AHPA, we need assurances that the livestock were fit to be moved for export from their premises of export at the time that movement occurred, and the export health certificate provides such assurances.

The commenter also asked whether this general requirement means that APHIS no longer intends to maintain IRegs, our Web site containing information regarding the animal and animal product import requirements of foreign countries.

We intend to the maintain IRegs.

In proposed paragraph (a)(2) of § 91.3, we proposed that, if an importing country is known to require an export health certificate for any animal other than livestock or for any animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, or gametes intended for export to that country, the animal, animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, or gametes would have to have an export health certificate in order to be eligible for export from the United States. We stated that this requirement was necessary because several countries have entered into export protocols with the United States for animals other than livestock or animal germplasm in which these countries require export health certificates, and we have operationally required such export health certificates out of deference to these export protocols for many years.

One commenter stated that it was not long-standing APHIS operational policy to require such certificates.

This policy has been in effect for 9 years.

Several commenters pointed out that “known to require” is passive voice, and asked whether APHIS or the exporter would be expected to know whether an importing country required an export health certificate for animals other than livestock, animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, or gametes.

While it is the responsibility of the exporter to make a reasonable effort to determine the requirements of the importing country for particular animals and commodities, for purposes of the proposed requirement, we meant when APHIS knows the importing country to require export health certificates.

One commenter understood “known to require” in the sense that we intended it, but also understood the proposed rule to suggest that the only way by which APHIS learns of such requirements is through export protocols with foreign countries. The commenter pointed out that many foreign countries have import requirements for animals other than livestock, germplasm, and hatching eggs that were not established through export protocols negotiated with APHIS. The commenter also pointed out that export protocols for animals other than livestock, animal germplasm, and hatching eggs sometimes do not require export health certification.

We acknowledge that many export protocols do not require export health certification for animals other than livestock, germplasm, and hatching eggs. The reference to export protocols was intended to illustrate one of the means by which APHIS becomes aware of such requirements. We also learn of them through routine dialogue with foreign countries, exporters, and brokers, among other means.

Several commenters pointed out that our authority under the AHPA with regard to exports of animals other than livestock, as well as animal germplasm and hatching eggs, is limited to determining that the animals, animal germplasm, or hatching eggs will not present a risk of disseminating diseases or pests of livestock within or from the United States. In instances when the importing country requires export health certificates but has not demonstrated such a risk, the commenters questioned our authority under the AHPA to impose a Federal requirement requiring export health certificates for such animals and commodities. The commenters acknowledged that, in the absence of such certificates, the animals and commodities could not be validly exported to the country, but stated that export health certificates are more aptly characterized in such instances as a discretionary service to facilitate trade. One of these commenters construed the proposed rule to suggest that we were issuing the provisions pursuant to the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), and pointed out that the SPS Agreement is not a statute and does not provide APHIS with authority to regulate exports.

In a similar vein, one commenter stated that we should require export health certificates for animals other than livestock, animal germplasm, and hatching eggs only when we consider the animals or commodities to be potential vectors of pests and diseases of livestock. The commenter also asked whether APHIS has any efforts underway or planned in the future to encourage trading partners to relieve restrictions on the importation of animals and articles that we do not consider to be potential vectors of pests and diseases of livestock.

Several foreign countries consider any animal, germplasm, or hatching egg offered for importation to their country without an export health certificate issued by the competent veterinary authority of the exporting country to present a risk of disseminating pests or diseases of livestock within their country, and accordingly prohibit such importation.

Because of this, if we are aware that the importing country has such requirements, we consider it necessary to require export health certificates for the animals, germplasm, or hatching eggs in order to provide assurances to the importing country that, in our determination as the competent veterinary authority of the United States, we do not consider the animals, germplasm, or hatching eggs to present a risk of disseminating pests or diseases of livestock. In other words, the export health certificate functions as a requirement that we impose in order to communicate our determination that the animals or articles do not present a risk of disseminating pests or diseases of livestock from the United States. Accordingly, while we acknowledge that issuing such export health certificates is consistent with the SPS Agreement, insofar as it respects the measures that other countries impose on the importation of animals other than livestock, animal germplasm, or hatching eggs in order to protect animal health within their country, we also consider it consistent with our statutory authority under the AHPA.

We disagree that such certification should more accurately be considered a discretionary service offered by APHIS, rather than a Federal requirement. Such an approach could be construed to suggest that APHIS has evaluated all classes of animals or articles subject to such certification requirements by importing countries and determined that they present no risk of disseminating pests or diseases of livestock from the United States. We have not done so.

Finally, when we have concerns regarding the risk basis for a foreign country's import requirements, we dialogue with the country to encourage them to revise the requirements.

One commenter asked whether the proposed provisions mean that APHIS will provide export health certification for invertebrate animals, if required by an importing country. If so, the commenter asked which staff in APHIS he should contact regarding such certification.

We will do so to the extent possible. The commenter should contact the National Import Export Services staff in APHIS' Veterinary Services program.

A commenter pointed out that the paragraph would not regulate exports of animal products. The commenter stated that such products can disseminate pests and diseases of livestock, and that importing countries sometimes require export health certificates for such commodities.

The regulations in part 91 have historically pertained to live animals. The proposed rule sought to extend their scope to germplasm and hatching eggs. Such commodities are potentially viable. Animal products, however, are not viable. Thus, we are not adding provisions for the certification of such commodities to part 91.

Finally, in light of the comments received on proposed paragraph (a)(2) of § 91.3 discussed above, we are modifying its provisions from those in the proposed rule. In this final rule, it requires that, if APHIS knows that an import country requires an export health certificate endorsed by the competent veterinary authority of the United States for any animal other than livestock or for any animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, or gametes intended for export to that country, the animal or other commodity must have an endorsed export health certificate in order to be eligible for export from the United States.

Paragraph (b) of proposed § 91.3 concerned the content of export health certificates. In paragraph (b)(1) of proposed § 91.3, we proposed minimum requirements for export health certificates for livestock. In paragraph (b)(2) of proposed § 91.3, we proposed that, in addition to such minimum requirements, the export health certificate would have to meet any other information or issuance requirements specified by the importing country.

Some commenters construed these two paragraphs to mean that the requirements of the importing country would supersede our own requirements. Other commenters understood the information or issuance requirements specified by the importing country to be in addition to our minimum requirements.

The latter interpretation is correct.

Paragraph (d) of proposed § 91.3 concerned testing requirements for livestock intended for export from the United States. Among other provisions, we proposed that samples must be taken and tests made by an accredited veterinarian or APHIS representative within the timeframe allowed by the importing country. If the importing country does not specify a timeframe, we proposed that the samples would have to be taken and tests made within 30 days prior to export, except that tuberculin tests could be conducted within 90 days prior to the date of export.

One commenter pointed out that APHIS representatives, as we proposed to define them, could include individuals without doctorates of veterinary medicine. The commenter stated that the AHPA requires animal health certificates to be issued by veterinarians, and that allowing non-veterinarians to do so is outside the scope of our statutory authority.

The AHPA does not set such limits on the issuance of certificates. Additionally, as we mentioned in the proposed rule, for certain species of aquaculture, we consider employees of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service best qualified to provide such certification.

One commenter pointed out that an importing country could specify a timeframe for sampling and testing that allows the samples to be taken and tests made outside the period of time that APHIS considers the samples or tests to reliably indicate the animals' freedom from disease at the time of export. The commenter suggested that this could result in diseased animals being exported from the United States. For that reason, the commenter stated that we should instead require all samples to be taken and tests made 30 days prior to the date of export, except for tuberculin tests, which could be conducted 90 days prior to export.

We disagree with the commenter that allowing the tests to be taken outside of the period of time that we consider to reliably indicate the animals' freedom from disease at the time of export could result in diseased animals being exported from the United States. Testing is not the sole requirement for export. The livestock must also be visually inspected by an APHIS veterinarian prior to embarkation for fitness to travel. This includes inspecting the animal for signs and symptoms of infection with a disease of livestock. Any animals with signs or symptoms of such infection are subject to a full veterinary examination.

One commenter suggested that we should require follow-up tests for Program diseases, which we proposed to define as “diseases for which there are cooperative State-Federal programs and domestic regulations in subchapter C of the 9 CFR,” at the port of embarkation in order to ensure that diseased livestock are not exported from the United States.

We do not consider such testing to be necessary in order to ensure that diseased livestock are not exported from the United States; as we mentioned above, this is one of the primary purposes of pre-export inspection. Additionally, we note that many tests for Program diseases must be administered at set intervals in order to produce statistically reliable results, and that certain tests, such as the tuberculin test, can lead to anergy, i.e., erroneous results due to a lack of sensitivity to a test brought about by overtesting, if they are administered too frequently.

Finally, one commenter suggested that we should also require testing for chemical residues that would make the livestock unsuitable for human consumption.

APHIS does not have statutory authority to require such tests. We note, however, that most foreign countries have regulatory bodies that specify the maximum chemical residues that may be present in food for human consumption in that country.

Comments Regarding Proposed § 91.4 (“Prohibited Exports”)

In proposed § 91.4, we proposed to prohibit the export of any animal, animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, or gametes under Federal, State, or local government quarantine or movement restrictions for animal health reasons unless the importing country issues an import permit or other written instruction allowing that animal or other commodity to enter its country and APHIS concurs with the export of the animal, animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, or gametes.

One commenter asked us what the term “under quarantine” meant. The commenter pointed to various scenarios under which an exporter may voluntarily place movement restrictions on animals or commodities prior to export, such as to fulfill animal isolation requirements of the importing country.

For purposes of this section, a Federal, State, or local animal health authority must place the movement restrictions on the animal or commodity in order for it to be considered under quarantine.

The same commenter pointed out that the definition of the term “quarantine” can vary from State to State and locality to locality, and that a State or locality may impose a “quarantine” for purposes other than to prevent the dissemination of pests and diseases of livestock.

For the purposes of the section, we consider a quarantine to be the imposition of movement restrictions in order to prevent the dissemination of pests and diseases of livestock that are under official control at the Federal, State, or local level.

Comments Regarding Proposed § 91.5 (“Identification of Livestock Intended for Export”)

In proposed § 91.5, we proposed identification requirements for livestock intended for export. With one exception, we proposed to require the livestock to be identified in accordance with 9 CFR part 86. That part contains national identification standards for livestock moving in interstate commerce. We considered this requirement to be necessary in order to align our export requirements with our domestic regulations, and to facilitate the interstate movement of animals intended for export from their premises of export to an export inspection facility, port of embarkation, or land border port.

The exception that we proposed to this general requirement was for horses. We proposed to allow horses to be identified by an individual animal tattoo alone, without an accompanying description of the horse, if allowed by the importing country. We stated that this was because the United States has several long-standing export protocols with other countries that allow horses to be identified solely by individual animal tattoos.

One commenter stated that movement for export differs from movement in interstate commerce, that the movement channels are understood by States and localities to be distinct, and that such identification would not substantially facilitate the movement of livestock from their premises of export. The commenter suggested that, for export purposes, livestock only need to be uniquely identified in a manner which allows the animals intended for export to be correlated to the animals listed on the export health certificate. The commenter stated that, while identification in accordance with part 86 would allow for such correlation, it was not the only means of ensuring it.

We agree with the commenter, and have revised the section accordingly. As a result of this revision, the exception for horses is no longer necessary, and has not been finalized.

Comments Regarding Proposed § 91.6 (“Cleaning and Disinfection of Means of Conveyance, Containers, and Facilities Used During Movement; Approved Disinfectants”)

In proposed § 91.6, we proposed cleaning and disinfection requirements for means of conveyance, containers, and facilities used during movement of livestock to ports of embarkation. Among other requirements, we proposed that the means of conveyance, containers, and facilities would have to be cleaned and disinfected with a disinfectant approved by the Administrator for purposes of the section. Whereas the regulations had previously required disinfectants listed in § 71.10 of the 9 CFR to be used, we proposed to list all approved disinfectants in the Program Handbook that accompanied the proposed rule.

Several commenters expressed concern that, by moving the list of approved disinfectants to the Program Handbook, we could change the list arbitrarily and without notifying the public.

Section 91.6 sets forth the criteria we will use for amending the list of approved disinfectants. APHIS will approve a disinfectant if we determine that the disinfectant is effective against pathogens that can be spread by the animals intended for export and, if the disinfectant is a chemical disinfectant, if it is registered or exempted for the specified use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., FIFRA). We will remove a disinfectant from the list if it no longer meets these conditions for approval. We will notify the public of any changes to the list of disinfectants approved for use.

Several commenters stated that the criteria for approval of a disinfectant in § 71.10 are significantly more stringent than those that we proposed in § 91.6, and that the former should be used to ensure the safety and efficacy of all disinfectants used to disinfect means of conveyances, containers, and facilities used in conjunction with the export of livestock from the United States.

Section 71.10 contains no criteria for approving or withdrawing approval of disinfectants. The absence of such criteria in § 71.10 was, in fact, our stated purpose for proposing criteria in § 91.6.

One commenter suggested that we should ensure that chemical disinfectants used for purposes of § 91.6 do not pose a risk to the health of livestock.

When such disinfectants are registered with EPA under FIFRA, or EPA grants an FIFRA exemption for a specified use, EPA takes the risks to the environment, including to livestock, associated with the use of that disinfectant into consideration.

Comments Regarding Proposed § 91.7 (“Pre-Export Inspection”)

In proposed § 91.7, we proposed requirements regarding pre-export inspection of livestock intended for export from the United States.

The regulations had previously required livestock offered for exportation to any country other than Mexico or Canada to be inspected by an APHIS veterinarian within 24 hours of embarkation of the animals at an export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation. In proposed paragraph (a) of § 91.7, we proposed that all livestock intended for export by air or sea would have to receive a visual health inspection from an APHIS veterinarian within 48 hours prior to embarkation. We proposed to extend the period of time within which livestock would have to receive pre-export inspection from 24 to 48 hours prior to embarkation based on the fact that we proposed to allow such inspection to take place at a facility other than the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, under certain circumstances. We also did so out of recognition that, even when such inspection occurs at the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, it can take more than 24 hours to load a large lot of animals safely into an ocean vessel.

One commenter pointed out that, unlike the previous regulations, the proposed regulations would not require pre-export inspection for livestock destined for overland export through Mexico.

The commenter is correct; we did not propose to retain this requirement. This is because the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries, and Food, the competent veterinary authority of Mexico, inspects both livestock destined for overland importation into Mexico and livestock destined for overland transit through Mexico at the U.S./Mexico border. The previous regulations were written in a manner which took into consideration the inspection afforded to livestock intended for overland importation into Mexico, but not that afforded to livestock intended for overland transit through Mexico. We additionally note that overland exports of livestock from the United States through Mexico are minimal.

Several commenters stated that extending the time period within which livestock must receive pre-export inspection from 24 to 48 hours prior to embarkation increased the likelihood that livestock unfit to travel would be exported from the United States.

The commenters provided no evidence in support of this assertion. In contrast, in our experience, animals are at an increased risk of stress or injury if they are offloaded or inspected hastily.

Several commenters stated that a visual health inspection was insufficient to detect signs or symptoms of diseases and pests of livestock, and suggested that we should require full veterinary examinations of all livestock destined for export from the United States in order to ensure that no diseased animals are exported from the United States. Similarly, one commenter asked us what a visual health inspection entails.

A visual health inspection entails careful examination of livestock for signs and symptoms that the livestock may not be fit to travel. Signs and symptoms include, but are not limited to, warts, growths, rashes, abscesses, abrasions, unhealed wounds, or unusual discharge of fluid.

APHIS veterinarians are trained to identify signs and symptoms of infection with a disease of livestock, and perform a full veterinary examination on any animal that exhibits such signs or symptoms during pre-export inspection.

We consider this protocol, coupled with the testing prescribed in § 91.3 of the regulations, to be sufficient to ensure that diseased livestock are not exported from the United States.

In proposed paragraph (a) of § 91.7, we also proposed a list of conditions that, if discovered during pre-export inspection, would make an animal unfit to travel. We proposed that the following classes of animals are unfit to travel:

• Livestock that are sick, injured, weak, disabled, or fatigued.

• Livestock that are unable to stand unaided or bear weight on each leg.

• Livestock that are blind in both eyes.

• Livestock that cannot be moved without causing additional suffering.

• Newborn livestock with an unhealed navel.

• Livestock that have given birth within the previous 48 hours and are traveling without their offspring.

• Pregnant livestock that would be in the final 10 percent of their gestation period at the planned time of unloading in the importing country.

• Livestock with unhealed wounds from recent surgical procedures, such as dehorning.

Several commenters stated that evidence of infection with a disease of livestock was not included among the proposed conditions, and suggested that the list be modified to include evidence of infectious disease as a condition that renders an animal unfit to travel.

Sick livestock, which we proposed to be unfit to travel, include livestock with evidence of infection with a disease of livestock.

One commenter asked whether a navel with a dried remnant of an umbilicus would be considered unhealed.

In some instances, such a navel could be considered healed. It will be at the discretion of the APHIS veterinarian whether to consider a particular navel healed.

The commenter also asked when APHIS considers wounds from a medical procedure to be healed.

APHIS veterinarians determine on a case-by-case basis whether a wound is healed. This determination is based on the age and general health status of the animal, the nature of the medical procedure performed, the usual recovery period associated with the procedure, and the nature of the wound.

A commenter asked how APHIS determines that animals other than livestock, animal gerplasm, or hatching eggs are fit to travel for export from the United States.

If the animals or commodities meet the conditions for importation specified by the importing country, APHIS considers them to be fit to travel.

Finally, in paragraph (a) of § 91.7, we proposed that the owner of animals or the owner's agent would have to make arrangements for any livestock found unfit to travel.

Several commenters suggested that we specify what type of arrangements the owner must make for livestock found unfit to travel. One of the commenters suggested that humane euthanasia should be listed as a type of approved arrangement, while another suggested that we should require humane euthanasia of all livestock considered unfit to travel.

If an APHIS veterinarian determines that an animal is unfit to travel for export, the owner of the animal or owner's agent must make arrangements to remove the animal from the lot of animals intended for export. Unless we consider the animal unfit to travel because we consider it a risk of disseminating a pest or disease of livestock, we do not have authority to specify the manner of arrangements which must be made.

Accordingly, while we recommend euthanasia of certain animals that we consider unfit to travel, such as animals that cannot be moved without further suffering or animals that are unable to stand unaided, we cannot require such euthanasia.

Finally, we do not recommend that all classes of animals that we consider unfit to travel be euthanized. Certain conditions that render an animal unfit to travel, such as pregnancy, are not terminal, and should not be considered as such.

In proposed paragraph (b) of § 91.7, we proposed that the APHIS veterinarian conducting pre-export inspection would either have to do so at the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation of the livestock; at an export isolation facility approved by APHIS, when use of such a facility is authorized by the Administrator in accordance with proposed paragraph (c) of § 91.7; or at an export inspection facility other than the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, when use of such a facility is authorized by the Administrator in accordance with proposed paragraph (d) of § 91.7. We also proposed that, if the facility used to conduct the inspection is a facility other than the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, it would have to be located within 28 hours driving distance under normal driving conditions from the port of embarkation, and livestock would have to be afforded at least 48 hours rest, with sufficient feed and water during that time period, prior to movement from the facility. We proposed that the facility would have to be located within 28 hours driving distance because we could not foresee any instances which would suggest authorizing inspections at an export isolation facility located more than 28 hours driving distance from the port of embarkation, and because, pursuant to the 28 hour law (49 U.S.C. 80502), the maximum amount of time that most livestock may be transported in interstate commerce without rest, feed, and water is 28 hours.

Several commenters stated that a 28 hour driving distance under normal conditions would allow pre-export inspection to be done at a significant distance from the port of embarkation. The commenters expressed concern that such travel could be stressful to the livestock and increase the risk of injury or illness befalling the animals being exported, and asked us to set a significantly lower maximum driving distance between the location at which pre-export inspection takes place and the port of embarkation. One of these commenters suggested a maximum driving distance of 60 miles or 90 minutes, whichever is further.

We agree that, under certain conditions, such travel could be stressful to the livestock. The rigors of up to 28 hours of continuous travel were, in fact, why we proposed that the livestock would need at least 48 hours of rest, with sufficient feed and water during that time period, prior to movement to the port of embarkation. It is also, in part, why we proposed conditions that would limit the use of facilities other than an export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation to conduct pre-export inspections.

However, if livestock are properly rested, fed, and watered and if the means of conveyance transporting the livestock is equipped for such travel, with APHIS exercising monitoring and oversight, we do not consider a significant driving distance between the facility at which pre-export inspection takes place and the port of embarkation to present an intrinsic and irresolvable risk to livestock health. We have, on occasion, authorized pre-export inspection of livestock at a facility a considerable distance from the port of embarkation in order to facilitate the timely export of the animals, and have not encountered significant adverse impacts to the health or wellbeing of the livestock transported due to the distance traveled. Rather, in our experience, as well as the experience of several commenters, it is frequent loading and unloading, rather than travel itself, which puts animals at the greatest likelihood of sustaining injury or other significant adverse impacts to their health or wellbeing.

For these reasons, we do not consider it necessary to lessen the maximum allowable driving distance between the facility at which pre-export inspection is conducted and the port of embarkation from that in the proposed rule. In this regard, we note that a maximum driving distance of 60 miles or 90 minutes could impede the orderly export of certain lots of livestock and is not necessary to ensure the health and wellbeing of the livestock exported.

One commenter pointed out that the 28 hour law allows livestock to be transported more than 28 hours without rest, feed, and water, if the animals have food, water, space, and an opportunity for rest aboard the means of conveyance. The commenter stated that, if our intent was to have the regulations in § 91.7 align with the provisions of the 28 hour law, then we should provide an exemption from the maximum allowable driving distance for livestock provided such food, water, space, and opportunity for rest.

Our reference to the 28 hour law was to illustrate that a long-standing statute considers there to be potential adverse impacts to livestock health and wellbeing if the animals are moved for more than 28 hours within the United States without rest, feed, and water. Accordingly, we used the statute as one of our reference points in determining what maximum allowable driving distance to propose between the facility at which pre-export inspection is conducted and the port of embarkation. Another reference point was importer requests to date for pre-export inspection of livestock at facilities other than an export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation. A 28 hour maximum driving distance between the facility at which the pre-export inspection is conducted and the port of embarkation would accommodate all such requests to date.

One commenter suggested that, instead of a mandatory 48 hour rest period for livestock inspected at a facility other than an export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation prior to movement from the facility, the rest period should be tiered to the class of livestock being moved and the distance between the facility and the port of embarkation. Alternatively, the commenter asked us to explain our rationale for the 48 hour rest period.

We intended to propose a 48 hour rest period prior to the pre-export inspection of the livestock. This rest period was intended to serve in lieu of a rest period at the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, so that livestock inspected at a facility other than the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation could be loaded directly into aircraft or ocean vessels at the port of embarkation. Since there would not be visual health inspection of the animals at the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, and since the animals could travel a significant distance from the facility at which the pre-export inspection is conducted to the port of embarkation, it would be commensurately important for us to be assured that the livestock are fit for travel before they leave the facility at which the pre-export inspection is conducted. Therefore, we considered a somewhat prolonged rest period warranted.

However, we did not clarify that livestock inspected at a facility other than the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation would be exempt from requirements for rest, feed, and water at the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation.

In this final rule, we have amended both paragraph (b) of § 91.7 and § 91.8, which contains our rest, feed, and water requirements for livestock inspected at an export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, to clarify our intent.

As we mentioned earlier in this document, in proposed paragraphs (c) and (d) of § 91.7, we proposed conditions under which we may authorize pre-export inspection at an export isolation facility, or an export inspection facility not associated with the port of embarkation, respectively. In both paragraphs, we proposed that such authorization could occur if the exporter could show, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, that the livestock would suffer undue hardship if they had to be inspected at the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation.

One commenter stated that this condition was subjective.

While we agree that the condition relies on a subjective determination, the factors that we will consider in making this determination are objective. For example, we will consider the species to be inspected, the size of the lot, the likelihood of adverse climatic conditions that could affect loading the animals into and unloading the animals from the export inspection facility, and the resources that would be available at the facility the day that the livestock would be expected to arrive.

Comments Regarding § 91.8 (“Rest, Feed, and Water Prior to Export”)

In proposed § 91.8, we proposed that all livestock intended for export by air or sea would have to be allowed a period of at least 2 hours of rest prior to being loaded onto an ocean vessel or aircraft for export. We also proposed that an inspector could extend the required rest period up to 5 hours, at his or her discretion and based on a determination that more rest is needed in order for the inspector to have assurances that the animals are fit to travel prior to loading. Finally, we proposed that adequate food and water would have to be available to the livestock during this rest period.

In the previous regulations in part 91, we had required livestock intended for export from the United States by sea or air to be allowed a period of at least 5 hours for rest at the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, with adequate feed and water available, before movement to an ocean vessel or aircraft for loading for export, unless the livestock had food and water in the carrier that transported them to the export inspection facility, and they will reach the destination country within 36 hours after they were last fed and watered in the United States, or, if they are under 30 days of age, within 24 hours after they were last fed and watered in the United States.

A number of commenters stated that our proposed minimum rest period was too short. Several of these commenters suggested that we maintain a rest period of at least 5 hours. One of the commenters suggested a 3 hour minimum rest period. Another cited a peer-reviewed study that, in the commenter's opinion, suggested the need for a minimum rest period of 8 hours for livestock destined for export.2

2 See: Knowles, T.G. 1998. A review of road transport of slaughter sheep. Veterinary Record 143:212-219. We refer to this article later in this document as Knowles.

We are making no change in response to these comments. As several commenters pointed out, movement from the premises of export to the port of embarkation may be of relatively short duration. If, for example, livestock have traveled 90 minutes to the port of embarkation, a mandatory rest period that is two to four times as long as this travel time appears excessive. For livestock that have traveled a longer distance, as we stated in the proposed rule, it is not generally our experience that they appear taxed by movement from the premises of export to the port of embarkation, and usually need time merely to become limber for the rigors of sea or air travel.

We disagree with the commenter who cited Knowles that the article suggests an 8-hour rest period is necessary for all ruminants. The article states that it pertains only to sheep destined to slaughter, and notes that, for other livestock moved for breeding or production purposes, “welfare problems rarely arise” that would suggest the need for significant rest, feed, and water. It also is worth noting that the article is from 1998, and examines conditions governing the transport of sheep to slaughter as these existed in the European Union during the 1990s. We do not consider the article applicable to current livestock export practices in the United States.

One commenter asked us whether a rest period of less than 5 hours would violate the 28 hour law.

This rest period is distinct from any rest period that must be afforded to livestock under the 28 hour law.

Finally, as we mentioned in our discussion of the comments received on proposed § 91.7, we have modified § 91.8, including its title, to clarify that it pertains only to animals inspected at an export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation.

As modified, it states that all livestock that are intended for export by air or sea and that will be inspected for export at an export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation must be allowed a period of at least 2 hours rest at an export inspection prior to being loaded onto an ocean vessel or aircraft for export. Adequate food and water must be available to the livestock during the rest period. An inspector may extend the required rest period up to 5 hours, at his or her discretion and based on a determination that more rest is needed in order to have assurances that the animals are fit to travel prior to loading. Pre-export inspection of the animals must take place at the conclusion of this rest period.

Comments Regarding Proposed § 91.11 (“Export Isolation Facilities”)

In proposed § 91.11, we proposed standards for APHIS approval of isolation facilities associated with the export of livestock from the United States. We stated that we considered such standards necessary because several importing countries require an “officially approved” or “APHIS-approved” period of isolation for livestock.

One commenter stated that such isolation is solely a requirement of an importing country, rather than an APHIS requirement, and that establishing standards for export isolation facilities could be construed to suggest that APHIS has identified a need for such requirements to prevent the dissemination of pests and diseases of livestock within the United States. The commenter also pointed out that the isolation required for livestock destined for export differs from importing country to importing country, and sometimes from species to species, is usually highly prescriptive, and is subject to change. For these reasons, the commenter questioned the need for standards for export isolation facilities and suggested that we not finalize the section.

We agree with the commenter that pre-export isolation is conducted solely to fulfill the requirements of an importing country, and is not required by APHIS for animal health purposes. We also agree with the commenter that the variety of export isolations required by foreign countries, as well as the prescriptive nature and mutability of those requirements, are significant impediments to establishing general standards for approval of export isolation facilities. Accordingly, we have decided not to finalize the section, as proposed.

However, we do consider it necessary to specify in the section that, if an importing country requires export isolation for livestock, such isolation must occur before the animals may be moved to a port of embarkation, and both the manner in which this isolation occurs and the facility at which it occurs must meet the requirements specified by the importing country.

As a result of this revision, § 91.11 does not contain conditions for APHIS approval of export isolation facilities. Accordingly, we have removed a reference to such approval that was in proposed § 91.7.

We have, however, retained the guidance in the Program Handbook regarding construction and operational standards for export isolation facilities. While this guidance is no longer tiered to a requirement of the regulations, it may aid exporters in fulfilling the requirements of an importing country regarding such isolation.

Comments Regarding Proposed § 91.12 (“Ocean Vessels”)

In proposed § 91.12, we proposed requirements regarding the ocean vessels on which livestock are exported from the United States.

In proposed paragraph (a) of § 91.12, we proposed that such vessels would need to be inspected and certified prior to initial use to transport any livestock from the United States.

We proposed that this certification would be valid for up to 3 years; however, the ocean vessel would have to be recertified prior to transporting livestock any time significant changes are made to the vessel, including to livestock transport spaces or life support systems; any time a major life support system fails; any time species of livestock not covered by the existing certification are to be transported; and any time the owner or operator of the ocean vessel changes.

Several commenters suggested that we should also require a vessel to be recertified if there is a significant mortality rate of livestock transported aboard the vessel during a particular voyage.

The purpose of the inspection and certification is to determine whether an ocean vessel is suitable for the export of livestock. High livestock mortality rates during a particular voyage do not necessarily suggest that a vessel is unsuitable for the export of livestock. For example, they could be the result of significant and unforeseen adverse weather conditions.

However, we do note that, under paragraph (f) of § 91.12, the owner or operator of an ocean vessel is required to submit a written report to APHIS within 5 business days after completing a voyage. In the report, the owner or operator must document the number of each species that died and provide an explanation for those mortalities. The owner or operator must also document whether a major life support system failed during the voyage.

If a significant number of the livestock aboard the vessel died during the voyage, and either the report indicates or APHIS has reason to believe that failure of a major life support system aboard the vessel directly contributed to the death of the livestock, the vessel will need to be recertified before it can be used again to export livestock from the United States.

In proposed paragraph (c) of § 91.12, we proposed feed and water requirements for livestock exported from the United States aboard ocean vessels. We proposed that sufficient feed and water would have to be provided to livestock aboard the ocean vessel, taking into consideration the livestock's species, body weight, the expected duration of the voyage, and the likelihood of adverse climatic conditions during transport.

One commenter stated that we did not require that livestock must be fed during the voyage. Similarly, two commenters pointed out that the previous regulations in part 91 had required ocean vessels to provide livestock with feed and water immediately after the livestock are loaded onto the vessel unless an APHIS representative determines that all of the livestock are 30 days of age or older and the vessel will arrive in the country of destination within 36 hours after the livestock were last fed and watered within the United States, or, if any of the livestock in the shipment are younger than 30 days, that the vessel will arrive in the country of destination within 24 hours after the livestock were last fed and watered within the United States.

One of the commenters acknowledged our rationale for proposing to remove this requirement from the regulations—that we have discovered that livestock can sometimes go more than 36 hours without feed or water without suffering duress—but also pointed out that we proposed to require livestock to have adequate access to feed and water during the voyage, and suggested that it is difficult to discern what adequate access to feed and water constitutes if livestock can go an indefinite amount of time aboard an ocean vessel without being fed or watered.

The other commenter pointed out that the previous regulations ensured that livestock over 30 days old would be fed at least once within a 36 hour period, and that this previous requirement was itself significantly less stringent than the 28 hour law. The commenter suggested that, in this final rule, we should specify that livestock aboard an ocean vessel must be fed and watered within 36 hours of departure from the port of embarkation.

In light of the concerns raised, we have modified paragraph (c) of § 91.12 to specify that livestock aboard the vessel must be fed and watered within 28 hours of the time they were last fed and watered within the United States. This provision is generally consistent with the 28 hour law.

A commenter stated that proposed paragraph (c) of § 91.12 does not require ocean vessels to maintain a surplus of feed in the event that the voyage takes significantly longer than expected.

In the Program Handbook that accompanied the proposed rule, we stated that, in order for us to consider feed maintained aboard an ocean vessel to be sufficient for a voyage, it would have to include a 15 percent surplus for unforeseen circumstances.

In proposed paragraph (d) of § 91.12, we proposed general requirements for the accommodations for livestock exported from the United States by ocean vessel.

In proposed paragraph (d)(1) of § 91.12, we proposed requirements for pens for livestock.

One commenter expressed concern that these proposed requirements did not require the pens to house species that are compatible with each other. The commenter pointed out that the World Organisation for Animal Health's (OIE's) standards for the transport of animals by sea recommend that animals that are likely to be hostile to other animals that are housed in the same pen should not be commingled.

We have modified paragraph (d)(1) of § 91.12 to specify that animals that may be hostile to each other may not be housed in the same pen.

In proposed paragraph (d)(2) of § 91.12, we proposed that livestock would have to be positioned during transport so that an animal handler or other responsible person could observe each animal regularly and clearly to ensure the livestock's safety and welfare.

A commenter suggested that we modify the paragraph to require the animals to be observed at least once every 12 hours.

In our experience, in order to provide routine care to livestock aboard ocean vessels, handlers observe the animals several times a day. Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to modify the paragraph to specify that the livestock must be observed at least once every 12 hours.

In proposed paragraph (d)(7) of § 91.12, we proposed that the vessel must have a system or arrangements, including a backup system in working order or alternate arrangements, for managing waste to prevent excessive buildup in livestock transport spaces during the voyage.

A commenter suggested modifying the paragraph to require the waste management system to have an alarm if the system malfunctions.

Malfunctions to waste management systems tend to be easily detectable because of the odor of the waste. Provided that the vessel maintains a backup system in working order or has alternate arrangements, we do not consider it necessary that it also maintain an alarm in the event of a system malfunction.

In proposed paragraph (d)(8) of § 91.12, we proposed that the vessel must have adequate illumination to allow clear observation of the livestock during loading, unloading, and transport.

A commenter suggested that we modify the paragraph to require the vessel to maintain a back-up lighting system.

Ocean vessels are constructed with back-up lighting systems. Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to require them.

In proposed paragraph (d)(12) of § 91.12, we proposed that the owner or operator of the ocean vessel must have on board during loading, transport, and unloading at least 3 persons (or at least 1 person if fewer than 800 head of livestock will be transported) with previous experience with ocean vessels that have handled the kind(s) of livestock to be carried, as well as a sufficient number of attendants with the appropriate experience to be able to ensure proper care of the livestock.

Several commenters suggested that we require at least one of these personnel to be a licensed veterinarian. One of these commenters asked us to delineate what we meant by “a sufficient number of attendants with the appropriate experience to be able to ensure proper care of the livestock,” and asked whether we intended one of these attendants to be a veterinarian.

We can foresee instances, such as a particularly short voyage to the importing country, when it may not be necessary for the vessel to have a veterinarian on board. However, we do agree that, for certain voyages, having a veterinarian on board may be necessary to ensure proper care of the livestock. Accordingly, in this final rule, we have modified paragraph (d)(12) of § 91.12 to specify that the APHIS representative assigned to inspect the vessel prior to loading will determine whether the personnel aboard the vessel are sufficient and possess adequate experience, including, if necessary, veterinary experience, to ensure proper care of the livestock.

A number of commenters suggested additional general requirements for ocean vessels.

Several commenters suggested that we should require ocean vessels to maintain a means of humanely euthanizing sick or injured livestock aboard the vessel, and should require at least one of the personnel aboard the ship to be trained in humanely euthanizing livestock by using the means of euthanasia carried by the vessel.

We have added such a requirement.

Several commenters suggested that we should require ocean vessels to maintain an alarm system when major life support systems aboard the vessel malfunction.

Malfunctioning major life support systems are usually easy to detect. However, we have added a requirement that the vessel must have replacement parts for major life support systems and the means, including qualified personnel, to make the repairs or replacements.

Several commenters suggested that we require ocean vessels to have a system that monitors ammonia levels aboard the vessel and alerts personnel aboard the ship if the levels exceed certain thresholds.

Excessive ammonia is easily detectable; therefore we do not consider such a requirement to be necessary.

Several commenters suggested that we require ocean vessels to maintain a system to monitor temperature, humidity, and carbon monoxide levels aboard the vessel.

Ocean vessels are constructed with such monitoring systems. Therefore, we do not consider such requirements to be necessary.

A commenter suggested that we require ocean vessels to have fire extinguishers on each level that contains livestock.

In 46 CFR 95.05-10, the United States Coast Guard requires shipping vessels to have fire extinguishers installed in all cargo compartments, unless they carry exclusively coal or grain in bulk.

Finally, one commenter suggested that ocean vessels that export livestock maintain contingency plans for emergencies. The commenter pointed out that the OIE's standards for the transport of animals by sea suggest that ocean vessels maintain such plans.

The OIE standards suggest that a “major adverse event” constitutes an emergency, but the standards do not define this term nor delineate the content of such plans. An ocean vessel may experience what we consider to be a major adverse event for any number of reasons, from adverse weather to system malfunctions to human error, and asking the vessel owner or operator to develop standard procedures for any major adverse event that could occur would place a significant paperwork burden on ocean vessel owners and operators.

Accordingly, we consider it appropriate, instead, to require ocean vessel owners or operators to document major adverse events that led to livestock deaths aboard a particular voyage. Additionally, when the major adverse event was a failure to a major life support system, the vessel will have to be inspected and recertified by APHIS before it may be used to export livestock from the United States again.

In proposed paragraph (e) of § 91.12, we proposed that an inspector could exempt an ocean vessel that uses shipping containers to transport livestock to an importing country from the requirements in proposed paragraph (d) of § 91.12, if the inspector determines that the containers themselves are designed, constructed, and managed in a manner to reasonably assure the livestock are protected from injury and remain healthy during loading, unloading, and transport to the importing country.

Several commenters understood that the intent of the rule was to acknowledge that certain of the requirements in paragraph (d) of § 91.12 are not applicable to ocean vessels that use shipping containers. However, they questioned the breadth of the exemption, and stated that certain of the requirements in paragraph (d) of § 91.12 are necessary to ensure that livestock exported from the United States remain healthy during the voyage to the importing country. Several of these commenters stated that, at a minimum, the requirements pertaining to feed and water, ventilation, and lighting, appear to be generally applicable to all ocean vessels used to export livestock.

In proposed paragraph (e) of § 91.12, we stated that guidance regarding the paragraph could be found in the Program Handbook that accompanied the proposed rule. In the Program Handbook, we provided guidance regarding the manner in which APHIS representatives would inspect ocean vessels that use shipping containers to transport livestock. We provided four areas that would be subject to particular scrutiny: The size of the containers; the materials used to construct the containers; the waste management and ventilation systems in the containers; and the manner in which potable water would be provided to the livestock.

Accordingly, it was not our intent to suggest that an inspector could exempt an ocean vessel that uses shipping containers from any of the requirements of paragraph (d) of § 91.12 that he or she so chooses. The inspector could only exempt the vessel after determining that it had in place an alternate means of meeting the aim of the requirements in paragraph (d), which is to provide reasonable assurances that livestock are protected from injury and remain healthy during loading, unloading, and transport to the importing country.

However, we do agree with the commenters that the paragraph should mention the particular areas that an inspector will evaluate as part of his or her inspection of ocean vessels that use shipping containers to transport livestock. Accordingly, we have modified paragraph (e) of § 91.12 to specify that particular attention will be paid to the manner in which the containers are constructed, the space the containers afford to livestock transported within them, the manner in which the owner or operator of the vessel would provide feed and water to the animals in the containers, and the manner in which air and effluent are managed within the containers.

As we mentioned earlier in this document, in proposed paragraph (f) of § 91.12, we proposed that the owner or operator of any ocean vessel used to export livestock (including vessels that use shipping containers) from the United States would have to submit a written report to APHIS within 5 business days after completing a voyage. Among other information requirements, we proposed that the report would have to include the number of each species that died and an explanation for those mortalities.

A commenter suggested that the report should also include the number of livestock injured during the voyage, and the nature of these injuries.

Injuries could include minor wounds or abrasions from which the livestock recovered quickly during the voyage. Conversely, animals that suffered significant or debilitating injuries during the voyage are likely to have died or been humanely euthanized. Accordingly, we do not consider it necessary to maintain a report regarding all animals injured aboard the vessel.

However, the commenter does identify a third category of animals that we did not consider in our proposed rule: Animals that sustained injuries or exhibited symptoms of illness that were significant enough to require medical attention from the personnel entrusted with care of the animals. Information regarding the number of such animals, as well as the nature of their injuries or illnesses, helps us interpret other aspects of the report accurately. Additionally, we have reason to believe that ocean vessels already maintain such information as part of their daily logs. We have modified paragraph (f) accordingly to specify that this information must be included in the report.

Comments Regarding Proposed § 91.13 (“Aircraft”)

In proposed § 91.13, we proposed requirements regarding aircraft used to export livestock from the United States.

A number of commenters pointed out that, unlike ocean vessels, we did not propose general requirements regarding accommodations for the humane transport of livestock aboard aircraft. The commenters suggested that we should add such requirements in this final rule.

Unlike ocean vessels, an international trade association stringently regulates aircraft. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) represents more than 250 commercial airlines worldwide, including those used to export livestock from the United States. IATA's “Live Animals Regulations” set forth minimum space requirements, feed and water requirements, ambient temperature requirements, ventilation requirements, and handling requirements for aircraft that transport livestock. These requirements are at least as stringent as our requirements for ocean vessels.

Additionally, we note that, in 14 CFR part 25, the Federal Aviation Administration has its own Federal requirements for airworthiness of aircraft used to transport people, animals, or cargo.

Because of these existing regulations, we did not consider it necessary to propose our own regulations regarding accommodations for the humane transport of livestock aboard aircraft.

Comment Regarding the Program Handbook

As we mentioned earlier in this document, we made a draft Program Handbook available along with the proposed rule. The Program Handbook provided guidance and other information regarding the proposed regulations. In instances in which the proposed regulations specified a performance or construction standard, the Program Handbook provided a means of meeting that performance or construction standard.

One commenter expressed concern that we would change the guidance in the Program Handbook arbitrarily, and without an opportunity for public participation.

It is Agency policy to take public comment on proposed substantive changes to Program standards and similar policy documents.

Miscellaneous

In paragraph (e) of § 91.3, we proposed that an original signed export health certificate would have to accompany livestock destined for export for the entire duration of movement from the premises of export to their port of embarkation or land border port, except when the export health certificate had been issued and endorsed electronically. Similarly, we also proposed that, except when an export health certificate had been issued and endorsed electronically, the original signed export health certificate would have to accompany animals other than livestock, animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, or gametes destined for export to their port of embarkation or land border port.

The intent of these provisions was to clarify that the means of issuing and endorsing an electronic export health certificate differs from the means of issuing and endorsing a paper-based export health certificate. However, we realize that the provisions could also be construed to mean that, if an export health certificate is issued and endorsed electronically, no export health certificate needs to accompany the animals or commodities destined for export or otherwise be available for review when the animals or commodities arrive at their port of embarkation or land border port.

This is not necessarily the case. Some importing countries require a paper-based export health certificate to accompany the animals or commodities destined for export, even if the export health certificate was issued and endorsed electronically. Other countries recognize electronically issued and endorsed export health certificates, but require them to accompany the animals or commodities destined for export.

Additionally, some importing countries allow the export health certificate for certain commodities to be issued and endorsed at the port of embarkation or land border port, regardless of the means of issuance and endorsement.

Accordingly, we have modified paragraph (e) of § 91.3 in this final rule. The paragraph now provides that an export health certificate for livestock must be issued and endorsed before the livestock move from the premises of export, and an export health certificate for animals other than livestock or other commodities must be issued and, if required by the importing country, endorsed by an APHIS representative prior to departure of the animals from the port of embarkation or the crossing of the land border port.

In light of this modification, we have also modified paragraph (a)(1) of § 91.3 to specify that livestock must have an endorsed export health certificate in order to be eligible for export from the United States. In the proposed rule, we did not indicate that the export health certificate needs to be endorsed.

In proposed paragraph (b) of § 91.6, we proposed that livestock for export could be unloaded only into a facility which has been cleaned and disinfected in the presence of an APHIS representative or an accredited veterinarian. We also proposed that a statement certifying to such action would have to be attached to the export health certificate by the APHIS representative or accredited veterinarian.

While this proposed requirement was also in the previous regulations in part 91, operationally we have long allowed facilities to be cleaned and disinfected without the presence of an APHIS representative or accredited veterinarian, provided that an APHIS representative or accredited veterinarian inspects the cleaned and disinfected facility, certifies that he or she has conducted this inspection, and attaches a statement certifying to this action. Whether an APHIS representative or accredited veterinarian conducts this inspection depends on the requirements of the importing country. In this final rule, we have revised paragraph (b) of § 91.6 to reflect this long-standing operational practice.

In proposed paragraph (b) of § 91.7, we proposed that, if, as a result of pre-export inspection, the APHIS veterinarian inspecting the animals deems clinical examination to be necessary to determine the animal's health, any testing or treatment related to this clinical examination would have to be conducted by an APHIS veterinarian or an accredited veterinarian.

In reviewing the proposed rule, we realized that this requirement could be construed to suggest that APHIS provides treatment as part of our clinical examinations. We do not. Rather, we coordinate with a licensed veterinarian; it is this veterinarian who provides the treatment. In this final rule, we have modified paragraph (b) of § 91.7 to make this clear.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the changes discussed in this document.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, we have performed a final regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding the economic effects of this rule on small entities. Copies of the full analysis are available on the Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 in this document for a link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

This rule amends 9 CFR part 91, which contains requirements for the inspection and handling of livestock (cattle, horses, captive cervids, sheep, goats, and swine) to be exported from the United States. Among other things, the rule removes some prescriptive requirements applicable to livestock, either completely or by replacing them with performance standards, and makes other adjustments in inspection and handling requirements to assist exporters. These changes will provide APHIS and exporters more flexibility in arranging for the export of livestock from the United States while continuing to ensure the animals' health and welfare.

The rule also adds requirements for individual identification of livestock intended for export. The rule also specifies that, if APHIS knows that an importing country requires an export health certificate endorsed by the competent veterinary authority of the United States for any animal other than livestock, including pets, or for any hatching eggs or animal germplasm, the animal, hatching eggs, or animal germplasm must have such a health certificate to be eligible for export from the United States. These changes will help ensure that all live animals, hatching eggs, and animal germplasm exported from the United States meet the health requirements of the countries to which they are destined and that APHIS has assurances regarding their health and welfare at the time of export.

Entities directly affected by this rule include exporters of live animals, hatching eggs, and animal germplasm. While we do not know the size distribution of these exporters, we expect that the majority are small by Small Business Administration standards, given the prevalence of small entities among livestock producers. Operators of export inspection facilities, export isolation facilities within 28 hours driving distance from a port of embarkation, and ocean vessels would also be directly affected. These industries are also largely composed of small businesses. The provisions of the rule would facilitate the export process for affected parties.

Executive Order 12372

This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.)

Executive Order 12988

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this final rule, which were filed under 0579-0432, have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). When OMB notifies us of its decision, if approval is denied, we will publish a document in the Federal Register providing notice of what action we plan to take.

E-Government Act Compliance

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this final rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 91

Animal diseases, Animal welfare, Exports, Livestock, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Accordingly, we are revising 9 CFR part 91 to read as follows:

PART 91—EXPORTATION OF LIVE ANIMALS, HATCHING EGGS OR OTHER EMBRYONATED EGGS, ANIMAL SEMEN, ANIMAL EMBRYOS, AND GAMETES FROM THE UNITED STATES Subpart A—General Provisions Sec. 91.1 Definitions. 91.2 Applicability. 91.3 General requirements. 91.4 Prohibited exports. Subpart B—Livestock 91.5 Identification of livestock intended for export. 91.6 Cleaning and disinfection of means of conveyance, containers, and facilities used during movement; approved disinfectants. 91.7 Pre-export inspection. 91.8 Rest, feed, and water at an export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation prior to export. 91.9 Ports. 91.10 Export inspection facilities. 91.11 Export isolation. 91.12 Ocean vessels. 91.13 Aircraft. 91.14 Other movements and conditions. Authority:

7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 19 U.S.C. 1644a(c); 21 U.S.C. 136, 136a, and 618; 46 U.S.C. 3901 and 3902; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.

Subpart A—General Provisions
§ 91.1 Definitions.

As used in this part, the following terms will have the meanings set forth in this section:

Accredited veterinarian. A veterinarian approved by the Administrator in accordance with part 161 of this chapter to perform functions specified in parts 1, 2, 3, and 11 of subchapter A, and subchapters B, C, and D of this chapter, and to perform functions required by cooperative State-Federal disease control and eradication programs.

Administrator. The Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or any person authorized to act for the Administrator.

Animal. Any member of the animal kingdom (except a human).

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the United States Department of Agriculture.

APHIS representative. An individual who is authorized by APHIS to perform the function involved.

Date of export. The date animals intended for export are loaded onto an ocean vessel or aircraft or, if moved by land to Canada or Mexico, the date the animals cross the border.

Export health certificate. An official document issued in the United States that certifies that animals or other commodities listed on the certificate meet the export requirements of this part and the importing country.

Export inspection facility. A facility that is affiliated with a port of embarkation and that has been approved by the Administrator as the location where APHIS will conduct health inspections of livestock before they are loaded onto ocean vessels or aircraft for export from the United States.

Export isolation facility. A facility where animals intended for export are isolated from other animals for a period of time immediately before being moved for export.

Horses. Horses, mules, and asses.

Inspector. An individual authorized by APHIS to inspect animals and/or animal products intended for export from the United States.

Livestock. Horses, cattle (including American bison), captive cervids, sheep, swine, and goats, regardless of intended use.

Premises of export. The premises where the animals intended for export are isolated as required by the importing country prior to export or, if the importing country does not require pre-export isolation, the farm or other premises where the animals are assembled for pre-export inspection and/or testing, or the germplasm is collected or stored, before being moved to a port of embarkation or land border port.

Program diseases. Diseases for which there are cooperative State-Federal programs and domestic regulations in subchapter C of this chapter.

Program Handbook. A document that contains guidance and other information related to the regulations in this part. The Program Handbook is available on APHIS' import-export Web site (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/index.shtml).

State of origin. The State in which the premises of export is located.

§ 91.2 Applicability.

You may not export any animal or animal germplasm from the United States except in compliance with this part.

§ 91.3 General requirements.

(a) Issuance of export health certificates. (1) Livestock must have an endorsed export health certificate in order to be eligible for export from the United States.

(2) If APHIS knows that an import country requires an export health certificate endorsed by the competent veterinary authority of the United States for any animal other than livestock or for any animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, or gametes intended for export to that country, the animal or other commodity must have an endorsed export health certificate in order to be eligible for export from the United States.

(b) Content of export health certificates—(1) Livestock; minimum requirements. Regardless of the requirements of the importing country, at a minimum, the following information must be contained on an export health certificate for livestock:

(i) The species of each animal.

(ii) The breed of each animal.

(iii) The sex of each animal.

(iv) The age of each animal.

(v) The individual identification of the animals as required by § 91.5.

(vi) The importing country.

(vii) The consignor.

(viii) The consignee.

(ix) A certification that an accredited veterinarian inspected the livestock and found them to be fit for export.

(x) A signature and date by an accredited veterinarian.

(xi) An endorsement by the APHIS veterinarian responsible for the State of origin.

(2) Livestock; additional requirements. In addition to the minimum requirements in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the export health certificate must meet any other information or issuance requirements specified by the importing country.

(3) Animals other than livestock, animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, and gametes. Export health certificates for animals other than livestock, animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, and gametes must meet any information requirements specified by the importing country.

(c) Inspection requirements for livestock. In order to be eligible for export, livestock must be inspected within the timeframe required by the importing country. If the importing country does not specify a timeframe, the livestock must be inspected within 30 days prior to the date of export.

(d) Testing requirements for livestock. All samples for tests of livestock that are required by the importing country must be taken by an APHIS representative or accredited veterinarian. The samples must be taken and tests made within the timeframe allowed by the importing country and, if specified, at the location required by the importing country. If the importing country does not specify a timeframe, the samples must be taken and tests made within 30 days prior to the date of export, except that tuberculin tests may be conducted within 90 days prior to the date of export. All tests for program diseases must be made in laboratories and using methods approved by the Administrator for those diseases. The Program Handbook contains a link to an APHIS Web site that lists laboratories approved to conduct tests for specific diseases. Approved methods are those specified or otherwise incorporated within the domestic regulations in subchapter C of this chapter.

(e) Movement of livestock, animals other than livestock, animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, or gametes with an export health certificate—(1) Livestock. An export health certificate for livestock must be issued and endorsed before the livestock move from the premises of export.

(2) Animals other than livestock, animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, and gametes. When an export health certificate is required by the importing country for any animal other than livestock or for animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, or gametes, it must be issued and, if required by the importing country, endorsed by an APHIS representative prior to departure of the animal or other commodity from the port of embarkation or the crossing of the land border port. When presented for endorsement, the health certificate must be accompanied by reports for all laboratory tests specifically identified on the certificate. The laboratory reports must either be the originals prepared by the laboratory that performed the tests or must be annotated by the laboratory that performed the test to indicate how the reports may be verified.

(f) Validity of export health certificate—(1) Livestock. Unless specified by the importing country, the export health certificate is valid for 30 days from the date of issuance, provided that the inspection and test results under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section are still valid.

(2) Animals other than livestock, animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, and gametes. Unless specified by the importing country, the export health certificate is valid for 30 days from the date of issuance.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0432)
§ 91.4 Prohibited exports.

No animal, animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, or gametes under Federal, State, or local government quarantine or movement restrictions for animal health reasons may be exported from the United States unless the importing country issues an import permit or other written instruction allowing entry of the animal, animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, or gametes, and APHIS concurs with the export of the animal, animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, or gametes.

Subpart B—Livestock
§ 91.5 Identification of livestock intended for export.

Livestock that are intended for export must be identified in a manner that allows individual animals to be correlated to the animals listed in the export health certificate. If the importing country requires a specific or an additional form of identification, the livestock must also bear that form of identification.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0432)
§ 91.6 Cleaning and disinfection of means of conveyance, containers, and facilities used during movement; approved disinfectants.

(a) All export health certificates for livestock must be accompanied by a statement issued by an APHIS representative and/or accredited veterinarian that the means of conveyance or container in which the livestock will be transported from the premises of export has been cleaned and disinfected prior to loading the livestock with a disinfectant approved by the Administrator for purposes of this section or by a statement that the means of conveyance or container was not previously used to transport animals.

(b) Livestock moved for export may be unloaded only into a facility which has been cleaned and disinfected prior to such unloading with a disinfectant approved by the Administrator for purposes of this section, and has subsequently been inspected by an APHIS representative or accredited veterinarian. A statement certifying to such action must be attached to the export health certificate by the APHIS representative or accredited veterinarian.

(c) Approved disinfectants. The Administrator will approve a disinfectant for purposes of this section upon determining that the disinfectant is effective against pathogens that may be spread by the animals intended for export and, if the disinfectant is a chemical disinfectant, that it is registered or exempted for the specified use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Program Handbook provides access to a list of disinfectants approved by the Administrator for use as required by this section. Other disinfectants may also be approved by the Administrator in accordance with this paragraph. The Administrator will withdraw approval of a disinfectant, and remove it from the list of approved disinfectants, if the disinfectant no longer meets the conditions for approval in this section.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0432)
§ 91.7 Pre-export inspection.

(a) All livestock intended for export by air or sea must receive a visual health inspection from an APHIS veterinarian within 48 hours prior to embarkation, unless the importing country specifies otherwise. The purpose of the inspection is to determine whether the livestock are sound, healthy, and fit to travel. The APHIS veterinarian will reject for export any livestock that he or she finds unfit to travel. The owner of the animals or the owner's agent must make arrangements for any livestock found unfit to travel. Livestock that are unfit to travel include, but are not limited to:

(1) Livestock that are sick, injured, weak, disabled, or fatigued;

(2) Livestock that are unable to stand unaided or bear weight on each leg;

(3) Livestock that are blind in both eyes;

(4) Livestock that cannot be moved without causing additional suffering;

(5) Newborn livestock with an unhealed navel;

(6) Livestock that have given birth within the previous 48 hours and are traveling without their offspring;

(7) Pregnant livestock that would be in the final 10 percent of their gestation period at the planned time of unloading in the importing country; and

(8) Livestock with unhealed wounds from recent surgical procedures, such as dehorning.

(b) The APHIS veterinarian must conduct the inspection at the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation of the livestock; at an export isolation facility, when authorized by the Administrator in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section; or at an export inspection facility other than the facility associated with the port of embarkation, when authorized by the Administrator in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section. Unless APHIS has authorized otherwise, any sorting, grouping, identification, or other handling of the livestock by the exporter must be done before this inspection. The APHIS veterinarian may also conduct clinical examination, including testing, of any livestock during or after this inspection if he or she deems it necessary in order to determine the animal's health. Any treatment related to this clinical examination performed on the animal must be performed by a licensed veterinarian. Finally, if the facility used to conduct the inspection is a facility other than the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, it must be located within 28 hours driving distance under normal driving conditions from the port of embarkation; livestock must be afforded at least 48 hours rest, with sufficient feed and water during that time period, prior to the pre-export inspection; and the exporter must maintain contact information for a veterinarian licensed in the State of embarkation to perform emergency medical services, as needed, on the animals intended for export.

(c) Conditions for approval of pre-export inspection at an export isolation facility. (1) The Administrator may allow pre-export inspection of livestock to be conducted at an export isolation facility, rather than at an export inspection facility, when the exporter can show to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the livestock would suffer undue hardship if they had to be inspected at the export inspection facility, when the distance from the export isolation facility to the port of embarkation is significantly less than the distance from the export isolation facility to the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, when inspection at the export isolation facility would be a more efficient use of APHIS resources, or for other reasons acceptable to the Administrator.

(2) The Administrator's approval is contingent upon APHIS having personnel available to provide services at that location. Approval is also contingent upon the Administrator determining that the facility has space, lighting, and humane means of handling livestock sufficient for the APHIS personnel to safely conduct required inspections. The Program Handbook contains guidance on ways to meet these requirements. Owners and operators may submit alternative plans for meeting the requirements to APHIS for evaluation and approval. Alternatives must be at least as effective in meeting the requirements as those described in the Program Handbook in order to be approved. Alternate plans must be approved by APHIS before the facility may be used for purposes of this section.

(d) The Administrator may allow pre-export inspection of livestock to be conducted at an export inspection facility other than the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation when the exporter can show to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the livestock would suffer undue hardship if they had to be inspected at the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, when inspection at this different export inspection facility would be a more efficient use of APHIS resources, or for other reasons acceptable to the Administrator.

(e) The APHIS veterinarian will maintain an inspection record that includes the date and place of the pre-export inspection, species and number of animals inspected, the number of animals rejected, a description of those animals, and the reasons for rejection.

(f) If requested by the importing country or an exporter, the APHIS veterinarian who inspects the livestock will issue a certificate of inspection for livestock he or she finds to be sound, healthy, and fit to travel.

§ 91.8 Rest, feed, and water at an export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation prior to export.

All livestock that are intended for export by air or sea and that will be inspected for export at an export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation must be allowed a period of at least 2 hours rest at an export inspection facility prior to being loaded onto an ocean vessel or aircraft for export. Adequate food and water must be available to the livestock during the rest period. An inspector may extend the required rest period up to 5 hours, at his or her discretion and based on a determination that more rest is needed in order to have assurances that the animals are fit to travel prior to loading. Pre-export inspection of the animals must take place at the conclusion of this rest period.

§ 91.9 Ports.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, livestock exported by air or sea may be exported only through ports designated as ports of embarkation by the Administrator. Any port that has an export inspection facility that meets the requirements of § 91.10 permanently associated with it is designated as a port of embarkation. The Program Handbook contains a list of designated ports of embarkation. A list may also be obtained from a Veterinary Services area office. Information on area offices is available on APHIS' import-export Web site (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/index.shtml).

(b) The Administrator may approve other ports for the exportation of livestock on a temporary basis with the concurrence of the port director. The Administrator will grant such temporary approvals only for a specific shipment of livestock, and only if pre-export inspection of that shipment has occurred at an export isolation facility or an export inspection facility not associated with the port of embarkation, as provided in § 91.7.

(c) Temporarily approved ports of embarkation will not be added to the list of designated ports of embarkation and are only approved for the time period and shipment conditions specified by APHIS at the time of approval.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0432)
§ 91.10 Export inspection facilities.

(a) Export inspection facilities must be approved by the Administrator before they may be used for any livestock intended for export. The Administrator will approve an export inspection facility upon determining that it meets the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section. This approval remains in effect unless it is revoked in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, or unless any of the following occur, in which case reapproval must be sought:

(1) The owner of the facility changes.

(2) Significant damage to the facility occurs or significant structural changes are made to the facility.

(b)(1) Export inspection facilities must be constructed, equipped, and managed in a manner that prevents transmission of disease to and from livestock in the facilities, provides for the safe and humane handling and restraint of livestock, and provides sufficient offices, space, and lighting for APHIS veterinarians to safely conduct required health inspections of livestock and related business. The Program Handbook contains guidance on ways to meet these requirements. Owners and operators may submit alternative plans for meeting the requirements to APHIS for evaluation and approval; the address to which to submit such alternatives is contained in the Program Handbook. Alternatives must be at least as effective in meeting the requirements as the methods described in the Program Handbook in order to be approved. Alternatives must be approved by APHIS before being used for purposes of this section.

(2) For the purposes of approval or a subsequent audit, APHIS representatives must have access to all areas of the facility during the facility's business hours to evaluate compliance with the requirements of this section.

(3) The application for approval of an export inspection facility must be accompanied by a certification from the authorities having jurisdiction over environmental affairs in the locality of the facility. The certification must state that the facility complies with any applicable requirements of the State and local governments, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding disposal of animal wastes.

(c) The Administrator will deny or revoke approval of an export inspection facility for failure to meet the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section.

(1) APHIS will conduct site inspections of approved export inspection facilities at least once a year for continued compliance with the standards. If a facility fails to pass the inspection, the Administrator may revoke its approval. If the Administrator revokes approval for a facility that serves a designated port of embarkation, the Administrator may also remove that port from the list of designated ports of embarkation.

(2) APHIS will provide written notice of any proposed denial or revocation to the operator of the facility, who will be given an opportunity to present his or her views on the issues before a final decision is made. The notice will list any deficiencies in detail. APHIS will provide notice of pending revocations at least 60 days before the revocation is scheduled to take effect, but may suspend facility operations before that date and before any consideration of objections by the facility operator if the Administrator determines the suspension is necessary to protect animal health or public health, interest, or safety. The operator of any facility whose approval is denied or revoked may request another inspection after remedying the deficiencies.

§ 91.11 Export isolation.

If an importing country requires export isolation for livestock, such isolation must occur before the animals may be moved to a port of embarkation, and both the manner in which this isolation occurs and the facility at which it occurs must meet the requirements specified by the importing country.

§ 91.12 Ocean vessels.

(a) Inspection of the ocean vessel—(1) Certification to carry livestock. Ocean vessels must be certified by APHIS prior to initial use to transport any livestock from the United States. The owner or the operator of the ocean vessel must make arrangements prior to the vessel's arrival at a designated port of embarkation in the United States for an APHIS representative to inspect the vessel while it is at that port of embarkation. Alternatively, at the discretion of the Administrator and upon request of the exporter, transporting company, or their agent, the inspection may be done at a foreign port. If APHIS determines that the ocean vessel meets the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section, APHIS will certify the vessel to transport livestock from the United States. APHIS may certify a vessel that does not meet all of the requirements in paragraph (d), provided that an exemption from the requirements the vessel does not meet has been granted to the vessel pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section. The certification will specify the species of livestock for which the vessel is approved. The certification will be valid for up to 3 years; however, the ocean vessel must be recertified prior to transporting livestock any time significant changes are made to the vessel, including to livestock transport spaces or life support systems; any time a major life support system fails; any time species of livestock not covered by the existing certification are to be transported; and any time the owner or operator of the ocean vessel changes. The owner or operator of the vessel must present the following documentation to APHIS prior to its initial inspection for certification and when requested by APHIS prior to subsequent inspections for recertification:

(i) General information about the vessel, including year built, length and breadth, vessel name history, port of registry, call sign, maximum and average speed, fresh water tank capacity and fresh water generation rate, and feed silo capacity (if the vessel has a silo);

(ii) A notarized statement from an engineer concerning the rate of air exchange in each compartment of the vessel;

(iii) The species of livestock that the vessel would transport;

(iv) Scale drawings that provide details of the design, materials, and methods of construction and arrangement of fittings for the containment and movement of livestock; provisions for the storage and distribution of feed and water; drainage arrangements; primary and secondary sources of power; and lighting;

(v) A photograph of the rails and gates of any pens;

(vi) A description of the flooring surface on the livestock decks; and

(vii) The following measurements: Width of the ramps; the clear height from the ramps to the lowest overhead structures; the incline between the ramps and the horizontal plane; the distance between footlocks on the ramps; the height of side fencing on the ramps; the height of the vessel's side doors through which livestock are loaded; the width of alleyways running fore and aft between livestock pens; and the distance from the floor of the livestock pens to the beams or lowest structures overhead.

(2) Prior to each voyage. Prior to loading any livestock intended for export from the United States, an APHIS representative must inspect the vessel to confirm that the ocean vessel has been adequately cleaned and disinfected as required by paragraph (b) of this section, has sufficient food and water for the voyage as required by paragraph (c) of this section, and continues to meet the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section. APHIS will schedule the inspection after the owner or operator of the ocean vessel provides the following information:

(i) The name of the ocean vessel;

(ii) The port, date, and time the ocean vessel will be available for inspection, and estimated time that loading will begin;

(iii) A description of the livestock to be transported, including the type, number, and estimated average weight of the livestock;

(iv) Stability data for the ocean vessel with livestock on board;

(v) The port of discharge; and

(vi) The route and expected length of the voyage.

(3) The information in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(vi) must be provided at least 72 hours before the vessel will be available for inspection.

(b) Cleaning and disinfection. (1) Any ocean vessel intended for use in exporting livestock, and all fittings, utensils, containers, and equipment (unless new) used for loading, stowing, or other handling of livestock aboard the vessel must be thoroughly cleaned and disinfected to the satisfaction of an APHIS representative prior to any livestock being loaded. The disinfectant must be approved by the Administrator. Guidance on cleaning and disinfecting ocean vessels may be found in the Program Handbook.

(2) The Administrator will approve a disinfectant for the purposes of this paragraph upon determining that the disinfectant is effective against pathogens that may be spread by the animals and, if the disinfectant is a chemical disinfectant, that it is registered or exempted for the specified use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Program Handbook provides access to a list of disinfectants approved by the Administrator. Other disinfectants may also be approved by the Administrator in accordance with this paragraph. The Administrator will withdraw approval of a disinfectant, and remove it from the list of approved disinfectants in the Program Handbook, if the disinfectant no longer meets the conditions for approval in this section.

(3) All ocean vessels, upon docking at a U.S. port to load livestock, must have disinfectant foot baths at entryways where persons board and exit the ocean vessel, and require such baths before allowing any person to disembark.

(c) Feed and water. Sufficient feed and water must be provided to livestock aboard the ocean vessel, taking into consideration the livestock's species, body weight, the expected duration of the voyage, and the likelihood of adverse climatic conditions during transport. Guidance on this requirement may be found in the Program Handbook. Livestock aboard the vessel must be provided feed and water within 28 hours of the time they were last fed and watered within the United States.

(d) Accommodations for the humane transport of livestock; general requirements. Ocean vessels used to transport livestock intended for export must be designed, constructed, and managed to reasonably assure the livestock are protected from injury and remain healthy during loading and transport to the importing country. Except as provided below in paragraph (e) of this section, no livestock may be loaded onto an ocean vessel unless, in the opinion of an APHIS representative, the ocean vessel meets the requirements of this section. The Program Handbook contains guidance on ways to meet the requirements. Owners and operators may submit alternative means and methods for meeting the requirements to APHIS for evaluation and approval. Alternatives must be at least as effective in meeting the requirements as those described in the Program Handbook in order to be approved. Alternatives must be approved by APHIS before being used for purposes of this section.

(1) Pens. All pens, including gates and portable rails used to close access ways, must be designed and constructed of material of sufficient strength to securely contain the livestock. They must be properly formed, closely fitted, and rigidly secured in place. They must have smooth finished surfaces free from sharp protrusions. They must not have worn, decayed, unsound, or otherwise defective parts. Flooring must be strong enough to support the livestock to be transported and provide a satisfactory non-slip foothold. Pens on exposed upper decks must protect the livestock from the weather. Pens next to engine or boiler rooms or similar sources of heat must be fitted to protect the livestock from injury due to transfer of heat to the livestock or livestock transport spaces. Any fittings or protrusions from the vessel's sides that abut pens must be covered to protect the livestock from injury. Pens must be of appropriate size for the species, size, weight, and condition of the livestock being transported and take into consideration the vessel's route. Animals that may be hostile to each other may not be housed in the same pen.

(2) Positioning. Livestock must be positioned during transport so that an animal handler or other responsible person can observe each animal regularly and clearly to ensure the livestock's safety and welfare.

(3) Resources for sick or injured animals. The vessel must have an adequate number of appropriately sized and located pens set aside to segregate livestock that become sick or injured from other animals. It must also have adequate veterinary medical supplies, including medicines, for the species, condition, and number of livestock transported.

(4) Ramps, doors, and passageways. Ramps, doors, and passageways used for livestock must be of sufficient width and height for their use and allow the safe passage of the species transported. They must have secure, smooth fittings free from sharp protrusions and non-slip flooring, and must not have worn, decayed, unsound, or otherwise defective parts. Ramps must not have an incline that is excessive for the species of livestock transported and must be fitted with foot battens to prevent slippage at intervals suitable for the species. The sides of ramps must be of sufficient height and strength to prevent escape of the species of livestock transported.

(5) Feed and water. The feeding and watering system must be designed to permit all livestock in each pen adequate access to feed and water. The system must also be designed to minimize soiling of pens and to prevent animal waste from contaminating feed and water. Similarly, feed must be loaded and stored aboard the vessel in a manner that protects it from weather and sea water and, if kept under animal transport spaces, protects it from spillage from animal watering and feeding and from animal waste. If the normal means of tending, feeding, and watering of livestock on board the ocean vessel is wholly or partially by automatic means, the vessel must have alternative arrangements for the satisfactory tending, feeding, and watering of the animals in the event of a malfunction of the automatic means.

(6) Ventilation. Ventilation during loading, unloading, and transport must provide fresh air and remove excessive heat, humidity, and noxious fumes (such as ammonia and carbon dioxide). Ventilation must be adequate for variations in climate and weather and to meet the needs of the livestock being transported. Ventilation must be effective both when the vessel is stationary and when it is moving and must be turned on when the first animal is loaded. The vessel must have on board a back-up ventilation system (including emergency power supply) in good working order or replacement parts and the means, including qualified personnel, to make the repairs or replacements.

(7) Waste management. The vessel must have a system or arrangements, including a backup system in working order or alternate arrangements, for managing waste to prevent excessive buildup in livestock transport spaces during the voyage.

(8) Lighting. The vessel must have adequate illumination to allow clear observation of livestock during loading, unloading, and transport.

(9) Bedding. Bedding must be loaded and stored aboard the vessel in a manner that protects it from weather and sea water and, if kept under animal transport spaces, protects it from spillage from animal watering and feeding and from animal waste.

(10) Cleaning. The vessel must be designed and constructed to allow thorough cleaning and disinfection and to prevent feces and urine from livestock on upper levels from soiling livestock or their feed or water on lower levels.

(11) Halters and ropes. Halters, ropes, or other equipment provided for the handling and tying of horses or other livestock must be satisfactory to ensure the humane treatment of the livestock.

(12) Personnel. The owner or operator of the ocean vessel must have on board during loading, transport, and unloading at least 3 persons (or at least 1 person if fewer than 800 head of livestock will be transported) with previous experience with ocean vessels that have handled the kind(s) of livestock to be carried, as well as a sufficient number of personnel with the appropriate experience to be able to ensure proper care of the livestock. The APHIS representative assigned to inspect the ocean vessel prior to loading will determine whether the personnel aboard the vessel are sufficient and possess adequate experience, including, if necessary, veterinary experience, to ensure proper care of the livestock.

(13) Vessel stability. The vessel must have adequate stability, taking into consideration the weight and distribution of livestock and fodder, as well as effects of high winds and seas. If requested by APHIS, the owner or operator of the vessel must present stability calculations for the voyage that have been independently verified for accuracy.

(14) Means of humane euthanasia. Ocean vessels must maintain a means of humanely euthanizing sick or injured livestock aboard the vessel. One of the personnel aboard the vessel must be trained in humanely euthanizing livestock by using the means of euthanasia carried by the vessel.

(15) Life support systems. The ocean vessel must maintain replacement parts for major life support systems aboard the vessel, and the means, including qualified personnel, to make the repairs or replacements.

(16) Additional conditions. The vessel must meet any other condition the Administrator determines is necessary for approval, as dictated by specific circumstances and communicated to the owner and operator of the vessel, to protect the livestock and keep them healthy during loading, unloading, and transport to the importing country.

(e) Accommodations for the humane transport of livestock; vessels using shipping containers. An inspector may exempt an ocean vessel that uses shipping containers to transport livestock to an importing country from requirements in paragraph (d) of this section that he or she specifies, if the inspector determines that the containers themselves are designed, constructed, and managed in a manner to reasonably assure the livestock are protected from injury and remain healthy during loading, unloading, and transport to the importing country. During such inspections, particular attention will be paid to the manner in which containers are constructed, the space the containers afford to livestock transported within them, the manner in which the vessel would provide feed and water to the animals in the containers, and the manner in which air and effluent are managed within the containers. The Program Handbook contains exemption guidance.

(f) Operator's report. (1) The owner or operator of any ocean vessel used to export livestock (including vessels that use shipping containers) from the United States must submit a written report to APHIS within 5 business days after completing a voyage. The report must include the name of the ocean vessel; the name and address of all exporters of livestock transported on the vessel; the port of embarkation; dates of the voyage; the port where the livestock were discharged; the number of each species of livestock loaded; the number of each species that died and an explanation for those mortalities; and the number of animals that sustained injuries or sustained illnesses that were significant enough to require medical attention from the personnel entrusted with the care of the animals, as well as the nature of these injuries or illnesses. The report must also document any failure of any major life support system for the livestock, including, but not limited to, systems for providing feed and water, ventilation systems, and livestock waste management systems. Any such failure must be documented, regardless of the duration or whether the failure resulted in any harm to the livestock. The report must include the name, telephone number, and email address of the person who prepared the report and the date of the report. The report must be submitted to APHIS by facsimile or email. Contact numbers and addresses, as well as an optional template for the report, are provided in the Program Handbook.

(2) If an ocean vessel used to export livestock experiences any failure of a major life support system for livestock during the voyage, the owner or operator of the ocean vessel must notify APHIS immediately by telephone, facsimile, or other electronic means. Contact numbers and addresses are provided in the Program Handbook.

(3) Failure to provide timely reports as required by this section may result in APHIS disapproving future livestock shipments by the responsible owner or operator or revoking the vessel's certification under paragraph (a) of this section to carry livestock.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0432)
§ 91.13 Aircraft.

(a) Prior to loading livestock aboard aircraft, the stowage area of the aircraft and any loading ramps, fittings, and equipment to be used in loading the animals must be cleaned and then disinfected with a disinfectant approved by the Administrator, to the satisfaction of an APHIS representative, unless the representative determines that the aircraft has already been cleaned and disinfected to his or her satisfaction.

(1) The Administrator will approve a disinfectant for purposes of this section upon determining that the disinfectant is effective against pathogens that may be spread by the animals and, if the disinfectant is a chemical disinfectant, that it is registered or exempted for the specified use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

(2) The Program Handbook provides access to a list of disinfectants approved by the Administrator for use as required by this section. Other disinfectants may also be approved by the Administrator in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

(3) The Administrator will withdraw approval of a disinfectant, and remove it from the list of approved disinfectants in the Program Handbook, if the disinfectant no longer meets the conditions for approval in this section.

(b) The time at which the cleaning and disinfection are to be performed must be approved by the APHIS representative, who will give approval only if he or she determines that the cleaning and disinfection will be effective up to the projected time the livestock will be loaded. If the livestock are not loaded by the projected time, the APHIS representative will determine whether further cleaning and disinfection are necessary.

(c) The cleaning must remove all garbage, soil, manure, plant materials, insects, paper, and other debris from the stowage area. The disinfectant solution must be applied with a device that creates an aerosol or mist that covers 100 percent of the surfaces in the stowage area, except for any loaded cargo and deck surface under it that, in the opinion of the APHIS representative, do not contain material, such as garbage, soil, manure, plant materials, insects, waste paper, or debris, that may harbor animal disease pathogens.

(d) After cleaning and disinfection is performed, the APHIS representative will sign and deliver to the captain of the aircraft or other responsible official of the airline involved a document stating that the aircraft has been properly cleaned and disinfected, and stating further the date, the carrier, the flight number, and the name of the airport and the city and state in which it is located. If an aircraft is cleaned and disinfected at one airport, then flies to a subsequent airport, with or without stops en route, to load animals for export, an APHIS representative at the subsequent airport will determine, based on examination of the cleaning and disinfection documents, whether the previous cleaning and disinfection is adequate or whether to order a new cleaning and disinfection. If the aircraft has loaded any cargo in addition to animals, the APHIS representative at the subsequent airport will determine whether to order a new cleaning and disinfection, based on both examination of the cleaning and disinfection documents and on the inspection of the stowage area for materials, such as garbage, soil, manure, plant materials, insects, waste paper, or debris, that may harbor animal disease pathogens.

(e) Cargo containers used to ship livestock must be designed and constructed of a material of sufficient strength to securely contain the animals and must provide sufficient space for the species being transported given the duration of the trip, as determined by APHIS.

§ 91.14 Other movements and conditions.

The Administrator may, upon request in specific cases, permit the exportation of livestock not otherwise provided for in this part under such conditions as he or she may prescribe in each specific case to prevent the spread of livestock diseases and to ensure the humane treatment of the animals during transport to the importing country.

Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of January 2016. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-00962 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1834; Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-8] Revocation and Establishment of Class E Airspace; Bowman, ND AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bowman Regional Airport, Bowman, ND, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be removed at Bowman Municipal Airport, Bowman, ND, due to closure of the air traffic control tower. The FAA found it necessary to establish airspace at Bowman Regional Airport to accommodate standard instrument approach procedures (SIAPs) at the airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the Bowman Regional Airport.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, March 31, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 29591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rebecca Shelby, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone: 817-222-5857.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. 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 establishes controlled airspace at Bowman Regional Airport, Bowman, ND and removes Class E airspace at Bowman Municipal Airport, Bowman, ND.

History

On September 15, 2015, The FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bowman Regional Airport, Bowman, ND (80 FR 55275) and remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bowman Municipal Airport, Bowman, ND (80 FR 55275, September 15, 2015). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius, at Bowman Regional Airport, Bowman, ND. New standard instrument approach procedures were developed for the safety of IFR operations at the airport. Additionally, this action removes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bowman Municipal Airport, Bowman, ND, due to closure of the airport. This action accommodates new standard instrument approach procedures at Bowman Regional Airport and enhances the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. 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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

The FAA issued a Federal Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision (FONSI/ROD) for the proposed relocation of the Bowman County Airport and associated actions at Bowman County, North Dakota on August 2, 2010. This action to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bowman Regional Airport, Bowman, ND, and to remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bowman Municipal Airport, Bowman, ND, due to closure of the airport is a part of the associated actions covered in the FONSI/ROD and evaluated in the Environmental Assessment dated June 2010.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL ND E5 Bowman, ND [New] Bowman Regional Airport, ND (Lat. 46°09′56″ N., long. 103°18′03″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of the Bowman Regional Airport.

AGL ND E5 Bowman, ND [Removed] Bowman Municipal Airport, ND
Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on January 6, 2016. Robert W. Beck, Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-00627 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-7611; Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-20] RIN 2120-AA66 Modification of VOR Federal Airway V-443; North Central United States AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action modifies VOR Federal airway V-443, which extends across the United States/Canadian border, in the north central United States. The FAA is taking this action to reflect and accommodate route changes made in Canadian airspace as part of Canada's Windsor-Toronto-Montreal (WTM) airspace redesign project.

DATES:

Effective date 0901 UTC, March 31, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA, Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. 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 modifies the air traffic service route structure in the north central United States to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.

History

In 1962, the FAA published in the Federal Register a rule that extended V-443 from the Cleveland, OH, VHF Omnidirection Range Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) navigation aid (NAVAID) over the Aylmer, Ontario, Canada, Omnidirection Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) NAVAID to the Toronto, Ontario, Canada, VOR/DME NAVAID, excluding the airspace within Canada (27 FR 11497, November 22, 1962). The route extension was established in concert with the Canadian Department of Transport to provide a more direct route between Cleveland and Toronto.

In 1989, the FAA published in the Federal Register a rule to amend V-443 (54 FR 39166, September 25, 1989). The amendment inserted an intersection fix between the Aylmer, ON, Canada, VOR/DME and the Toronto, ON, Canada, VOR/DME NAVAIDs to adjust the arrival/departure routes to/from Toronto, ON, Canada, and alleviate the congestion and compression of air traffic in that area. As a result, the V-433 description was amended to reflect the route being realigned from the Aylmer, Ontario, Canada, VOR/DME, to an intersection fix defined by the Aylmer 051° and Toronto 210° radials, to the Toronto, ON, Canada, VOR/DME.

In November 2014, Canada removed the V-443 route segment from the Aylmer, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, to the Toronto, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, as part of their WTM airspace redesign program; however, corresponding action amending the FAA's V-443 legal description was not accomplished. This disconnect led to the charted depiction of V-443 being amended in the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) low altitude enroute charts and the FAA National Airspace System Repository (NASR) database being updated, but the V-443 legal description published in FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71, remaining unchanged.

Since the basis for establishing the V-443 route segment between the Alymer, ON, Canada, VOR/DME to the Toronto, ON, Canada, VOR/DME no longer exists, the FAA is amending the route description in FAA Order 7400.9 and 14 CFR part 71.

VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 2010 of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airway listed in this document will be subsequently amended in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

The FAA is amending Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by removing the route segment of V-443 that extends from Aylmer, ON, Canada, to Toronto, ON, Canada. The remaining portion of V-443 is unchanged. This action responds to the route changes made by Canada as part of their WTM airspace redesign project. Canada has subsequently removed this route segment and it no longer exists on aeronautical charts. Therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

All radials in the route description below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

The FAA has determined that this 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 Department of Transportation (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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action consists of modifying an airway and it is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

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

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015 and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 2010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways. V-443 [Amended]

From INT Newcomerstown, OH, 099° and Bellaire, OH, 044° radials; Newcomerstown; Tiverton, OH; Dryer, OH; INT Dryer 049° and Aylmer, ON, Canada, 205° radials; to Aylmer. The airspace within Canada is excluded.

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 7, 2016. Gary A. Norek, Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2016-00521 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Part 171 [Public Notice: 9405] RIN 1400-AD86 Privacy Act; STATE-09, Records Maintained by the Office of Civil Rights AGENCY:

Department of State.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Department of State is issuing a final rule to amend its Privacy Act regulation exempting portions of a system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974. Certain portions of the Records Maintained by the Office of Civil Rights, STATE-09, contain investigatory material for law enforcement purposes, and testing or examination material.

DATES:

This final rule is effective January 20, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Hackett, Director; Office of Information Programs and Services, A/GIS/IPS; Department of State, SA-2; 515 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC 20522-8001, or at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The system, Records Maintained by the Office of Civil Rights, designated as STATE-09, supports the Office of Civil Rights, Department of State, in the investigation, processing, and resolution of informal and formal complaints of discrimination filed against the Department in accordance with 29 CFR part 1614 and the Department's internal procedures for addressing Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints; in the investigation, processing, and resolution of complaints of discrimination under 42 U.S.C. 2000d; and complaints under 20 U.S.C. 1681, 29 U.S.C. 794 and 794d, 42 U.S.C. 6101, 29 U.S.C. 621, and 36 CFR chapter XI.

For additional background, see the notice of proposed rulemaking and the system of records notice published on July 14, 2015 (80 FR 40951 and 80 FR 41137, respectively). The Department received no public comment on these documents.

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 171

Privacy.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, 22 CFR part 171 is amended as follows:

PART 171—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 171 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 552, 552a; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; Public Law 95-521, 92 Stat. 1824, as amended; E.O. 13526, 75 FR 707; E.O. 12600, 52 FR 23781, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 235.

§ 171.36 [Amended]
2. Section 171.36 is amended by adding an entry, in alphabetical order, for “Records Maintained by the Office of Civil Rights, STATE-09” to the lists in paragraphs (b)(5) and (6).
Joyce A. Barr, Assistant Secretary for Administration, U.S. Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2016-00557 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-1121] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River, MO and IL AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing emergency temporary safety zones for all waters of the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) between miles 109.9 and 185.5 and all waters of the Illinois River (ILR) between miles 0 and 128.9. The emergency safety zones are needed to protect persons, property, and infrastructure from potential damage and safety hazards associated with high waters. Entry of vessels or persons into these zones is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP). Deviation from the safety zones may be requested and will be considered on a case-by-case basis as specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective without actual notice from January 20, 2016 until 11:59 p.m. on January 22, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 3:00 p.m. on December 28, 2015 until January 20, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2015-1121 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email LCDR Sean Peterson, Chief of Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2332, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations BNM Broadcast Notice to Mariners CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive order FR Federal Register ILR Illinois River NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law § Section UMR Upper Mississippi River U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because of the increased safety risks caused by high waters on the UMR and ILR. On December 28, 2015, the Coast Guard determined that immediate action is necessary to establish emergency safety zones to protect life and property from the hazards associated with and resulting from high waters. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish these safety zones by December 28, 2015. Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNM) and information sharing with waterway users will update mariners of the closures and enforcement times during this emergency situation.

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Providing 30 days notice would be contrary to public interest because immediate action is needed to protect life and property from the hazards associated with and resulting from high waters.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River determined that potential hazards associated with and resulting from high waters and related recovery efforts are present in the area. These hazards require additional safety measures in the form of safety zones extending from mile 109.9 to 185.5 on the UMR and mile 0 to 128.9 on the ILR to protect those operating in the area and for the Coast Guard to maintain navigational safety.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

The Coast Guard is establishing two temporary emergency safety zones prohibiting access to the UMR between miles 109.9 and 185.5 and the ILR between miles 0 and 128.9, extending the entire widths of the rivers beginning at 3:00 p.m. on December 28, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. on January 22, 2016 or until waters recede and conditions allow for safe navigation, whichever occurs earlier. Deviation from the emergency safety zones may be requested and will be considered on a case-by-case basis as specifically authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. Deviation requests will be considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The COTP may be contacted by telephone at 314-269-2332 or can be reached by VHF-FM channel 16.

V. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule establishes temporary emergency safety zones placing restrictions on vessels transiting the UMR between miles 109.9 and 185.5 and the ILR between miles 0 and 128.9. Notifications of enforcement times will be communicated to the marine community via BNM. The impacts on navigation will be limited to ensure the safety of mariners and vessels during hazardous conditions associated with high waters.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zones may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V. A. above, this rule will not have significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. 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 section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 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 rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined 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 a closure of the UMR between miles 109.9 and 185.5 and the ILR between miles 0 and 128.9. It 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 rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

33 U.S.C. 1231; 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.

2. Add § 165.T08-1121 to read as follows:
§ 165.T08-1121 Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River between miles 109.9 and 185.5; and Illinois River between miles 0 and 128.9; MO and IL.

(a) Location. The following areas are safety zones:

(1) All waters of the Upper Mississippi River between miles 109.9 and 185.5, extending the entire width of the river; and

(2) All waters of the Illinois River between miles 0 and 128.9, extending the entire width of the river.

(b) Definitions. Designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officers operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP) Upper Mississippi River in the enforcement of the safety zones.

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zones described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through Coast Guard Sector Upper Mississippi River at 314-269-2332. Those in the safety zones must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(d) Enforcement periods. This rule is effective from 3:00 p.m. on December 28, 2015 through 11:59 p.m. on January 22, 2016, or until waters recede and conditions allow for safe navigation, whichever occurs first.

(e) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcasts notice to mariners of the enforcement period for the emergency safety zones as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement.

Dated: December 28, 2015. R.S. Rhodes, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River.
[FR Doc. 2016-01017 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0475; FRL-9941-36-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Allegheny County's Adoption of Control Techniques Guidelines for Four Industry Categories for Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is converting a conditional approval of a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on behalf of the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) to a full approval. This SIP revision includes amendments to the ACHD Rules and Regulations, Article XXI, Air Pollution Control, and meets the requirement to adopt reasonably available control technology (RACT) for sources covered by EPA's control techniques guidelines (CTG) for the following categories: miscellaneous metal and/or plastic parts surface coating processes; automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings; miscellaneous industrial adhesives; and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. Upon review of the submittal, EPA found that the average monomer volatile organic compound (VOC) content limits were referenced but not included in the regulation for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. ACHD has revised the regulation and submitted the table of VOC content limits for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials to EPA in order to address specific RACT requirements for Allegheny County. Therefore, EPA is converting the conditional approval of the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP to a full approval in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES:

This final rule is effective on February 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0475. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through www.regulations.gov or may be viewed during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the state submittal are available at the Allegheny County Health Department, Bureau of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality, 301 39th Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15201 and at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Irene Shandruk, (215) 814-2166, or by email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that SIPs for nonattainment areas must include reasonably available control measures (RACM), including RACT, for sources of emissions. Section 182(b)(2)(A) provides that for certain nonattainment areas, states must revise their SIP to include RACT for sources of VOC emissions covered by a CTG document issued after November 15, 1990 and prior to the area's date of attainment. In 2008, EPA developed new CTGs for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings, automobile and light-duty assembly coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

On November 15, 2013, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted to EPA on behalf of ACHD a SIP revision concerning the adoption of the EPA CTGs for miscellaneous metal and/or plastic parts surface coating processes, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials in Allegheny County. These ACHD regulations, with a state effective date of June 8, 2013, are contained in the ACHD Rules and Regulations, Article XXI, Air Pollution Control sections 2105.83 (Control of VOC Emissions from Miscellaneous Metal and/or Plastic Parts Surface Coating Processes), 2105.84 (Control of VOC Emissions from Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings), 2105.85 (Control of VOC Emissions from Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives), and 2105.86 (Control of VOC Emissions from Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials) in order to establish: (1) Applicability for miscellaneous metal and/or plastic parts surface coating processes, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials; (2) exemptions; (3) record-keeping and work practice requirements; and (4) emission limitations. Upon review of the November 15, 2013 submittal, EPA found that the table of average monomer VOC content limits for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials was referenced; however, the table was erroneously not included in the regulation. Pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, PADEP submitted on behalf of ACHD a letter dated July 16, 2014 committing to submit a SIP revision to EPA addressing this error.

On March 26, 2013 (78 FR 18241), EPA conditionally approved the SIP revision concerning the adoption of these CTGs. On September 9, 2015, PADEP submitted to EPA on behalf of ACHD a supplemental SIP revision containing the regulation with the missing table of average monomer VOC content limits, and thereby addressed its July 16, 2014 commitment. On November 10, 2015, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking converting the conditional approval to a full approval. 80 FR 69627. Other specific requirements and the rationale for EPA's proposed rulemaking action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.

III. Final Action

In this rulemaking action, EPA is converting to a full approval the conditional approval of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania SIP revision submitted on November 15, 2013, as supplemented with the September 9, 2015 SIP submittal, which consists of amendments to the ACHD Rules and Regulations, Article XXI, Air Pollution Control for adopting RACT for sources covered by EPA's CTG standards for the following categories; miscellaneous metal and/or plastic parts surface coating processes, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. Pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, the conditional approval was based upon a letter from PADEP on behalf of ACHD dated July 16, 2014 committing to submit to EPA an additional SIP revision to address the deficiency in the regulation for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. On September 9, 2015, PADEP on behalf of ACHD, submitted a supplemental SIP revision containing the table of monomer VOC content limits for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. EPA has determined that ACHD has satisfied this condition. Therefore, EPA is removing the conditional nature of its approval and replacing it with a full approval of Allegheny County's adoption of CTGs for miscellaneous metal and/or plastic parts surface coating processes, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

In this rulemaking, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference the ACHD regulations regarding control of VOC emissions discussed in section II of this preamble. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or may be viewed at the EPA Region III office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 21, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.

This action pertaining to ACHD's adoption of CTG standards for miscellaneous metal and/or plastic parts surface coating processes, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: December 30, 2015. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania
2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph (c)(2) is amended by revising the entries for “2105.83,” “2105.84,” “2105.85,” and “2105.86” under part E, subpart 7. The revisions read as follows:
§ 52.2020 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

(2) * * *

Article XX or XXI citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation/§ 52.2063 citation *         *         *         *         *         *         * Part E—Source Emission and Operating Standards *         *         *         *         *         *         * Subpart 7—Miscellaneous VOC Sources *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2105.83 Control of VOC Emissions from Miscellaneous Metal and/or Plastic Parts Surface Coating Processes 6/8/13 1/20/16 [Insert Federal Register Citation] New regulation. 2105.84 Control of VOC Emissions from Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings 6/8/13 1/20/16 [Insert Federal Register Citation] New regulation. 2105.85 Control of VOC Emissions from Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives 6/8/13 1/20/16 [Insert Federal Register Citation] New regulation. 2105.86 Control of VOC Emissions from Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials 6/19/15 1/20/16 [Insert Federal Register Citation] New regulation. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
§ 52.2023 [Amended]
3. Section 52.2023 is amended by removing paragraph (m).
[FR Doc. 2016-00656 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0636; FRL-9940-83-Region 9] Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; San Joaquin Valley; Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS AGENCY:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to reclassify the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Moderate nonattainment area, including areas of Indian country within it, as a Serious nonattainment area for the 2006 PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), based on the EPA's determination that the area cannot practicably attain these NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of December 31, 2015. As a consequence of this reclassification, California must submit, no later than 18 months from the effective date of this reclassification, a Serious area attainment plan including a demonstration that the plan provides for attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards in the SJV area as expeditiously as practicable and no later than December 31, 2019. The State must also submit, no later than 12 months after the effective date of this reclassification, nonattainment new source review (NNSR) SIP revisions to implement the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area, to the extent those requirements have not previously been met.

DATES:

This rule is effective on February 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

The EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0636 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume reports), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the docket materials in person, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (415) 947-4192, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

Table of Contents I. Proposed Action II. Summary of Final Action III. Public Comments and EPA Responses IV. Final Action A. Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment and Applicable Attainment Dates B. Reclassification of Reservation Areas of Indian Country C. PM2.5 Serious Area SIP Requirements V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Proposed Action

On January 13, 2015 (80 FR 1816), the EPA proposed to approve portions of California's Moderate area plan to address the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV and to reclassify the SJV nonattainment area, including areas of Indian country within it, from Moderate nonattainment to Serious nonattainment for these standards, based on the EPA's determination that the area cannot practicably attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of December 31, 2015.1 Under section 188(b)(1) of the CAA, prior to an area's attainment date, the EPA has discretionary authority to reclassify as a Serious nonattainment area “any area that the Administrator determines cannot practicably attain” the PM2.5 NAAQS by the Moderate area attainment date.2 On March 4, 2013, the State submitted a Moderate area attainment plan demonstrating that the SJV area cannot practicably attain the 2006 PM2.5 standards by the applicable Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2015. The EPA's proposed reclassification of the SJV area was based upon our evaluation of the State's submission and ambient air quality data for the 2013-2014 period indicating that it is not practicable for certain monitoring sites within the SJV area to show PM2.5 design values at or below the level of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2015.3

1See proposed rule at 80 FR 1816 (January 13, 2015) for a more detailed discussion of the background for this action, including the history of the PM2.5 NAAQS established in 2006, health effects and sources of PM2.5, designation of the SJV as nonattainment for the PM2.5 standards, and the EPA's actions on the submittals from the state of California to address the nonattainment area planning requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.

2 Section 188(b)(1) of the Act is a general expression of delegated rulemaking authority. See “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (hereafter “General Preamble”) at 13537, n. 15. Although subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 188(b)(1) contain specific timeframes for the EPA to reclassify any areas that it determines cannot practicably attain the PM2.5 standards by the applicable attainment date, these subparagraphs do not restrict the general authority to reclassify an area, as appropriate, at any time before the attainment date but simply specify that, at a minimum, the EPA's authority must be exercised at certain times. See id.

3 The PM2.5 monitoring data that EPA reviewed indicate that 24-hour PM2.5 design values are at 65 ug/m3 in the SJV, which is well above the level of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (35 ug/m3). EPA also calculated “maximum allowed” 2015 concentrations that would enable the area to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the end of 2015 and found that all monitoring sites examined—Bakersfield-California Ave, Bakersfield-Planz Rd., Fresno-Garland, Fresno-Pacific, and Hanford—would have to record negative PM2.5 concentrations in 2015 to show PM2.5 design values at or below the level of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 80 FR 1816, 1834 and n. 69 (January 13, 2015).

In our proposed rule, we explained that, under section 188(c)(2) of the Act, the attainment date for a Serious area “shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the end of the tenth calendar year beginning after the area's designation as nonattainment . . .” The SJV was designated nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS effective December 14, 2009.4 Therefore, as a result of our reclassification of the SJV area as a Serious nonattainment area, the attainment date under section 188(c)(2) of the Act for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in this area is as expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31, 2019.

4 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009).

Our proposed rule also identified the additional Serious area attainment plan elements that California would, upon reclassification, have to submit to satisfy the statutory requirements that apply to Serious areas, including the requirements of subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act.5 The EPA explained that, under section 189(b)(2) of the Act, the State must submit the required provisions to implement best available control measures (BACM), including best available control technology (BACT), no later than 18 months after reclassification and must submit the required attainment demonstration no later than 4 years after reclassification. Given the December 31, 2019, Serious area attainment date applicable to this area under CAA section 188(c)(2), however, we noted that we expect the State to adopt and submit a Serious area plan for these NAAQS well before the statutory SIP submittal deadline in CAA section 189(b)(2).6

5See proposed rule at 80 FR 1842 (January 13, 2015).

6Id. at 1843.

With respect to the nonattainment new source review (NNSR) program revisions to establish appropriate “major stationary source” thresholds for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in accordance with CAA section 189(b)(3), the EPA proposed to require the State to submit these NNSR SIP revisions no later than 12 months after the effective date of final reclassification, and requested comment on this proposed 12-month timeframe.

II. Summary of Final Action

Today we are finalizing only our proposal to reclassify the SJV area as a Serious nonattainment area for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We are not taking final action at this time on our proposal to approve elements of California's Moderate area plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV and will complete that action at a later time.

As a consequence of our reclassification of the SJV area as Serious nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, California is required to submit additional SIP revisions to satisfy the statutory requirements that apply to Serious areas, including the requirements of subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act. For the reasons provided in Section III of this preamble, the EPA is requiring the State to adopt and submit all required components of the Serious Area attainment plan for the SJV no later than 18 months after the effective date of this reclassification.

We are finalizing our proposal to require that California adopt and submit NNSR SIP revisions to implement subpart 4 requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area no later than 12 months after the effective date of this reclassification, to the extent those requirements have not already been met by the NNSR SIP revisions due May 7, 2016 for purposes of implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.7

7See 40 CFR 52.245(c) and 80 FR 18528, 18533 (April 7, 2015).

The attainment date under section 188(c)(2) of the Act for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in this area is as expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31, 2019.

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses

The EPA received two comment letters on our proposed actions. Comment letters were submitted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (“SJVAPCD” or “District”), and by Earthjustice on behalf of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, Greenaction, the Association of Irritated Residents, the Sierra Club—Tehipite Chapter, and Global Community Monitor, (“Earthjustice”) on February 27, 2015, prior to the close of the comment period on our proposal.8

8See letter dated February 27, 2015, from Sheraz Gill, Director of Strategies and Incentives at SJVAPCD, to Wienke Tax, EPA Region 9, “Re: Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0636, Comments on Proposed Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; San Joaquin Valley Moderate Area Plan and Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,” and letter dated February 27, 2015 from Paul Cort and Adenike Adeyeye, Earthjustice, to Ms. Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, USEPA Region 9.

Because we are finalizing only our proposal to reclassify the SJV area as Serious nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, we are responding only to comments pertaining to the reclassification and its consequences. We summarize and respond to the relevant comments below. In a separate rulemaking, we will take final action on California's submitted Moderate area plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV and will respond to comments pertaining to our proposed action on the submitted plan at that time.

Comment 1: The SJVAPCD supports the EPA's proposal to require the state to submit a revised Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) rule within twelve months of the EPA's serious nonattainment reclassification. However, the District asks for the EPA to clarify that this submission will not be required before the EPA can grant an extension of the attainment deadline for the 1997 PM2.5 standards under CAA section 188(e). The District comments that the EPA has provided “no valid justification” for requiring the revised NNSR rule to be submitted before the EPA can approve the attainment deadline extension, and argues that CAA section 188(e) contains “no mention of NSR, either directly or by implication, that would lead one to believe that the updated NSR rule is required prior to approval of the attainment deadline extension.” The District asserts that the EPA is asking it to begin an expedited process to adopt a serious area NSR rule before the area has been reclassified as serious nonattainment and without implementation rules or guidance.

Response 1: We are finalizing our proposal to require that California adopt and submit NNSR SIP revisions to implement subpart 4 requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area no later than 12 months after the effective date of this reclassification. We note that California is required to submit NNSR SIP revisions addressing the requirements for Serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas under subpart 4 by May 7, 2016, as a result of our previous reclassification of the SJV as Serious nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.9 Nonattainment NSR SIP revisions that satisfy the Serious Area requirements of CAA sections 189(b)(3) and 189(e) for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS may also satisfy these requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

9 See 40 CFR 52.245(c) and 80 FR 18528, 18533 (April 7, 2015). We are making minor clarifications to the regulatory text in 40 CFR 52.245(c) to indicate that the May 7, 2016 deadline therein pertains only to NNSR SIP revisions necessary to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

The District's comments about the criteria for an extension of the attainment date for the 1997 PM2.5 standards under CAA section 188(e) are not relevant to this action, which pertains only to the SJV area's classification for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and related SIP submission deadlines. This reclassification action does not affect the State's obligations with respect to the 1997 PM2.5 standards or any other NAAQS. We previously responded to the District's comments concerning the relevance of NNSR SIP revisions to the section 188(e) criteria for an extension of the attainment date for the 1997 PM2.5 standards, as part of our final action reclassifying the SJV area as a Serious nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 80 FR 18528, April 7, 2015).

Comment 2: Earthjustice supports the EPA's proposed reclassification of the SJV to serious nonattainment, but comments that the agency should impose earlier deadlines for the submission of BACM measures and the serious area attainment demonstration. Earthjustice states that CAA section 189(b)(2) requires a state to submit an attainment demonstration for an area within 4 years after the area is reclassified to serious nonattainment and a BACM plan within 18 months after the area is reclassified. Earthjustice argues that, had the EPA applied the requirements of subpart 4 at the time, the EPA would have had to reclassify the SJV area as Serious within 18 months after the required date for the area's Moderate area plan, i.e., by December 14, 2012, and that the SIP submission deadlines should therefore be measured from this date. According to Earthjustice, this would mean that the BACM measures were due June 14, 2014, and that the serious area attainment demonstration is due December 14, 2016. For this reason, Earthjustice asserts that the EPA should declare the BACM submission already overdue (triggering a sanctions clock), and should require the state to submit its attainment demonstration by no later than December 14, 2016. Earthjustice contends that the EPA's failure to apply these deadlines will “serve to perpetuate EPA's error” in not initially applying subpart 4 requirements to implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS.

Earthjustice further argues that although the EPA did not interpret the schedules in section 189(b)(2) to apply to PM2.5 plans prior to the D.C. Circuit's decision in Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (“NRDC”), the agency's decision to apply these deadlines would not represent improper retroactive application of the statute. In support, Earthjustice cites the U.S. Supreme Court in Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298 (1994) for the proposition that judicial construction of a statute interprets the statute's meaning “continuously since the date when it became law,” “before as well as after” the court's decision. Notwithstanding disagreements about what constitutes retroactive application of subpart 4 deadlines, however, Earthjustice argues that the EPA should exercise its discretion, as it has done for the NSR SIP deadline, to set a December 14, 2016 deadline for submission of the serious area attainment demonstration.

Response 2: We disagree with the commenter's assertion that the deadlines in CAA section 189(b)(2) for submission of the State's BACM plan and Serious Area attainment plan should be measured from December 14, 2012. Section 189(b)(1) of the Act requires that “each State in which all or part of a Serious Area is located” submit a Serious Area attainment demonstration and BACM provisions. Section 189(b)(2) requires the State to submit the Serious Area attainment demonstration “no later than 4 years after reclassification of the area to Serious” and to submit the BACM provisions “no later than 18 months after reclassification of the area as a Serious Area.” These provisions of the Act plainly require that states submit Serious Area SIP elements only for PM2.5 nonattainment areas that have been reclassified as Serious under subpart 4.

Prior to this reclassification action, the SJV area was classified as a Moderate Area for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and therefore was not subject to the requirements for Serious Area plans in CAA section 189(b) for these NAAQS. Because the EPA did not reclassify the SJV area as a Serious Area effective December 14, 2012, it is not appropriate to establish SIP submission deadlines under section 189(b)(2) based on a December 14, 2012 reclassification date. Moreover, to do so in this instance would mean that the BACM provisions are overdue (as of June 14, 2014) and that the Serious Area attainment demonstration is due December 14, 2016, less than one year after the effective date of this final reclassification action. We do not believe that the NRDC court's January 4, 2013 decision should be interpreted so as to retroactively impose on the State subpart 4 requirements and deadlines of which it had no notice.10

10 In rulemakings for individual areas subsequent to the NRDC decision, the EPA has explained in detail its view that the requirements of the CAA should not be implemented retroactively based upon the court's decision. See, e.g., 78 FR 41698 (July 11, 2013) (final redesignation of Indianapolis to attainment for 1997 annual PM2.5 standard). The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado recently agreed with the EPA's position that the court's decision in NRDC does not require retroactive application of Subpart 4 requirements. See WildEarth Guardians v. Gina McCarthy, Case No. 13-CV-1275-WJM-KMT (D. Colo., March 11, 2014) (dismissing plaintiff's claim that the EPA missed a non-discretionary deadline based on retroactive application of Subpart 4).

We also disagree with the commenter's argument that, had the EPA applied subpart 4, the EPA would have had to reclassify the SJV area by December 14, 2012. The commenter contends that the EPA's authority to reclassify a Moderate area as Serious under CAA section 188(b)(1) is available only within the timeframe specified in section 188(b)(1)(B), i.e., within 18 months after the due date for the State's Moderate area SIP. As explained in the 1992 General Preamble, however, “[u]nder the plain meaning of the terms of section 188(b)(1), EPA has general discretion to reclassify at any time before the applicable attainment date any area EPA determines cannot practicably attain the standards by such date” (emphases added).11 With respect to the dates specified in subsections (A) and (B) of section 188(b)(1), the EPA specifically explained in the General Preamble that “[t]hese subparagraphs do not restrict the general authority [in section 188(b)(1)] but simply specify that, at a minimum, it must be exercised at certain times.” 12 This interpretation of section 188(b)(1) as allowing the EPA to reclassify moderate areas as serious “at any time EPA determines that an area cannot practicably attain the standards by the applicable attainment date” facilitates the statutory objective of attaining the PM-10 standards—e.g., by ensuring that additional control measures such as BACM are implemented sooner and by expediting the application of more stringent new source review requirements.13 The EPA reiterated this interpretation of section 188(b)(1) in the 1994 PM-10 Addendum 14 and in several discretionary reclassification actions subsequent to the 1990 CAA Amendments.15

11 General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13537 at n. 15 (April 16, 1992).

12Id.

13 General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13537.

14 “State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 59 FR 41998, 41999 (August 16, 1994) (the “PM-10 Addendum”).

15See 58 FR 3334, 3336 (Jan. 8, 1993) (discharging EPA's statutory duty under section 188(b)(1)(A) to “reclassify appropriate initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas as serious by December 31, 1991” but noting EPA's broad discretion under section 188(b)(1) to reclassify additional areas at a later date); see also 80 FR 18528 (April 7, 2015) (final discretionary reclassification of San Joaquin Valley for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS signed March 27, 2015).

Specifically, with respect to areas designated nonattainment by operation of law upon enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments (i.e., “initial” PM-10 nonattainment areas), the EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 188(b)(1)(A) has been that “the amended Act specifies certain dates by which EPA must propose to reclassify appropriate moderate areas as serious. . . and take final action,” where the EPA determines that the area cannot “practicably” attain the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994.16 The EPA further explained, however, that “EPA also has discretionary authority under section 188(b)(1) to reclassify any of these areas as serious at any time, if EPA determines they cannot practicably attain the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994,” 17 and provided examples of the circumstances that may warrant such discretionary reclassification at a later date—i.e., after the December 31, 1991 date specified in section 188(b)(1)(A).18 In the PM-10 Addendum, the EPA stated that “[s]ection 188(b)(1)(A) provides an accelerated schedule by which EPA is to reclassify appropriate initial PM-10 nonattainment areas” but reiterated the Agency's interpretation of section 188(b)(1) as a general grant of authority to also reclassify initial PM-10 areas at later points in time before the attainment date.19

16 General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13537. Under section 188(c)(1) of the Act, December 31, 1994 was the latest permissible Moderate area attainment date for an area designated nonattainment for PM-10 by operation of law under the 1990 CAA Amendments.

17 General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13537.

18Id. (“The EPA may exercise this discretion where, for example, EPA originally believed an area could attain the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994 but later determines that it cannot attain”); see also 56 FR 58656, 58657 (Nov. 21, 1991) (noting that “EPA also has discretion to reclassify any of these areas as serious after December 31, 1991 (e.g., after reviewing the State's PM-10 SIP), if EPA determines they cannot practicably attain the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994”) and 58 FR 3334, 3336 (Jan. 8, 1993) (noting that EPA may in the future reclassify additional PM-10 nonattainment areas using its discretionary authority in section 188(b)(1)).

19 PM-10 Addendum, 59 FR 41998, 41999 (August 16, 1994) (“In the future, EPA anticipates that, generally, any decision to reclassify an initial PM-10 nonattainment area before the attainment date will be based on specific facts or circumstances demonstrating that the NAAQS cannot practicably be attained by December 31, 1994* * *”).

Likewise, the EPA has long interpreted section 188(b)(1)(B) as establishing a “timeframe within which EPA is to reclassify appropriate areas designated nonattainment for PM-10 subsequent to enactment of the 1990 Amendments” but not as a limitation on EPA's general authority to reclassify such areas at any time before the applicable attainment date.20 In the PM-10 Addendum, the EPA reiterated its view that the directive in section 188(b)(1)(B) “does not restrict EPA's general authority, but simply specifies that it is to be exercised, as appropriate, in accordance with certain dates.” 21 The EPA recently finalized a discretionary reclassification action for the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area shortly before the applicable attainment date, consistent with this interpretation of CAA section 188(b)(1).22 In light of the EPA's longstanding and consistent interpretation of section 188(b)(1) as a general grant of discretionary authority to reclassify any Moderate area as a Serious area at any time before the applicable attainment date, based on a determination that the area cannot practicably attain the NAAQS by that date, we disagree with the commenter's claim that the EPA should have reclassified the SJV area as Serious by December 14, 2012.

20 General Preamble, 57 FR at 13537 and PM-10 Addendum, 59 FR at 41999.

21 PM-10 Addendum, 59 FR 41998, 41999 at n. 4 (August 16, 1994).

22See 80 FR 18528 (April 7, 2015) (final discretionary reclassification of San Joaquin Valley for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS signed March 27, 2015).

Upon further consideration and in light of the specific circumstances in the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area, however, the EPA is exercising its discretion to establish a deadline of 18 months from the effective date of this final reclassification action for the State to submit all required components of the Serious Area attainment plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. An 18-month deadline for submission of these SIP elements is appropriate in this instance because it both enables the EPA to evaluate the required attainment plan well before the outermost attainment date applicable to the area under CAA section 188(c)(2) and enables the State to develop its strategy for attaining the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in conjunction with its development of a plan to provide for attainment of the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS in this same area, which is due October 15, 2016.23 Although the State's obligations with respect to implementation of a Moderate area plan for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS are separate and distinct from its obligations with respect to implementation of a Serious area plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, it is reasonable in this instance to require the State to develop its control strategies for both PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area in a similar timeframe, considering the benefits of streamlining these planning processes to the extent possible.

23 The EPA designated and classified the SJV as Moderate nonattainment for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS effective April 15, 2015. 80 FR 2206, 2215-16 (January 15, 2015). Under CAA section 189(a)(2)(B), California is required to adopt and submit a plan to provide for attainment of these NAAQS within 18 months after the nonattainment designation, i.e., by October 15, 2016.

In addition, an 18-month deadline for submission of the Serious area plan is consistent with both the timeframe for initial Moderate area plan submissions upon designation of an area as nonattainment and the timeframe for Serious area plan submissions following an EPA determination of failure to attain and reclassification by operation of law under CAA section 188(b)(2).24 It is reasonable for the EPA to exercise its discretion to establish a similar SIP submission deadline in this instance, given the proximity of this action to the Moderate area attainment date (December 31, 2015) and the likelihood that, should the attainment date pass, the EPA would have to determine under section 188(b)(2) that the SJV area failed to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by that date. Although CAA section 189(b)(2) generally provides for up to 4 years after a discretionary reclassification for the State to submit the required attainment demonstration, we find it appropriate in this case to establish an earlier SIP submission deadline to assure timely implementation of the statutory requirements.25 Furthermore, the 18-month SIP submission deadline that we are finalizing in this action requires California to submit its Serious Area plan for the SJV area before the statutory SIP submission deadline that would apply upon reclassification by operation of law under section 188(b)(2).26

24 CAA sections 189(a)(2)(B) and 189(b)(2).

25 Section 189(b)(2) establishes outer bounds on the SIP submission deadlines and does not preclude the EPA's establishment of earlier deadlines as necessary or appropriate to assure consistency among the required submissions and to implement the statutory requirements, including the requirement that attainment be as expeditious as practicable.

26 Under CAA section 188(b)(2), the EPA must determine within 6 months after the applicable attainment date whether the area attained the NAAQS by that date. If the EPA determines that a Moderate Area is not in attainment after the applicable attainment date, the area is reclassified by operation of law as a Serious Area, and the Serious Area attainment plan is due within 18 months after such reclassification. CAA sections 188(b)(2) and 189(b)(2).

Finally, the EPA is requiring California to submit revised nonattainment NSR program requirements no later than 12 months after final reclassification, to the extent those requirements have not already been met by the NNSR revisions due May 7, 2016 for purposes of implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.27 The Act does not specify a deadline for the State's submission of SIP revisions to meet NNSR program requirements to lower the “major stationary source” threshold from 100 tons per year (tpy) to 70 tpy (CAA section 189(b)(3)) and to address the control requirements for major stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors (CAA section 189(e)) 28 following reclassification of a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment under subpart 4. Pursuant to the EPA's gap-filling authority in CAA section 301(a) and to effectuate the statutory control requirements in section 189 of the Act, the EPA is requiring the State to submit these NNSR SIP revisions, as well as any necessary analysis of and additional control requirements for major stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors, no later than 12 months after the effective date of final reclassification of the SJV area as Serious nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

27 See 40 CFR 52.245(c) and 80 FR 18528, 18533 (April 7, 2015).

28 Section 189(e) requires that the control requirements applicable to major stationary sources of PM2.5 also apply to major stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors, except where the state demonstrates to the EPA's satisfaction that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard in the area.

IV. Final Action A. Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment and Applicable Attainment Date

In accordance with section 188(b)(1) of the Act, the EPA is taking final action to reclassify the SJV area from Moderate to Serious nonattainment for the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 standards of 35 μg/m3, based on the EPA's determination that the SJV area cannot practicably attain these standards by the applicable attainment date of December 31, 2015.

Under section 188(c)(2) of the Act, the attainment date for a Serious area “shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the end of the tenth calendar year beginning after the area's designation as nonattainment. . . .” The SJV area was designated nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS effective December 14, 2009.29 Therefore, as a result of our reclassification of the SJV area as a Serious nonattainment area, the attainment date under section 188(c)(2) of the Act for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in this area is as expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31, 2019.

29 See 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009).

B. Reclassification of Reservation Areas of Indian Country

Eight Indian tribes are located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area: The Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California, the Santa Rosa Rancheria of the Tachi Yokut Tribe, the Table Mountain Rancheria of California, the Tejon Indian Tribe, and the Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation.

We have considered the relevance of our final action to reclassify the SJV nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 standards to each tribe located within the SJV area. As discussed in more detail in our proposed rule, we believe that the same facts and circumstances that support the reclassification for the non-Indian country lands also support reclassification for reservation areas of Indian country 30 and any other areas of Indian country where the EPA or a tribe has demonstrated that the tribe has jurisdiction located within the SJV nonattainment area.31 In this final action, the EPA is therefore exercising our authority under CAA section 188(b)(1) to reclassify reservation areas of Indian country and any other areas of Indian country where the EPA or a tribe has demonstrated that the tribe has jurisdiction geographically located in the SJV nonattainment area. Section 188(b)(1) broadly authorizes the EPA to reclassify a nonattainment area—including any such area of Indian country located within such area—that the EPA determines cannot practicably attain the relevant standards by the applicable attainment date.

30 “Indian country” as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151 refers to: “(a) All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.”

31 See 80 FR 1816, at 1843, 1844 (January 13, 2015).

In light of the considerations outlined above and in our proposed rulemaking that support retention of a uniformly-classified PM2.5 nonattainment area, and our finding that it is impracticable for the area to attain by the applicable attainment date, we are finalizing our reclassification of the reservation areas of Indian country and any other areas of Indian country where the EPA or a tribe has demonstrated that the tribe has jurisdiction within the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area to Serious for the 2006 PM2.5 standards.

The effect of reclassification would be to lower the applicable “major stationary source” emissions thresholds for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors for purposes of the NNSR program and the Title V operating permit program (CAA sections 189(b)(3) and 501(2)(B)), thus subjecting more new or modified stationary sources to these requirements. The reclassification may also lower the de minimis threshold under the CAA's General Conformity requirements (40 CFR part 93, subpart B) from 100 tpy to 70 tpy. Under the General Conformity requirements (40 CFR part 93, subpart B), federal agencies bear the responsibility of determining conformity of actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas that require federal permits, approvals, or funding. Such permits, approvals or funding by federal agencies for projects in these areas of Indian country may be more difficult to obtain because of the lower de minimis thresholds.

Given the potential implications of the reclassification, the EPA contacted tribal officials early in the process of developing this action to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. The EPA invited tribal officials to consult during the development of the proposed rule and following signature of the proposed rule.32 On February 17, 2015, the EPA received a letter dated January 30, 2015 from the Tejon Tribe requesting information about the proposed reclassification. The EPA subsequently invited the Tejon Tribe several times to participate in a conference call but received no response from the Tribe. No other Indian tribe has expressed an interest in discussing this action with the EPA. We continue to invite Indian tribes in the SJV to contact the EPA with any questions about the effects of this reclassification on tribal interests and air quality. We note that although eligible tribes may opt to seek EPA approval of relevant tribal programs under the CAA, none of the affected tribes will be required to submit an implementation plan to address this reclassification.

32 As discussed in more detail in our proposed rule, the EPA sent letters to tribal officials inviting government-to-government consultation. The letters can be found in the docket.

C. PM2.5 Serious Area SIP Requirements

As a consequence of our reclassification of the SJV area as a Serious nonattainment area for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, California is required to submit additional SIP revisions to satisfy the statutory requirements that apply to Serious areas, including the requirements of subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act.

The Serious area SIP elements that California must submit are as follows:

1. Provisions to assure that BACM, including BACT for stationary sources, for the control of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors shall be implemented no later than 4 years after the area is reclassified (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B));

2. A demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31, 2019, or where the State is seeking an extension of the attainment date under section 188(e), a demonstration that attainment by December 31, 2019 is impracticable and that the plan provides for attainment by the most expeditious alternative date practicable (CAA sections 188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A));

3. Plan provisions that require reasonable further progress (RFP) (CAA section 172(c)(2));

4. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years until the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrate RFP toward attainment by the applicable date (CAA section 189(c));

5. Provisions to assure that control requirements applicable to major stationary sources of direct PM2.5 also apply to major stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors, except where the State demonstrates to the EPA's satisfaction that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard in the area (CAA section 189(e));

6. A comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5 precursors in the area (CAA section 172(c)(3));

7. Contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to meet RFP or to attain by the applicable attainment date (CAA section 172(c)(9)); and

8. A revision to the NNSR program to establish appropriate “major stationary source” 33 thresholds for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors (CAA section 189(b)(3)).

33 For any Serious area, the terms “major source” and “major stationary source” include any stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit at least 70 tons per year of PM10 (CAA section 189(b)(3)).

Section 189(b)(2) states, in relevant part, that the State must submit the required BACM provisions “no later than 18 months after reclassification of the area as a Serious Area” and must submit the required attainment demonstration “no later than 4 years after reclassification of the area to Serious.” For the reasons provided in Section III of this preamble (Public Comments and EPA Responses), the EPA is requiring the State to adopt and submit all components of the Serious area attainment plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV no later than 18 months after the effective date of reclassification.

Finally, for the reasons provided in our proposed rule 34 and in our response to comments above, we are finalizing our proposal to require the State to submit NNSR SIP revisions to implement subpart 4 Serious Area requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area no later than 12 months after the effective date of this reclassification, to the extent those requirements have not already been met by the NNSR revisions due May 7, 2016 for purposes of implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.35 Nonattainment NSR SIP revisions that satisfy the Serious Area requirements of CAA sections 189(b)(3) and 189(e) for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS may also satisfy these requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

34 See 80 FR 1816, at 1843. (January 13, 2015).

35 See 40 CFR 52.245(c) and 80 FR 18528, 18533 (April 7, 2015).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) because it relates to a designation of an area for air quality purposes and will reclassify the SJV from its current air quality designation of Moderate nonattainment to Serious nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This action does not contain any information collection activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The final rule requires the state to adopt and submit SIP revisions to satisfy the statutory requirements that apply to Serious areas, and would not itself directly regulate any small entities (see section III.C of this final rule).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million or more and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538). This action itself imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. The final action reclassifies the SJV nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, which triggers existing statutory duties for the state to submit SIP revisions. Such a reclassification in and of itself does not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate. The final action does not require any tribes to submit implementation plans.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications.

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

This action may have tribal implications. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. Eight Indian tribes are located within the boundaries of the SJV nonattainment area for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California, the Santa Rosa Rancheria of the Tachi Yokut Tribe, the Table Mountain Rancheria of California, the Tejon Indian Tribe, and the Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation. We note that none of the tribes located in the SJV nonattainment area has requested eligibility to administer programs under the Clean Air Act. This final action affects the EPA's implementation of the new source review program because of the lower “major stationary source” threshold triggered by reclassification (CAA 189(b)(3)). The final action may also affect new or modified stationary sources proposed in these areas that require federal permits, approvals, or funding. Such projects are subject to the requirements of the EPA's General Conformity rule, and federal permits, approvals, or funding for the projects may be more difficult to obtain because of the lower de minimis thresholds triggered by reclassification.

Given these potential implications, consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA contacted tribal officials early in the process of developing this action to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. The EPA invited tribal officials to consult during the development of the proposed rule and following signature of the proposed rule. As discussed in more detail in our proposed action, we sent letters to leaders of the tribes with areas of Indian country in the SJV nonattainment area inviting government-to-government consultation on the rulemaking effort. On February 17, 2015, the EPA received a letter dated January 30, 2015 from the Tejon Tribe requesting information about the proposed reclassification. The EPA subsequently invited the Tejon Tribe several times to participate in a conference call but received no response from the Tribe. No other Indian tribe has expressed an interest in discussing this action with the EPA. We continue to invite Indian tribes in the SJV to contact the EPA with any questions about the effects of this reclassification on tribal interests and air quality.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it reclassifies the SJV nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, which triggers additional Serious area planning requirements under the CAA. This action does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

This action is not subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because it does not involve technical standards.

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

The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. This action reclassifies the SJV nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, which triggers additional Serious area planning requirements under the CAA.

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective on February 19, 2016.

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 21, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

Dated: December 22, 2015. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.

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

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

2. Section 52.245 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 52.245 New Source Review rules.

(c) By May 7, 2016, the New Source Review rules for PM2.5 for the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District must be revised and submitted as a SIP revision. The rules must satisfy the requirements of sections 189(b)(3) and 189(e) and all other applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act for implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

(e) By February 21, 2017, the New Source Review rules for PM2.5 for the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District must be revised and submitted as a SIP revision. The rules must satisfy the requirements of sections 189(b)(3) and 189(e) and all other applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act for implementation of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

3. Section 52.247 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 52.247 Control Strategy and regulations: Fine Particle Matter.

(e) By August 21, 2017, California must adopt and submit a Serious Area plan to provide for attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area. The Serious Area plan must include emissions inventories, an attainment demonstration, best available control measures, a reasonable further progress plan, quantitative milestones, contingency measures, and such other measures as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, in accordance with the requirements of subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title I of the Clean Air Act.

PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES 4. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

5. Section 81.305 is amended in the table titled “California—2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS [Primary and secondary],” by revising the entries under “San Joaquin Valley, CA” to read as follows:
§ 81.305 California. California—2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS [Primary and secondary] Designated area Designation a Date 1 Type Classification Date 2 Type *         *         *         *         *         *         * San Joaquin Valley, CA: Fresno County Nonattainment February 19, 2016 Serious. Kern County (part) Nonattainment February 19, 2016 Serious. That portion of Kern County which lies west and north of a line described as follows: Beginning at the Kern-Los Angeles County boundary and running north and east along the northwest boundary of the Rancho La Libre Land Grant to the point of intersection with the range line common to R. 16 W. and R. 17 W., San Bernardino Base and Meridian; north along the range line to the point of intersection with the Rancho El Tejon Land Grant boundary; then southeast, northeast, and northwest along the boundary of the Rancho El Tejon Land Grant to the northwest corner of S. 3, T. 11 N., R. 17 W.; then west 1.2 miles; then north to the Rancho El Tejon Land Grant boundary; then northwest along the Rancho El Tejon line to the southeast corner of S. 34, T. 32 S., R. 30 E., Mount Diablo Base and Meridian; then north to the northwest corner of S. 35, T. 31 S., R. 30 E.; then northeast along the boundary of the Rancho El Tejon Land Grant to the southwest corner of S. 18, T. 31 S., R. 31 E.; then east to the southeast corner of S. 13, T. 31 S., R. 31 E.; then north along the range line common to R. 31 E. and R. 32 E., Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, to the northwest corner of S. 6, T. 29 S., R. 32 E.; then east to the southwest corner of S. 31, T. 28 S., R. 32 E.; then north along the range line common to R. 31 E. and R. 32 E. to the northwest corner of S. 6, T. 28 S., R. 32 E., then west to the southeast corner of S. 36, T. 27 S., R. 31 E., then north along the range line common to R. 31 E. and R. 32 E. to the Kern-Tulare County boundary Kings County Nonattainment February 19, 2016 Serious. Madera County Nonattainment February 19, 2016 Serious. Merced County Nonattainment February 19, 2016 Serious. San Joaquin County Nonattainment February 19, 2016 Serious. Stanislaus County Nonattainment February 19, 2016 Serious. Tulare County Nonattainment February 19, 2016 Serious. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
[FR Doc. 2016-00739 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 174 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457; FRL-9939-49] VNT1 Protein in Potato; Amendment to a Temporary Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This regulation establishes a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the VNT1 protein in or on potatoes when used as a plant-incorporated protectant in accordance with the terms of Experimental Use Permit (EUP) (8917-EUP-2). J.R. Simplot Company submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an amendment of the temporary tolerance exemption. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of VNT1 protein in potato. The temporary tolerance exemption expires on April 1, 2017, concurrent with the EUP (8917-EUP-2).

DATES:

This regulation is effective January 20, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before March 21, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. 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 OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www2.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before March 21, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457, by one of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www2.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

In the Federal Register of October 24, 2014 (79 FR 63594) (FRL-9916-03), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition ((PP) 4F8251) by J.R. Simplot Company, 5369 W. Irving St., Boise, ID 83706. Also, in the Federal Register of December 17, 2014 (79 FR 75107) (FRL-9918-90), EPA inadvertently re-announced the filing of this same petition. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 174 be amended by establishing a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Potato Late Blight Resistance protein VNT1 in or on potato. Those documents referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner J.R. Simplot Company, which is available in the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457, http://www.regulations.gov. Upon determining that such exemption meets the FFDCA safety standard, EPA established a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Potato Late Blight Resistance protein VNT1 in or on potato when used in accordance with the terms of EUP 8917-EUP-2, with an expiration date of December 31, 2015, in the Federal Register of February 23, 2015 (80 FR 9387) (FRL-9922-53).

In the Federal Register of September 9, 2015 (80 FR 54257) (FRL-9933-26) EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition ((PP) 5G8375) by J.R. Simplot Company, 5369 W. Irving St., Boise, ID 83706. The petition requested that 40 CFR 174.534 be amended. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner J.R. Simplot Company, which is available in the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457, http://www.regulations.gov. No comments were received on this FR notice.

Because the pesticide petition ((PP) 5G8375) was submitted concurrently with a request to amend the EUP linked to this tolerance exemption, EPA only considered amendments to the tolerance exemption relevant to the pending request to extend the associated EUP. The request to amend the EUP involved increased acreage, locations and extending the expiration date of EUP No. 8917-EUP-2 to April 1, 2017. Because EPA is extending the EUP until April 1, 2017, EPA is revising the expiration date of the existing tolerance exemption to April 1, 2017.

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe ” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that the Agency consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues” and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children

The Agency previously assessed the toxicological profile of the VNT1 protein and the likely exposure from its use as a plant-incorporated protectant in or on potato in accordance with the terms of EUP No. 8917-EUP-2. Based on the Agency's assessment, the Agency concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to VNT1 protein when used as a plant-incorporated protectant in or on potato in accordance with the terms of EUP No. 8917-EUP-2. See (80 FR 9387) (February 23, 2015). Because the toxicological profile has not changed, any additional exposure to the VNT1 protein as a result of the extension of the associated EUP will not affect the Agency's previous safety finding. Therefore, the Agency is relying on its previous assessment to support the extension of the expiration date for 40 CFR 174.534. Therefore, based on its previous assessment, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to the residues of VNT1 protein in potato when it is used as a plant-incorporated protectant. Such exposure includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.

IV. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

The Agency has determined that an analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation in association with use under EUP No. 8917-EUP-2.

V. Conclusion

The Agency is extending the expiration date of this temporary tolerance exemption to April 1, 2017. The temporary tolerance exemption will expire on the same date as the concurrent EUP for VNT1 protein (8917-EUP-2).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

This action amends an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Since tolerances and exemptions that are amended on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 174

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: December 17, 2015. John E. Leahy, Jr., Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 174—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 174 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 136-136y; 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

2. Section 174.534 is revised to read as follows:
§ 174.534 VNT1 protein in potato; temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

Residues of VNT1 protein in potato are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when the Rpi-vnt1 gene that expresses the VNT1 protein is used as a plant-incorporated protectant in potato in accordance with the terms of Experimental Use Permit No. 8917-EUP-2. This temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance expires on April 1, 2017.

[FR Doc. 2016-00419 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 42 CFR Parts 38, 50, 51, 51a, 51b, 51c, 51d, 52, 52a, 52b, 52c, 52d, 52e, 55a, 56, 57, 59, 59a, 62, 63a, 64, 65, 65a, 66, 67, 124, 136, 403, 417, 430, 433, 434, 435, 436, 438, 440, 441, 456, 457, and 1001 45 CFR Parts 16, 63, 75, 87, 95, 98, 261, 262, 263, 265, 286, 287, 301, 302, 303, 304, 309, 400, 1000, 1301, 1304, 1309, 1321, 1326, 1328, 1336, 1355, and 1357 RIN 0991-ZA46 Federal Awarding Agency Regulatory Implementation of Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards; Technical Amendments AGENCY:

Department of Health and Human Services.

ACTION:

Interim final rule; technical amendments.

SUMMARY:

This document contains technical amendments to HHS regulations regarding Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. The regulatory content is being amended to add information that was erroneously omitted, to include updated cross-references within HHS' regulations, and to make grammatical corrections.

DATES:

Effective January 20, 2016. Implementation Date: For all non-Federal entities, there is a two-year grace period for implementation of the procurement standards in 45 CFR 75.326 through 75.335.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Audrey E. Clarke, Ph.D., Division of Grants, Office of Grants and Acquisition Policy and Accountability, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Ave. SW., Room 529G.17, Washington, DC 20201; phone: (202) 720-1908; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

HHS is correcting its regulations in line with FR Doc. 2014-28697, published on December 19, 2014 (79 FR 75871), entitled “Federal Awarding Agency Regulatory Implementation of Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards”, the “Guidance for Reporting and Use of Information Concerning Recipient Integrity and Performance” to 2 CFR part 200, published on July 22, 2015 (80 FR 43301), and “Universal Identifier and System of Award Management; Corrections”, published on September 10, 2015 (80 FR 54407), made by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). HHS adopts the correcting amendments made by OMB. HHS is also making amendments to address citation or grammatical inconsistencies, to amend incomplete statements in the regulation, and to update existing HHS regulations to incorporate 45 CFR part 75. The correcting amendments will go into effect at the time of publicatio

List of Subjects 42 CFR Part 38

Disaster assistance, Government contracts, Grant programs-health, mental health programs.

42 CFR Part 50

Administrative practice and procedure, Conflicts of interests, Drugs, Family planning, Grant programs-health, Grant programs-science and technology, Health care, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Science and technology.

42 CFR Part 51

Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs-health, Health facilities, Health records, mental health programs, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 51a

Blood diseases, Colleges and Universities, Genetic diseases, Grant programs-Health, Maternal and Child Health, Medical research, and Recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 51b

Communicable diseases, Grant programs-health, Immunization, Maternal and Child health, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements, Research, Venereal Diseases.

42 CFR Part 51c

Grant programs-health, Health care, Health facilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 51d

Administrative practice and procedure, Disaster assistance, Drug abuse, Emergency medical services, Grant programs-health, Health facilities, Mental health programs, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 52

Grant programs-health, Medical research, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 52a

Blood diseases, Grant programs-health, Heart diseases, Lung diseases, Medical research, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 52b

Grant programs-health, Health facilities, Medical research, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 52c

Educational study programs, Grant programs-health, Medical research, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 52d

Cancer, Educational study programs, Grant programs-health, Health professions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 52e

Blood diseases, Grant programs-health, Health care, Health diseases, Health professions, Lung diseases, Medical research, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 55a

Black lung benefits, Grant programs-health, Health care, Health facilities, Miners, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 56

Grant programs-health, Health care, Health facilities, Migrant labor, Reporting and, recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 57

Aged, Education of disadvantaged, Educational facilities, Educational study programs, Grant programs-education, Grant programs-health, Health facilities, Health professions, Loan programs-health, Medical and dental schools, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scholarships and fellowships, Student aid.

42 CFR Part 59

Family planning, Grant programs-health, Grant programs-social programs, Health professions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Youth.

42 CFR Part 59a

Grant programs-health, Libraries, Medical research, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 62

Educational study programs, Grant programs-education, Grant programs-health, Health professions, Loan programs-education, Loan programs-health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scholarships and fellowships.

42 CFR Part 63a

Grant programs-health, Medical research.

42 CFR Part 64

Educational study programs, Grant programs-education, Grant programs-health, Health professions, Libraries, Manpower training programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 65

Education, Grant programs-education, Grant programs-health, Hazardous waste, Nonprofit organizations, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 65a

Grant programs-health, Hazardous waste, Medical research.

42 CFR Part 66

Grant programs-health, Health professions, Medical research.

42 CFR Part 67

Grant programs-health, Medical research, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 124

Grant programs-health, Health facilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 136

Employment, Government procurement, Health care, Health facilities, Indians, Infants and children, Maternal and child health, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 403

Grant programs-health, Health insurance, Hospitals, Intergovernmental relations, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 417

Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs-health, Health care, Health insurance, Health maintenance organizations (HMO), Loan programs-health, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 430

Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs-health, Medicaid, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 433

Administrative practice and procedure, Child support, Claims, Grant programs-health, Medicaid, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 434

Grant programs-health, Health maintenance organizations (HMO), Medicaid, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 435

Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Grant programs-health, Medicaid, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Wages.

42 CFR Part 436

Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Grant programs-health, Guam, Medicaid, Puerto Rico, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Virgin Islands.

42 CFR Part 438

Grant programs-health, Medicaid, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 440

Grant programs-health, Medicaid.

42 CFR Part 441

Aged, Family planning, Grant programs-health, Infants and children, Medicaid, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 456

Administrative practice and procedure, Drugs, Grant programs-health, Health facilities, Medicaid, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 457

Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs-health, Health insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

42 CFR Part 1001

Administrative practice and procedure, Fraud, Grant programs-health, Health facilities, Health professions, Maternal and child health, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security.

45 CFR Part 16

Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs-health, Grant programs-social programs.

45 CFR Part 63

Grant programs-communications, Grant programs-education, Grant programs-health, Grant programs-social programs, Research, Telecommunications.

45 CFR Part 75

Accounting Auditing Administrative practice and procedure Colleges and universities Cost principles Grant programs Grant programs-health Grants administration Hospitals Indians Nonprofit organizations reporting and recordkeeping requirements and State and local governments.

45 CFR Part 87

Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs-social programs, nonprofit organizations, Public assistance programs.

45 CFR Part 95

Claims, Computer technology, Grant programs-health, Grant programs-social programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security.

45 CFR Part 98

Administrative practice and procedure, Day care, Grant programs-Indians, Grant programs-social programs, Indians, Penalties, Religious discrimination, Reporting and recordkeeping, requirements.

45 CFR Parts 261, 262, 263, and 265

Administrative practice and procedure, Day care, Employment, Grant programs-social programs, Loan programs-social programs, Manpower training programs, Penalties, Public assistance, programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

45 CFR Parts 286

Administrative practice and procedure, Day care, Employment, Grant programs-social programs, Indians, Loan programs-social programs, Manpower training programs, Penalties, Public assistance programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

45 CFR Parts 287

Administrative practice and procedure, Employment, Grant programs-social programs, Indians, Loan programs-social programs, Manpower training programs, Penalties, Public assistance programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

45 CFR Parts 301, 303, and 304

Child support, Grant programs-social programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

45 CFR Part 302

Child support, Grant programs-social programs, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping, requirements, Unemployment compensation.

45 CFR Part 309

Child support, Grant programs-social programs, Indians, Reporting and recordkeeping, requirements.

45 CFR Part 400

Employment, Grant programs-social programs, Health care, Public assistance programs, Refugees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

45 CFR Part 1000

Grant programs-social programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

45 CFR Part 1301

Administrative practice and procedure, Education of disadvantaged, Grant programs-social programs.

45 CFR Part 1304

Dental health, Education of disadvantaged, Grant programs-social programs, Health care, mental health programs, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

45 CFR Part 1309

Grant programs-social programs, Rates and Fares.

45 CFR Parts 1321

Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Grant programs-Indians, Grant programs-social programs, Indians, Legal services, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

45 CFR Part 1326

Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Grant programs-Indians, Grant programs-social programs, Indians, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

45 CFR Part 1328

Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Grant programs-social programs, Hawaiian, Natives, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

45 CFR Part 1336

Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Grant programs-Indians, Grant programs-social programs, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

45 CFR Part 1355

Child welfare, Computer technology, Grant programs-social programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

45 CFR Part 1357

Adoption and foster care, Child welfare, Grant programs-social programs, Indians, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: December 14, 2015. Ellen Murray, Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources, Department of Health and Human Services.

Under the authority of (5 U.S.C. 301), the Department of Health and Human Services amends 42 CFR parts 38, 50, 51, 51a, 51b, 51c, 51d, 52, 52a, 52b, 52c, 52d, 52e, 55a, 56, 57, 59, 59a, 62, 63a, 64, 65, 65a, 66, 67, 124, 136, 403, 417, 430, 433, 434, 435, 436, 438, 440, 441, 456, 457, and 1001, and 45 CFR parts 16, 63, 75, 87, 95, 98, 261, 262, 263, 265, 286, 287, 301, 302, 303, 304, 309, 400, 1000, 1301, 1304, 1309, 1321, 1326, 1328, 1336, 1355, and 1357 by making the following correcting amendments:

Title 42—Public Health PART 38—DISASTER ASSISTANCE FOR CRISIS COUNSELING AND TRAINING 1. The authority citation for part 38 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Sec. 413, Pub. L. 93-288. The Disaster Relief Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 157, 42 U.S.C. 5183, E.O. 11795, 39 FR 25939, as amended by E.O. 11910, 41 FR 15681.

§ 38.5 [Amended]
2. Amend § 38.5: a. In paragraph (d) by removing “45 CFR part 74—Administration of grants” and “45 CFR part 75—Informal grant appeals procedures”; b. In paragraph (d) by adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards”; and c. In paragraph (e) by removing “subpart Q of 45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E”. PART 50—POLICIES OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY 3. The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Sec. 215, Public Health Service Act, 58 Stat. 690 (42 U.S.C. 216); Sec. 1006, Public Health Service Act, 84 Stat. 1507 (42 U.S.C. 300a-4), unless otherwise noted.

§ 50.309 [Amended]
4. Amend § 50.309, by removing “45 CFR 74.20 et seq” and adding in its place 45 CFR 75.361 et seq”.
§ 50.504 [Amended]
5. Amend § 50.504(a)(3), by removing “45 CFR part 74,” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E,”.
§ 50.604 [Amended]
6. Amend § 50.604(i), by removing “45 CFR 74.53(b) and 92.42(b)” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.361”.
§ 50.606 [Amended]
7. Amend § 50.606(b), in the last sentence, by removing “special award conditions under 45 CFR 74.14 and 92.12, or suspension of funding or other enforcement action under 45 CFR 74.62 and 92.43,” and adding in its place “specific award conditions under 45 CFR 75.207, or suspension of funding or other enforcement action under 45 CFR 75.371,”.
§ 50.607 [Amended]
8. Amend § 50.607, by removing “45 CFR part 74—Uniform administrative requirements for awards and subawards to institutions of higher education, hospitals, other nonprofit organizations, and commercial organizations” and adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards” and removing “45 CFR part 92—Uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to State, local, and tribal governments”. PART 51—REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO THE PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS PROGRAM 9. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 10801, et seq.

§ 51.4 [Amended]
10. Amend § 51.4: a. By removing “45 CFR part 74—Administration of Grants.” and “45 CFR part 75—Informal Grants Appeals Procedures”; b. By adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards.”; and c. By removing “45 CFR part 92—Uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to State and Local Governments.”
§ 51.10 [Amended]
11. Amend § 51.10 by removing “45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”. PART 51a—PROJECT GRANTS FOR MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH 12. The authority citation for part 51a continues to read as follows: Authority:

Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 647 (42 U.S.C. 1302); sec. 502(a), 502(b)(1)(A), and 506(a)(3) of the Social Security Act, 95 Stat. 819-20 (42 U.S.C. 702(a), 702(b)(1)(A) and 706(a)(3)).

§ 51a.7 [Amended]
13. Amend § 51a.7, in paragraph (b): a. By removing “45 CFR part 74—Administration of grants to nonprofit organizations.” and “45 CFR part 75—Informal Grants Appeals Procedures”; b. By adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards.”; and c. By removing “45 CFR part 92—Uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to State and Local Governments.” PART 51b—PROJECT GRANTS FOR PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES 14. The authority citation for part 51b continues to read as follows: Authority:

Secs. 317 and 318, Public Health Service Act, 92 Stat. 3574 and 3582 (42 U.S.C. 247b, 247c); sec. 1743 Pub. L. 97-35, 95 Stat. 763 (31 U.S.C. 1243 note).

§ 51b.105 [Amended]
15. Amend § 51b.105, by removing “45 CFR part 74—Administration of grants” and “45 CFR part 75—Informal grant appeals procedures” and adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards”.
§ 51b.106 [Amended]
16. Amend § 51b.106(d), by removing “subpart Q of 45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E”. PART 51c—GRANTS FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES 17. The authority citation for part 51c continues to read as follows: Authority:

Sec. 330, Public Health Service Act, 89 Stat. 342, (42 U.S.C. 254c); sec. 215, Public Health Service Act, 58 Stat. 690, (42 U.S.C. 216).

§ 51c.107 [Amended]
18. Amend § 51c.107, in paragraph (a), by removing “subpart Q of 45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E” and in paragraph (b)(7), by removing “45 CFR part 74;” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75;”.
§ 51c.112 [Amended]
19. Amend § 51c.112(c)(2)(iii) by removing “subparts F, M, and O of 45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.307, 75.371 through 75.385, and 75.316-75.325”. 20. Revise § 51c.113 to read as follows:
§ 51c.113 Applicability of 45 CFR part 75.

The provisions of 45 CFR part 75, establishing uniform administrative requirements and cost principles, shall apply to all grants under this part.

§ 51c.502 [Amended]
21. Amend § 51c.502(a) by removing “45 CFR 74.132” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.2”. PART 51d—MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES 22. The authority citation for part 51d continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 290aa(m).

§ 51d.8 [Amended]
23. Amend § 51d.8: a. By removing “45 CFR part 74—Administration of grants” and “45 CFR part 75—Informal grants appeals procedures”; b. By adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards”; and c. By removing “45 CFR part 92—Uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to state and local governments”.
§ 51d.10 [Amended]
24. Amend § 51d.10(a)(2) and (b)(2) by removing “45 CFR 92.41(b),” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.341,”. 25. Amend § 51d.10(a)(3) and (b)(1), (b)(3), and (b)(4) by removing “45 CFR 92.50(b)” and adding in its place “CFR 75.342”. PART 52—GRANTS FOR RESEARCH PROJECTS 26. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 216.

§ 52.6 [Amended]
27. Amend § 52.6(a), in the last sentence, by removing “subpart Q of 45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E”.
§ 52.8 [Amended]
28. Amend § 52.8: a. By removing “45 CFR part 74—Administration of grants.” and “45 CFR part 75—Informal grants appeals procedures”; b. By adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards”; and c. By removing “45 CFR part 92—Uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to state and local governments”. PART 52a—NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH CENTER GRANTS 29. The authority citation for part 52a continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 216, 284g, 285a-6(c)(1)(E), 285a-7(c)(1)(G), 285b-4, 285c-5, 285c-8, 285d-6, 285e-2, 285e-3, 285e-10a, 285f-1, 285g-5, 285g-7, 285g-9, 285m-3, 285o-2, 286a-7(c)(1)(G), 287c-32(c), 300cc-16.

§ 52a.4 [Amended]
30. Amend § 52a.4(i) by removing “45 CFR 74.40 through 74.47 and 45 CFR 92.25” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.307”.
§ 52a.7 [Amended]
31. Amend § 52a.7 by removing “45 CFR 74.27.” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E.”.
§ 52a.8 [Amended]
32. Amend § 52a.8: a. By removing “45 CFR part 74—Uniform administrative requirements for awards and subawards to institutions of higher education, hospitals, other nonprofit organizations, and commercial organizations; and certain grants and agreements with states, local governments and Indian tribal governments” and “45 CFR part 75—Informal grant appeals procedures”; b. By adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards”; and c. By removing “45 CFR part 92—Uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to State and local governments”. PART 52b—NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH CONSTRUCTION GRANTS 33. The authority citation for part 52b continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 216, 285a-2, 285a-3, 285b-3, 285b-4, 285d-6, 285i, 285m-3, 285o-4, 287a-2, 287a-3, 300cc-41.

§ 52b.7 [Amended]
34. Amend § 52b.7(c), in the last sentence, by removing “45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
§ 52b.14 [Amended]
35. Amend § 52b.14(b): a. By removing “45 CFR part 74—Uniform administrative requirements for awards and subawards to institutions of higher education, hospitals, other nonprofit organizations, and commercial organizations; and certain grants and agreements with states, local governments and Indian tribal governments.”; b. By adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards.”; and c. By removing “45 CFR part 92—Uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to State and local governments.”. PART 52c—MINORITY BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH SUPPORT PROGRAM 36. The authority citation for part 52c continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 216, 241(a)(3).

§ 52c.6 [Amended]
37. Amend § 52c.6(a) by removing “subpart Q of 45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E”.
§ 52c.7 [Amended]
38. Amend § 52c.7: a. By removing “45 CFR part 74—Administration of grants” and “45 CFR part 75—Informal grants appeals procedures”; b. By adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards”; and c. By removing “45 CFR part 92—Uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to state and local governments.”. PART 52d—NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE CLINICAL CANCER EDUCATION PROGRAM 39. The authority citation for part 52d continues to read as follows: Authority:

Sec. 215, 58 Stat. 690, as amended, 63 Stat. 835 (42 U.S.C. 216); sec. 404(a)(4), 92 Stat. 3426 (42 U.S.C. 285).

§ 52d.7 [Amended]
40. Amend § 52d.7 by removing “subpart Q of 45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E”.
§ 52d.8 [Amended]
41. Amend § 52d.8 by removing “45 CFR part 74—Administration of grants” and “45 CFR part 75—Informal grant appeals procedures” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards”. PART 52e—NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE GRANTS FOR PREVENTION AND CONTROL PROJECTS 42. The authority citation for part 52e continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 216, 285b-1.

§ 52e.6 [Amended]
43. Amend § 52e.6(e) by removing “subpart Q of 45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E”.
§ 52e.7 [Amended]
44. Amend § 52e.7(a) by removing “subpart Q of 45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E”.
§ 52e.8 [Amended]
45. Amend § 52e.8: a. By removing “45 CFR part 74—Administration of grants” and “45 CFR part 75—Informal grants appeals procedures”; b. By adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards”; and c. By removing “45 CFR part 92—Uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to state and local governments”. PART 55a—PROGRAM GRANTS FOR BLACK LUNG CLINICS 46. The authority citation for part 55a continues to read as follows: Authority:

Sec. 427(a), Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 92 Stat. 100 (30 U.S.C. 937(a)).

§ 55a.107 [Amended]
47. Amend § 55a.107 by removing “45 CFR part 74—Administration of grants;” and “45 CFR part 75—Informal grant appeals procedures;” and adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards;”.
§ 55a.201 [Amended]
48. Amend § 55a.201(g) by removing “Attachment P, Audit Requirements, of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-102, Uniform Requirements for Assistance to State and Local Governments, as adopted for the Department of Health and Human Services by 45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “subpart F of 45 CFR part 75”. PART 56—GRANTS FOR MIGRANT HEALTH SERVICES 49. The authority citation for part 56 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Secs. 215, 319, Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 216, 247d).

§ 56.108 [Amended]
50. Amend § 56.108 in paragraph (a) by removing “subpart Q of 45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E” and in paragraph (b)(7) by removing “45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
§ 56.113 [Amended]
51. In § 56.113(c)(2)(iii), remove “subparts F, M, and O of 45 CFR part 74” and add in its place “45 CFR 75.307, 75.371 through 75.385, and 75.316 through 75.325”. 52. Revise § 56.114 to read as follows:
§ 56.114 Applicability of 45 CFR part 75.

The provisions of 45 CFR part 75, establishing uniform administrative requirements and cost principles, shall apply to all grants under this part.

PART 57—GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TEACHING FACILITIES, EDUCATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS, SCHOLARSHIPS AND STUDENT LOANS 53. The authority citation for part 57 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Sec. 215 of the Public Health Service Act, 58 Stat. 690, as amended, 63 Stat. 35 (42 U.S.C. 216); secs. 740-747 of the Public Health Service Act, 77 Stat. 170-173, as amended by 90 Stat. 2266-2268, 91 Stat. 390-391, 95 Stat. 920, 99 Stat. 532-536, and 102 Stat. 3125 (42 U.S.C. 294m-q); renumbered as secs. 721-735, as amended by Pub. L. 102-408, 106 Stat. 2011-2022 (42 U.S.C. 292q-292y).

§ 57.215 [Amended]
54. Amend § 57.215(a)(3) by removing “45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
§ 57.315 [Amended]
55. Amend § 57.315(b)(2) by removing “45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”. PART 59—GRANTS FOR FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES 56. The authority citation for part 59 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 300a-4.

§ 59.9 [Amended]
57. Amend § 59.9 by removing “45 CFR part 74 or Part 92, as applicable” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E”.
§ 59.10 [Amended]
58. Amend § 59.10: a. By removing “45 CFR part 74—Uniform administrative requirements for awards and subawards to institutions of higher education, hospitals, other nonprofit organizations, and commercial organizations; and certain grants and agreements with states, local governments and Indian tribal governments”; b. By adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards”; and c. By removing “45 CFR part 92—Uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to state and local governments”.
§ 59.206 [Amended]
59. Amend § 59.206(c) by removing “subpart Q of 35 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E”.
§ 59.208 [Amended]
60. Amend § 59.208(a) by removing “subpart Q of 45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E”.
§ 59.212 [Amended]
61. Amend § 59.212(d)(2)(iii) by removing “subparts F, M, and O of 45 CFR part 74.” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.307, 75.371 through 75.385, and 75.316-75.325.”. 62. Revise § 59.215 to read as follows:
§ 59.215 Applicability of 45 CFR part 75.

The provisions of 45 CFR part 75, establishing uniform administrative requirements and cost principles, shall apply to all grants under this part.

PART 59a—NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE GRANTS 63. The authority citation for part 59a continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 286b-2, 286b-5.

§ 59a.6 [Amended]
64. Amend § 59a.6 by removing “subpart Q of 45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E”.
§ 59a.7 [Amended]
65. Amend § 59a.7: a. By removing “45 CFR part 74—Administration of grants” and “45 CFR part 75—Informal grants appeals procedures”; b. By adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards”; and c. By removing “45 CFR part 92—Uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to state and local governments”.
§ 59a.16 [Amended]
66. Amend § 59a.16(a) by removing “subpart Q of 45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E”.
§ 59a.17 [Amended]
67. Amend § 59a.17: a. By removing “45 CFR part 74—Administration of grants” and “45 CFR part 75—Informal grants appeals procedures.”; b. By adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards”; and c. By removing “45 CFR part 92—Uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to state and local governments”. PART 62—NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS SCHOLARSHIP AND LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAMS 68. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Sec. 215 of the Public Health Service Act, 58 Stat. 690, as amended, 63 Stat. 35 (42 U.S.C. 216); sec. 751 of the Public Health Service Act, 90 Stat. 2281 (42 U.S.C. 294t), unless otherwise noted.

§ 62.58 [Amended]
69. Amend § 62.58: a. By removing “45 CFR part 74—Administration of grants”, “45 CFR part 75—Informal grant appeals procedures” and “45 CFR part 92—Administrative Requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to State and local governments (effective October 1, 1988)”; b. By adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards”; and c. By arranging existing entries in alphanumeric order. PART 63a—NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH TRAINING GRANTS 70. The authority citation for part 63a continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 216, 2421(b)(3), 284(b)(1)(C), 285g-10, 287c(b), 300cc-15(a)(1), 300cc-41(a)(3)(C), 7403(h)(2).

§ 63a.10 [Amended]
71. Amend § 63a.10(a) by removing “45 CFR 74.27” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E”.
§ 63a.11 [Amended]
72. Amend § 63a.11: a. By removing “45 CFR part 74—Administration of grants” and “45 CFR part 75—Informal grant appeals procedures”; b. By adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75—Uniform administrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirements for HHS awards”; and c. By removing “45 CFR part 92—Administrative Requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to State and local governments”. PART 64—NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE TRAINING GRANTS 73. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 216, 286b-3.

§ 64.8 [Amended]
74. Amend § 64.8 by removing “subpart Q of 45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E”.
§ 64.9 [Amended]
75. Amend § 64.9: a. By removing “45 CFR part 74—Administration of grants.” and “45 CFR part 75—Informal grant appeals procedures.”; b. By adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards.”; and c. By removing “45 CFR part 92—Administrative Requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to State and local governments.”. PART 65—NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES HAZARDOUS WASTE WORKER TRAINING 76. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 9660a; 49 U.S.C. App. 1816.

§ 65.8 [Amended]
77. Amend § 65.8: a. By removing “45 CFR part 74—Administration of grants” and “45 CFR part 75—Informal grant appeals procedures”; b. By adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards”; and c. By removing “45 CFR part 92—Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and local Governments”. PART 65a—NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES BASIC RESEARCH AND TRAINING GRANTS 78. The authority citation for part 65a continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 216, 9660(a).

§ 65a.9 [Amended]
79. Amend § 65a.9(a) by removing “45 CFR 74.25” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.308”.
§ 65a.10 [Amended]
80. Amend § 65a.10 by removing “45 CFR 74.27” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E”.
§ 65a.11 [Amended]
81. Amend § 65a.11: a. By removing “45 CFR part 74—Uniform administrative requirements for awards and subawards to institutions of higher education, hospitals, other nonprofit organizations, and commercial organizations; and certain grants and agreements with states, local governments and Indian tribal governments” and “45 CFR part 75—Informal grant appeals procedures”; b. By adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards”; and c. By removing “45 CFR part 92—Uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to state and local governments”. PART 66—NATIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE AWARDS 82. The authority citation for part 66 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 216, 288.

§ 66.207 [Amended]
83. Amend § 66.207: a. By removing “45 CFR part 74—Uniform administrative requirements for awards and subawards to institutions of higher education, hospitals, other nonprofit organizations, and commercial organizations; and certain grants and agreements with states, local governments and Indian tribal governments” and “45 CFR part 75—Informal grant appeals procedures”; and b. By adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards”. PART 67—AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE POLICY AND RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS 84. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Pub. L. 103-43, 107 Stat. 214-215, Pub. L. 102-410, 106 Stat. 2094-2101 and sec. 6103, Pub. L. 101-239, 103 Stat. 2189-2208, Title IX of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 299-299c-6); and sec. 1142, Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-12).

§ 67.11 [Amended]
85. Amend § 67.11 in the definition of “Grant,” by removing “45 CFR parts 74 and 92” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
§ 67.18 [Amended]
86. Amend § 67.18 by removing “45 CFR part 74, or part 92 for State and local government grantees” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
§ 67.19 [Amended]
87. Amend § 67.19: a. By removing “45 CFR part 74—Administration of grants”; b. By adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards”; and c. By removing “45 CFR part 92—Uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative agreements with State and local governments”.
PART 124—MEDICAL FACILITY CONSTRUCTION AND MODERNIZATION 88. The authority citation for part 124 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Secs. 215, 1602, 1625, Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 216, 300o-1, 300r), unless otherwise noted.

§ 124.6 [Amended]
89. Amend § 124.6 by removing “subpart K of 45 CFR part 74.” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.305”.
§ 124.7 [Amended]
90. Amend § 124.7 by removing “subpart Q of 45 CFR part 74.” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E.”. 91. Revise § 124.11 to read as follows:
§ 124.11 Applicability of 45 CFR part 75.

The provisions of 45 CFR part 75, establishing uniform administrative requirements and cost principles, shall apply to all grants under this part.”.

PART 136—INDIAN HEALTH 92. The authority citation for part 136 continues to read as follows: Authority:

25 U.S.C. 13; sec. 3, 68 Stat. 674 (42 U.S.C., 2001, 2003); Sec. 1, 42 Stat. 208 (25 U.S.C. 13); 42 U.S.C. 2001, unless otherwise noted.

§ 136.56 [Amended]
93. Amend § 136.56 by removing “45 CFR part 74, subpart C” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.361”.
§ 136.104 [Amended]
94. Amend § 136.104(a) by removing “45 CFR part 74, subpart N” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.206”.
§ 136.105 [Amended]
95. Amend § 136.105(e) Note by removing “45 CFR 74.15” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.304”.
§ 136.107 [Amended]
96. Amend § 136.107 in paragraph (a) by removing “subpart Q of 45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E” and in paragraph (b) Note by removing “45 CFR 74.53” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.306”.
§ 136.110 [Amended]
97. Amend § 136.110(b)(3) by removing “subpart P of 45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.326 through 75.340”.
§ 136.111 [Amended]
98. Amend § 136.111 in the Note by removing “45 CFR 74.47(a)” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.305(b)(9)”.
§ 136.114 [Amended]
99. Amend § 136.114 by removing “45 CFR part 74—Administration of grants” and “45 CFR part 75—Informal grant appeals procedures” and adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards”.
§ 136.115 [Amended]
100. Amend § 136.115 in the Note by removing “45 CFR part 74, subpart M” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.371 through 75.385”.
§ 136.116 [Amended]
101. Amend § 136.116 by removing “subpart J of 45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.341 through 75.360” and in the Note by removing “45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
§ 136.120 [Amended]
102. Amend § 136.120 in the Note by removing “45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
§ 136.302 [Amended]
103. Amend § 136.302(r) by removing “45 CFR 74.3” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.2”.
§ 136.312 [Amended]
104. Amend § 136.312(a) by removing “45 CFR part 74, subpart N” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.206”.
§ 136.314 [Amended]
105. Amend § 136.314 by removing “subpart Q of 45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E”.
§ 136.316 [Amended]
106. Amend § 136.316 by removing “45 CFR part 74, Administration of grants” and “45 CFR part 75, Informal grant appeals procedures” and adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards”. PART 403—SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS 107. The authority citation for part 403 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 1395b-3 and Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh).

§ 403.512 [Amended]
108. Amend § 403.512(a): a. By removing from the first sentence “45 CFR part 92 (“Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments”), 45 CFR 74.4” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”; and b. By removing from the second sentence “45 CFR 74.4 or in part 92” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”. PART 417—HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS, COMPETITIVE MEDICAL PLANS, AND HEALTH CARE PREPAYMENT PLANS 109. The authority citation for part 417 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh), secs. 1301, 1306, and 1310 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300e, 300e-5, and 300e-9), and 31 U.S.C. 9701.

§ 417.911 [Amended]
110. Amend § 417.911 Small Capital Expenditure (1) by removing “45 CFR 74.132” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.2”. PART 430—GRANTS TO STATES FOR MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS 111. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).

§ 430.2 [Amended]
112. Amend § 430.2(b) by removing “Part 74—Administration of Grants.” and adding in alphanumeric order “Part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards.”.
113. Revise § 430.30(e) to read as follows:
§ 430.30 [Amended]

(e) General administrative requirements. With the following exceptions, the provisions of 45 CFR 75, which establish uniform administrative requirements and cost principles, apply to all grants made to States under this subpart:

(1) Cost sharing or matching, 45 CFR 75.306; and

(2) Financial reporting, 45 CFR 75.341.

PART 433—STATE FISCAL ADMINISTRATION 114. The authority citation for part 433 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act, (42 U.S.C. 1302).

§ 433.112 [Amended]
115. Amend § 433.112(b)(7) by removing “45 CFR 74.27(a)” and adding in its place 45 CFR part 75, subpart E”.
§ 433.322 [Amended]
116. Amend § 433.322 by removing “45 CFR 92.42” and adding in its place 45 CFR 75.361 through 75.370”. PART 434—CONTRACTS 117. The authority citation for part 434 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).

§ 434.6 [Amended]
118. Amend § 434.6(a)(1) by removing “45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
§ 434.70 [Amended]
119. Amend § 434.70(a)(2) by removing “45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”. PART 435—ELIGIBILITY IN THE STATES, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS, AND AMERICAN SAMOA 120. The authority citation for part 434 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).

§ 435.407 [Amended]
121. Amend § 435.407(j) by removing “45 CFR 74.53” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.361”.
PART 436—ELIGIBILITY IN GUAM, PUERTO RICO, AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 122. The authority citation for part 436 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).

§ 436.407 [Amended]
123. Amend § 436.407(j) by removing “45 CFR 74.53” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.361”. PART 438—MANAGED CARE 124. The authority citation for part 438 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).

§ 438.356 [Amended]
125. Amend § 438.356(e) by removing “45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”. PART 440—SERVICES: GENERAL PROVISIONS 126. The authority citation for part 440 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).

§ 440.170 [Amended]
127. Amend § 440.170(a)(4)(i)(A) by removing “45 CFR 92.36(b) through (i)” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.326 through 75.340”. PART 441—SERVICES: REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITS APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC SERVICES 128. The authority citation for part 441 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Secs. 1102, 1902, and 1928 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).

§ 441.208 [Amended]
129. Amend § 441.208 by removing “45 CFR 74.20” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.361”.
§ 441.353 [Amended]
130. Amend § 441.353(c)(3) by removing “45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
§ 441.484 [Amended]
131. Amend § 441.484(a)(2) by removing “45 CFR 74.40 through 74.48” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.326 through 75.340”. PART 456—UTILIZATION CONTROL 132. The authority citation for part 456 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302), unless otherwise noted.

§ 456.722 [Amended]
133. Amend § 456.722(c)(1) by removing “45 CFR part 74, subpart P, and appendix G-O of OMB circular A-102” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.326 through 75.340”.
PART 457—ALLOTMENTS AND GRANTS TO STATES 134. The authority citation for part 457 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Section 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).

§ 457.230 [Amended]
135. Amend § 457.230 by removing “45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
§ 457.628 [Amended]
136. Amend § 457.628(b) by removing “Part 74—Administration of Grants (except as specifically excepted).” and adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards (except as specifically excepted).”. 137. Amend § 457.630 in paragraph (f) introductory text by removing “45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75” and revising paragraphs (f)(1) and (2).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 457.630 Grants procedures.

(f) * * *

(1) Cost sharing or matching, 45 CFR 75.306; and

(2) Financial reporting, 45 CFR 75.341.

§ 457.940 [Amended]
138. Amend § 457.940 in paragraph (b)(1) by removing “45 CFR 74.43 or 45 CFR 92.36, as applicable” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.326 through 75.340” and in paragraph (d) by removing “45 CFR part 74 or 45 CFR part 92, as applicable” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
PART 1001—PROGRAM INTEGRITY—MEDICARE AND STATE HEALTH CARE PROGRAMS 139. The authority citation for part 1001 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 1302, 1320a-7, 1320a-7b, 1395u(j), 1395u(k), 1395w-104(e)(6), 1395y(d), 1395y(e), 1395cc(b)(2)(D), (E) and (F), and 1395hh; and sec. 2455, Public Law 103-355, 108 Stat. 3327 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note).

§ 1001.952 [Amended]
140. Amend § 1001.952(w)(7) by removing “45 CFR 74.40 through 74.48” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.326 through 75.340” and designating the undesignated paragraph following paragraph (w)(9) as Note to paragraph (w). Title 45—Public Welfare PART 16—PROCEDURES OF THE DEPARTMENTAL GRANT APPEALS BOARD 141. The authority citation for part 16 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301 and secs. 1, 5, 6, and 7 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953, 18 FR 2053, 67 Stat. 631 and authorities cited in the Appendix.

§ 16.1 [Amended]
142. Amend § 16.1 by removing “part 74 of this title” and adding in its place “part 75 of this title”.
§ 16.2 [Amended]
143. Amend § 16.2(b) by removing “part 74 of this title” and adding in its place “part 75 of this title”.
§ 16.3 [Amended]
144. Amend § 16.3(b) by removing “45 CFR 74.304” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.374”.
§ 16.7 [Amended]
145. Amend § 16.7(a) by removing “45 CFR 74.304” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.374”. 146. Amend § 16.20 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 16.20 How to submit material to the Board.

(a) Submissions should be addressed to the Board's current mailing address: Department of Health and Human Services, Departmental Appeals Board, Appellate Division—MS 6127, 330 Independence Ave. SW., Cohen Building—Rm. G-644, Washington, DC 20201; however, submissions to the Board in certain types of cases may be made by electronic filing using DAB E-File at https://dab.efile.hhs.gov. Changes to the mailing address will be made available on the Board's Web site at www.hhs.gov/dab/divisions/appellate.

§ 16.22 [Amended]
147. Amend § 16.22(b)(1) by removing “see § 74.114 of this title” and adding in its place “see § 75.371 of this title”. PART 63—GRANT PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED BY THE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PLANNING AND EVALUATION 148. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Sec. 602, Community Services Act (42 U.S.C. 2942); sec. 1110, Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1310).

§ 63.8 [Amended]
149. Amend § 63.8(c)(1) by removing “Part 74 of this title, establishing uniform administrative requirements and cost principles for grants” and adding in its place “Part 75 of this title, establishing uniform administrative requirements, cost principles and audit requirements for grants”.
§ 63.34 [Amended]
150. Amend § 63.34 by removing “§ 74.114” and adding in its place “§ 75.372”. PART 75—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR HHS AWARDS 151. The authority citation for part 75 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301.

§ 75.1 Acronyms [Amended]
152. Amend § 75.1 by removing “COG Councils of Governments” and adding in its place “COG Councils Of Governments”; adding in alphabetical order “FAPIIS Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System”; and removing “SAM System for Award Management” and adding in its place “SAM System for Award Management (accessible at https://www.sam.gov)” 153. Amend § 75.2: a. By revising paragraph (2) in the definition of “Cognizant agency for indirect costs;” b. In the definition of “Federal Audit Clearinghouse FAC” by removing “FAC” and adding “(FAC)” in its place; c. In the definition of “Federal financial assistance”: i. By revising paragraphs (1) introductory text and (2) introductory text; and ii. By redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (3). d. By revising the terms “GAAP” and “GAGAS” to read “Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)”and “Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS),” respectively, and redesignating them in proper alphabetical order; e. By revising the definitions of “Improper payment,” “Obligations,” and “Simplified acquisition threshold;” and f. Adding a definition of “Working capital advance.”

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 75.2 Definitions.

Cognizant agency for indirect costs * * *

(2) For nonprofit organizations, Appendix IV to Part 75 C.2.a.

Federal financial assistance means

(1) Assistance that non-Federal entities receive or administer in the form of:

(2) For § 75.202 and Subpart F of this part, Federal financial assistance also includes assistance that non-Federal entities receive or administer in the form of:

Improper payment:

(1) Means any payment that should not have been made or that was made in an incorrect amount (including overpayments and underpayments) under statutory, contractual, administrative, or other legally applicable requirements; and

(2) Includes any payment to an ineligible party, any payment for an ineligible good or service, any duplicate payment, any payment for a good or service not received (except for such payments where authorized by law), any payment that does not account for credit for applicable discounts, and any payment where insufficient or lack of documentation prevents a reviewer from discerning whether a payment was proper.

Obligations, when used in connection with a non-Federal entity's utilization of funds under a Federal award, obligations means orders placed for property and services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions during a given period that require payment by the non-Federal entity during the same or a future period.

Simplified acquisition threshold means the dollar amount below which a non-Federal entity may purchase property or services using small purchase methods. Non-Federal entities adopt small purchase procedures in order to expedite the purchase of items costing less than the simplified acquisition threshold. The simplified acquisition threshold is set by the Federal Acquisition Regulation at 48 CFR subpart 2.1 and in accordance with 41 U.S.C. 1908. As of the publication of this part, the simplified acquisition threshold is $150,000, but this threshold is periodically adjusted for inflation. See also Micro-purchase.

Working capital advance means a procedure whereby funds are advanced to the recipient to cover its estimated disbursement needs for a given initial period.

154. In § 75.101: a. Revise the table in paragraph (b)(1); b. Revise paragraph (b)(2); c. In paragraph (c), remove the reference “§ 75.215: and add “§ 75.217” in its place; and d. Revise paragraphs (d)(1) and (e)(1) introductory text.

The revisions read as follows:

§ 75.101 Applicability

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

The following portions of the part: Are applicable to the following types of Federal awards and fixed-price contracts and subcontracts (except as noted in paragraphs (d) and (e) below): Are NOT applicable to the following types of Federal awards and fixed-price contracts and subcontracts: This table must be read along with the other provisions in this section Subpart A—Acronyms and Definitions —All Subpart B—General Provisions, except for §§ 75.111, 75.112. and 75.113 —All Sections 75.111, 75.112, and 75.113 —Grant agreements and cooperative agreements —Agreements for loans, loan guarantees, interest subsidies and insurance.
  • —Procurement contracts awarded by Federal Agencies under the Federal Acquisition Regulations and subcontracts under these contracts.
  • Subparts C-D, except for §§ 75.202, 75.303, 75.351-.353 —Grant agreements and cooperative agreements —Agreements for loans, loan guarantees, interest subsidies and insurance.
  • —Procurement contracts awarded under the Federal Acquisition Regulations and cost-reimbursement and subcontracts under these contracts.
  • § 75.202 —Grant Agreements and cooperative agreements
  • —Agreements for loans, loan guarantees, interest subsidies and insurance
  • —Procurement contracts awarded under the Federal Acquisition Regulations and cost-reimbursement and subcontracts under these contracts.
    §§ 75.303, 75.351-.353 —All Subpart E—Cost Principles —Grant agreements and cooperative agreements, except those providing food commodities
  • —All procurement contracts under the Federal Acquisition Regulations except those that are not negotiated
  • —Grant agreements and cooperative agreements providing food commodities.
  • —Fixed amount awards.
  • —Agreements for loans, loan guarantees, interest subsidies and insurance.
  • —Federal awards to hospitals (See Appendix IX).
  • Subpart F—Audit Requirements —Grant agreements and cooperative agreements
  • —Contracts and subcontracts, except for fixed price contract and subcontracts, awarded under the Federal Acquisition Regulation
  • —Agreements for loans, loan guarantees, interest subsidies and insurance and other forms of Federal Financial Assistance as defined by the Single Audit Act Amendment of 1996
  • —Fixed-price contracts and subcontracts awarded under the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

    (2) Federal award of cost-reimbursement contract under the FAR to a non-Federal entity. When a non-Federal entity is awarded a cost-reimbursement contract, only subpart D of this part §§ 75.351 through 75.353 (in addition to any FAR related requirements for subaward monitoring), Subpart E of this part and Subpart F of this part are incorporated by reference into the contract. However, when the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) are applicable to the contract, they take precedence over the requirements of this part except for subpart F of this part when they are in conflict. In addition, costs that are made unallowable under 10 U.S.C. 2324(e) and 41 U.S.C. 4304(a) as described in the FAR subpart 31.2 and subpart 31.603 are always unallowable. For requirements other than those covered in subpart D of this part, §§ 75.351 through 75.353, subpart E of this part and subpart F of this part, the terms of the contract and the FAR apply.

    (d) * * *

    (1) The block grant awards authorized by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (including Community Services), except to the extent that Subpart E of this Part apply to subrecipients of Community Services Block Grant funds pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9916(a)(1)(B);

    (e) * * *

    (1) Entitlement Federal awards to carry out the following programs of the Social Security Act:

    § 75.102 [Amended]
    155. Amend § 75.102(b) by adding a comma after “indirect costs” and removing the second sentence.
    § 75.103 [Amended]
    156. In § 75.103, amend paragraphs (a) and (b) by adding “Prescribing the Duties of the Office of Management and Budget and the Domestic Policy Council in the Executive Office of the President” after “Executive Order 11541” in each paragraph.
    § 75.104 [Amended]
    157. Amend § 75.104(a)(7) by adding closing quotation marks after the word Organizations. 158. In § 75.110, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 75.110 Effective/Applicability date

    (a) The standards set forth in this part which affect administration of Federal awards issued by HHS agencies become effective December 26, 2014 unless different provisions are required by statute or approved by OMB. For the procurement standards in 45 CFR 75.326 through 75.355, non-Federal entities may continue to comply with the procurement standards in previous OMB guidance (superseded by this part as described in 45 CFR 75.104) for two additional fiscal years after this part goes into effect. If a non-Federal entity chooses to use the previous procurement standards for an additional two fiscal years before adopting the procurement standards in this part, the non-Federal entity must document this decision in their internal procurement policies.

    159. Amend § 75.113 by adding a new second sentence to read as follows:
    § 75.113 Mandatory disclosures.

    * * * Non-Federal entities that have received a Federal award including the term and condition outlined in Appendix XII are required to report certain civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings to SAM. * * *

    § 75.203 [Amended]
    160. Amend § 75.203(c)(5) by removing the last sentence. 161. Amend § 75.205 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 75.205 [Amended]

    (a) Review of OMB-designated repositories of governmentwide data. (1) Prior to making a Federal award, the HHS awarding agency is required by 31 U.S.C. 3321 and 41 U.S.C. 2313 note to review information available through any OMB-designated repositories of governmentwide eligibility qualification or financial integrity information as appropriate. See also suspension and debarment requirements at 2 CFR parts 180 and 376.

    (2) In accordance 41 U.S.C. 2313, the HHS awarding agency is required to review the publicly available information in the OMB-designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)) prior to making a Federal award where the Federal share is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, defined in 41 U.S.C. 134, over the period of performance. At a minimum, the information in the system for a prior Federal award recipient must demonstrate a satisfactory record of executing programs or activities under Federal grants, cooperative agreements, or procurement awards; and integrity and business ethics. The HHS awarding agency may make a Federal award to a recipient who does not fully meet these standards, if it is determined that the information is not relevant to the current Federal award under consideration or there are specific conditions that can appropriately mitigate the effects of the non-Federal entity's risk in accordance with § 75.207.

    § 75.206 [Amended]
    162. Amend § 75.206(a) by adding “, Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public” after “5 CFR part 1320”.
    § 75.207 [Amended]
    163. Amend § 75.207(a)(4) by removing “the” and adding in its place “an”. 164. Amend § 75.210: a. In paragraph (a)(1) by removing “their” and adding in its place “its”; b. By adding paragraph (b)(1)(iii); and c. By adding “Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget” after “A-11” in the last sentence of paragraph (d).

    The addition reads as follows:

    § 75.210 Information contained in a Federal award.

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iii) Recipient integrity and performance matters. If the total Federal share of the Federal award may include more than $500,000 over the period of performance, the HHS awarding agency must include the term and condition available in Appendix XII. See also § 75.113.

    165. In § 75.211, revise paragraph (b) and add paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 75.211 Public access to Federal award information.

    (b) All information posted in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently FAPIIS) on or after April 15, 2011 will be publicly available after a waiting period of 14 calendar days, except for:

    (1) Past performance reviews required by Federal Government contractors in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 42.15;

    (2) Information that was entered prior to April 15, 2011; or

    (3) Information that is withdrawn during the 14-calendar day waiting period by the Federal Government official.

    (c) Nothing in this section may be construed as requiring the publication of information otherwise exempt under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), or controlled unclassified information pursuant to Executive Order 13556.

    §§ 75.212 through 75.217 [Redesignated as §§ 75.213 through 75.218]
    166. Redesignate §§ 75.212 through 75.217 as §§ 75.213 through 75.218, respectively. 167. Add a new § 75.212 to read as follows:
    § 75.212 Reporting a determination that a recipient is not qualified for a Federal award.

    (a) If an HHS awarding agency does not make a Federal award to a non-Federal entity because the official determines that the non-Federal entity does not meet either or both of the minimum qualification standards as described in § 75.205(a)(2), the HHS awarding agency must report that determination to the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently FAPIIS), only if all of the following apply:

    (1) The only basis for the determination described in paragraph (a) of this section is the non-Federal entity's prior record of executing programs or activities under Federal awards or its record of integrity and business ethics, as described in § 75.205(a)(2), (i.e., the entity was determined to be qualified based on all factors other than those two standards), and

    (2) The total Federal share of the Federal award that otherwise would be made to the non-Federal entity is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold over the period of performance.

    (b) The HHS awarding agency is not required to report a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award if it makes the Federal award to the non-Federal entity and includes specific award terms and conditions, as described in § 75.207.

    (c) If an HHS awarding agency reports a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award, as described in paragraph (a) of this section, the HHS awarding agency also must notify the non-Federal entity that—

    (1) The determination was made and reported to the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM, and include with the notification an explanation of the basis for the determination;

    (2) The information will be kept in the system for a period of five years from the date of the determination, as required by section 872 of Public Law 110-417, as amended (41 U.S.C. 2313), then archived;

    (3) Each HHS awarding agency that considers making a Federal award to the non-Federal entity during that five year period must consider that information in judging whether the non-Federal entity is qualified to receive the Federal award when the total Federal share of the Federal award is expected to include an amount of Federal funding in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold over the period of performance;

    (4) The non-Federal entity may go to the awardee integrity and performance portal accessible through SAM (currently the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)) and comment on any information the system contains about the non-Federal entity itself; and

    (5) HHS awarding agencies will consider that non-Federal entity's comments in determining whether the non-Federal entity is qualified for the future Federal award.

    (d) If an HHS awarding agency enters information into the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM about a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award and subsequently:

    (1) Learns that any of that information is erroneous, the HHS awarding agency must correct the information in the system within three business days;

    (2) Obtains an update to that information that could be helpful to other Federal awarding agencies, the HHS awarding agency is strongly encouraged to amend the information in the system to incorporate the update in a timely way.

    (e) HHS awarding agencies shall not post any information that will be made publicly available in the non-public segment of the designated integrity and performance system that is covered by a disclosure exemption under the Freedom of Information Act. If the recipient asserts within seven calendar days to the HHS awarding agency that posted the information that some or all of the information made publicly available is covered by a disclosure exemption under the Freedom of Information Act, the HHS awarding agency that posted the information must remove the posting within seven calendar days of receiving the assertion. Prior to reposting the releasable information, the HHS awarding agency must resolve the issue in accordance with the agency's Freedom of Information Act procedures.

    § 75.213 [Amended]
    168. In newly redesignated § 75.213, remove “and contractors” after “entities” in the first sentence. 169. In § 75.305, revise the last sentence in paragraph (b) introductory text and revise paragraphs (b)(6)(ii) and (b)(9) introductory text to read as follows:
    § 75.305 Payment.

    (b) * * * Except as noted elsewhere in this part, HHS awarding agencies must require recipients to use only OMB-approved standard governmentwide information collection requests to request payment.

    (6) * * *

    (ii) The non-Federal entity is delinquent in a debt to the United States as defined in OMB Guidance A-129 “Policies for Federal Credit Programs and Non-Tax Receivables.”

    (9) Interest earned amounts up to $500 per year may be retained by the non-Federal entity for administrative expense. Any additional interest earned on Federal advance payments deposited in interest-bearing accounts must be remitted annually to the Department of Health and Human Services Payment Management System (PMS) through an electronic medium using either Automated Clearing House (ACH) network or a Fedwire Funds Service payment. Remittances must include pertinent information of the payee and nature of the payment in the memo area (often referred to as “addenda records” by Financial Institutions) as that will assist in the timely posting of interest earned on federal funds. Pertinent details include the Payee Account Number (PAN) if the payment originated from PMS, or Agency information, if the payment originated from ASAP, NSF or another federal agency payment system. The remittance must be submitted as follows:

    § 75.306 [Amended]
    170. Amend § 75.306(c) by adding “only with prior approval of the HHS awarding agency” at the end of the first sentence.
    § 75.307 [Amended]
    171. Amend § 75.307(e) by removing “75.215” and adding in its place “75.216”. 172. In § 75.308, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 75.308 Revision of budget and program plans.

    (c)(1) For non-construction Federal awards, recipients must request prior approvals from HHS awarding agencies for one or more of the following program or budget-related reasons:

    (i) Change in the scope or the objective of the project or program (even if there is no associated budget revision requiring prior written approval).

    (ii) Change in a key person specified in the application or the Federal award.

    (iii) The disengagement from the project for more than three months, or a 25 percent reduction in time devoted to the project, by the approved project director or principal investigator.

    (iv) The inclusion, unless waived by the HHS awarding agency, of costs that require prior approval in accordance with subpart E of this part, or Appendix IX of this part, or 48 CFR part 31, as applicable.

    (v) The transfer of funds budgeted for participant support costs as defined in § 75.2 to other categories of expense.

    (vi) Unless described in the application and funded in the approved Federal awards, the subawarding, transferring or contracting out of any work under a Federal award, including fixed amount subawards as described in § 75.353. This provision does not apply to the acquisition of supplies, material, equipment or general support services.

    (vii) Changes in the approved cost-sharing or matching provided by the non-Federal entity.

    (viii) The need arises for additional Federal funds to complete the project.

    (ix) The inclusion of research patient care costs in research awards made for the performance of research work.

    (x) The provision of subawards by a pass-through entity on fixed amounts up to the Simplified Acquisition Threshold, provided that the subawards meet the requirements for fixed amount awards in § 75.201. See § 75.353.

    (xi) The recipient wishes to dispose of, replace, or encumber title to real property, equipment, or intangible property that are acquired or improved with a Federal award. See §§ 75.318, 75.320, 75.322, and 75.323.

    (2) No other prior approval requirements for specific items may be imposed unless an exception has been approved by OMB. See also §§ 75.102 and 75.407.

    § 75.322 [Amended]
    173. Amend § 75.322(d)(2) by adding “for Federal purposes” at the end.
    § 75.327 [Amended]
    174. Amend § 75.327(h) by removing the third sentence and the parenthetical reference and adding a new last sentence.

    The addition reads as follows:

    § 75.327 General procurement standards.

    (h) * * * See also § 75.213.

    § 75.329 [Amended]
    175. In § 75.329, paragraph (c)(2)(i) and (iii), remove “state” and remove “publically” and add in its place “publicly”. 176. In § 75.351, revise the last sentence of paragraph (b) introductory text to read as follows:
    § 75.351 Subrecipient and contractor determinations.

    (b) * * * Characteristics indicative of a procurement relationship between the non-Federal entity and a contractor are when the contractor:

    177. In § 75.352, revise paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (iv), (vi), (vii), (viii), and (x) and (a)(2) and (4) to read as follows:
    § 75.352 Requirement for pass-through entities.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) Subrecipient name (which must match the name associated with its unique entity identifier;

    (iv) Federal Award Date (see § 75.2 Federal award date) of award to the recipient by the HHS awarding agency;

    (vi) Amount of Federal Funds Obligated by this action by the pass-through entity to the subrecipient;

    (vii) Total Amount of Federal Funds Obligated to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity including the current obligation;

    (viii) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity;

    (x) Name of HHS awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contract information for awarding official of the pass-through entity;

    (2) All requirements imposed by the pass-through entity on the subrecipient so that the Federal award is used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the Federal award;

    (4) An approved federally recognized indirect cost rate negotiated between the subrecipient and the Federal Government or, if no such rate exists, either a rate negotiated between the pass-through entity and the subrecipient (in compliance with this part), or a de minimis indirect cost rate as defined in § 75.414(f);

    178. Revise § 75.363 to read as follows:
    § 75.363 Methods for collection, transmission and storage of information.

    In accordance with the May 2013 Executive Order on Making Open and Machine readable the New Default for Government Information, the HHS awarding agency and the non-Federal entity should, whenever practicable, collect, transmit, and store Federal award-related information in open and machine readable formats rather than in closed formats or on paper.

    179. In § 75.372, revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) and add paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 75.372 Termination.

    (a) * * *

    (1) By the HHS awarding agency or pass-through entity, if the non-Federal entity fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the award;

    (b) When an HHS awarding agency terminates a Federal award prior to the end of the period of performance due to the non-Federal entity's material failure to comply with the Federal award terms and conditions, the HHS awarding agency must report the termination to the OMB-designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently FAPIIS).

    (1) The information required under this paragraph (b) is not to be reported to the designated integrity and performance system until after the non-Federal entity either—

    (i) Has exhausted its opportunities to object or challenge the decision, see § 75.374; or

    (ii) Has not, within 30 calendar days after being notified of the termination, informed the HHS awarding agency that it intends to appeal the HHS awarding agency's decision to terminate.

    (2) If an HHS awarding agency, after entering information into the designated integrity and performance system about a termination, subsequently:

    (i) Learns that any of the information is erroneous, the HHS awarding agency must correct the information in the system within three business days;

    (ii) Obtains an update to that information that could be helpful to other Federal awarding agencies, the HHS awarding agency is strongly encouraged to amend the information in the system to incorporate the update in a timely way;

    (3) HHS awarding agencies shall not post any information that will be made publicly available in the non-public segment of the designated integrity and performance system that is covered by a disclosure exemption under the Freedom of Information Act. If the non-Federal entity asserts within seven calendar days to the HHS awarding agency who posted the information, that some of the information made publicly available is covered by a disclosure exemption under the Freedom of Information Act, the HHS awarding agency who posted the information must remove the posting within seven calendar days of receiving the assertion. Prior to reposting the releasable information, the HHS agency must resolve the issue in accordance with the agency's Freedom of Information Act procedures.

    (c) When a Federal award is terminated or partially terminated, both the HHS awarding agency or pass-through agency and the non-Federal entity remain responsible for compliance with the requirements of §§ 75.381 through 75.390.

    180. In § 75.373, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 75.373 Notification of termination requirement.

    (b) If the Federal award is terminated for the non-Federal entity's material failure to comply with the Federal statutes, regulations, or terms and conditions of the Federal award, the notification must state that—

    (1) The termination decision will be reported to the OMB-designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently FAPIIS);

    (2) The information will be available in the OMB-designated integrity and performance system for a period of five years from the date of the termination, then archived;

    (3) HHS awarding agencies that consider making a Federal award to the non-Federal entity during that five year period must consider that information in judging whether the non-Federal entity is qualified to receive the Federal award, when the Federal share of the Federal award is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold over the period of performance;

    (4) The non-Federal entity may comment on any information the OMB-designated integrity and performance system contains about the non-Federal entity for future consideration by HHS awarding agencies. The non-Federal entity may submit comments to the awardee integrity and performance portal accessible through SAM (currently CPARS).

    (5) Federal awarding agencies will consider non-Federal entity comments when determining whether the non-Federal entity is qualified for a future Federal award.

    § 75.409 [Amended]
    181. Amend § 75.409 introductory text by removing “subpart, certain sections in this subpart” and adding in its place “subtitle, other subtitles in this part”. 182. In § 75.414, revise paragraph (e)(3) to read as follows:
    § 75.414 Indirect (F&A) costs.

    (e) * * *

    (3) Appendix V to Part 75—State/Local Governmentwide Central Service Cost Allocation Plans;

    § 75.419 [Amended]
    183. In § 75.419, amend paragraph (b) introductory text by removing “its” and adding in its place “their” before “cost accounting practices”. 184. In § 75.431, amend paragraph (h)(3) by removing “Federal Government's” and adding in its place “non-Federal entity” and revise paragraphs (i)(1) and (j).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 75.431 Compensation—fringe benefits.

    (i) Severance pay. (1) Severance pay, also commonly referred to as dismissal wages, is a payment in addition to regular salaries and wages, by non-Federal entities to workers whose employment is being terminated. Costs of severance pay are allowable only to the extent that in each case, it is required by:

    (i) Law;

    (ii) Employer-employee agreement;

    (iii) Established policy that constitutes, in effect, an implied agreement on the non-Federal entity's part; or

    (iv) Circumstances of the particular employment.

    (j) For IHEs only. (1) Fringe benefits in the form of undergraduate and graduate tuition or remission of tuition for individual employees are allowable, provided such benefits are granted in accordance with established non-federal entity policies, and are distributed to all non-Federal entity activities on an equitable basis. Tuition benefits for family members other than the employee are unallowable.

    (2) Fringe benefits in the form of tuition or remission of tuition for individual employees not employed by IHEs are limited to the tax-free amount allowed per section 127 of the Internal Revenue Code as amended.

    (3) IHEs may offer employees tuition waivers or tuition reductions, provided that the benefit does not discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees. Employees can exercise these benefits at other institutions according to institutional policy. See § 75.466 for treatment of tuition remission provided to students.

    185. Amend § 75.439, by adding paragraph (b)(7) to read as follows:
    § 75.439 Equipment and other capital expenditures.

    (b) * * *

    (7) Equipment and other capital expenditures are unallowable as indirect costs. See § 75.436.

    § 75.448 [Amended]
    186. Amend § 75.448(b)(3) by removing “there” and adding in its place “thereto”.
    § 75.449 [Amended]
    187. In § 75.449, amend paragraph (b)(1) by removing “are defined in” and adding in its place “is defined as noted in”, and in paragraph (e) by removing “September 23” and adding in its place “July 1”.
    § 75.450 [Amended]
    188. Amend § 75.450(c)(2)(iv) by removing “IRC secs.” and adding in its place “I.R.C. sections”. 189. Revise § 75.456 to read as follows:
    § 75.456 Participant support costs.

    Participant support costs as defined in § 75.2 are allowable with the prior approval of the HHS awarding agency.

    § 75.459 [Amended]
    190. In § 75.459, amend the section heading by removing “services” and adding in its place “service”. 191. In § 75.461, add paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
    § 75.461 Publication and printing costs.

    (b) * * *

    (3) The non-Federal entity may charge the Federal award before closeout for the costs of publication or sharing of research results if the costs are not incurred during the period of performance of the Federal award.

    § 75.465 [Amended]
    192. Amend § 75.465(c) introductory text by removing the parentheses around “as explained in paragraph (b) of this section”.
    § 75.474 [Amended]
    193. Amend § 75.474(d) by adding “(“Travel and Subsistence Expenses: Mileage Allowance”)” after “5 U.S.C. 5701-11”.
    § 75.501 [Amended]
    194. Amend § 75.501(k) by removing “§ 75.215” and adding in its place “§ 75.216”.
    § 75.515 [Amended]
    195. Amend § 75.515(b) by removing “or” and adding in its place “and” before “award agreements” in the first sentence. 196. In Appendix I to Part 75: a. In section E: i. Redesignate paragraph 3 as paragraph 4 and revise it; and ii. Add a new paragraph 3; b. In section F, revise paragraph 3.

    The addition and revisions read as follows:

    Appendix I to Part 75—Full Text of Notice of Funding Opportunity

    E. * * *

    3. For any Federal award under a notice of funding opportunity, if the HHS awarding agency anticipates that the total Federal share will be greater than the simplified acquisition threshold on any Federal award under a notice of funding opportunity may include, over the period of performance (see § 75.2 Simplified Acquisition Threshold), this section must also inform applicants:

    i. That the HHS awarding agency, prior to making a Federal award with a total amount of Federal share greater than the simplified acquisition threshold, is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently FAPIIS) (see 41 U.S.C. 2313);

    ii. That an applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through SAM and comment on any information about itself that the HHS awarding agency previously entered and is currently in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM;

    iii. That the HHS awarding agency will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to the other information in the designated integrity and performance system, in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in § 75.205.

    4. Anticipated Announcement and Federal Award Dates—Optional. This section is intended to provide applicants with information they can use for planning purposes. If there is a single application deadline followed by the simultaneous review of all applications, the HHS awarding agency can include in this section information about the anticipated dates for announcing or notifying successful and unsuccessful applicants and for having Federal awards in place. If applications are received and evaluated on a “rolling” basis at different times during an extended period, it may be appropriate to give applicants an estimate of the time needed to process an application and notify the applicant of the HHS awarding agency's decision.

    F. * * *

    3. Reporting—Required. This section must include general information about the type (e.g., financial or performance), frequency, and means of submission (paper or electronic) of post-Federal award reporting requirements. Highlight any special reporting requirements for Federal awards under this funding opportunity that differ (e.g., by report type, frequency, form/format, or circumstances for use) from what the HHS awarding agency's Federal awards usually require. HHS agencies must also describe in this section all relevant requirements such as those at 2 CFR 180.335 and 2 CFR 180.350. If the Federal share of any Federal award may include more than $500,000 over the period of performance, this section must inform potential applicants about the post award reporting requirements in Appendix XII.

    197. Amend Appendix III to Part 75 as follows: a. Add “(IHEs)” at the end of the appendix heading; b. Redesignate paragraph A.1.b.(3) as paragraph A.1.a.(3); c. In section C, by adding “ “Equal Employment Opportunity (30 FR 12319, 12935, 3 CFR 1964-1965 Comp., p. 339)” after “Executive Order 11246”; and adding “ “Amending Executive Order 11246 Relating to Equal Employment Opportunity,” ” after “Executive Order 11375”; and d. In Section C.7, redesignate first paragraph as “a.” and revise the first sentence.

    The revision reads as follows:

    Appendix III to Part 75—Indirect (F&A) Costs, Identification and Assignment, and Rate Determination for Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs)

    C. * * *

    7. a. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(1) of § 75.414, HHS agencies must use the negotiated rates in effect at the time of the initial award throughout the life of the Federal award. * * *

    198. Amend Appendix IV to Part 75 as follows: a. In Section A., designate the second paragraph as Section A.2. and revise it; b. In Section B.2.c, remove “contracts or” and add in its place “as”; c. In Section B.2.e. amend the first sentence by removing “Federal Funding of direct costs” and add in its place “direct Federal funding” and remove “section A.3. of this Appendix” and add in its place “§ 75.414(a)”; d. In Section B.3.g. amend the last sentence by removing “section A.3 of this Appendix” and adding in its place “§ 75.414(a)”; e. In Section C.2.b. amend the first sentence by removing “(e)” and add in its place “(f)”; f. In Section C.2.c. amend the first sentence by removing “(f)” and add in its place “(g)”; g. In Section D.1. amend the first sentence by removing “subsection b” and add, in its place with “subsection 2”; and h. In Section D.2. introductory text, remove the subject heading“Certificate.”

    The revision reads as follows:

    Appendix IV to Part 75—Indirect (F&A) Costs Identification and Assignment, and Rate Determination for Nonprofit Organizations

    2. “Major nonprofit organizations” are defined in § 75.414(a). See indirect cost rate reporting requirements in sections B.2.e and B.3.g. of this appendix

    199. Amend Appendix V to Part 75 as follows: a. In Section A.2. by adding “or at their Web site at” after “Cost Allocation Services”; and b. Revise Section E.2.

    The revision reads as follows:

    Appendix V to Part 75—State/Local Governmentwide Central Service Cost Allocation Plans

    2. Allocated Central Services. For each allocated central service*, the plan must also include the following: a brief description of the service, an identification of the unit rendering the service and the operating agencies receiving the service, the items of expense included in the cost of the service, the method used to distribute the cost of the service to benefitted agencies, and a summary schedule showing the allocation of each service to the specific benefitted agencies. If any self-insurance funds or fringe benefits costs are treated as allocated (rather than billed) central services, documentation discussed in subsections 3.b. and c. must also be included.

    Appendix VII to Part 75—[Amended]
    200. Amend Appendix VII to Part 75, Section A.3. by adding “or at their Web site” after “Cost Allocation Services” in the last sentence. Appendix VIII to Part 75—[Amended] 201. Amend Appendix VIII by designating each of the listed organizations as numbers 1 through 33. Appendix X to Part 75—[Amended] 202. Amend Appendix X by removing “https://harvester.census.gov/facweb/Default.aspx”. Appendix XI to Part 75—[Amended] 203. Amend Appendix XI by adding “e.g., for 2013 here:” in the parentheses before http”. 204. Add Appendix XII to Part 75 to read as follows: Appendix XII—Award Term and Conditions for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters A. Reporting of Matters Related to Recipient Integrity and Performance 1. General Reporting Requirement

    If the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all Federal awarding agencies exceeds $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of this Federal award, then you as the recipient during that period of time must maintain the currency of information reported to the System for Award Management (SAM) that is made available in the designated integrity and performance system (currently the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)) about civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings described in paragraph 2 of this award term and condition. This is a statutory requirement under section 872 of Public Law 110-417, as amended (41 U.S.C. 2313). As required by section 3010 of Public Law 111-212, all information posted in the designated integrity and performance system on or after April 15, 2011, except past performance reviews required for Federal procurement contracts, will be publicly available.

    2. Proceedings About Which You Must Report

    Submit the information required about each proceeding that:

    a. Is in connection with the award or performance of a grant, cooperative agreement, or procurement contract from the Federal Government;

    b. Reached its final disposition during the most recent five year period; and

    c. If one of the following:

    (1) A criminal proceeding that resulted in a conviction, as defined in paragraph 5 of this award term and condition;

    (2) A civil proceeding that resulted in a finding of fault and liability and payment of a monetary fine, penalty, reimbursement, restitution, or damages of $5,000 or more;

    (3) An administrative proceeding, as defined in paragraph 5 of this award term and condition, that resulted in a finding of fault and liability and your payment of either a monetary fine or penalty of $5,000 or more or reimbursement, restitution, or damages in excess of $100,000; or

    (4) Any other criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding if:

    (i) It could have led to an outcome described in paragraph 2.c.(1), (2), or (3) of this award term and condition;

    (ii) It had a different disposition arrived at by consent or compromise with an acknowledgement of fault on your part; and

    (iii) The requirement in this award term and condition to disclose information about the proceeding does not conflict with applicable laws and regulations.

    3. Reporting Procedures

    Enter in the SAM Entity Management area the information that SAM requires about each proceeding described in paragraph 2 of this award term and condition. You do not need to submit the information a second time under assistance awards that you received if you already provided the information through SAM because you were required to do so under Federal procurement contracts that you were awarded.

    4. Reporting Frequency

    During any period of time when you are subject to this requirement in paragraph 1 of this award term and condition, you must report proceedings information through SAM for the most recent five year period, either to report new information about any proceeding(s) that you have not reported previously or affirm that there is no new information to report. Recipients that have Federal contract, grant, and cooperative agreement awards with a cumulative total value greater than $10,000,000 must disclose semiannually any information about the criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings.

    5. Definitions

    For purposes of this award term and condition:

    a. Administrative proceeding means a non-judicial process that is adjudicatory in nature in order to make a determination of fault or liability (e.g., Securities and Exchange Commission Administrative proceedings, Civilian Board of Contract Appeals proceedings, and Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals proceedings). This includes proceedings at the Federal and State level but only in connection with performance of a Federal contract or grant. It does not include audits, site visits, corrective plans, or inspection of deliverables.

    b. Conviction, for purposes of this award term and condition, means a judgment or conviction of a criminal offense by any court of competent jurisdiction, whether entered upon a verdict or a plea, and includes a conviction entered upon a plea of nolo contendere.

    c. Total value of currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts includes—

    (1) Only the Federal share of the funding under any Federal award with a recipient cost share or match; and

    (2) The value of all expected funding increments under a Federal award and options, even if not yet exercised

    B. [Reserved]

    PART 87—EQUAL TREATMENT FOR FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS 205. The authority citation for part 87 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301.

    § 87.1 [Amended]
    206. Amend § 87.1(b) in the last sentence by removing “45 CFR parts 74, 92, and 96” and adding in its place “45 CFR parts 75 and 96”.
    § 87.2 [Amended]
    207. Amend § 87.2(b) in the last sentence by removing “45 CFR parts 74, 92, and 96” and adding in its place “45 CFR parts 75 and 96”. PART 95—GENERAL ADMINISTRATION—GRANT PROGRAMS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AND STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMS) 208. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301, 42 U.S.C. 622(b), 629b(a), 652(a), 652(d), 654A, 671(a), 1302, and 1396a(a).

    § 95.613 [Amended]
    209. Amend § 95.613(a) in the first sentence by removing “part 92” and adding in its place “part 75” and in the second sentence by removing “§ 92.36(c)” and adding in its place “§ 75.328”.
    § 95.621 [Amended]
    210. Amend § 95.621(d) by removing “part 92” and adding in its place “part 75”.
    § 95.705 [Amended]
    211. Amend § 95.705(a) in the last sentence by removing “part 92” and adding in its place “part 75”.
    § 95.707 [Amended]
    212. Amend § 95.707(a) by removing “§ 92.32, Equipment” and adding in its place “§ 75.320”. PART 98—CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND 213. The authority citation for part 98 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 618, 9858.

    § 98.60 [Amended]
    214. Amend § 98.60(d)(4)(ii) by removing “45 CFR 92.3, Obligations and Outlays (expenditures)” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.2”.
    § 98.84 [Amended]
    215. Amend § 98.84: a. In paragraph (d)(1) by removing “45 CFR 92.31” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.318”; b. In paragraph (d)(2) by removing “45 CFR 92.31(c)” and adding in its place 45 CFR 75.318(c)”; c. In paragraph (d)(3) by removing “45 CFR 92.31(a)” and adding in its place 45 CFR 75.318(a)”; d. in paragraph (d)(4) by removing “45 CFR 92.22” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E”; e. In paragraph (d)(5) by removing “45 CFR 92.25” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.307”; and f. In paragraph (d)(6) by removing “45 CFR 92.36” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.326 through 75.340”. PART 261—ENSURING THAT RECIPIENTS WORK 216. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 601, 602, 607, and 609; P.L. 109-171.

    217. Amend § 261.64(c) by removing “the single audit under OMB Circular A-133” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart F”. PART 262—ACCOUNTABILITY PROVISIONS—GENERAL 218. The authority citation for part 262 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    31 U.S.C. 7501 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 606, 609, and 610; Pub. L. 109-171.

    219. Amend § 262.3 in paragraph (a) by removing “OMB Circular A-133” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart F” and in paragraph (f) by removing “§ 92.42 of this title” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.361 through 75.370”. PART 263—EXPENDITURES OF STATE AND FEDERAL TANF FUNDS 220. The authority citation for part 263 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 604, 607, 609, and 862a; Pub. L. 109-171.

    § 263.2 [Amended]
    221. Amend § 263.2(e)(1) by removing “45 CFR 92.3 and 92.24” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.2 and 75.306”.
    § 263.11 [Amended]
    222. Amend § 263.11(b) by removing “the provisions of part 92 of this title, or OMB Circular A-87” and adding in its place “or part 75 of this title”. 223. Amend § 263.14 by removing “OMB Circular A-87 (2 CFR part 225)” and adding in its place “subpart E of part 75 of this title”.
    PART 265—DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 224. The authority citation for part 265 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 603, 605, 607, 609, 611, and 613; Pub. L. 109-171.

    § 265.7 [Amended]
    225. Amend § 265.7 in paragraph (d)(4) by removing “§ 92.20(a) of this title” and adding in its place “§ 75.302(a) of this title” and in paragraph (f) by removing “§ 92.42 of this title” and adding in its place “§§ 75.361 through 75.370 of this title”.
    PART 286—TRIBAL TANF PROVISIONS 226. The authority citation for part 286 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 601, 604, and 612; Public Law 111-5.

    § 286.30 [Amended]
    227. Amend § 286.30 in paragraph (c) by removing “45 CFR part 92” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75” and in paragraph (f)(2) by removing “45 CFR part 92 and OMB Circulars A-87 and A-133” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
    § 286.45 [Amended]
    228. Amend § 286.45 in paragraph (c) by removing “OMB Circular A-87” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E” and in paragraph (d) by removing “OMB Circular A-133 and in 45 CFR part 92” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
    § 286.200 [Amended]
    229. Amend § 286.200(b) by removing “45 CFR part 92, OMB Circulars A-87 and A-133” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
    § 286.205 [Amended]
    230. Amend § 286.205 in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) by removing “45 CFR part 92 and all relevant OMB circulars” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75” and in paragraph (c) by removing “45 CFR part 92 and all relevant OMB circulars” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
    § 286.270 [Amended]
    231. Amend § 286.270(b) by removing “45 CFR part 92, OMB Circulars A-87 and A-133” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
    PART 287—THE NATIVE EMPLOYMENT WORKS (NEW) PROGRAM 232. The authority citation for part 287 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 612.

    § 287.60 [Amended]
    233. Amend § 287.60 in paragraph (a) by removing “45 CFR 92.41” and adding in its place 45 CFR 75.341” and in paragraph (b) by removing 45 CFR 92.26” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart F”.
    PART 301—STATE PLAN APPROVAL AND GRANT PROCEDURES 234. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 651 through 658, 659a, 660, 664, 666, 667, 1301, and 1302.

    § 301.15 [Amended]
    235. Amend § 301.15 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 301.15 Grants.

    (e) General administrative requirements. With the following exceptions, the provisions of part 75 of this title, establishing uniform administrative requirements and cost principles, shall apply to all grants made to States under this part:

    45 CFR Part 75 45 CFR 75.306 Cost sharing or matching. 45 CFR 75.341 Financial reporting.
    PART 302—STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS 236. The authority citation for part 302 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 651 through 658, 659a, 660, 664, 666, 667, 1302, 1396a(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p), and 1396(k).

    § 302.14 [Amended]
    237. Amend § 302.14 by removing “45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
    § 302.15 [Amended]
    238. Amend § 302.15(a)(7) by removing “45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
    PART 303—STANDARDS FOR PROGRAM OPERATIONS 239. The authority citation for part 303 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 651 through 658, 659a, 660, 663, 664, 666, 667, 1302, 1396a(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p) and 1396(k).

    § 303.11 [Amended]
    240. Amend § 303.11(d) by removing “45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
    PART 304—FEDERAL FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION 241. The authority citation for part 304 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 651 through 655, 657, 1302, 1396a(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p), and 1396(k).

    § 304.10 [Amended]
    242. Amend § 304.10 by removing “part 74 of this title (with the exception of 45 CFR 74.23, Cost Sharing or Matching and 45 CFR 74.52, Financial Reporting)” and adding in its place “part 75 of this title (with the exception of 45 CFR 75.306 and 75.341)”.
    § 304.20 [Amended]
    243. Amend § 304.20(b)(1)(iii) by removing “45 CFR 74.40 et seq.” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.326 through 75.340”.
    § 304.25 [Amended]
    244. Amend § 304.25(a) in the first sentence by removing “part 74 of this title” and adding in its place “part 75 of this title”.
    PART 309—TRIBAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT (IV-D) PROGRAM 245. The authority citation for part 309 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 655(f), 1302.

    § 309.85 [Amended]
    246. Amend § 309.85(b) by removing “45 CFR 74.53” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.361 through 75.370”.
    § 309.130 [Amended]
    247. Amend § 309.130 in paragraph (d)(3) by removing “45 CFR 74.23” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.306” and in paragraph (h) by removing “part 74” and adding in its place “part 75”.
    § 309.145 [Amended]
    248. Amend § 309.145 in paragraph (a)(3) introductory text by removing “45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75” and in paragraph (o) introductory text by removing “OMB Circular A-87” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E”.
    § 309.150 [Amended]
    249. Amend § 309.150(d) by removing “OMB Circular A-87” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E”.
    § 309.160 [Amended]
    250. Amend § 309.160 by removing “OMB Circular A-133,‘Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations' and 45 CFR part 74' ” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
    PART 400—REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT PROGRAM 251. The authority citation for part 400 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Section 412(a)(9), Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1522(a)(9)).

    § 400.11 [Amended]
    252. Amend § 400.11(c) by removing “§ 74.73(a)” and adding in its place “§ 75.341”.
    § 400.28 [Amended]
    253. Amend § 400.28 in paragraph (a) introductory text by removing “part 74, Subpart D of this title” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.361 through 75.370”.
    PART 1000—INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT RESERVE FUNDS ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO GRANTS FOR ASSETS FOR INDEPENDENCE 254. The authority citation for part 1000 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 604 nt.

    § 1000.3 [Amended]
    255. Amend § 1000.3 in paragraph (a) by removing “45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75” and in paragraph (b) by removing “45 CFR part 92” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
    PART 1301—HEAD START GRANTS ADMINISTRATION 256. The authority citation for part 1301 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.

    § 1301.10 [Amended]
    257. Amend § 1301.10: a. In paragraph (a) by removing “45 CFR part 74 Administration of grants” and “45 CFR part 75 Informal grant appeals procedures (indirect cost rates and other cost allocations)” and adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards”; and b. In paragraph (b): i. In the introductory text by removing “45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”; ii. In paragraph (b)(1), by removing “§ 74.15 of part 74” and adding in its place “§ 75.334 of part 75”; and iii. In paragraph (b)(2) by removing “§ 74.61 of part 74” and adding in its place “subpart F of part 75”.
    PART 1304—PROGRAM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR THE OPERATION OF HEAD START PROGRAMS BY GRANTEE AND DELEGATE AGENCIES 258. The authority citation for part 1304 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.

    § 1304.60 [Amended]
    259. Amend § 1304.60(f) by removing “45 CFR part 74 or part 92” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”, and removing “45 CFR 74.61(a)(1), 45 CFR 74.62 and 45 CFR 92.43(a)” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.371 through 75.372”.
    PART 1309—HEAD START FACILITIES PURCHASE, MAJOR RENOVATION AND CONSTRUCTION 260-261. The authority citation for part 1309 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.

    § 1309.21 [Amended]
    262. Amend § 1309.21(e) by removing “45 CFR parts 74 or 92” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
    § 1309.22 [Amended]
    263. Amend § 1309.22(c) by removing “45 CFR 74.2, or, if part 92 is applicable, to ACF's share as defined in 45 CFR 92.3” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.2”.
    § 1309.31 [Amended]
    264. Amend § 1309.31(b) by removing “45 CFR part 74 and 45 CFR part 92” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
    § 1309.32 [Amended]
    265. Amend § 1309.32(b) by removing “45 CFR parts 74 and 92” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
    § 1309.34 [Amended]
    266. Amend § 1309.34 by removing “45 CFR part 74 and 45 CFR part 92” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
    § 1309.43 [Amended]
    267. Amend § 1309.43 by removing “45 CFR part 74 and 45 CFR part 92” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
    § 1309.52 [Amended]
    268. Amend § 1309.52(a) by removing “45 CFR parts 74 or 92” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
    PART 1321—GRANTS TO STATE AND COMMUNITY PROGRAMS ON AGING 269. The authority citation for part 1321 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.; title III of the Older Americans Act, as amended.

    270. Amend § 1321.5 by revising paragraph (b) and removing and reserving paragraph (g).

    The revision reads as follows:

    § 1321.5 Applicability of other regulations.

    (b) 45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards, except § 75.206

    § 1321.67 [Amended]
    271. Amend § 1321.67(b)(1) by removing “45 CFR 92.25(g) (2) and (3)” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.307(e)(2) and (3)”.
    § 1321.73 [Amended]
    272. Amend § 1321.73 by removing “45 CFR 92.25(g)(2)” and adding in its place “§ 75.307(e)(3)”, removing “§ 92.25(g)(3)” and adding in its place “§ 75.307(e)(2), and removing “§ 92.25(g)(1)” and adding in its place “§ 75.307(e)(1)”.
    PART 1326—GRANTS TO INDIAN TRIBES FOR SUPPORT AND NUTRITION SERVICES 273. The authority citation for part 1326 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 3001; Title VI, Part A of the Older Americans Act.

    274. In § 1326.5, remove and reserve paragraph (b) and revise paragraph (c).

    The revision reads as follows:

    § 1326.5 Applicability of other regulations.

    (c) 45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards.

    PART 1328—GRANTS FOR SUPPORTIVE AND NUTRITIONAL SERVICES TO OLDER HAWAIIAN NATIVES 275. The authority citation for part 1328 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 3001; Title VI Part B of the Older Americans Act.

    276. In § 1328.5, remove and reserve paragraph (b) and revise paragraph (c).

    The revision reads as follows:

    § 1328.5 Applicability of other regulations.

    (c) 45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards.

    PART 1336—NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS 277. The authority citation for part 1336 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 2991 et seq.

    § 1336.50 [Amended]
    278. In § 1336.50, amend paragraph (a) by removing “45 CFR part 74— Administration of grants” and “45 CFR part 75—Informal grant appeals procedures (indirect cost rates and other cost allocations)” and adding in alphanumeric order “45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards” and amend paragraph (f) by removing “§ 74.3 of this title” and adding in its place “§ 75.2 of this title”
    § 1336.52 [Amended]
    279. Amend § 1336.52(b) by removing “45 CFR 74.110-74.116” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.371 through 75.380”.
    § 1336.77 [Amended]
    280. Amend § 1336.77 in paragraph (a)(1) by removing “45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75, subpart E” and in paragraph (b) by removing “45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
    PART 1355—GENERAL 281. The authority citation for part 1355 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 620 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 670 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 1302.

    282. Amend § 1355.30 by revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:
    § 1355.30 Other applicable regulations.

    (i) 45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards. Part 75 of this title is applicable to title IV-B programs and the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program under Section 477 of the Act that are operated by States and/or Tribes. Part 75 of this title is applicable to title IV-E foster care and adoption assistance programs operated by a State title IV-E agency, except that section 75.306 Cost sharing or matching and section 75.341 Financial reporting do not apply. Part 75 of this title is applicable to title IV-E foster care and adoption assistance programs operated by a Tribal title IV-E agency pursuant to section 479B, except that section 75.341 and the sections specified in § 1356.68 do not apply to a Tribal title IV-E agency.

    PART 1357—REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TITLE IV-B 283. The authority citation for part 1357 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 620 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 670 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 1302.

    § 1357.30 [Amended]
    284. Amend § 1357.30 in paragraph (d) by removing “45 CFR 92.43 and 92.44” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.371 through 75.372” and in paragraph (e) introductory text by removing “45 CFR part 92” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
    § 1357.40 [Amended]
    285. In § 1357.40, amend paragraph (d)(5)(i) by removing “45 CFR 92.43 and 92.44” and adding in its place “45 CFR 75.371 through 75.372” and amend paragraph (d)(5)(ii) introductory text by removing “45 CFR part 92” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 75”.
    [FR Doc. 2015-32101 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-24-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 223 [Docket No. 151120999-5999-01] RIN 0648-XE328 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Listing Determinations on Proposal To List the Banggai Cardinalfish and Harrisson's Dogfish Under the Endangered Species Act AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In response to a petition, we, NMFS, issue a final rule to list the Banggai cardinalfish (Pterapogon kauderni) as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We have also determined that the proposed listing of Harrisson's dogfish shark (Centrophorus harrissoni) as a threatened species is not warranted at this time. We will not designate critical habitat for Banggai cardinalfish because the geographical areas occupied by this species are entirely outside U.S. jurisdiction, and we have not identified any unoccupied areas within U.S. jurisdiction that are currently essential to the conservation of this species.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective February 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Chief, Endangered Species Division, NMFS Office of Protected Resources (F/PR3), 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Therese Conant or Maggie Miller, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 427-8403.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On July 15, 2013, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians to list 81 marine species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We found that the petitioned actions may be warranted for 27 of the 81 species and announced the initiation of status reviews for each of the 27 species (78 FR 63941, October 25, 2013; 78 FR 66675, November 6, 2013; 78 FR 69376, November 19, 2013; 79 FR 9880, February 21, 2014; and 79 FR 10104, February 24, 2014). On December 16, 2014, we published a proposed rule to list the dusky sea snake (Aipysurus fuscus) and three foreign corals (Cantharellus noumeae, Siderastrea glynni, and Tubastraea floreana) as endangered species, and we proposed to list the Banggai cardinalfish (Pterapogon kauderni) and Harrisson's dogfish (Centrophorus harrissoni) as threatened species (79 FR74953). We requested public comment on information in the status reviews and proposed rule through February 17, 2015. This final rule provides a discussion of the information we received during the public comment period and our final determination on the petition to list the Banggai cardinalfish (Pterapogon kauderni) and Harrisson's dogfish (Centrophorus harrissoni) under the ESA. Our final determinations for the other species proposed for listing in the December 16, 2014, proposed rule (dusky sea snake and three foreign corals) were made in a prior rule (80 FR 60560). The status of the findings and relevant Federal Register notices for those and the other 21 species can be found on our Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/petition81.htm.

    We are responsible for determining whether species are threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). To make this determination, we consider first whether a group of organisms constitutes a “species” under the ESA, then whether the status of the species qualifies it for listing as either threatened or endangered. Section 3 of the ESA defines a “species” to include “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.”

    Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as one “which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” We interpret an “endangered species” to be one that is presently in danger of extinction. A “threatened species,” on the other hand, is not presently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become so in the foreseeable future (that is, at a later time). In other words, the primary statutory difference between a threatened and an endangered species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction, either presently (endangered) or in the foreseeable future (threatened).

    When we consider whether a species might qualify as threatened under the ESA, we must consider the meaning of the term “foreseeable future.” It is appropriate to interpret “foreseeable future” as the horizon over which predictions about the conservation status of the species can be reasonably relied upon. The foreseeable future considers the life history of the species, habitat characteristics, availability of data, particular threats, ability to predict threats, and the reliability to forecast the effects of these threats and future events on the status of the species under consideration. Because a species may be susceptible to a variety of threats for which different data are available, or which operate across different time scales, the foreseeable future is not necessarily reducible to a particular number of years.

    Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us to determine whether any species is endangered or threatened due to any one or a combination of the following five threat factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We are also required to make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a review of the species' status and after taking into account efforts being made by any state or foreign nation to protect the species.

    In making a listing determination, we first determine whether a petitioned species meets the ESA definition of a “species.” Next, using the best available information gathered during the status review for the species, we complete a status and extinction risk assessment. In assessing extinction risk for these two species, we consider the demographic viability factors developed by McElhany et al. (2000) and the risk matrix approach developed by Wainwright and Kope (1999) to organize and summarize extinction risk considerations. The approach of considering demographic risk factors to help frame the consideration of extinction risk has been used in many of our status reviews, including for Pacific salmonids, Pacific hake, walleye pollock, Pacific cod, Puget Sound rockfishes, Pacific herring, scalloped hammerhead sharks, and black abalone (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ for links to these reviews). In this approach, the collective condition of individual populations is considered at the species level according to four demographic viability factors: Abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial structure/connectivity, and diversity. These viability factors reflect concepts that are well-founded in conservation biology and that individually and collectively provide strong indicators of extinction risk.

    We then assess efforts being made to protect the species, to determine if these conservation efforts are adequate to mitigate the existing threats. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary, when making a listing determination for a species, to take into consideration those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation to protect the species.

    Summary of Comments

    In the solicitation for information from the public on the proposed rule, we received information and/or comments on the Banggai cardinalfish and Harrisson's dogfish proposals from 13 parties. These comments are broken out by species and summarized below.

    Banggai Cardinalfish

    Twelve commenters submitted information and/or commented on the proposed listing of the Banggai cardinalfish.

    Comment 1: One commenter felt that instead of listing under the ESA, the Banggai cardinalfish would derive a greater benefit if we would engage in direct talks and support for Indonesia's internal efforts to conserve the species. The commenter also felt that continued efforts to list the species under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) should be undertaken.

    Response: We were petitioned to list the Banggai cardinalfish and found that the petitioned action may be warranted for the species (see Background). Thus, we are required to review the best available scientific and commercial data to determine whether the species is threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We agree that Indonesia's efforts to conserve and protect the Banggai cardinalfish are essential to the long-term viability of the species and should be supported. The ESA recognizes the international instruments, including CITES, to conserve and protect various species. Further, the ESA calls for a suite of engagements to enhance international cooperation with foreign nations where listed species occur. Through the ESA, we are encouraged to work with foreign countries to enter into bilateral or multilateral agreements to provide for conservation of species. Regarding CITES, in 2007, due to overharvest concerns, the Banggai cardinalfish was proposed to be listed under CITES Appendix II. Appendix II includes species that are vulnerable to overexploitation, but not at risk of extinction under CITES criteria; trade must be regulated to avoid exploitation rates that are incompatible with species survival. Indonesia did not support the proposal and it was withdrawn. The next Conference of the Parties (COP) will be held in 2016. The United States has not determined which species it will propose for listing at the next COP. The United States has a public process to determine which species it will propose.

    Comment 2: One commenter stated that requiring the aquarium trade to only buy captive-bred or maricultured specimens through a section 4(d) protective regulation would not control commercial trade in wild-caught fish because there is no way to discern a captive-bred or maricultured specimen from a wild-harvested one.

    Response: We agree that identifying a captive-bred from a wild-harvested fish would be difficult. We have not decided which, if any, of the section 9 prohibitions to apply to the Banggai cardinalfish. We intend to announce an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit public comment and information on any section 4(d) protective regulation, if proposed, for the Banggai cardinalfish.

    Comment 3: Many commenters felt that the data do not support a listing under the ESA. Rather, they stated that the Banggai cardinalfish should be listed as a species of concern. They recommended continued data collection on population trends and structure, stratified by habitat in both the historical and introduced ranges, establishment of a sampling regime to quantify habitat trends in abundance and quality, studies of the Banggai cardinalfish's use of alternative microhabitats, and consultations with the Republic of Indonesia on current and future management plans for wild harvest and captive propagation. One commenter felt the population abundance transect surveys need to be standardized, given the species' patchy distribution and variable density. They felt this was necessary for future evaluations on the species' population status and trends. However, they agreed with the overall conclusion that abundance has declined due to unsustainable harvest in the early years. One commenter recommended we extend the period to make a final determination, citing a lack of data to support the proposed listing and the need to solicit additional data.

    Response: We disagree that the data are insufficient to make a listing determination. Data exist on the Banggai cardinalfish's biology, population structure, abundance, trends, habitat use and threats that were reported in the proposed rule and the status review. We agree that standardized surveys across years would be ideal. However, the existing data indicate an overall population decline, and decreases in population density are also evidenced by significant declines in the catch per unit effort. Prior to 2003, collectors from Bone Baru typically required one day to capture approximately 2,000 specimens. In 2007, they reported requiring one week to capture the same number. For Banggai Island, reported mean catch declined from about 1,000 fish/hour in 2000 to 25-330 fish/hour in 2004. Extirpations of populations within the Banggai cardinalfish's natural range have occurred. In particular, extirpation of local populations has been documented in areas with increased harvest of microhabitat, such as Diadema sea urchins and sea anemones, combined with fishing pressure on Banggai cardinalfish. Further fragmentation of an already small endemic population, which exhibits high genetic population substructuring, increases the extinction risk for the Banggai cardinalfish.

    Comment 4: One commenter felt that the species' life history represents an adaptation of a small-bodied fish to its physical environment (i.e., shallow waters separated by deep channels with swift currents). They contend that its early maturity, low fecundity, and extended parental care are manifestations of a reproductive strategy in a physically limited environment. They state that situational cannibalism is further evidence of a behavior adapted to maintain abundance within the carrying capacity of its microhabitat-oriented habitat. Therefore, they do not concur with the assertion that these characteristics lower Banggai cardinalfish resilience.

    Response: While we agree the Banggai cardinalfish life history characteristics are likely adaptive, we disagree that these traits do not render the species less resilient and vulnerable to threats. The Banggai cardinalfish lacks dispersal ability and exhibits high site fidelity, and new recruits stay within parental habitat. Thus, population discreteness is high and recolonization is unlikely once a local population is extirpated. Local populations off Liang Island, Peleng Island, and Masoni Island are reported extirpated, and interviews with local fishermen indicate extirpation of local populations throughout the Banggai Archipelago.

    Comment 5: Several commenters provided information on their shift from purchasing wild-harvest to mariculture specimens, including from domestic facilities. Many commenters felt that directed harvest for the live marine ornamental reef fish trade no longer poses a significant threat to the Banggai cardinalfish.

    Response: We appreciate the information submitted, as it supports the proposed rule's statement that Banggai cardinalfish exports for the ornamental live reef fish trade may be decreasing, although systematic data are lacking. We reported that the large-scale aquaculture facility based in Thailand and efforts to captive-breed the species in the United States may alleviate some of the pressure to collect fish from wild populations, but the degree to which aquaculture would affect harvest of wild populations is unknown. As we explain in more detail in the response to the next comment, the evidence shows that directed harvest for the live marine ornamental reef fish trade and harvest of microhabitat remain concerns.

    Comment 6: One commenter felt that the improved harvest practices, development of significant aquaculture production, and Indonesian management initiatives undertaken since 2007 were not fully considered in the proposed rule.

    Response: We disagree. All section 4(a)(1) factors that are found to pose an extinction risk to the Banggai cardinalfish, as well as ongoing conservation efforts and other mitigating factors, were considered in the proposed rule. In the proposed rule, we considered the improved harvest practices, the increasing aquaculture facilities, and the local management initiatives under these factors. If the species is endangered or threatened with extinction because of any one of the 4(a)(1) factors, then we must determine that listing is warranted. In our synthesis of the extinction risk to the Banggai cardinalfish, we stated that overutilization from direct harvest for the ornamental live reef fish trade has significantly impacted the Banggai cardinalfish and remains a concern. We further stated an increase in compliance with the Fish Quarantine regulations and improved trade practices have occurred in recent years, and we anticipated compliance and trade practices will likely continue to improve in the future, which may mitigate impacts through sustainable trade. However, since the proposed rule, interviews were held in March 2015 with Indonesian government officials and Banggai cardinalfish collectors. The interviews were conducted by Dr. Vagelli, New Jersey Academy for Aquatic Sciences, who served as a peer reviewer (Information Quality Act, Pub. L. 106-554) for the Banggai cardinalfish status review. The March 2015 report (Vagelli unpublished report 2015) is available upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Indonesian officials and collectors reported that compliance with the Fish Quarantine regulations was largely voluntary and that improved trade practices had not been implemented (Vagelli unpublished report 2015). Thus, reports are conflicting on whether compliance and trade practices have improved and are likely to improve in the future. Participation in collection of Banggai cardinalfish for the live ornamental reef trade has dropped in recent years. Captive-bred facilities have recently started in the United States and Thailand and are anticipated to decrease the threat of directed harvest of the wild populations in the future, but the degree to which aquaculture would affect harvest of wild populations is unknown. Data also indicate that by 2007, harvest of microhabitat (sea urchins and sea anemones) had negatively impacted cardinalfish populations, and the harvest had increased by 2011, and will continue in the future, which negatively impacts Banggai cardinalfish and their ability to avoid predators. Overutilization from direct harvest for the ornamental live reef fish trade has significantly impacted the Banggai cardinalfish and remains a concern. Data from several sources reported an increase in compliance with the Fish Quarantine regulations and improved trade practices, but an updated survey in 2015 reported voluntary compliance and a lack of improved trade practices. For these reasons, we conclude that directed harvest for the live marine ornamental reef fish trade harvest and harvest of microhabitat remain concerns.

    Comment 7: One commenter stated that the introduced populations in Palu Bay and Luwuk Harbor must be considered in the listing process.

    Response: We considered these introduced populations. The introduced populations are an artifact of the commercial ornamental live reef trade and are not part of any conservation program to benefit the native populations. The introduced populations were introduced through the practice of high-grading (i.e., discarding live specimens determined to be of low quality/non saleable) or escapement near trade centers for the ornamental live reef market. The introduced population at Lembeh Strait is considered invasive and may be impacting local diversity through interspecific competition for resources in the area, but specific data on ecological impacts are lacking. Because one of the purposes of the ESA is to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend may be conserved (16 U.S.C. 1531(b)), we consider a species' natural range to be biologically and ecologically important to the species' viability to persist in the face of threats. The introduced populations are outside of the Banggai cardinalfish's natural range and may not contribute to the species' ability to persist and therefore were not included in the analysis of the overall extinction risk to the species.

    Comment 8: One commenter disagreed with the statement in the proposed rule that designation of critical habitat was not proposed for any of the species, including the Banggai cardinalfish, because critical habitat shall not be designated in foreign countries or other areas outside U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12(h)). The commenter argued that we should construe areas under U.S. “jurisdiction,” as used in § 424.12(h), to include Taiwan and areas under U.S. military protection. The commenter cited multiple sections in U.S. Code Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse, and referenced “U.S. Navy Okinawan Dugong litigation” without citation.

    Response: We found one line of cases involving the Department of Defense and the Okinawa dugong (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Hagel, 80 F. Supp. 3d 991 (N.D. Cal. 2015); Okinawa Dugong v. Gates, 543 F.Supp.2d 1082 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Okinawa Dugong v. Rumsfeld, No. 03-4350, 2005 WL 522106 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2005) (unpublished)). These cases interpret specific provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, not the ESA, and have no bearing on interpretation or application of 50 CFR 424.12(h). We also note that the Banggai cardinalfish's natural historical and present range does not occur within the area mentioned by the commenter, and therefore, the question of critical habitat designation is irrelevant.

    Harrisson's Dogfish

    We received a single submission on the proposal to list Harrisson's dogfish from the Australian Government Department of the Environment. We briefly summarize their comments below and respond with references to our prior documents where relevant.

    Comment 9: The proposal to list Harrisson's dogfish suggests that lower catches in recent years reflect a decreasing population. This conclusion appears not to have taken into account restrictive catch limits for Harrisson's dogfish in the last five years in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF). Since 2010, a limit of 15 kg per day of Harrisson's dogfish has been implemented, which has contributed to reductions in catch rates by stopping targeted fishing and encouraging active avoidance of dogfish.

    Response: The text in the proposed rule, to which this comment refers, states “However, even before the prohibition, reported catch rates of Harrisson's dogfish in the SESSF have been minimal in recent years, likely due to the low abundance of the species on the continental margin where the fisheries operate.” While we agree that the 2010 catch limit does, in part, contribute to the observed low catches of the species, we would like to point out that even before the 2010 catch limit, C. harrissoni catches were rare. According to Walker et al. (2009), annual catches of Harrisson's dogfish in the SESSF from 2000-2006 were <1 t. Catches of all gulper sharks (C. harrissoni, C. moluccensis, C. zeehaani) have also been decreasing since the mid-1990s (Georgeson et al. 2014). Given that Harrisson's dogfish's relative abundance on the upper-slope is estimated to have declined by over 99 percent between 1976-77 and 1996-97 (Graham et al. 2001), we find that the minimal catches of the species, even prior to 2010, are more likely a reflection of the low abundance and rarity of the species on the continental margin.

    Comment 10: The proposal to list Harrisson's dogfish notes that there is potentially high at-vessel mortality of Harrisson's dogfish in auto-longline (ALL) gear and cites to Williams et al. (2013a). However, the proposal does not appear to have considered tagging studies, which indicate post-capture survival rates on ALL gear to be between 65 and 95 percent, potentially downgrading capture on longline to a lower risk method (Williams et al. 2013a).

    Response: The Status Review Report (Miller 2014), upon which the proposed rule for Harrisson's dogfish was based, discusses the potential for high at-vessel mortality in ALL gear. Citing the Williams et al. (2013a) paper, Miller (2014) notes that mortality of Harrisson's dogfish after capture on ALL gear ranged from 4 percent (if estimates included only confirmed dead sharks immediately after capture) to as high as 73 percent (if estimates included sharks that swam away slowly after capture, indicating stress or shock, as potential mortalities). The comment above appears to refer to the estimates of post capture survival on ALL gear from tagging studies on a different gulper species, the Southern dogfish (C. zeehaani), as reported in Williams et al. (2013a) which further cited Williams et al. (2012). Based on detections from 70 tagged Southern dogfish, post-capture mortality rate was estimated to be low, around 3 to 16 percent (Williams et al. 2013a). However, as part of this tagging study, steps were taken to maximize survivorship (such as restricting soak times to 2-4 hours and careful de-hooking and handling of the sharks) that may not be followed during commercial fishing operations (Williams et al. 2012). In fact, Williams et al. (2012) notes that soak times of up to 13.45 hours are more common during normal commercial fishing operations. Given the methods taken to maximize survivorship, as well as the fact that the study focused on Southern dogfish, we find that the estimates reported in Williams et al. (2012; 2013a) and referred to by the commenters may not be an accurate representation of post-capture survivorship for Harrisson's dogfish on ALL gear. As such, we find no reason to change our initial characterization of risk from incidental capture on ALL gear.

    Comment 11: Since the publication of the proposed rule, there has been a reduction in ALL effort in the SESSF, with one boat leaving the fishery. There are now only two dedicated longline boats remaining in the fishery, as opposed to the three vessels considered in the proposed listing. Both of the remaining vessels have now been fitted with electronic monitoring systems which are required to monitor all fishing operations. This allows assessment of dogfish handling practices, as well as evaluation of the effectiveness of the industry code of conduct.

    Response: We appreciate the new information and have updated the status review accordingly. After review, we do not find that the removal of this single vessel from the fishery would significantly change the overall conclusions of the extinction risk analysis.

    Status Reviews

    Status reviews for the petitioned species addressed in this finding were conducted by NMFS staff. Separate draft status reviews were completed for the Banggai cardinalfish (Conant 2014) and Harrisson's dogfish (Miller 2014). In order to complete the status reviews, we compiled information on the species' biology, ecology, life history, threats, and conservation status from information contained in the petition, our files, a comprehensive literature search, and consultation with experts. We also considered information submitted by the public and peer reviewers. Prior to publication of the proposed rule, all status reviews were subjected to peer review. Peer reviewer comments are available at http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prplans/PRsummaries.html.

    The status review reports provide a thorough discussion of life history, demographic risks and threats to the particular species. We considered all identified threats, both individually and cumulatively, to determine whether the species responds in a way that causes actual impacts at the species level. The collective condition of individual populations was also considered at the species level, according to the four demographic viability factors discussed above.

    The proposed rule (79 FR 74953, December 16, 2014) summarizes general background information on the natural history, range, reproduction, population structure, distribution and abundance of the Banggai cardinalfish and Harrisson's dogfish. All of that information is incorporated herein by reference. In addition, an update on the Banggai cardinalfish population abundance and conservation efforts (Vagelli unpublished report 2015) is available upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Species Determinations

    Based on the best available scientific and commercial information described above and in the status review reports, we have determined that the Banggai cardinalfish (Pterapogon kauderni) and Harrisson's dogfish (Centrophorus harrissoni) are taxonomically-distinct species and therefore meet the definition of “species” pursuant to section 3 of the ESA and are eligible for listing under the ESA.

    Summary of Threat Factors Affecting the Two Species

    Next we considered whether any one or a combination of the five threat factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA contribute to the extinction risk of these species. For Harrisson's dogfish, none of the information we received from public comment on the proposed rule affected our discussion or conclusions regarding any of the section 4(a)(1) factors or their interactions, so we incorporate the discussion of these factors from the proposed rule (79 FR 74953, December 16, 2014) by reference herein. For the Banggai cardinalfish, the report received from the peer review on the Banggai cardinalfish status review indicated that compliance with the Fish Quarantine regulations was largely voluntary and that improved trade practices had not been implemented (Vagelli unpublished report 2015). Thus, we are less certain that compliance and trade practices will improve in the future under the “inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms” threat factor.

    Extinction Risk

    None of the information we received from public comment on the proposed rule affected our extinction risk evaluation of Harrisson's dogfish. As such, our evaluation remains the same as in the original status review report and the discussion in the proposed rule (79 FR 74953, December 16, 2014), and that discussion is incorporated herein by reference. For the Banggai cardinalfish, as stated above, the report received from the peer review on the Banggai cardinalfish status review indicated that compliance with the Fish Quarantine regulations was largely voluntary and that improved trade practices had not been implemented (Vagelli unpublished report 2015). Thus, we are less certain that compliance and trade practices will improve in the future. However, the updated information on the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms did not result in a higher risk of extinction because we previously had considered that enforcement was weak, and illegal, unregulated, and unreported capture and trade were still a major problem in the extinction risk assessment (Conant 2014).

    Conservation Efforts

    Finally, we considered conservation efforts to protect each species and evaluated whether these conservation efforts are adequate to mitigate the existing threats to the point where extinction risk is significantly lowered and the species' status is improved. None of the information we received from public comment on the proposed rule affected any of our discussion or conclusions regarding conservation efforts to protect Banggai cardinalfish, so we incorporate the discussion of these efforts from the proposed rule (79 FR 74953, December 16, 2014) by reference herein.

    For Harrisson's dogfish, we specifically requested information during the public comment process on the conservation efforts that were identified in the proposed rule (79 FR 74953; December 16, 2014) and their certainty of implementation and effectiveness. We received no comments or information on our conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the conservation efforts. As such, our discussion and conclusion from the proposed rule remains the same (and is incorporated herein by reference); namely, that the implemented conservation efforts are likely to improve the present status of the species by effectively decreasing the threat of overutilization by fisheries in the near term to the point where the species is no longer presently in danger of extinction.

    We did receive information on the other aspect of our evaluation of conservation efforts, namely, the certainty of implementation of these conservation efforts. Specifically, we received information from the Australian Government, the organization in charge of implementing the conservation efforts. This information, as well as additional information collected during the comment period and our analysis of this new information, is discussed below.

    Certainty of Implementation of Conservation Efforts to Protect Harrisson's Dogfish

    In the proposed rule (79 FR 74954), we concluded that the regulatory measures from the Upper-Slope Dogfish Management Strategy (the “Strategy”; see AFMA, 2012), which the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) implemented for the conservation of the species, were likely to be effective in improving the present status of the species. However, we also noted in the proposed rule that the certainty of the conservation efforts remaining in place after 5 years could not be predicted at this time. As such, we concluded that the time frame over which the conservation efforts would certainly be in place was insufficient to increase the species' chances of survival or prevent its extinction through the foreseeable future.

    Our conclusion was primarily based on our understanding that the legal instrument (i.e., the “SESSF Fishery Closures Direction No. 1 2013”) used to implement the conservation efforts within the Strategy expires in 5 years, with no certainty of implementation of conservation efforts past this point in time. Additionally, we interpreted the listing of the species as “conservation dependent” under Australia's Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) to mean that it is not afforded protection by the EPBC Act because it is not considered to be a “matter of national significance.” However, upon review of the information received from the Australian Government, as well as information we collected during the comment period, briefly discussed below, we now have a high degree of certainty that conservation efforts will continue to be implemented beyond a 5-year period.

    In Australia, Commonwealth fisheries are managed by AFMA, which is governed by the legislative objectives in Australia's Fisheries Management Act 1991 (FM Act). One of AFMA's main legislative objectives under the FM Act is “Ensuring that the exploitation of fisheries resources and the carrying on of any related activities are conducted in a manner consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development (which include the exercise of the precautionary principle), in particular the need to have regard to the impact of fishing activities on non-target species and the long-term sustainability of the marine environment” (FM Act subsection 3(1)(b)). In addition, AFMA also has the objective of “Ensuring, through proper conservation and management measures, that the living resources of the AFZ [Australian Fishing Zone] are not endangered by over-exploitation” (FM Act subsection 3(2)(a)).

    In 1999, the EPBC Act was passed and is considered to be the key legislation for conserving the biodiversity of Australian ecosystems and protecting the natural environments that support these ecosystems. Broadly, the EPBC Act requires that fishing actions do not have a significant impact on the Commonwealth marine environment, including protected species or ecological communities. Objectives of the EPBC Act include providing for the protection of the environment, especially matters of national environmental significance (which includes Commonwealth marine areas), conserving Australian biodiversity, and promoting ecologically sustainable development through the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources.

    Part of AFMA's obligations under the EPBC Act is the requirement to prepare strategic assessment reports for all Commonwealth fisheries, particularly those with an export component. These reports are prepared to address the Australian Government's Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries—2nd Edition, which specifies principles and objectives designed to ensure a strategic and transparent way of evaluating the ecological sustainability of fishery management measures. These reports also provide updates on the implementation of conditions and recommendations from the previous assessments of the fishery. These reports are then submitted to and assessed by Australia's Department of Environment for accreditation. The Department of the Environment ultimately evaluates the environmental performance of fisheries, including: The strategic assessment of fisheries under Part 10 of the EPBC Act; assessments relating to impacts on protected marine species under Part 13 of the EPBC Act; and assessments for the purpose of export approval under Part 13A of the EPBC Act.

    This accreditation process is extremely important for the SESSF. As noted in the proposed rule, Harrisson's dogfish are primarily caught as bycatch by the SESSF, which operates over an extensive area of the AFZ around eastern, southern, and southwestern Australia. In fact, the management area covers almost half of the AFZ (Georgeson et al. 2014). In 2012-2013, the SESSF was the largest commonwealth fishery in terms of production value, and also the most valuable, with a gross value of production (GVP) of $91.8 million (28 percent of the total GVP for Commonwealth fisheries) (Georgeson et al. 2014). As such, ensuring that the SESSF is managed in an ecologically sustainable way so that commercial export of Australian native wildlife from this fishery may continue appears to be a priority for the Australian Government.

    The most recent assessment of the SESSF occurred in 2013, before the EPBC Act listing of Harrisson's dogfish. However, in recognition of the decline in Harrisson's dogfish and the potential impacts that continued SESSF operations may have on the shark, the Department of Environment recommended that the accreditation be subject to a number of conditions that must be addressed by AFMA within the period of the approved wildlife trade operation declaration for the fishery. For Harrisson's dogfish, these conditions were: (1) Implement long-term management measures, including fisheries closures and other actions, that are clearly directed towards stopping the decline and supporting the recovery of Harrisson's dogfish and southern dogfish, and (2) continue, in consultation with relevant experts, to monitor and review the adequacy of management measures designed to stop the decline and support the recovery of Harrisson's dogfish and southern dogfish (Department of Environment 2013). On February 25, 2013, Australia's Minister for the Environment officially declared the harvest operations of the SESSF an approved wildlife trade operation but subject to a number of conditions, including the ones concerning Harrisson's dogfish stated above (Commonwealth of Australia Gazette S 30; 25 February 2013). This approval is valid until February 25, 2016, at which point the SESSF will have to be re-assessed to ensure the sustainability of the fishery, including AFMA's progress on meeting the conditions from the approval declaration.

    The state-managed New South Wales Ocean, Trap, and Line Fishery (OTLF) and Ocean Trawl Fishery (OTF) also potentially bycatch Harrisson's dogfish and were assessed in March and May 2014, respectively, after Harrisson's dogfish was listed as conservation dependent under the EPBC Act. Similar to the conditions set forth for the SESSF accreditation, the OTLF and OTF are also subject to conditions for protecting Harrisson's dogfish. Specifically, the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, in consultation with AFMA, must: (1) Maintain long-term management measures that are clearly directed towards stopping the decline and supporting the recovery of Harrisson's dogfish and southern dogfish, and (2) continue, in consultation with relevant experts, to monitor and review the adequacy of management measures designed to stop the decline and support the recovery of Harrisson's dogfish and southern dogfish (Commonwealth of Australia Gazette C2014G00735; 8 May 2014 (OTLF); C2014G01029; 20 June 2014 (OTF)). These approvals are valid for 3 years, after which, again, the fisheries must be re-assessed to ensure ecological sustainability. If any of these fisheries fail to follow the conditions set forth in the wildlife trade operation declaration, then they would be prohibited from exporting products derived from the fishery, essentially shutting down the fishery operations.

    To meet the approval conditions and satisfy the management requirements for a conservation dependent listing under the EPBC Act (TSSC 2013), AFMA identified and implemented fishery management measures in the Strategy that were deemed necessary to stop the decline of, and support the recovery of, the species so that its chances of long term survival in nature are maximized. In the proposed rule, we determined that these conservation efforts would be effective at preventing the extinction of Harrisson's dogfish (see 79 FR 74954, discussion of Harrisson's Dogfish Protective Efforts). These measures have ultimately been given legal effect through legislative instruments under the FM Act, including the Fishery Closure Direction (“SESSF Fishery Closures Direction No. 1 2013”). Although the current closure direction will expire in 5 years (which is the longest time period that closure directions are in effect; G. Day, AFMA, personal communication 2014), the objectives of and requirements under the FM Act and the EPBC Act (as stated above) compel ongoing management measures to be implemented to protect Harrisson's dogfish from extinction through the foreseeable future.

    To assist with these ongoing conservation efforts, AFMA published the “Upper-Slope Dogfish Management Strategy Research and Monitoring Workplan,” (“Workplan”; AFMA 2014) which uses the principles of adaptive management to assess the effectiveness of the Strategy in stopping the decline of and promoting the rebuilding of Harrisson's dogfish. According to the Workplan, the scheduled periodic reviews of its outcomes “provides for a feedback loop whereby arrangements in the Strategy can be adapted as necessary to meet developments in the fishery and the improved understanding of Harrisson's dogfish biology and stock structure” (AFMA 2014). The Workplan also outlines explicit incremental objectives for the conservation effort, steps needed to achieve the objectives, timeframes associated with the steps, as well as performance indicators, monitoring mechanisms and progress reporting on the implementation and evaluation of the success of the objectives.

    Given the implementation of current conservation efforts, with a published Workplan that allows for the continued monitoring and reporting on the implementation and effectiveness of these conservation efforts, as well as legislative obligations that compel these efforts, we find there to be a high likelihood that management measures for the protection of Harrisson's dogfish will continue to be implemented through the foreseeable future. As noted by the Australian Government in their public submission, “following the expiration of the current Closure Direction, management measures will be reviewed and subsequent spatial closure decisions or other conservation efforts will be implemented for the protection of Harrisson's Dogfish in light of the performance of the Strategy against its objectives and the objectives of the FM Act and EPBC Act.” Based on the above, we have determined that the conservation efforts protecting Harrisson's dogfish from risk of extinction through the foreseeable future have a high certainty of being implemented.

    In the proposed rule we also noted that the protection of the species is not required under the EPBC Act due to its conservation dependent status. However, as noted above, there are a number of legislative protections for Harrisson's dogfish. In addition, although the species is not directly characterized as a matter of national significance due to its conservation dependent status under the EPBC Act, the species is indirectly protected by the EPBC Act through the designation of Commonwealth Marine Areas as matters of national significance. Under this designation, an action that is likely to have a substantial adverse effect on a population of a marine species (such as Harrisson's dogfish), including its life cycle (for example, breeding, feeding, migration behavior, life expectancy) and spatial distribution, is considered to have a significant impact on the environment in a Commonwealth Marine Area and must be referred to Australia's Minister of the Environment and undergo an environmental assessment and approval process. This is an additional protection afforded to Harrisson's dogfish under the Australian Government's legal framework that was not considered in the proposed rule.

    In light of the new information received and collected during the public comment period regarding Australia's legislative objectives, requirements, and actions, especially as they pertain to Harrisson's dogfish, we no longer find that the timeframe over which conservation efforts will certainly be in place is insufficient to increase the species' chances of survival or prevent its extinction through the foreseeable future. Rather, we now have a high degree of certainty that conservation efforts to protect the species from further decline (and with the primary objective of rebuilding) will continue to be implemented after 5 years and through the foreseeable future, effectively mitigating existing threats to the species and improving the status of the species to the point where extinction is unlikely now or in the foreseeable future.

    Final Determination

    We have reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information, including the petition, the information in the status review reports, public comments, and the comments of peer reviewers. Based on the information presented, we find that the Banggai cardinalfish (Pterapogon kauderni) is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We assessed the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors and demographic risk factors and conclude that habitat destruction and overutilization affect Banggai cardinalfish. After considering efforts being made to protect Banggai cardinalfish, we could not conclude that the proposed conservation efforts would alter the extinction risk for the species. Therefore, we are listing the Banggai cardinalfish as threatened under the ESA.

    Based on the information presented, we find that Harrisson's dogfish is not in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We assessed the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors and demographic risk factors and conclude that Harrisson's dogfish faces threats from overutilization, with the species' natural biological vulnerability to overexploitation and demographic risks exacerbating the severity of the threats. However, we also conclude that ongoing conservation efforts implemented by the Australian Government are currently effective in decreasing this main threat of overutilization to the point where the species is not presently in danger of extinction. In addition, we conclude that these conservation efforts are sufficiently certain to be implemented and effective over a timeframe necessary to stop the decline of, and support recovery of, the species so that its chances of long term survival in nature are maximized, thereby making it unlikely that the species will become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we find that listing Harrisson's dogfish as an endangered or threatened species under the ESA is not warranted at this time.

    We will continue to monitor the status of Harrisson's dogfish and if, at any time, data indicate that protective status under the ESA may be necessary and should be considered again, including information that the implementation of necessary conservation efforts has ceased, or if we become aware of noncompliance issues with the conservation measures, or if there are new or increasing threats, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing pursuant to section 4(b)(7) of the ESA.

    Effects of Listing

    Conservation measures provided for species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA include recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); concurrent designation of critical habitat, if prudent and determinable (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); Federal agency requirements to consult with NMFS under section 7 of the ESA to ensure their actions do not jeopardize the species or result in adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat should it be designated (16 U.S.C. 1536); and prohibitions on taking (16 U.S.C. 1538). Recognition of the species' plight through listing promotes conservation actions by Federal and state agencies, foreign entities, private groups, and individuals.

    Identifying Section 7 Consultation Requirements

    Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS regulations require Federal agencies to consult with us to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. It is unlikely that the listing of the Banggai cardinalfish under the ESA will increase the number of section 7 consultations, because this species occurs outside of the United States and is unlikely to be affected by Federal actions.

    Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)) as: (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the ESA, on which are found those physical or biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. “Conservation” means the use of all methods and procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing under the ESA is no longer necessary (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)). Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) requires that, to the extent prudent and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the listing of a species. However, critical habitat shall not be designated in foreign countries or other areas outside U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12 (h)).

    The best available scientific and commercial data as discussed above identify the geographical areas occupied by Pterapogon kauderni as being entirely outside U.S. jurisdiction, so we cannot designate critical habitat for this species. We can designate critical habitat in areas in the United States currently unoccupied by the species, if the area(s) are determined by the Secretary to be essential for the conservation of the species. Based on the best available information, we have not identified unoccupied area(s) in U.S. waters that are currently essential to the conservation of the Banggai cardinalfish. Therefore, based on the available information, we will not designate critical habitat for Pterapogon kauderni.

    Protective Regulations Under Section 4(d) of the ESA

    Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of endangered species. The term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). In the case of threatened species, ESA section 4(d) leaves it to the Secretary's discretion whether, and to what extent, to extend the section 9(a) “take” prohibitions to the species, and authorizes us to issue regulations necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species. Thus, we have flexibility under section 4(d) to tailor protective regulations, taking into account the effectiveness of available conservation measures. The 4(d) protective regulations may prohibit, with respect to threatened species, some or all of the acts which section 9(a) of the ESA prohibits with respect to endangered species. These section 9(a) prohibitions apply to all individuals, organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. We will consider potential protective regulations pursuant to section 4(d) for the Banggai cardinalfish in a future rulemaking.

    References Vagelli, A.A. 2015. Update on populations' condition of the Banggai cardinalfish Pterapogon kauderni. Unpublished report. 17 pages.

    A complete list of the references used in this proposed rule is available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

    Classification National Environmental Policy Act

    The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the information that may be considered when assessing species for listing. Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir. 1981), NMFS has concluded that ESA listing actions are not subject to the environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (See NOAA Administrative Order 216-6).

    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Paperwork Reduction Act

    As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process. In addition, this final rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. This final rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    In accordance with E.O. 13132, we determined that this final rule does not have significant Federalism effects and therefore a Federalism assessment is not required.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223

    Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

    Dated: January 7, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is amended as follows:

    PART 223—THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, § 223.201-202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for § 223.206(d)(9).

    2. In § 223.102, amend the table in paragraph (e) by adding the entry “Cardinalfish, Banggai” in alphabetical order under the subheading “Fishes” to read as follows:
    § 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.

    (e) * * *

    Species 1 Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity Citation(s) for listing
  • determination(s)
  • Critical
  • habitat
  • ESA rules
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Fishes *         *         *         *         *         *         * Cardinalfish, Banggai Pterapogon kauderni Entire species January 20, 2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] NA NA. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1 Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
    [FR Doc. 2016-00943 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 100812345-2142-03] RIN 0648-XE397 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2015 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Greater Amberjack AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for commercial greater amberjack in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. NMFS projects commercial landings of greater amberjack will reach the commercial annual catch limit (ACL) (equivalent to the commercial quota) by January 21, 2016. Therefore, NMFS closes the commercial sector for greater amberjack in the South Atlantic EEZ on January 21, 2016, and it will remain closed until the start of the next fishing year on March 1, 2016. This closure is necessary to protect the greater amberjack resource.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, January 21, 2016, until 12:01 a.m., local time, March 1, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The commercial quota (equivalent to the commercial ACL) for greater amberjack in the South Atlantic is 769,388 lb (348,989 kg), gutted weight, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(3).

    Under 50 CFR 622.193(k)(1), NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for greater amberjack when the commercial quota (commercial ACL) is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS projects that commercial landings of South Atlantic greater amberjack will reach the commercial ACL by January 21, 2016. Accordingly, the commercial sector for South Atlantic greater amberjack is closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, January 21, 2016, until 12:01 a.m., local time, March 1, 2016.

    The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper with greater amberjack on board must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such greater amberjack prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, January 21, 2016. During the commercial closure, harvest and possession of greater amberjack in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is limited to the bag and possession limits, as specified in § 622.187(b)(1) and (c)(1). Also during the commercial closure, the sale or purchase of greater amberjack taken from the South Atlantic EEZ is prohibited. The prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to the sale or purchase of greater amberjack that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, January 21, 2016, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor, as specified in § 622.190(c)(1)(i).

    For a person on board a vessel for which a Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery has been issued, the bag and possession limits and the sale and purchase provisions of the commercial closure for greater amberjack would apply regardless of whether the fish are harvested in state or Federal waters, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c)(1)(ii).

    Classification

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

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

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

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

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

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: January 13, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00907 Filed 1-15-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 12 Wednesday, January 20, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0073] RIN 0579-AE18 Importation of Fresh Apple and Pear Fruit Into the Continental United States From Certain Countries in the European Union AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are proposing to amend the regulations to allow the importation of fresh apple and pear fruit from certain countries in the European Union into the continental United States, provided that the fruit is produced in accordance with a systems approach, as an alternative to importation under the current preclearance program. The proposed systems approach for fresh apple and pear fruit consists of production site and packinghouse registration, inspection of registered production sites twice a season, production site pest control and sanitation, post-harvest safeguards, fruit culling, traceback, sampling, cold treatment against Mediterranean fruit fly in countries where the pest is known to occur, a phytosanitary certificate, port of entry inspection, and importation as commercial consignments only. Fresh apple and pear fruit that does not meet the requirements in the systems approach would continue to be allowed to be imported into the United States subject to the conditions of the preclearance program. This action would provide an alternative for the importation of fresh apple and pear fruit from certain countries in the European Union while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of plant pests into the continental United States.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March 21, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0073.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0073, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0073 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. David B. Lamb, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, USDA/APHIS/PPQ, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-2103; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Under the regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-74, referred to below as the regulations or the fruits and vegetables regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States.

    Currently, § 319.56-22 provides conditions for importation of fresh apple fruit (Malus domestica Borkh.) from Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Portugal, the Republic of Ireland, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland, and fresh pear fruit (Pyrus communis L.) from Belgium, France, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain, into the United States under a preclearance program. Conditions for importation of fresh apple and pear fruit from the above countries include a trust fund agreement between the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of the exporting country and APHIS; orchard and packinghouse inspections for Leucoptera malifoliella and other quarantine plant pests; approved mitigations for infested orchards; cold treatment of fruit against Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata, or Medfly) in countries where the pest is known to occur; identification of orchards and packinghouses for traceback of each consignment; packinghouse handling and safeguarding requirements for fruit intended for shipment to the United States; and preclearance inspection.

    As an alternative to the preclearance program, the European Commission, the executive body of the European Union (EU), has requested that APHIS amend the regulations to allow the importation into the continental United States from certain EU countries of fresh apple and pear fruit that has been produced in accordance with an approved systems approach. Any alternative approach to the preclearance program for importing these articles requires that the current regulations be amended.

    As part of our evaluation of the EU's request, we prepared a pest list 1 of quarantine pests that could follow the pathway of commercial shipments of fresh apple and pear fruit into the continental United States from the EU member countries included in the request. A quarantine pest is defined in § 319.56-2 as “a pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled.” The pest list reported 32 quarantine pests (26 arthropods, 1 bacterium, 4 fungi and 1 viroid) that may follow the pathway of commercial shipments of apples and pears into the continental United States. They are:

    1 “Pest List for Importation of Fresh Fruit of Apple, Malus domestica, and Pear, Pyrus communis, into the Continental United States from eight countries in the European Union (Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands)” (USDA, 2014).

    Arthropods:

    Adoxophyes orana (Fischer von Röeslerstamm) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Aphanostigma piri (Cholodkovsky) (Hemiptera: Phylloxeridae) Archips podana (Scopoli) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Argyrotaenia pulchellana (Haworth) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Ceroplastes japonicus Green (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Choristoneura hebenstreitella (Muller) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Milliere) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Cydia pyrivora (Danilevsky) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Diloba caeruleocephala (L.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Eutetranychus orientalis (Klein) (Acari: Tetranychidae) Euzophera bigella (Zeller) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Grapholita funebrana Treitschke (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Grapholita lobarzewskii (Nowicki) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Hedya pruniana (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Lacanobia oleracea L. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Leucoptera malifoliella (Costa) (Lepidoptera: Lyonetiidae) Lobesia botrana Dennis & Schiffermuller (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Mamestra brassicae L. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Pammene rhediella (Clerck) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Pandemis cerasana (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Pandemis heparana (Denis & Schiffermuller) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Rhynchites aequatus (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Rhynchites auratus (Scopoli) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Rhynchites bacchus (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Syndemis musculana (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)

    Bacteria:

    Erwinia pyrifoliae Kim et al.

    Fungi:

    Alternaria gaisen Nagano (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales) Ascochyta pyricola Sacc. (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales) Monilinia fructigena Honey ex Whetzel (Ascomycetes: Helotiales) Monilinia polystroma (G.C.M. Leeuwen) Kohn (Ascomycetes: Helotiales)

    Viroid:

    Pear blister canker viroid (PBCVd) 2

    2 Apples and pears infected with the plant pathogenic pear blister canker viroid (PBCVd) are not a pathway. The pathogen is not insect or seed transmitted, and cannot be transmitted from the vascular tissue of fruit (Hadidi et al., 2011). This systemic pathogen could be present in the fruit, but it will not establish in the United States because the pathogen is neither seed transmitted nor insect vectored (Flores et al., 2003). Since there is no evidence that apples or pears are pathways for PBCVd (USDA, 2014) we would not require any mitigation measures for the disease.

    We prepared a risk management document (RMD) to determine what phytosanitary measures should be applied to mitigate the pest risk associated with the importation of fresh apple and pear fruit from certain EU member countries into the continental United States. Copies of the pest list and RMD may be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for a link to Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room).

    In the RMD, entitled, “Importation of Fresh Fruit of Apple, Malus domestica, and Pear, Pyrus communis, into the Continental United States from eight countries in the European Union (Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands),” (July 2015), we determined that phytosanitary measures could be applied as a systems approach to mitigate the risks of introducing or disseminating the quarantine pests in the pest list into the continental United States. Therefore, we are proposing to allow the importation of fresh apple and pear fruit from the EU countries of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the Netherlands into the continental United States if the fruit is produced under the systems approach described below. Fresh apple and pear fruit that does not meet the conditions of the systems approach would still be allowed to be imported into the continental United States if it is produced in accordance with the requirements of § 319.56-22. Fruit imported under § 319.56-22 would still be required to be in commercial consignments and accompanied by documentation to validate foreign site preclearance inspection after the required treatment is completed.

    We have determined that the specific mitigation measures proposed for the quarantine pests identified in the pest list, along with the general requirements for the importation of fruits and vegetables in the regulations, will be sufficient to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into the continental United States via importation of fresh apple and pear fruit from the EU countries listed above. Therefore, we are proposing to add the systems approach to the regulations in a new § 319.56-75.

    General Requirements

    Paragraph (a) of proposed § 319.56-75 would set out general requirements for the NPPO of the exporting country and for growers and packers producing fresh apple and pear fruit for export to the continental United States.

    Paragraph (a)(1) of proposed § 319.56-75 would require the NPPO of the exporting country to develop an operational workplan, subject to APHIS approval, that details the activities that the NPPO would carry out to meet the requirements of proposed § 319.56-75. An operational workplan is an agreement developed between APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine program, officials of the NPPO of a foreign government, and, when necessary, foreign commercial entities, that specifies in detail the phytosanitary measures that will be carried out to comply with our regulations governing the importation of a specific commodity. Operational workplans apply only to the signatory parties and establish detailed procedures and guidance for the day-to-day operations of specific import/export programs. Operational workplans also establish how specific phytosanitary issues are dealt with in the exporting country and make clear who is responsible for dealing with those issues. The implementation of a systems approach typically requires an operational workplan to be developed. The operational workplan may include, but is not limited to, details of the orchard monitoring, pest action thresholds, orchard phytosanitary measures including removing fallen fruit, packinghouse inspection procedures, and traceback requirements.

    Paragraph (a)(2) of proposed § 319.56-75 would state that only commercial consignments of fresh apple and pear fruit from certain EU countries would be allowed to be imported into the continental United States. Commercial consignments, as defined in § 319.56-2, are consignments that an inspector identifies as having been imported for sale and distribution. Such identification is based on a variety of indicators, including, but not limited to: Quantity of produce, type of packaging, identification of grower or packinghouse on the packaging, and documents consigning the fruits or vegetables to a wholesaler or retailer. Commercial consignments are less likely to be infested with plant pests than noncommercial consignments. Noncommercial consignments are more prone to infestations because the commodity is often ripe to overripe, may be of a variety with unknown susceptibility to pests, and is often grown with little or no pest control.

    Production Site Requirements

    Under proposed § 319.56-75(b)(1), production sites where fresh apple or pear fruit is grown would be required to be registered with the NPPO of the exporting country. Such registration would facilitate traceback of a consignment of fresh apple or pear fruit to the production site in the event that quarantine pests were discovered in the consignment at the port of first arrival into the continental United States. APHIS would reserve the right to conduct oversight visits at the production site in the event of pest interceptions or other problems.

    Under proposed paragraph (b)(2), the registered grower of the production site would be responsible for following the phytosanitary measures agreed upon by APHIS and the NPPO of the exporting country, including removal of fallen fruit and other control measures that are authorized for use in the EU and the United States to reduce pest populations. The NPPO of the exporting country or officials authorized by the NPPO would be responsible for monitoring pest populations at production sites in order to determine the need and timing of such control measures and ensure effective control of pests. The NPPO would also be required to ensure that registered production sites are inspected twice every season, with special emphasis on quarantine pests listed in the operational workplan.

    Details of production site traceback and pest monitoring requirements, pest action thresholds, field sanitation, and other phytosanitary measures would be included in the operational workplan approved by the NPPO of the exporting country and APHIS.

    Paragraph 319.56-75(b)(3) would require that apple and pear propagative material introduced into registered production sites be certified free of quarantine pests by the NPPO of the exporting country.

    Packinghouse Requirements

    Paragraph (c) of proposed § 319.56-75 would set forth requirements for pest mitigation, fruit sampling, inspection, and other measures that would have to take place at registered packinghouses under the operational workplan.

    Under proposed § 319.75(c)(1), all fresh apple and pear fruit for export to the United States would be required to be packed in packinghouses that are registered and approved by the NPPO of the exporting country. Packinghouses would have to be able to exclude plant pests and have a tracking system to identify individual production sites. Requirements for packinghouse specifications and procedures would be detailed in the operational workplan.

    Under proposed § 319.75(c)(2), packinghouses would not be permitted to pack apple or pear fruit for other countries while packing for the continental United States. All leaves would have to be removed from fruit to remove the leaf mining pest Leucoptera malifoliella. Packinghouse culling and inspection procedures would have to be followed to remove fruit with pupae of Leucoptera malifoliella. These procedures would be detailed in the operational workplan.

    Under paragraph (c)(3), all packed fruit intended for shipment to the United States would need to be safeguarded from infestation by fruit flies and other pests at the packinghouse and during transport to the continental United States. Safeguarding measures for packinghouses and packed fruit, which would be detailed in the operational workplan, include protecting fruit by a pest-proof screen or plastic tarpaulin while the fruit is in transit to the packinghouse and while awaiting packing. Other safeguarding measures include the use of packinghouse screens and double doors that are sufficient to prevent pests from entering the packing area and requiring fruit to be packed in insect-proof cartons or containers, or covered with insect-proof mesh or a plastic tarpaulin, for transport to the United States.

    Under proposed paragraph (c)(4), apple and pear fruit would have to be held in a cold storage facility while awaiting export. If any other fruit from unregistered production sites are stored in the same facility, the apple and pear fruit must be isolated from that other fruit.

    Under proposed § 319.75(c)(5), each shipping box would need to be marked with the identity of the packing facility, the production site, and grower or grower organization to enable trace back as necessary.

    Mitigations for Medfly

    Under proposed § 319.56-75(d), apple and pear fruit being exported from countries where APHIS has determined that Medfly is known to occur would be required to undergo cold treatment in accordance with the phytosanitary treatments regulations in 7 CFR part 305. Currently, treatment schedule T 107-a 3 is approved for apples and pears from countries where Medfly is known to occur. Details of required cold treatment procedures would be included in the operational workplan.

    3 USDA/PPQ Treatment Manual, section 5, Treatment Schedules. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/treatment.pdf.

    Phytosanitary Inspection

    Paragraph § 319.56-75(e) would require that, after post-harvest processing, the NPPO of the exporting country or officials authorized by the NPPO of the exporting country inspect the apple and pear fruit for signs of pest infestation and confirm absence of the pests listed in the operational workplan. Upon detection of Adoxophyes orana, Alternaria gaisen, Argyrotaenia pulchellana, Ascochyta piricola, Ceratitis capitata, Grapholita (Cydia) funebrana, Leucoptera malifoliella, Monilinia fructigena and/or Monilinia polystroma in a consignment for export, the NPPO of the exporting country would be required to reject that consignment and may, under conditions specified in the operational workplan, be required to suspend the production site and/or packinghouse from importation to the continental United States for the remainder of that season. If any of these pests are found in a consignment at U.S. ports of entry, APHIS may, under conditions specified in the operational workplan, reject the consignment and suspend imports from the production site and/or packinghouse until an investigation is completed by the NPPO of the exporting country and APHIS. The investigation may include site visits by APHIS and reports from the NPPO of the exporting country. Procedures for suspension of production sites and/or packinghouses would be detailed in the operational workplan. The exportation to the continental United States of fresh apple and pear fruit from a suspended production site and/or packinghouse may resume in the next growing season if an investigation is conducted and APHIS and the NPPO of the exporting country agree that appropriate remedial actions have been taken.

    Phytosanitary Certificate

    Paragraph § 319.56-75 (f) would require that each consignment of fresh apple or pear fruit be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of the exporting country. Requiring a phytosanitary certificate ensures that the NPPO of the exporting country has inspected the fruit and certified that the fruit meets the conditions under the systems approach for export to the continental United States.

    APHIS has determined that the above risk management measures under the proposed systems approach will mitigate the risk of pest introductions on fresh apple and pear fruit from Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the Netherlands into the continental United States.

    Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

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

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

    This proposed rule would allow the importation of fresh apples (Malus domestica) and fresh pears (Pyrus communis) from eight European Union (EU) countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, and Spain, referred to here as the EU-8) into the continental United States, if they are produced in accordance with an approved systems approach. At present, importation of fresh pear from Germany and fresh apple and fresh pear from Poland is not allowed. For the other EU-8 countries, this action would provide an alternative to current preclearance import requirements.

    The United States and the EU both have large apple and pear industries. U.S. demand for EU-8 apples and pears imported under the proposed rule would depend on relative prices and on market characteristics as determined by domestic and foreign supplies and consumer preferences. The competitiveness of EU-8 apples and pears would largely rest on their prices, the varieties shipped, and their quality.

    The EU estimates that annual apple and pear exports by the EU-8 to the United States would total 14,000 MT under the proposed rule. EU-8 apple and pear exports in recent years to countries outside of the EU show the quantity of apples to have been four times that of pears. For our analysis, we apportion the 14,000 MT similarly, that is, 80 percent apple (11,200 MT) and 20 percent pear (2,800 MT).

    Apple and pear imports from the EU-8 would directly compete with U.S. produced fruit since the growing seasons are the same. Most apple and pear imports by the United States come from southern hemisphere countries (89 percent of apple imports, 78 percent of pear imports) and, notwithstanding year-round storage capabilities, we expect any displacement of apple and pear imports from current sources by EU-8 shipments would be limited due to different growing seasons. For this analysis, we therefore assume that not more than 10 percent of U.S. apple and pear imports from the EU-8 countries would displace imports from elsewhere.

    We use a non-spatial, net trade, partial equilibrium approach to welfare analysis to compute expected impacts of the proposed rule on U.S. producers and consumers. We model changes in U.S. consumption, production, price, consumer welfare, and producer welfare for three import levels (the expected quantity, and this quantity plus or minus 10 percent). In all cases, consumer welfare gains under the proposed rule outweigh producer welfare losses, yielding a positive net welfare impact. The expected net benefit for the two fruits exceeds $1.3 million per year.

    For apples, producer welfare losses under the three import levels range between $9.2 million and $11.2 million, the equivalent of about 0.3 percent of the annual value of fresh apple production. Consumer welfare gains range between $10.0 million and $12.2 million, yielding net welfare gains of between $800,000 and $1 million. Apple prices are calculated to decline by about 0.5 percent when 11,200 MT of fresh apples are imported annually from the EU-8. This quantity is equivalent to about 0.5 percent of annual fresh apple consumption in the United States.

    For pears, producer welfare losses under the three import levels range between $1.9 million and $2.3 million, coincidentally also equivalent to about 0.3 percent of the annual value of fresh pear production. Consumer welfare gains range between $2.3 million and $2.8 million, and net welfare gains are less than $500,000. Pear prices are calculated to decline by about 0.4 percent when 2,800 MT of fresh pears are imported annually from the EU-8. This quantity is equivalent to about 0.7 percent of annual fresh pear consumption in the United States. Small-entity apple and pear producers may be directly affected by the proposed rule. Other small entities that may be affected include those in auxiliary industries that support the production and distribution of fresh apples and pears in the United States, as well as importers of fresh apples and pears.

    Executive Order 12988

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

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Please send written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0073. Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) APHIS, using one of the methods described under ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document, and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250. A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this proposed rule.

    The regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (Title 7, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 319.56 through 319.56-74, referred to as the regulations), prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed with the United States.

    APHIS is proposing to amend the regulations to allow the importation of fresh apple and pear fruit from certain countries in the European Union into the continental United States, provided that the fruit is produced in accordance with a systems approach, as an alternative to importation under the current preclearance program. The proposed systems approach for fresh apple and pear fruit consists of production site and packinghouse registration, inspection of registered production sites twice a season, production site pest control and sanitation, post-harvest safeguards, fruit culling, traceback, sampling, cold treatment against Mediterranean fruit fly in countries where the pest is known to occur, a phytosanitary certificate, port of entry inspection, and importation as commercial consignments only. Fresh apple and pear fruit that does not meet the requirements in the systems approach would continue to be allowed to be imported into the United States subject to the conditions of the preclearance program.

    This action would provide an alternative for the importation of fresh apple and pear fruit from certain countries in the European Union while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of plant pests into the continental United States.

    Implementing this rule will require an operational workplan, production site and packing house registrations, tracking system, monitoring, inspections, investigations, box markings, cold treatment burden requirements, and phytosanitary certificates.

    We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses).

    Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .00627 hours per response.

    Respondents: Foreign businesses and NPPOs.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 72.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 2,230.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 160,553.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 1,007 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

    E-Government Act Compliance

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the EGovernment Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

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

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

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

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

    2. In § 319.56-22, the introductory text of paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
    § 319.56-22 Apples and pears from certain countries in Europe.

    (a) Importations allowed. The following fruits may be imported into the United States in accordance with this section and all other applicable provisions of this subpart. See § 319.56-75 for alternative provisions authorizing the importation of apples and pears from certain countries in Europe.

    3. Section 319.56-75 is added to subpart—Fruits and Vegetables to read as follows:
    § 319.56-75 Fresh apple and pear fruit from Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands.

    Fresh apple (Malus domestica Borkh.) and fresh pear (Pyrus communis L.) fruit from Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the Netherlands may be imported into the continental United States in accordance with the conditions listed in this section. See § 319.56-22 for alternative provisions authorizing the importation of apples and pears from certain countries in Europe.

    (a) General requirements. (1) The NPPO of the exporting country must develop an operational workplan, subject to APHIS approval, that details the activities that the NPPO would carry out to meet the requirements of this section.

    (2) The fresh apple and pear fruit must be imported in commercial consignments only.

    (b) Production site requirements. (1) Production sites where the fresh apple and pear fruit is grown must be registered with the NPPO of the exporting country.

    (2) The registered grower of the production site must follow the phytosanitary measures agreed upon by APHIS and the NPPO of the exporting country in the operational workplan, including applying control measures that are authorized for use in the EU and the United States to reduce pest populations. The NPPO of the exporting country or officials authorized by the NPPO must monitor pest populations at production sites in order to determine the need and timing of such control measures and ensure effective control of pests. The NPPO must also ensure that registered production sites are inspected twice every season with emphasis on the quarantine pests listed in the operational workplan.

    (3) Any apple and pear propagative material introduced into registered production sites must be certified free of quarantine pests by the NPPO of the exporting country.

    (c) Packinghouse requirements. (1) All fresh apple and pear fruit for export to the continental United States must be packed in packinghouses that are registered and approved by the NPPO of the exporting country. Packinghouses must be able to exclude plant pests and have a tracking system to identify individual production sites in accordance with the operational workplan.

    (2) Packinghouses must not pack apple and pear fruit for other countries while packing for shipment to the continental United States. All leaves must be removed from the fruit to remove Leucoptera malifoliella, and packinghouse culling and inspection procedures must be followed to remove fruit with pupae of Leucoptera malifoliella.

    (3) All packed fruit intended for shipment to the continental United States must be safeguarded from infestation by fruit flies and other pests while at the packinghouse and during shipment to the continental United States in accordance with the operational workplan.

    (4) Apple and pear fruit must be held in a cold storage facility while awaiting export. If any other fruit from unregistered production sites are stored in the same facility, the apple and pear fruit must be isolated from that other fruit.

    (5) Each shipping box must be marked with the identity of the packing facility, the production site, and grower or grower organization to ensure traceback.

    (d) Mitigation for Mediterranean fruit fly. Apple and pear fruit being exported from countries where Mediterranean fruit fly is known to occur must undergo cold treatment in accordance with the phytosanitary treatments regulations in part 305 of this chapter. Cold treatment procedures and schedules will be included in the operational workplan.

    (e) Phytosanitary inspection. After post-harvest processing, the NPPO of the exporting country or officials authorized by the NPPO of the exporting country must inspect the apple and pear fruit for signs of pest infestation and confirm absence of the pests listed in the operational workplan. Upon detection of Adoxophyes orana, Alternaria gaisen, Argyrotaenia pulchellana, Ascochyta piricola, Ceratitis capitata, Grapholita (Cydia) funebrana, Leucoptera malifoliella, Monilinia fructigena and/or Monilinia polystroma in a consignment for export, the NPPO of the exporting country must reject the consignment and may, under conditions specified in the operational workplan, be required to suspend the production site and/or packinghouse from importation to the continental United States for the remainder of that season. If any of these pests are found in a consignment at U.S. ports of entry, APHIS may, under conditions specified in the operational workplan, reject the consignment and suspend the production site and/or packinghouse from importation to the continental United States until an investigation is completed by the NPPO of the exporting country and APHIS. The investigation may include site visits by APHIS and/or reports from the NPPO of the exporting country. Procedures for suspension of production sites and/or packinghouses will be detailed in the operational workplan. The exportation to the continental United States of fresh apple and pear fruit from a suspended production site and/or packinghouse may resume in the next growing season if an investigation is conducted and APHIS and the NPPO of the exporting country agree that appropriate remedial actions have been taken.

    (f) Phytosanitary certificate. Each consignment of fresh apple or pear fruit must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of the exporting country certifying that the fruit meets the conditions under this section for export to the continental United States.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of January 2016. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00992 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8471; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-153-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010-23-19, that applies to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, and 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. AD 2010-23-19 requires repetitive inspections for damage of the main landing gear (MLG) inboard doors and fairing, and corrective actions if necessary. Since we issued AD 2010-23-19, we have received reports of the MLG failing to fully extend. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for damage of the MLG inboard doors, MLG fairing, and adjacent structures of the MLG inboard doors, and corrective actions if necessary; replacement of the MLG fairing seal; and a terminating action involving increasing the clearances between the MLG fairing and MLG door. This proposed AD would also add one airplane and remove others from the applicability. We are proposing this AD to prevent loss of controllability of the airplane during landing.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    • Fax: 202-493-2251.

    • Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    • Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact, Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8471; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ezra Sasson, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7320; fax 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-8471; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-153-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On November 1, 2010, we issued AD 2010-23-19, Amendment 39-16508 (75 FR 68695, November 9, 2010). AD 2010-23-19 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, and 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes.

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Airworthiness Directive CF-2010-36R1, dated July 18, 2013 (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:

    Two cases of main landing gear (MLG) failure to fully extend have been reported. An MLG failing to extend may result in an unsafe asymmetric landing configuration.

    Preliminary investigation has shown that interference between the MLG door and the MLG fairing seal prevented the MLG door from opening.

    This [Canadian] AD mandates the [detailed] inspection [for damage] and rectification [corrective action], as required, of the MLG fairing and seal, MLG door, and adjacent structures.

    Data collected from the Original Issue of this [Canadian] AD shows potential deficiencies with the inspection. This [Canadian] AD is revised to update the applicability section and to introduce additional mitigating actions and the terminating action [a modification that includes related investigative actions, and corrective action if necessary].

    The unsafe condition is the loss of controllability of the airplane during landing.

    Damage includes the following:

    • For the MLG fairing seal: Cracks, cuts, or tears in the material of the MLG fairing seal, and cuts in the material base.

    • For the MLG inboard doors: Missing or broken rollers on the MLG inboard door, missing stops, loose or missing fasteners from the stops, and damage (including, but not limited to, corrosion, cracking, and dents) along the edge of the MLG inboard door adjacent to the MLG fairing.

    • For the MLG fairing: Missing forward and aft stops, loose or missing fasteners from the forward and aft stops, and damage (including, but not limited to, corrosion, cracking, and dents) along the edge of the MLG fairing adjacent to the MLG inboard door.

    • For the stops and wedges on the forward and aft spars: Missing stops, loose or missing fasteners from the stops, missing wedges, and loose or missing fasteners from the wedges.

    Corrective actions include replacement of MLG fairing seals, and increasing the clearances between the MLG fairing and MLG door.

    The terminating modification involves increasing the clearance between the left and right MLG fairings and the left and right MLG doors. Related investigative actions for the terminating modification include the following inspections:

    • A detailed inspection of the MLG fairing for missing forward and aft stops, loose or missing fasteners from the forward and aft stops, and damage along the edge of the MLG fairing adjacent to the MLG inboard door.

    • A detailed visual inspection of the MLG inboard door for missing or broken rollers on the MLG inboard door, missing stops, loose or missing fasteners from the stops, and damage along the edge of the MLG inboard door adjacent to the MLG fairing.

    • A detailed visual inspection on the stops and wedge on the forward and aft spars for missing stops, loose or missing fasteners from the stops, missing wedges, and loose or missing fasteners from the wedges.

    • A liquid penetrant inspection or an eddy current inspection for cracks in the aft stop-fitting and stiffener of the forward member of the MLG inboard door.

    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-2015-8471.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013, which describes procedures for an inspection of the MLG inboard doors, MLG fairing, and adjacent structure of the MLG inboard doors. This service bulletin also describes procedures for replacement of damaged MLG fairing seal(s) and for a clearance check of the MLG door or, if necessary, for removing and/or installing a MLG door.

    Bombardier, Inc. has also issued Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-040, Revision E, dated November 13, 2014, which describes procedures for increasing the clearances between the fairing and the MLG inboard doors, and between the MLG fairing and adjacent structure of the MLG doors. This service bulletin also describes procedures for adjusting the MLG doors.

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

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 416 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions that are required by AD 2010-23-19, Amendment 39-16508 (75 FR 68695, November 9, 2010), 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 2010-23-19 is $85 per inspection cycle for each product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 50 work-hours for each 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 $1,768,000, or $4,250 for each product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on replacement actions would take about 24 work-hours and require parts costing $2,626, for a cost of $4,666 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010-23-19, Amendment 39-16508 (75 FR 68695, November 9, 2010), and adding the following new AD: Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2015-8471; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-153-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 7, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2010-23-19, Amendment 39-16508 (75 FR 68695, November 9, 2010).

    (c) Applicability

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

    (1) Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, having serial numbers (S/Ns) 10002 through 10333 inclusive.

    (2) Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, having S/Ns 15001 through 15284 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32: Landing gear.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of the main landing gear (MLG) failing to fully extend. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of controllability of the airplane during landing.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions, With New Service Information and Revised Repair Instructions

    (1) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2010-23-19, Amendment 39-16508 (75 FR 68695, November 9, 2010), with new service information. For airplanes having S/Ns 10003 through 10313 inclusive, 15001 through 15238 inclusive, and 15240 through 15255 inclusive: Within 50 flight cycles after November 24, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-23-19), do the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(iv) of this AD, in accordance with “PART A—Inspection of the MLG Inboard Doors, MLG Fairing and Adjacent Structure” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision A, dated October 22, 2010; or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013; as applicable. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013, to accomplish the actions required by this paragraph. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours.

    (i) Do a detailed inspection for damage (including wear lines, cracks, fraying, tears, and evidence of chafing) of the rubber seal of the MLG fairing.

    (ii) Do a detailed inspection for damage (including missing and broken rollers, loose and missing fasteners, and damaged and missing stops) of the MLG inboard doors, and for damage along the edge of the MLG inboard door adjacent to the MLG fairing.

    (iii) Do a detailed inspection of the MLG fairing for damage (including missing forward and aft stops, and loose and missing fasteners), and for damage along the edge of the MLG fairing adjacent to the MLG door.

    (iv) Do a detailed inspection for damage (including missing stops, loose and missing fasteners, and missing wedges) of the stops and wedge on the forward and aft spars.

    (2) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2010-23-19, Amendment 39-16508 (75 FR 68695, November 9, 2010), with revised service information. For airplanes not identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, excluding the airplane having S/N 10002, and excluding airplanes having MLG fairing seals having part numbers (P/Ns) CC670-39244-5 and CC670-39244-6: Within 600 flight hours after November 24, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-23-19), do the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (g)(2)(iv) of this AD, in accordance with “PART A—Inspection of the MLG Inboard Doors, MLG Fairing and Adjacent Structure” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision A, dated October 22, 2010; or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013, to accomplish the actions required by this paragraph. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours.

    (i) Do a detailed inspection for damage (including wear lines, cracks, fraying, tears, and evidence of chafing) of the rubber seal of the MLG fairing.

    (ii) Do a detailed inspection for damage (including missing and broken rollers, loose and missing fasteners, and damaged and missing stops) of the MLG inboard doors, and for damage along the edge of the MLG inboard door adjacent to the MLG fairing.

    (iii) Do a detailed inspection of the MLG fairing for damage (including missing forward and aft stops, and loose and missing fasteners), and for damage along the edge of the MLG fairing adjacent to the MLG door.

    (iv) Do a detailed inspection for damage (including missing stops, loose and missing fasteners, and missing wedges) of the stops and wedge on the forward and aft spars.

    (3) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2010-23-19, Amendment 39-16508 (75 FR 68695, November 9, 2010), with revised service information. If damage to only the rubber seal on the MLG fairing is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, before further flight, do either action specified in paragraph (g)(3)(i) or (g)(3)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Replace the rubber seal on the MLG fairing with a new rubber seal, in accordance with “PART B—Replacement of the Forward Rubber Seal on the MLG Fairing” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision A, dated October 22, 2010; or the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013, to accomplish the actions required by this paragraph.

    (ii) Remove the MLG inboard door, in accordance with “PART C—Removal of MLG Inboard Door” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision A, dated October 22, 2010; or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013. For airplanes on which the MLG inboard door is re-installed, do the installation of the MLG inboard door in accordance with “PART D—Installation of MLG Inboard Door” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision A, dated October 22, 2010; or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013, to accomplish the actions required by this paragraph.

    (4) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2010-23-19, Amendment 39-16508 (75 FR 68695, November 9, 2010), with revised repair instructions. If damage other than the damage identified in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, before further flight, contact the Bombardier Regional Aircraft Customer Response Center for repair instructions and do the repair; or repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).

    (h) New Inspections of MLG Fairing Seal Having P/N CC670-39244-1 or CC670-39244-2

    For airplanes on which an MLG fairing seal having P/N CC670-39244-1 or P/N CC670-39244-2 is installed: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, do the inspections specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(4) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (o) of this AD. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the time specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Do a detailed inspection for damage (including cracking, cuts, and tears in the material (fabric/rubber)) of the MLG fairing and seal.

    (2) Do a detailed inspection for damage (including missing and broken rollers, loose and missing fasteners, and damaged and missing stops) of the MLG inboard doors, and for damage along the edge of the MLG inboard door adjacent to the MLG fairing.

    (3) Do a detailed inspection of the MLG fairing for damage (including missing forward and aft stops, and loose and missing fasteners), and for damage (including, but not limited to, corrosion, cracking, and dents) along the edge of the MLG fairing adjacent to the MLG door.

    (4) Do a detailed inspection for damage (including missing stops, loose and missing fasteners, and missing wedges) of the stops and wedge on the forward and aft spars.

    (i) New Compliance Times for the Actions Required by Paragraph (h) of This AD

    This paragraph specifies the compliance times for the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (1) The initial compliance time is specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) For airplanes having S/Ns 10002 through 10313 inclusive; 15001 through 15238 inclusive; and 15240 through 15255 inclusive: Within 50 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.

    (ii) For all other airplane serial numbers: Within 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Repeat the inspections specified in paragraph (h) of this AD at the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Repeat the inspections within 200 flight hours after the effective date of this AD. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 200 flight hours.

    (ii) Repeat the inspections within 600 flight hours after the most recent inspection done in accordance with the requirements of AD 2010-23-19, Amendment 39-16508 (75 FR 68695, November 9, 2010). Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 200 flight hours.

    (j) New Corrective Actions

    (1) If any damage to the MLG fairing seal is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Before further flight, do the actions specified in paragraph (j)(1)(i) or (j)(1)(ii) of this AD, except as specified in paragraph (o) of this AD.

    (i) Before further flight, remove the MLG inboard doors, in accordance with Part C of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013. For airplanes on which the MLG inboard door is re-installed, do the installation of the MLG inboard door in accordance with Part D of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013.

    (ii) Before further flight, replace the MLG fairing seals, in accordance with Part E of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013. Within 200 flight hours after installing the MLG fairing seals, do the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (2) If any damage other than that specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD is found, or if parts or fasteners are found missing, during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.

    (k) New Replacement of MLG Fairing Seals

    Within 2,500 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD: Replace any MLG fairing seals having P/Ns CC670-39244-1 and CC670-39244-2 with P/Ns CC670-39244-5 and CC670-39244-6, respectively, in accordance with Part E of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (o) of this AD.

    (l) New MLG Fairing Seal Post-Replacement Inspections

    Within 600 flight hours after installing fairing seals having P/Ns CC670-39244-5 or CC670-39244-6: Do the inspections specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(4) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013. If any damage to the MLG fairing seal is found during any inspection required by this paragraph: Before further flight, do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD. If no damage is found during any inspection required by this paragraph, repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(4) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours, except as provided in paragraph (m) of this AD.

    (m) New Exception to MLG Fairing Seal Post-Replacement Inspections

    After accomplishment of the initial inspections specified in paragraph (l) of this AD, removal of the MLG inboard door, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013, defers the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (l) of this AD until the MLG inboard door is re-installed. For airplanes on which the MLG inboard door is re-installed, do the installation of the MLG inboard door in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (o) of this AD; and before the accumulation of 600 flight hours on the MLG inboard door since the actions required by paragraph (k) of this AD were accomplished, do the inspections specified in paragraph (l) of this AD, and repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable time specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (n) New Terminating Modification

    Within 6,600 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD: Modify the airplane by increasing the clearance between the left and right MLG fairings and the left and right MLG doors; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-040, Revision E, dated November 13, 2014, except as provided by paragraph (o) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. If an MLG door has been removed, the modification may be delayed until the MLG door is re-installed in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013. Accomplishing this modification terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g) through (m) of this AD for that MLG door.

    (o) Exceptions to Bombardier Service Bulletins

    Where Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-040, Revision E, dated November 14, 2014; specify to contact the Bombardier Customer Response Center for an analysis or to get an approved disposition, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.

    (p) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (l) of AD 2010-23-19, Amendment 39-16508 (75 FR 68695, November 9, 2010), with additional service information. This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before November 24, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-23-19) using Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, dated October 18, 2010; or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision A, dated October 22, 2010.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions required by paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3)(i), (g)(3)(ii), (h), (j)(1), (k), (l), (m), and (n) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service bulletins specified in paragraph (p)(2)(i), (p)(2)(ii), or (p)(2)(iii) of this AD.

    (i) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision A, dated October 22, 2010.

    (ii) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision B, dated November 3, 2011.

    (iii) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision C, dated March 13, 2013.

    (3) This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions required by paragraph (n) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph (p)(3)(i), (p)(3)(ii), (p)(3)(iii), or (p)(3)(iv) of this AD.

    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-040, Revision A, dated March 13, 2013.

    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-040, Revision B, dated August 6, 2013.

    (iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-040, Revision C, dated November 1, 2013.

    (iv) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-040, Revision D, dated July 2, 2014.

    (q) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (r) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2010-36R1, dated July 18, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8471.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 6, 2016. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00698 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8472; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-106-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a design review, that revealed a hot spot may develop in the main fuel tank under certain failure conditions of the solenoid of the level control pilot valve, the reed switch of the main tank overflow valve, the level float switch of the collector tank, or the solenoid of the main tank fueling shut-off valve. This proposed AD would require installing fuses in the wiring of the solenoid of the level control pilot valve, the reed switch of the main tank overflow valve, the level float switch of the collector tank, and the solenoid of the main tank fueling shut-off valve, as applicable. This proposed AD would also require accomplishing concurrent actions and revising the airplane maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating fuel airworthiness limitation items and critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs). We are proposing this AD to prevent an ignition source in the main fuel tank vapor space, which could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8472; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-8472; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-106-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0107, dated May 7, 2014 (referred to after this the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Prompted by an accident * * *, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 88 [(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001)], and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) published Interim Policy INT/POL/25/12.

    The review conducted by Fokker Services on the Fokker F28 design in response to these regulations revealed that, under certain failure conditions of the solenoid of the level control pilot valve, the main tank overflow valve reed switch, the collector tank level float switch or the main tank fuelling shut-off valve solenoid, a hot spot may develop in the tank.

    This condition, if not corrected, could create an ignition source in the main tank vapour space, possibly resulting in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Fokker Services developed a modification to the wiring (installation of fuses) of the affected components.

    For the reasons described above, this AD requires the installation of fuses in the wiring of the affected components [the solenoid of the level control pilot valve, the reed switch of the main tank overflow valve, the level float switch of the collector tank, and the solenoid of the main tank fuelling shut-off valve] and, subsequently, the implementation of the associated Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL) items [and revision of the maintenance or inspection program].

    More information on this subject can be found in Fokker Services All Operators Message AOF28.038#02.

    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-2015-8472.

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

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

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following service information.

    • Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28-28-049, Revision 2, dated November 3, 2014, including Fokker Drawing W57273, Sheet 002, Issue C, undated, Fokker Drawing W58048, Sheet 1, undated, and Fokker Manual Change Notification MCNM-F28-035, Rev 1, dated January 9, 2014. This service information describes procedures for installing fuses packed in jiffy junctions in the collector tank.

    • Fokker Proforma Service Bulletin SBF28-28-056, dated January 9, 2014, including Appendix SBF28-28-056/APP01, dated July 15, 2014. This service information describes procedures for installing fuses in the wiring of the solenoid of the level control pilot valve, the reed switch of the main tank overflow valve, the level float switch of the collector tank, and the solenoid of the main tank fueling shut-off valve. This service information also describes certain CDCCLs.

    • Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28-28-051, Revision 2, dated November 3, 2014, including Drawing W57231, Sheets 010 and 011, Issue K, undated; Drawing W58048, Sheet 2, dated April 29, 2010; and Manual Change Notification—Maintenance Document MCNM-F28-034 Rev 1, dated January 9, 2014. This service information describes procedures for reworking the wiring and installing fuses packed in jiffy junctions in the power supply wire of the solenoid in the left and right level control pilot valves.

    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.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 21 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 $5,320 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $35,525, or $7,105, or per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Fokker Services B.V.: Docket No. FAA-2015-8472; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-106-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 7, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2011-17-03, Amendment 39-16767 (76 FR 50115, August 12, 2011); and AD 2011-21-01, Amendment 39-16824 (76 FR 63156, October 12, 2011).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a design review, which revealed that a hot spot may develop in the main fuel tank under certain failure conditions of the solenoid of the level control pilot valve, the reed switch of the main tank overflow valve, the level float switch of the collector tank, or the solenoid of the main tank fueling shut-off valve. We are issuing this AD to prevent an ignition source in the main fuel tank vapor space, which could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Modification of Main Fuel Tank Wiring

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, install fuses in the wiring of the solenoid of the level control pilot valve, the reed switch of the main tank overflow valve, the level float switch of the collector tank, and the solenoid of the main tank fueling shut-off valve, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Services Proforma Service Bulletin SBF28-28-056, dated January 9, 2014, including Appendix SBF28-28-056/APP01, dated July 15, 2014.

    (h) Concurrent Requirements

    Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Install fuses packed in jiffy junctions (i.e., crimped wire in-line junction device(s)), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28-28-049, Revision 2, dated November 3, 2014, including Fokker Drawing W57273, Sheet 002, Issue C, undated, Fokker Drawing W58048, Sheet 1, undated, and Fokker Manual Change Notification MCNM-F28-035, Rev 1, dated January 9, 2014. Accomplishment of the actions in this paragraph terminates the requirement of paragraph (g) of AD 2011-17-03, Amendment 39-16767 (76 FR 50115, August 12, 2011).

    Note 1 to paragraph (h)(1) of this AD: Accomplishment of this action is required by AD 2011-17-03, Amendment 39-16767 (76 FR 50115, August 12, 2011).

    (2) Rework the wiring and install fuses packed in jiffy junctions in the power supply wire of the solenoid in the left and right level control pilot valve, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28-28-051, Revision 2, dated November 3, 2014, including Drawing W57231, Sheets 010 and 011, Issue K, undated; Drawing W58048, Sheet 2, dated April 29, 2010; and Manual Change Notification—Maintenance Document MCNM-F28-034, Rev 1, dated January 9, 2014. Accomplishment of the actions in this paragraph terminates the requirement of paragraph (g) of AD 2011-21-01, Amendment 39-16824 (76 FR 63156, October 12, 2011), for the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28-28-051, Revision 2, dated November 3, 2014, including Drawing W57231, Sheets 010 and 011, Issue K, undated; Drawing W58048, Sheet 2, dated April 29, 2010; and Manual Change Notification—Maintenance Document MCNM-F28-034, Rev 1, dated January 9, 2014, only.

    Note 2 to paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: Accomplishment of this action is required by AD 2011-21-01, Amendment 39-16824 (76 FR 63156, October 12, 2011).

    (i) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Before further flight after completing the installation specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Revise the airplane maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) specified in paragraph 1.L.(1)(c) of Fokker Services Proforma Service Bulletin SBF28-28-056, dated January 9, 2014, including Appendix SBF28-28-056/APP01, dated July 15, 2014.

    (j) No Alternative CDCCLs

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative CDCCLs may be used unless the CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.

    (k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance: The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2014-0107, dated May 7, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8472.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 6, 2016. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00700 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8470; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-199-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 95-21-09, for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes, and Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). AD 95-21-09 currently requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the No. 2 flap beams, and replacement of the flap beams, if necessary; and provides optional modifications for extending certain inspection thresholds, and an optional terminating modification for certain inspections. Since we issued AD 95-21-09, we have determined that the compliance times must be reduced. This proposed AD would reduce the compliance times for inspections and also reduce the number of airplanes affected. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the No. 2 flap beams, which could result in rupture of the flap beams and reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8470; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-8470; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-199-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On October 3, 1995, we issued AD 95-21-09, Amendment 39-9395 (60 FR 53847, October 18, 1995). AD 95-21-09 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on Airbus Model A300 and A300-600 series airplanes.

    Since we issued AD 95-21-09, Amendment 39-9395 (60 FR 53847, October 18, 1995), we have received a report that analyses showed a need for reduced compliance times.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2013-0234R2, dated October 7, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300 and A300-600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Fatigue and “fail safe” tests developed on a test specimen confirmed that cracks may appear and propagate from the bolt holes of the base member and the side members of flap beam No. 2.

    The development of such cracks, if not detected, could result in a rupture of flap beams No. 2, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airframe.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A300-57-0116 and SB A300-57-6005 and DGAC France issued AD 1986-187-076(B) [available at http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/1986-187-076%28B%29R4en.pdf/AD_F-1986-187-076R4_1], later revised, to require a repetitive inspection programme [and corrective action] for A300 and A300-600 aeroplanes. [French AD 86-187-076(B)R3, dated March 2, 1994, corresponds to FAA AD 95-21-09, Amendment 39-9395 (60 FR 53847, October 18, 1995), which superseded FAA AD 85-07-04, Amendment 39-5027 (49 FR 45755, April 2, 1985).]

    For A300 aeroplanes, and in the frame of the Extended Service Goal (ESG) exercise, it was shown that design changes (Airbus Mod. 4740/Airbus SB A300-57-0128 or Airbus Mod. 5815/Airbus SB A300-57-0141) were not sufficient to enable full ESG life without inspections.

    For A300-600 aeroplanes, since DGAC France AD 1986-187-076(B) was issued, a fleet survey and updated Fatigue and Damage Tolerance analyses have been performed in order to substantiate the second A300-600 ESG2 exercise. Airbus SB A300-57-6005 has been revised accordingly to decrease the inspection thresholds and intervals.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of DGAC France AD 1986-187-076(B)R4, which is superseded, and requires those inspections to be accomplished at reduced thresholds and intervals.

    This [EASA] AD has been revised to correct typographical errors in some compliance times defined in Appendix 1, Tables 1 and 2.

    The MCAI also reduces the number of airplanes identified in the applicability by exempting certain Model A300-600 airplanes on which certain Airbus modifications have been embodied. 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-2015-8470.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletins A300-57-0116, Revision 07, dated September 19, 2011; and A300-57-6005, Revision 06, dated November 14, 2013. This service information describes procedures for ultrasonic inspections of the number 2 flap beam base and side members. 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.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    Although the MCAI or service information allows further flight after cracks are found during compliance with the required action, paragraph (m) of this proposed AD requires that you replace the flap beam before further flight.

    Explanation of “RC” Procedures and Tests in Service Information

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

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 49 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions that are required by AD 95-21-09, Amendment 39-9395 (60 FR 53847, October 18, 1995), and retained in this proposed AD take about 6 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 95-21-09 is $510 per product, per inspection cycle.

    We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $24,990 per inspection cycle, or $510 per product, per inspection cycle.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 95-21-09, Amendment 39-9395 (60 FR 53847, October 18, 1995), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-8470; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-199-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 7, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 95-21-09, Amendment 39-9395 (60 FR 53847, October 18, 1995).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD, certificated in any category.

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

    (2) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, and B4-622R airplanes, all MSNs.

    (3) Airbus Model A300 F4-605R, all MSNs, except those airplanes on which both Airbus Modifications 11133 and 12699 have been embodied.

    (4) Airbus Model A300 F4-622R airplanes, all MSNs, except those airplanes on which all Airbus Modifications 11133, 12047, 12048, and 12050 have been embodied, and except those airplanes on which both Airbus Modifications 11133 and 12699 have been embodied.

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

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that the compliance times must be reduced. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the No. 2 flap beams, which could result in rupture of the flap beams and reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Inspection and Corrective Actions for Model A300 Series Airplanes, With Note 3 of AD 95-21-09, Amendment 39-9395 (60 FR 53847, October 18, 1995), Incorporated and Additional Terminating Provisions

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD 95-21-09, Amendment 39-9395 (60 FR 53847, October 18, 1995), with Note 3 of AD 95-21-09 incorporated and additional terminating provisions. For Model A300 series airplanes: Prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total landings, or within the next 120 days after May 9, 1985 (the effective date of AD 85-07-04, Amendment 39-5027 (49 FR 45755, April 2, 1985)), whichever occurs later, inspect for cracking of the base steel member and light alloy side members of the No. 2 flap beams, left hand and right hand, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-116, Revision 6, dated July 16, 1993. Accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (h) or (l) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph. Measurement of crack length is performed by measurement of the probe displacement (perpendicular to symmetry plane of beam) between defect indication appearance and its complete disappearance. The bolt hole indication should not be interpreted as an indication of a defect. These two indications appear very close together because the defects originate from the bolt holes.

    (1) If no cracking is detected: Except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 1,700 landings until the requirements of paragraph (h) or (l) of this AD are accomplished.

    (2) If any crack is detected that is less than or equal to 4 mm: Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 250 landings, until the requirements of paragraph (h) or (l) of this AD are accomplished.

    (3) If any crack is detected that exceeds 4 mm: Prior to further flight, replace the flap beam in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-116, Revision 6, dated July 16, 1993, and prior to the accumulation of 15,000 flight cycles on the replaced flap beam, perform the ultrasonic inspection as required by paragraph (h) or (l) of this AD.

    (h) Retained Ultrasonic Inspection and Corrective Action for Model A300 Series Airplanes, With Additional Terminating Provisions

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (b) of AD 95-21-09, Amendment 39-9395 (60 FR 53847, October 18, 1995), with additional terminating provisions. For Model A300 series airplanes: Prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total landings, or within the next 1,000 landings after November 17, 1995 (the effective date of AD 95-21-09), whichever occurs later, perform an ultrasonic inspection to detect cracking of the No. 2 flap beams, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-116, Revision 6, dated July 16, 1993. Accomplishment of this inspection terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD. Accomplishment of the requirements of paragraph (l) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

    (1) If no cracking is detected: Except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD, repeat the ultrasonic inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,700 landings.

    (2) If any crack is detected beyond the bolt hole, and that crack is less than or equal to 4 mm in length: Repeat the ultrasonic inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 250 landings.

    (3) If any crack is detected beyond the bolt hole and that crack is greater than 4 mm in length: Prior to further flight, replace the flap beam in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-116, Revision 6, dated July 16, 1993, and prior to the accumulation of 15,000 flight cycles on the replaced flap beam, perform the ultrasonic inspection as required by this paragraph.

    (i) Retained Modification of the No. 2 Track Beam for Model A300 Series Airplanes, With Changes to Compliance Extension

    This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (c) of AD 95-21-09, Amendment 39-9395 (60 FR 53847, October 18, 1995), with changes to compliance extension. For Model A300 series airplanes: After accomplishing the initial inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, accomplishment of either paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD before the effective date of this AD extends the fatigue life of the No. 2 flap track beam as specified in those paragraphs, provided that no cracking is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD.

    (1) Removal of any damage and the installation of larger diameter bolts on the No. 2 flap track beam (Modification No. 4740), in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-128, Revision 3, dated January 26, 1990, extends the interval for the first repetitive inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD from 1,700 landings to 12,000 landings, provided that Modification No. 4740 is accomplished prior to the accumulation of 16,700 total landings on the flap beams. Following accomplishment of the first repetitive inspection, subsequent repetitive inspections shall be performed at intervals not to exceed 1,700 landings. Or

    (2) Cold working of the bolt holes and the installation of larger diameter bolts on the No. 2 flap track beam (Modification No. 5815), in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-141, Revision 7, dated July 16, 1993, extends the interval for the first repetitive inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD from 1,700 landings to the interval specified in paragraph (i)(2)(i) or (i)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) If interference fit bolts that are 15/32-inch in diameter are fitted, the interval for the first repetitive inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD is extended to 22,000 landings, provided that Modification 5815 is accomplished prior to the accumulation of 16,700 total landings on the flap beam. Following accomplishment of the first repetitive inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, subsequent repetitive inspections shall be performed at intervals not to exceed 1,700 landings. Or

    (ii) If interference fit bolts that are 7/16- or 3/8-inch in diameter are fitted, the interval for the first repetitive inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD is extended to 33,000 landings, provided that Modification 5815 is accomplished prior to the accumulation of 16,700 total landings on the flap beam. Following accomplishment of the first repetitive inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, subsequent repetitive inspections shall be performed at intervals not to exceed 1,700 landings.

    (j) Retained Ultrasonic Inspection and Corrective Actions for Model A300-600 Series Airplanes, With Terminating Provisions

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (d) of AD 95-21-09, Amendment 39-9395 (60 FR 53847, October 18, 1995), with terminating provisions. For Model A300-600 series airplanes: Prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total landings, or within the next 1,000 landings after November 17, 1995 (the effective date of AD 95-21-09), whichever occurs later, perform an ultrasonic inspection to detect cracking of the No. 2 flap track beams, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6005, Revision 2, dated December 16, 1993. Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (l) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

    (1) If no cracking is detected, repeat the ultrasonic inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,700 landings.

    (2) If any crack is detected beyond the bolt hole and that crack is less than or equal to 4 mm in length: Repeat the ultrasonic inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 250 landings.

    (3) If any crack is detected beyond the bolt hole and that crack is greater than 4 mm in length: Prior to further flight, replace the flap beam in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6005, Revision 2, dated December 16, 1993, and prior to the accumulation of 15,000 landings on the replaced flap beam, perform the ultrasonic inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (k) Retained Optional Action With Note 5 of AD 95-21-09 Amendment 39-9395 (60 FR 53847, October 18, 1995), Incorporated and Changes to Terminating Action

    This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (e) of AD 95-21-09, Amendment 39-9395 (60 FR 53847, October 18, 1995), with Note 5 of AD 95-21-09 incorporated and changes to terminating action. For Model A300-600 series airplanes: Installation of oversized transition fit bolts in cold-worked holes, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6006 (Modification 5815), Revision 4, dated July 25, 1994, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (j) of this AD, provided that no cracking is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, and provided that the installation is accomplished prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total landings and before the effective date of this AD. If any bolt requires oversizing above 7/16-inch diameter during accomplishment of this installation, prior to further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, or by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA. As of the effective date of this AD, any new repair approval must be done using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA. If Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6005, Revision 2, dated December 16, 1993, is accomplished concurrently with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6006, Revision 3, dated December 16, 1993 (Modification 5815), the ultrasonic inspection for cracking required by paragraph (j) of this AD need not be performed since the eddy current inspection detailed for Modification 5815 is more comprehensive.

    (l) New Requirement of This AD: Initial and Repetitive Ultrasonic Inspections

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (l)(1) or (l)(2) of this AD and, thereafter at intervals not to exceed those defined in table 3 to paragraph (l) of this AD, as applicable, accomplish an ultrasonic inspection for cracking of the steel base member and the aluminum side members' flap beam on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0116, Revision 07, dated September 19, 2011, including Appendixes A and B, undated; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6005, Revision 06, dated November 14, 2013; as applicable. For the purposes of this AD, average flight time (AFT) is considered to be the number of flight hours per flight cycle. Doing the actions required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g) through (k) of this AD.

    (1) For Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes (referred to as Model A300 series airplanes): Within the applicable compliance time defined in table 1 to paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (2) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, F4-622R airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (referred to as Model A300-600 series airplanes): At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i) and (l)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Within the compliance time defined in table 2 to paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (ii) Within 300 flight cycles or 640 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    Table 1 to Paragraph (l) of This AD—Inspection Compliance Times for Model A300 Series Airplanes Airplane configuration Compliance times for airplanes with an AFT of less than 1.5 Compliance times for airplanes with an AFT of more than or equal to 1.5 Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203 airplanes on which Airbus Modifications 4740 and 5815 have not been embodied Within 15,000 flight cycles or 16,900 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first Within 15,000 flight cycles or 16,900 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first. Model A300 B4-103 airplanes on which Airbus Modifications 4740 and 5815 have not been embodied Within 15,000 flight cycles or 20,500 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first Within 15,000 flight cycles or 20,500 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first. Model A300 B4-2C, and B4-203 airplanes on which Airbus Modifications 4740 and 5815 have not been embodied Within 16,200 flight cycles or 22,200 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first Within 15,000 flight cycles or 34,000 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first. Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203 airplanes on which Airbus Modification 4740 has been embodied Within 12,000 flight cycles or 13,500 flight hours since embodiment of Airbus Modification 4740, whichever occurs first Within 12,000 flight cycles or 13,500 flight hours since embodiment of Airbus Modification 4740, whichever occurs first. Model A300 B4-103 airplanes on which Airbus Modification 4740 has been embodied Within 12,000 flight cycles or 16,400 flight hours since embodiment of Airbus Modification 4740, whichever occurs first Within 12,000 flight cycles or 16,400 flight hours since embodiment of Airbus Modification 4740, whichever occurs first. Model A300 B4-2C, and B4-203 airplanes on which Airbus Modification 4740 has been embodied Within 12,900 flight cycles or 17,700 flight hours since embodiment of Airbus Modification 4740, whichever occurs first Within 12,000 flight cycles or 27,200 flight hours since embodiment of Airbus Modification 4740, whichever occurs first. Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203 airplanes on which Airbus Modification 5815 has been embodied and no bolt larger than 7/16-inch diameter is fitted Within 33,000 flight cycles or 37,200 flight hours since embodiment of Airbus Modification 5815, whichever occurs first Within 33,000 flight cycles or 37,200 flight hours since embodiment of Airbus Modification 5815, whichever occurs first. Model A300 B4-103 airplanes on which Airbus Modification 5815 has been embodied and no bolt larger than 7/16-inch diameter is fitted Within 33,000 flight cycles or 45,200 flight hours since embodiment of Airbus Modification 5815, whichever occurs first Within 33,000 flight cycles or 45,200 flight hours since embodiment of Airbus Modification 5815, whichever occurs first. Model A300 B4-2C, and B4-203 airplanes on which Airbus Modification 5815 has been embodied and no bolt larger than 7/16-inch diameter is fitted Within 35,600 flight cycles or 48,800 flight hours since embodiment of Airbus Modification 5815, whichever occurs first Within 33,000 flight cycles or 74,900 flight hours since embodiment of Airbus Modification 5815, whichever occurs first. Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203 airplanes on which Airbus Modification 5815 has been embodied and at least one bolt with a 15/32-inch diameter is fitted Within 22,000 flight cycles or 24,800 flight hours since embodiment of Airbus Modification 5815, whichever occurs first Within 22,000 flight cycles or 24,800 flight hours since embodiment of Airbus Modification 5815, whichever occurs first. Model A300 B4-103 airplanes on which Airbus Modification 5815 has been embodied and at least one bolt with a 15/32-inch diameter is fitted Within 22,000 flight cycles or 30,100 flight hours since embodiment of Airbus Modification 5815, whichever occurs first Within 22,000 flight cycles or 30,100 flight hours since embodiment of Airbus Modification 5815, whichever occurs first. Model A300 B4-2C, and B4-203, airplanes on which Airbus Modification 5815 has been embodied and at least one bolt with a 15/32-inch diameter is fitted Within 23,700 flight cycles or 32,500 flight hours since embodiment of Airbus Modification 5815, whichever occurs first Within 22,000 flight cycles or 49,900 flight hours since embodiment of Airbus Modification 5815, whichever occurs first. Table 2 to Paragraph (l) of This AD—Compliance Times for Model A300-600 Series Airplanes Airplane configuration Compliance times for airplanes with an AFT of less than 1.5 Compliance times for airplanes with an AFT of more than or equal to 1.5 Model A300-600 series airplanes on which Airbus Modification 5815 and Airbus Modification 11133 have not been embodied Within 16,200 flight cycles or 24,300 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first Within 15,000 flight cycles or 32,400 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first. Model A300-600 series airplanes on which Airbus Modification 5815 has been embodied and no bolt larger than 7/16-inch diameter is fitted Within 35,600 flight cycles or 53,400 flight hours since embodiment of Airbus Modification 5815, whichever occurs first Within 33,000 flight cycles or 71,200 flight hours since embodiment of Airbus Modification 5815, whichever occurs first. Model A300-600 series airplanes on which Airbus Modification 5815 has been embodied and at least one bolt 15/32-inch diameter is fitted Within 23,700 flight cycles or 35,600 flight hours since embodiment of Airbus Modification 5815, whichever occurs first Within 22,000 flight cycles or 47,500 flight hours since embodiment of Airbus Modification 5815, whichever occurs first. Model A300-600 series airplanes on which Airbus Modification 11133 has been embodied Within 35,600 flight cycles or 53,400 flight hours since first flight, whichever occurs first Within 33,000 flight cycles or 71,200 flight hours since first flight, whichever occurs first. Table 3 to Paragraph (l) of This AD—Repetitive Inspection Intervals Airplane models Repetitive interval (not to exceed) for airplanes with an AFT of less than 1.5 Repetitive interval (not to exceed) for airplanes with an AFT equal to or more than 1.5 A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203 1,500 flight cycles or 1,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first 1,500 flight cycles or 1,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first. A300B4-103 airplanes 1,500 flight cycles or 2,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first 1,500 flight cycles or 2,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first. A300 B4-2C, and B4-203 1,600 flight cycles or 2,200 flight hours, whichever occurs first 1,500 flight cycles or 3,400 flight hours, whichever occurs first. A300-600 series airplanes 1,600 flight cycles or 2,400 flight hours, whichever occurs first 1,500 flight cycles or 3,200 flight hours, whichever occurs first. (m) New Requirement of This AD: Corrective Action

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (l) of this AD: Before further flight, replace the flap beam using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). Replacement of the flap beam does not constitute terminating action for the inspections required by paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (n) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those inspections were performed before November 17, 1995 (the effective date of AD 95-21-09, Amendment 39-9395 (60 FR 53847, October 18, 1995)) using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-116, Revision 1, dated August 27, 1983; Revision 2, dated April 24, 1984; Revision 3, dated July 20, 1984; Revision 4, dated August 13, 1986; or Revision 5, dated July 10, 1989; as applicable.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (l) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (n)(2)(i) through (n)(2)(x) of this AD.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6005, Revision 03, dated November 25, 1997, which was not previously incorporated by reference.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6005, Revision 04, dated October 25, 1999, which was not previously incorporated by reference.

    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6005, Revision 05, dated April 25, 2013, which was not previously incorporated by reference.

    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6005, Revision 2, dated December 16, 1993, which was previously incorporated by reference on November 17 1995 (60 FR 53847, October 18, 1995).

    (v) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-116, Revision 1, dated August 27, 1983, which was not previously incorporated by reference.

    (vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-116, Revision 2, dated April 24, 1984, which was not previously incorporated by reference.

    (vii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-116, Revision 3, dated July 20, 1984, which was not previously incorporated by reference.

    (viii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-116, Revision 4, dated August 13, 1986, which was not previously incorporated by reference.

    (ix) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-116, Revision 5, dated July 10, 1989, which was not previously incorporated by reference.

    (x) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-116, Revision 6, dated July 16, 1993, which was previously incorporated by reference on November 17, 1995 (60 FR 53847, October 18, 1995).

    (o) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 95-21-09, Amendment 39-9395 (60 FR 53847, October 18, 1995), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g) through (j) of this AD.

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

    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by paragraph (m) of this AD: If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (p) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2013-0234R2, dated October 7, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8470.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 6. 2016. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00634 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8467; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-107-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a design review that revealed no controlled bonding provisions are present on a number of critical locations inside the fuel tanks or connected to the walls of the fuel tanks. This proposed AD would require installing additional and improved bonding provisions in the fuel tanks and revising the airplane maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating fuel airworthiness limitation items and critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs). We are proposing this AD to prevent an ignition source in the fuel tank vapor space, which could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8467; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-8467; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-107-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0108, dated May 8, 2014 (referred to after this the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Prompted by an accident * * *, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 88 [(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001)], and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) published Interim Policy INT/POL/25/12.

    The review conducted by Fokker Services on the Fokker F28 design, in response to these regulations, revealed that no controlled bonding provisions are present on a number of critical locations, inside the fuel tank or connected to the fuel tank wall.

    This condition, if not corrected, could create an ignition source in the fuel tank vapour space, possibly resulting in a fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Fokker Services developed a set of fuel tank bonding modifications.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the Installation of additional and improved bonding provisions [and a revision of the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable]. These modifications require opening of the fuel tank access panels.

    More information on this subject can be found in Fokker Services All Operators Message AOF28.038#02.

    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-2015-8467.

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

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

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Fokker Services B.V. has issued Fokker Proforma Service Bulletin SBF28-28-058, dated January 9, 2014, including Appendix SBF28-28-058/APP01, dated July 15, 2014. The service information describes procedures for installing improved bonding provisions for the transfer jet pumps, ventilation float valves, center tank overflow valves, and level control pilot valves wiring conduit, and applicable related investigative and corrective actions.

    Fokker Services B.V. has also issued Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28-28-050, Revision 3, dated December 11, 2014. The service information describes certain fuel airworthiness limitation items and critical design configuration control limitations.

    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.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 21 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 $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $8,925, or $1,785 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Fokker Services B.V.: Docket No. FAA-2015-8467; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-107-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 7, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a design review that revealed no controlled bonding provisions are present on a number of critical locations inside the fuel tanks or connected to the walls of the fuel tanks. We are issuing this AD to prevent an ignition source in the fuel tank vapor space, which could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Installation of Bonding Provisions

    At the next scheduled opening of the fuel tanks after the effective date of this AD, but no later than 84 months after the effective date of this AD, install additional and improved bonding provisions in the fuel tanks, and do the applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Services Proforma Service Bulletin SBF28-28-058, dated January 9, 2014, including Appendix SBF28-28-058/APP01, dated July 15, 2014.

    (h) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Before further flight after completing the installation specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Revise the airplane maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the fuel airworthiness limitation items and critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) specified in paragraph 1.L.(1)(c) of Fokker Services Proforma Service Bulletin SBF28-28-058, dated January 9, 2014, including Appendix SBF28-28-058/APP01, dated July 15, 2014. The initial compliance times for the tasks are at the latest of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD.

    (1) At the applicable time specified in Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28-28-050, Revision 3, dated December 11, 2014.

    (2) Before further flight after completing the installation specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (3) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and CDCCLs

    After accomplishment of the revision required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the actions, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

    (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance: The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2014-0108, dated May 8, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8467.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 5, 2016. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00636 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0922; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-156-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A319 and A320 series airplanes. The NPRM proposed to require the modification of eight fastener locations in the longeron area below the emergency exit cut-outs on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides. The NPRM was prompted by a report that fatigue cracking could appear at certain fastener locations in the longeron area below the emergency exit cut-outs. This proposed AD is intended to complete certain mandated programs intended to support the airplane reaching its limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the established structural maintenance program. This action revises the applicability by adding post-Airbus modification 32208 airplanes, which are also affected. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to detect and correct cracking at certain fastener locations in the longeron area below the emergency exit cut-outs, which could lead to failure of the fasteners and reduced structural integrity of the airplane. Since these actions impose an additional burden over those proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this SNPRM by March 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0922; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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-2014-0922; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-156-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A319 and A320 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2014 (79 FR 74035).

    The NPRM was prompted by a report that fatigue cracking could appear at certain fastener locations in the longeron area below the emergency exit cut-outs. The NPRM was intended to complete certain mandated programs intended to support the airplane reaching its LOV of the engineering data that support the established structural maintenance program. The NPRM proposed to require the modification of eight fastener locations in the longeron area below the emergency exit cut-outs on the LH and RH sides.

    Actions Since Previous NPRM (79 FR 74035, December 15, 2014) Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM (79 FR 74035, December 15, 2014), we have determined that airplanes having Airbus modification 32208, which were excluded from the applicability of NPRM (79 FR 74035, December 15, 2014), are also affected. For this reason, the FAA added airplanes having Airbus modification 32208 to the applicability of this proposed AD and increased the number of airplanes in the Costs of Compliance section to 294 airplanes. The European Aviation Safety Agency, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0085, dated May 13, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Model A319 and Model A320 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During the A320 fatigue test campaign for Extended Service Goal (ESG), it was determined that fatigue damage could appear at certain fastener locations on the longeron [area] below the emergency exit cut-outs, on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides of the fuselage.

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

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus developed a modification, which has been published through Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A320-53-1265 for in-service application to allow aeroplanes to operate up to the new ESG limit. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2014-0176 to require modification (cold working) of 8 fastener locations in the longeron area (Stringer 20A) below the emergency exit cut-outs on the LH and RH sides.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it was identified that post-mod 32208 aeroplanes, which were excluded from the Applicability of that [EASA] AD, are also affected.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0176, which is superseded, but no longer excludes post-mod 32208 aeroplanes from the Applicability.

    As described in FAA Advisory Circular 120-104 (http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/120-104.pdf), several programs have been developed to support initiatives that will ensure the continued airworthiness of aging airplane structure. The last element of those initiatives is the requirement to establish a LOV of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program under 14 CFR 26.21. This proposed AD is the result of an assessment of the previously established programs by the design approval holder (DAH) during the process of establishing the LOV for Airbus Model A319 and A320 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.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0922.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1265, Revision 02, dated July 10, 2014. The service information describes procedures for modifying the fastener locations in the longeron area below the emergency exit cut-outs on both RH and LH sides of the fuselage. 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.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this proposed AD. We considered the comment received. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM (79 FR 74035, December 15, 2014) and the FAA's response to the comment.

    Request To Allow the Use of Later Revisions of Service Bulletin

    United Airlines (United) requested that the NPRM (79 FR 74035, December 15, 2014) contain a statement allowing use of later revisions of the service information as an acceptable method of compliance for the proposed AD. United stated the modification addressed by the NPRM allows operators to reach an ESG. United stated that the service information mentioned in the NPRM may not incorporate the proper effectivity, since Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1265, Revision 01, dated July 2, 2013, is restricted to operators who have applied for Airbus's request for change/request for modification order (RFC/RMO) process. United stated the effectivity of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1265, Revision 02, dated July 10, 2014, will likely not agree with the applicability of the NPRM.

    We partially agree. We disagree to allow use of later revisions of service documents in an AD because use of unpublished service information is not allowed by the Office of the Federal Register's regulations for approving materials incorporated by reference. However, we have reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1265, Revision 02, dated July 10, 2014, which updated the kit information and the effectivity. We revised the applicability in this proposed AD to reflect the effectivity of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1265, Revision 02, dated July 10, 2014. We also revised the references in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1265, Revision 02, dated July 10, 2014, and revised paragraph (h) of this proposed AD to allow credit for actions done using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1265, Revision 01, dated July 2, 2013. Affected operators may request approval to use a later revision of the referenced service information as an Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) using the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this proposed AD.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This SNPRM

    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.

    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM (79 FR 74035, December 15, 2014). As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.

    Explanation of “RC” Procedures and Tests in Service Information

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

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this SNPRM affects 294 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate that it would take about 12 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this SNPRM. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this SNPRM on U.S. operators to be $299,880, or $1,020 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2014-0922; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-156-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 7, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category, except those on which Airbus modification (mod) 152637 has been embodied in production.

    (1) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers (MSN).

    (2) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers (MSN).

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that fatigue cracking could appear at certain fastener locations in the longeron area below the emergency exit cut-outs. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking at certain fastener locations in the longeron area below the emergency exit cut-outs, which could lead to failure of the fasteners and reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Modification of Fastener Locations

    Before the accumulation of 48,000 total flight cycles or 96,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first since the airplane's first flight, modify the 8 fastener locations in the longeron area (stringer 20A) below the emergency exit cut-outs on both RH and LH sides, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1265, Revision 02, dated July 10, 2014.

    (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1265, dated January 2, 2013; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1265, Revision 01, dated July 2, 2013; which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0085, dated May 13, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0922-0002.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 5, 2016. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00699 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8469; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-105-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a design review that revealed insufficient measures were taken to ensure the correct locking of the attachments of the fuel quantity tank units (FQTUs) in each wing tank. When an FQTU becomes loose, this could lead to insufficient clearance between the FQTU and the adjacent tank structure or other metal parts, and under certain conditions, create an ignition source inside the wing fuel vapor space. This proposed AD would require modifying the FQTUs by applying sealant to cover the nuts, washers, and stud ends at the FQTU attachments in each main wing tank. This proposed AD would also require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating a fuel airworthiness limitation item and a critical design configuration control limitation (CDCCL). We are proposing this AD to prevent an ignition source in the wing fuel tank vapor space, which could result in a wing fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8469; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-8469; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-105-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0106, dated May 7, 2014 (referred to after this the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Prompted by an accident . . ., the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 88 [(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001)], and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) published Interim Policy INT/POL/25/12.

    The review conducted by Fokker Services on the Fokker F28 design, in response to these regulations, revealed that insufficient measures were taken to ensure the correct locking of the attachments of the Fuel Quantity Tank Units (FQTUs). When a FQTU becomes loose, this could lead to insufficient clearance between the FQTU and the adjacent tank structure or other metal parts and, under certain conditions, create an ignition source inside the wing fuel tank vapour space.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in a wing fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Fokker Services developed a modification to ensure that each FQTU remains properly attached.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the application of sealant covering the nuts, washers and stud ends at the FQTU attachment in each wing tank [and a revision to the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable to incorporate a fuel airworthiness limitation item and a CDCCL]. More information on this subject can be found in Fokker Services All Operators Message AOF28.038#02.

    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-2015-8469.

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

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

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Fokker Services B.V. has issued Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28-28-054, Revision 1, which includes Fokker Manual Change Notification MCNM-F28-037, Revision 1, dated January 9, 2014. The service information describes procedures for applying sealant to the attachment nuts, washers, and stud ends of the FQTU.

    Fokker Services B.V. has also issued Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28-28-050, Revision 3, dated December 11, 2014. The service information describes the fuel airworthiness limitation item and the CDCCL.

    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.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Modification and maintenance program revision 7 work-hours × $85 per hour = $595 $0 $595 $2,975
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Fokker Services B.V.: Docket No. FAA-2015-8469; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-105-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 7, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a design review that revealed insufficient measures were taken to ensure the correct locking of the attachments of the fuel quantity tank units (FQTUs) in each wing tank. When an FQTU becomes loose, this could lead to insufficient clearance between the FQTU and the adjacent tank structure or other metal parts, and under certain conditions, create an ignition source inside the wing fuel vapor space. We are issuing this AD to prevent an ignition source in the wing fuel tank vapor space, which could result in a wing fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Modification of the FQTUs

    At the next scheduled opening of the fuel tanks after the effective date of this AD, but no later than 84 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the FQTU in each main wing tank by applying sealant to cover the nuts, washers, and stud ends of the FQTU attachments, and do an inspection for leakage of the tank access panels, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28-28-054, Revision 1, including Fokker Manual Change Notification MCNM-F28-037, Revision 1, dated January 9, 2014. If any fuel leakage is found, before further flight, reapply the sealant, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28-28-054, Revision 1, including Fokker Manual Change Notification MCNM-F28-037, Revision 1, dated January 9, 2014.

    (h) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Before further flight after completing the modification specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Revise the airplane maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the fuel airworthiness limitation item and critical design configuration control limitation (CDCCL) specified in paragraph 1.L.(1)(c) of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28-28-054, Revision 1, dated January 9, 2014. The initial compliance times for these tasks are at the latest of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD.

    (1) At the applicable time specified in Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28-28-050, Revision 3, dated December 11, 2014.

    (2) Before further flight after completing the modification specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (3) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and CDCCLs

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the actions, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.

    (j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28-28-054, dated June 30, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

    Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0106, dated May 7, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8469.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 6, 2016. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00637 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8466; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-045-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by the need for more restrictive fuel airworthiness limitations. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance program or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate certain fuel system airworthiness limitations. We are proposing this AD to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8466; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-8466; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-045-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0032, dated February 24, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Fokker Services published issue 5 of Engineering Report SE-672, containing Fuel Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALIs) and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs). This report is Part 3 of the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS Part 3) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, referred to in Section 06, Appendix 1, of the Fokker 70/100 Maintenance Review Board (MRB) document.

    The complete ALS currently consists of:

    Part 1—Report SE-473, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Part 2—Report SE-623, ALIs and Safe Life Items (SLIs), and Part 3—Report SE-672, Fuel ALIs and CDCCLs.

    The instructions contained in those reports have been identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires implementation of the maintenance actions as specified in ALS Part 3 of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, Fokker Services Engineering Report SE-672 at issue 5.

    We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of structural failures or of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. 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-2015-8466.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Fokker Services B.V. has issued Fokker Services B.V. Engineering Report SE-672, Fokker 70/100 Fuel ALI's and CDCCL's, Issue 5, released December 11, 2014. The service information describes fuel airworthiness limitation items and critical design configuration control limitations. 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.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

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

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the ALS inspection tasks, corrective actions must be accomplished in accordance with Fokker Services maintenance documentation. However, this AD does not include that requirement. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are required by general airworthiness and operational regulations to perform maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We consider those methods to be adequate to address any corrective actions necessitated by the findings of ALS inspections required by this AD.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    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 $680, or $85 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Fokker Services B.V.: Docket No. FAA-2015-8466; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-045-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 7, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the need for more restrictive fuel airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Maintenance Program Revision

    (1) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the fuel airworthiness limitation items (ALIs) and critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) specified in Fokker Services B.V. Engineering Report SE-672, Fokker 70/100 Fuel ALI's and CDCCL's, Issue 5, released December 11, 2014.

    (2) The initial compliance times and repetitive intervals for the actions are at the applicable times specified within Fokker Services B.V. Engineering Report SE-672, Fokker 70/100 Fuel ALI's and CDCCL's, Issue 5, released December 11, 2014. If any discrepancy is found, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency; or Fokker B.V. Service's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). Repair any discrepancy before further flight.

    (h) No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or CDCCLs

    After accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Fokker Services B.V.'s EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0032, dated February 24, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8466.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 5, 2016. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00633 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8463; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-226-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-20-11, for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 2013-20-11 currently requires modifying the passenger emergency oxygen container assembly. Since we issued AD 2013-20-11, we have determined that the unsafe condition also affects oxygen containers labeled “DAe Systems.” This proposed AD would expand the affected group of oxygen containers to include those labeled “DAe Systems.” We are proposing this AD to prevent a high temperature oxygen generator and mask from falling down and possibly resulting in an ignition source in the passenger compartment, injury to passengers, and reduced availability of supplemental oxygen.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

    For B/E Aerospace service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Dieter Heins, Customer Support Manager, Oxygen & PSU Systems, B/E Aerospace Systems, GmbH Revalstr. 1, D-23560 Lübeck; telephone: +49 (0)451 4093 2976; fax: +49 (0)451 4093 4488; email: [email protected]

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8463; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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-2015-8463; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-226-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On September 17, 2013, we issued AD 2013-20-11, Amendment 39-17617 (78 FR 64162, October 28, 2013). AD 2013-20-11 requires modifying the passenger emergency oxygen container assembly on all Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes.

    Since we issued AD 2013-20-11, Amendment 39-17617 (78 FR 64162, October 28, 2013), we have determined that the unsafe condition also affects oxygen containers labeled “DAe Systems.”

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2014-0207, dated September 16, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition. The MCAI states:

    It was determined that oxygen generators, installed on a specific batch of Type 1 (22 min) passenger emergency oxygen container assemblies, may become detached by extreme pulling of the mask tube at the end of oxygen supply. Investigations revealed that such detachment can be caused by the increase in temperature towards the end of the generator operation, which may weaken the plastic housing in the attachment area of the bracket.

    This condition, if not corrected, could make the rivets slip through the plastic housing, causing a `hot' oxygen generator and mask to fall down, possibly resulting in injury to passengers.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2012-0055 (later revised) [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2012_0055_R1_superseded.pdf/AD_2012-0055R1_1] [which corresponds to FAA AD 2013-20-11, Amendment 39-17617 (78 FR 64162, October 28, 2013)] to require modification of the affected oxygen container assemblies. That [EASA] AD also prohibited installation of unmodified containers on any aeroplane as replacement parts.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it was found that the affected containers have not only been marked with company name B/E Aerospace, as was specified, but also, for a brief period, with the former company name DAe Systems.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2012-0055R1, which is superseded, and expands the affected group of containers to include those that have the name “DAe Systems” on the identification plate.

    This [EASA] AD also clearly separates the serial number (s/n) groups of containers into those manufactured by B/E Aerospace and those manufactured by DAe Systems, for which additional compliance time is provided.

    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-2015-8463.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information. This service information describes procedures for installation of a reinforcement plate in the oxygen container assembly.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1049, dated June 15, 2011.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1053, dated June 15, 2011.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1054, dated June 15, 2011.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1055, dated June 15, 2011.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1056, dated June 15, 2011.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1057, dated June 15, 2011.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1058, dated June 15, 2011.

    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.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

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

    The actions required by AD 2013-20-11, Amendment 39-17617 (78 FR 64162, October 28, 2013), and retained in this proposed AD take about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2013-20-11 is $170 per product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 2 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 $680, or $170 per product.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-20-11, Amendment 39-17617 (78 FR 64162, October 28, 2013), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-8463; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-226-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 7, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2013-20-11, Amendment 39-17617 (78 FR 64162, October 28, 2013).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (1) Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.

    (3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.

    (4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that oxygen generators installed on a certain batch of passenger emergency oxygen container assemblies might become detached by extreme pulling of the mask tube at the end of the oxygen supply causing a high temperature oxygen generator and mask to fall down. This AD was also prompted by a determination that the unsafe condition affects oxygen containers labeled “DAe Systems.” We are issuing this AD to prevent a high temperature oxygen generator and mask from falling down and possibly resulting in an ignition source in the passenger compartment, injury to passengers, and reduced availability of supplemental oxygen.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Oxygen Container Assembly Modification, With Service Information Referenced in a New Paragraph

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2013-20-11, Amendment 39-17617 (78 FR 64162, October 28, 2013), with service information referenced in a new paragraph. Except as specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, within 5,000 flight cycles, or 7,500 flight hours, or 24 months, whichever occurs first, after December 2, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-20-11): Modify each type 1 (22 minute) passenger emergency oxygen container assembly installed on an airplane, having a part number (P/N) listed in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD and a serial number (S/N) listed in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(7) of this AD.

    (1) An oxygen container that has a part number listed in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD and a serial number as listed in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, and that has been modified using the instructions of B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin 1XC22-0100-35-006, is compliant with the modification requirement of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (i) Oxygen container part numbers listed in paragraphs (g)(1)(i)(A) through (g)(1)(i)(D) of this AD, where xxxxx stands for an alphanumerical value.

    (A) 13C22Lxxxxx0100.

    (B) 13C22Rxxxxx0100.

    (C) 14C22Lxxxxx0100.

    (D) 14C22Rxxxxx0100.

    (ii) Oxygen container serial numbers listed in paragraphs (g)(1)(ii)(A) through (g)(1)(ii)(H) of this AD.

    (A) ARBC-0182 to ARBC-9999, inclusive.

    (B) ARBD-0000 to ARBD-9999, inclusive.

    (C) ARBE-0000 to ARBE-9999, inclusive.

    (D) BEBF-0000 to BEBF-9999, inclusive.

    (E) BEBH-0000 to BEBH-9999, inclusive.

    (F) BEBK-0000 to BEBK-9999, inclusive.

    (G) BEBL-0000 to BEBL-9999, inclusive.

    (H) BEBM-0000 to BEBM-0454, inclusive.

    (2) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 150704 has not been embodied in production are excluded from the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, unless an oxygen container with a part number listed in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD and a serial number listed in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD is installed.

    (3) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 150704 has been embodied in production and that are not listed by model and manufacturer serial number in the applicable Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(7) of this AD; are excluded from the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, unless an oxygen container with a part number listed in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD and a serial number listed in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD is installed.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:

    The oxygen container assemblies listed in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD and paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD are B/E Aerospace products with the mark “B/E AEROSPACE” on the identification plate.

    (h) Retained Parts Installation Limitation, With Service Information Referenced in a New Paragraph

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2013-20-11, Amendment 39-17617 (78 FR 64162, October 28, 2013), with service information referenced in a new paragraph. As of December 2, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-20-11), no person may install, on any airplane, an oxygen container with a part number listed in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD, and serial number listed in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, unless the oxygen container has been modified according to the applicable Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(7) of this AD.

    (i) New Requirement of This AD: Modification of Additional Oxygen Containers

    At the applicable times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD: Modify each type 1 (22 minute) passenger emergency oxygen container assembly installed on an airplane, having a part number and a serial number listed in paragraph (j) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(7) of this AD; except as specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (1) For units with “B/E AEROSPACE” on the identification plate and having a part number and a serial number listed in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD: Within 5,000 flight cycles, or 7,500 flight hours, or 24 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) For units with “DAe Systems” on the identification plate and having a part number and a serial number listed in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD: Within 2,500 flight cycles, or 3,750 flight hours, or 12 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.

    (j) New Part Numbers and Serial Numbers for the Parts Affected by Paragraph (i) of This AD

    Affected parts for the actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD are identified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD.

    (1) For oxygen containers with “B/E AEROSPACE” on the identification plate: Units having a part number identified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (j)(1)(iv) of this AD, where part number “xxxxx” stands for any alphanumerical value, and a serial number of BEBM-0455 to BEBM-9999, inclusive.

    (i) 13C22Lxxxxx0100.

    (ii) 13C22Rxxxxx0100.

    (iii) 14C22Lxxxxx0100.

    (iv) 14C22Rxxxxx0100.

    (2) For oxygen containers with “DAe Systems” on the identification plate: Units having a part number identified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (j)(1)(iv) of this AD, where part number “xxxxx” stands for any alphanumerical value, and a serial number identified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (j)(2)(iv) of this AD.

    (i) ARBC-0000 to ARBC-9999 inclusive.

    (ii) ARBD-0000 to ARBD-9999 inclusive.

    (iii) ARBE-0000 to BEBE-9999 inclusive.

    (iv) BEBE-0000 to BEBE-9999 inclusive.

    (k) New Service Information Paragraph for the Requirements of Paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (m) of This AD

    Accomplish the requirements specified in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (m) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Airbus service information identified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(7) of this AD.

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1049, dated June 15, 2011.

    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1053, dated June 15, 2011.

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1054, dated June 15, 2011.

    (4) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1055, dated June 15, 2011.

    (5) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1056, dated June 15, 2011.

    (6) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1057, dated June 15, 2011.

    (7) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1058, dated June 15, 2011.

    (l) New Exceptions to the Requirements of Paragraph (i) of This AD

    (1) An oxygen container that has a part number and a serial number listed in paragraph (j) of this AD, and that has been modified as specified in B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin 1XC22-0100-35-006, is compliant with the modification requirement of paragraph (i) of this AD.

    (2) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 150704 has not been embodied in production are excluded from the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD, unless an oxygen container with a part number and a serial number listed in paragraph (j) of this AD is installed.

    (3) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 150704 has been embodied in production and that are not listed by model and manufacturer serial number in the Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(7) of this AD, as applicable, are excluded from the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD, unless an oxygen container with a part and a serial number listed in paragraph (j) of this AD is installed.

    (4) Airplanes on which the design of the passenger oxygen container is not Design A, as defined in figure 1 to paragraph (l)(4) of this AD, are excluded from the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD for that passenger oxygen container.

    Note 2 to paragraph (l)(4) of this AD:

    For “Design A,” the placard on the passenger oxygen container test button is as described in “Picture A” in figure 1 to paragraph (l)(4) of this AD. The mask configuration (“ZZ” in “Picture A”) is a number, and the test button is as shown in “Picture B.”

    EP20JA16.001 (m) New Requirement of This AD: Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, an oxygen container with a part number and a serial number listed in paragraph (j) of this AD, unless the oxygen container has been modified in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(7) of this AD.

    (n) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: (425) 227-1405; fax: (425) 227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2013-20-11, Amendment 39-17617 (78 FR 64162, October 28, 2013), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

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

    (o) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2014-0207, dated September 16, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8463.

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

    (3) For B/E Aerospace service information identified in this AD, contact Dieter Heins, Customer Support Manager, Oxygen & PSU Systems, B/E Aerospace Systems, GmbH Revalstr. 1, D-23560 Lübeck; telephone: +49 (0)451 4093 2976; fax: +49 (0)451 4093 4488; email: [email protected].

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 5, 2016. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00697 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8468; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-208-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2007-21-14 R1, for all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. AD 2007-21-14 R1 currently requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. Since we issued AD 2007-21-14R1, we have determined that more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance program or inspection program to incorporate revised fuel maintenance and inspection tasks. We are proposing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8468; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-8468; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-208-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On October 19, 2009, we issued AD 2007-21-14 R1, Amendment 39-16061 (74 FR 55123, October 27, 2009). AD 2007-21-14 R1 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. AD 2007-21-14 R1 revised AD 2007-21-14, Amendment 39-15232, (72 FR 58499, October 16, 2007).

    Since we issued AD 2007-21-14R1, Amendment 39-16061 (74 FR 55123, October 27, 2009), we have determined more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0193, dated October 15, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Prompted by an accident . . ., the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 88, [http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/EEFB3F94451DC06286256C93004F5E07?OpenDocument&Highlight=sfar 88], and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) published Interim Policy INT/POL/25/12. In response to these regulations, Airbus conducted a design review to develop Fuel Airworthiness Limitations (FAL) for Airbus on A310 aeroplanes.

    The FAL were specified in Airbus A310 FAL document ref. 95A.1930/05 at issue 02 and in the A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) variation to FAL document issue 02, ref. 0BVLG110006/C0S issue 01, for A310 aeroplanes.

    EASA issued [EASA] AD 2006-0202 (http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2006-0202) to require compliance with the FAL documents (comprising maintenance/inspection tasks and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL)).

    EASA AD 2006-0202 was superseded by EASA AD 2007-0096 (later revised) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2007-21-14R1, Amendment 39-16061 (74 FR 55123, October 27, 2009)], which retained the original requirements and corrected and updated the compliance paragraphs concerning task ref. 28-18-00-03-1 and CDCCL's.

    Since EASA AD 2007-0096R1 [(http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2007-0096R1) which corresponds to FAA AD 2007-21-14R1, Amendment 39-16061 (74 FR 55123, October 27, 2009)] was published, Airbus issued A310 ALS Part 5, prompted by EASA policy statement (EASA D2005/CPRO) which requests design approval holders to integrate Fuel Tank Safety items into an ALS document. The A310 ALS Part 5 is approved by EASA.

    Failure to comply with the items as identified in Airbus A310 ALS Part 5 could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the aeroplane.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD . . . requires implementation of the new and more restrictive maintenance instructions and/or airworthiness limitations as specified in Airbus A310 ALS Part 5.

    The unsafe condition is the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, could result in fuel tank explosions 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-2015-8468.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 5,—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 00, dated May 27, 2014. The airworthiness limitations introduce mandatory instructions and more restrictive maintenance requirements. 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.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

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

    Notwithstanding any other maintenance or operational requirements, components that have been identified as airworthy or installed on the affected airplanes before accomplishing the revision of the airplane maintenance or inspection program specified in this AD, do not need to be reworked in accordance with the CDCCLs. However, once the airplane maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by this AD, future maintenance actions on these components must be done in accordance with the CDCCLs.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the ALS inspection tasks, corrective actions must be accomplished in accordance with Airbus maintenance documentation. However, this AD does not include that requirement. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are required by general airworthiness and operational regulations to perform maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We consider those methods to be adequate to address any corrective actions necessitated by the findings of ALS inspections required by this AD.

    This proposed AD would require operators to revise the maintenance or inspection program within 3 months after the effective date of the AD to incorporate revised fuel maintenance and inspection tasks. The MCAI specifies compliance with the tasks as of the effective date of the MCAI. In developing the compliance time for this action, we considered the degree of urgency associated with addressing the unsafe condition. We find 3 months an appropriate compliance time to complete these actions. This difference has been coordinated with the EASA.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 23 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions required by AD 2007-21-14 R1, Amendment 39-16061 (74 FR 55123, October 27, 2009), and retained in this proposed AD take about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2007-21-14 R1 is $170 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. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,955, or $85 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2007-21-14 R1, Amendment 39-16061 (74 FR 55123, October 27, 2009), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-8468; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-208-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 7, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces (AD) 2007-21-14R1, Amendment 39-16061 (74 FR 55123, October 27, 2009).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by Airbus issuing more restrictive instructions and/or fuel airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Revision of the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) To Incorporate Fuel Maintenance and Inspection Tasks, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD 2007-21-14R1, Amendment 39-16061 (74 FR 55123, October 27, 2009), with no changes. Within 3 months after November 20, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-21-14, Amendment 39-15232, (72 FR 58499, October 16, 2007)), revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A310 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated May 31, 2006, as defined in Airbus A310 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1930/05, Issue 2, dated May 11, 2007 (approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on July 6, 2007), Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks.” For all tasks identified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1930/05, Issue 2, dated May 11, 2007 (approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on July 6, 2007), the initial compliance times start from the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, and the repetitive inspections must be accomplished thereafter at the intervals specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1930/05, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (1) November 20, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-21-14, Amendment 39-15232, (72 FR 58499, October 16, 2007)).

    (2) The date of issuance of the original French standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original French export certificate of airworthiness.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:

    Airbus Operator Information Telex SE 999.0079/07, Revision 01, dated August 14, 2007, identifies the applicable sections of the Airbus A310 Airplane Maintenance Manual necessary for accomplishing the tasks specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1930/05.

    (h) Retained Revision of Initial Compliance Time for Task 28-18-00-03-1, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2007-21-14 R1, Amendment 39-16061 (74 FR 55123, October 27, 2009), with no changes. For Task 28-18-00-03-1 identified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1930/05, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks,” of Airbus A310 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1930/05, Issue 2, dated May 11, 2007 (approved by the EASA on July 6, 2007): The initial compliance time is the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, Task 28-18-00-03-1 identified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1930/05, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks,” of Airbus A310 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1930/05, Issue 2, dated May 11, 2007 (approved by the EASA on July 6, 2007) must be accomplished at the repetitive interval specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1930/05, Issue 2, dated May 11, 2007 (approved by the EASA on July 6, 2007).

    (1) Prior to the accumulation of 40,000 total flight hours.

    (2) Within 72 months or 20,000 flight hours after November 20, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-21-14, Amendment 39-15232, (72 FR 58499, October 16, 2007)), whichever occurs first.

    (i) Retained Revision of the ALS To Incorporate CDCCLs, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2007-21-14R1, Amendment 39-16061 (74 FR 55123, October 27, 2009), with no changes. Within 12 months after November 20, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-21-14, Amendment 39-15232, (72 FR 58499, October 16, 2007)), revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A310 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated May 31, 2006, as defined in Airbus A310 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1930/05, Issue 2, dated May 11, 2007 (approved by the EASA on July 6, 2007), Section 2, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations.”

    (j) Retained No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or CDCCLs, With New Paragraph Reference

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2007-21-14R1, Amendment 39-16061 (74 FR 55123, October 27, 2009), with a new paragraph reference. Except as provided by paragraphs (k) and (m)(1) of this AD: After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used.

    (k) New Requirement of This AD: Revise the Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the airworthiness limitations as specified in Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 00, dated May 27, 2014. The initial compliance times for the actions specified Airbus A310 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 00, dated May 27, 2014, are at the later of the times specified in Airbus A310 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 00, dated May 27, 2014, or within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the revision required by this paragraph terminates the actions required by paragraphs (g) through (i) of this AD.

    (l) New Requirement of This AD: No Alternative Inspections, Intervals, and/or Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (k) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, and/or CDCCLs may be used unless the actions, intervals, and/or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.

    (m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

    (n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2014-0193, dated October 15, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8468.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 5, 2016. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00632 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-139483-13] RIN 1545-BL87 Treatment of Certain Transfers of Property of Foreign Corporations; Hearing AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document provides notice of public hearing on the proposed regulations relating to certain transfers of property by United States persons to foreign corporations. The proposed regulations affect United States persons that transfer certain property, including foreign goodwill and going concern value, to foreign corporations in non-recognition transactions described in section 367 of the Internal Revenue Code.

    DATES:

    The public hearing is being held on Monday, February 8, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. The IRS must receive outlines of the topics to be discussed at the public hearing by Monday, January 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public hearing is being held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building.

    Send Submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-139483-13), Room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-139483-13), Couriers Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224 or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS-2015-0047).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the regulations, Ryan A. Bowen at (202) 317-6937; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing Regina Johnson at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject of the public hearing is the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-139483-13) that was published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 (80 FR 55568). The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing that submitted written comments by December 15, 2015 must submit an outline of the topics to be addressed and the amount of time to be devoted to each topic by January 25, 2016.

    A period of 10 minutes is allotted to each person for presenting oral comments. After the deadline for receiving outlines has passed, the IRS will prepare an agenda containing the schedule of speakers. Copies of the agenda will be made available, free of charge, at the hearing or in the Freedom of Information Reading Room (FOIA RR) (Room 1621) which is located at the 11th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW. entrance, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.

    Because of access restrictions, the IRS will not admit visitors beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
    [FR Doc. 2016-00961 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-1081] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zones; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend its safety zones regulation for Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. This proposed amendment updates 18 permanent safety zones and adds 3 new permanent safety zones. These amendments and additions are necessary to protect spectators, participants, and vessels from the hazards associated with annual maritime events, including fireworks displays, boat races, and air shows.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before February 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-1081 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Joseph McCollum, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan; telephone 414-747-7148, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On February 18, 2015, the Coast Guard published a final rule entitled Safety Zones; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone in the Federal Register (80 FR 8536). This final rule published after the Coast Guard requested public comments in response to a preceding NPRM in the Federal Register (79 FR 77415, December 24, 2014). No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

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

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to update the safety zones in § 165.929 to ensure that they match the times, dates, and dimensions for various marine and triggering events that are expected to be conducted with the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone throughout the year. The purpose of the rulemaking is also to ensure vessels and persons are protected from the specific hazards related to the aforementioned events. These specific hazards include obstructions to the waterway that may cause marine casualties; collisions among vessels maneuvering at a high speed within a channel; the explosive dangers involved in pyrotechnics and hazardous cargo; and flaming/falling debris into the water that may cause injuries.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule amends 18 permanent safety zones found within table 165.929 in 33 CFR 165.929. These 18 amendments involve updating the location, size, and/or enforcement times for: 11 fireworks displays in various locations; 1 regatta in Spring Lake, Michigan; 3 Air Shows; 1 Facility in Marinette, Wisconsin; 1 boat race from Chicago, Illinois; and 1 ski show in Sister Bay, Wisconsin.

    Additionally, this proposed rule adds 3 new safety zones to table 165.929 within § 165.929 for annually-reoccurring events in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone. These 3 zones were added in order to protect the public from the safety hazards previously described. The 3 additions include 2 safety zones for fireworks displays, and 1 safety zone for a boat parade in Chicago Harbor, Chicago, Illinois. A list of specific changes and additions are available in the attachments within this Docket.

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

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

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

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

    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 the statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    We conclude that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zones created by this rule will be relatively small and effective during the time to ensure safety of spectator and participants for the listed triggering or marine events. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zones, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zones.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

    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 section. 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.

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    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 have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

    Also, 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. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    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 (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 the establishment of safety zones for yearly triggering and marine events on and around Lake Michigan. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. An environmental analysis checklist and 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.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. 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.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 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.

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

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

    (1) The general regulations in 33 CFR 165.23.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Table 165.929 Event Location 1 Enforcement date and time 2 (a) March Safety Zones (1) St. Patrick's Day Fireworks Manitowoc, WI. All waters of the Manitowoc River within the arc of a circle with a 250-foot radius from a center point launch position at 44°05.492′ N., 087°39.332′ W The third Saturday of March; 5:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. (2) Public Fireworks Display Green Bay, WI. All waters of the Fox River in the vicinity of the Main Street and Walnut Street Bridge within an area bounded by the following coordinates; 44°31.211′ N., 088°00.833′ W; then southwest along the river bank to 44°30.944′ N., 088°01.159′ W.; then southeast to 44°30.890′ N., 088°01.016′ W.; then northeast along the river bank to 44°31.074′ N., 088°00.866′ W.; then northwest returning to the point of origin March 15; 11:50 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Rain date: March 16; 11:50 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (b) April Safety Zones (1) Michigan Aerospace Challenge Sport Rocket Launch Muskegon, MI. All waters of Muskegon Lake, near the West Michigan Dock and Market Corp facility, within the arc of a circle with a 1,500-yard radius from the rocket launch site located in position 43°14.018′ N., 086°15.585′ W The last Saturday of April; 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. (2) Lubbers Cup Regatta Spring Lake, MI. All waters of Spring Lake in Spring Lake, Michigan in the vicinity of Keenan Marina within a rectangle that is approximately 6,300 by 300 feet. The rectangle will be bounded by points beginning at 43°04.914′ N., 086°12.525′ W.; then east to 43°;04.958′ N, 086°11.104′ W.; then south to 43°04.913′ N., 086°11.096′ W.; then west to 43°04.867′ N., 086°12.527′ W.; then north back to the point of origin April 9; 7:45 a.m. to 6:15 p.m., and April 10; 8:45 a.m. to 1 p.m. (c) May Safety Zones (1) Tulip Time Festival Fireworks Holland, MI. All waters of Lake Macatawa, near Kollen Park, within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site in approximate center position 42°47.496′ N., 086°07.348′ W The first Saturday of May; 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. Rain date: The first Friday of May; 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. (2) Cochrane Cup Blue Island, IL. All waters of the Calumet Saganashkee Channel from the South Halstead Street Bridge at 41°39.442′ N., 087°38.474′ W.; to the Crawford Avenue Bridge at 41°39.078′ N., 087°43.127′ W.; and the Little Calumet River from the Ashland Avenue Bridge at 41°39.098′ N., 087°39.626′ W.; to the junction of the Calumet Saganashkee Channel at 41°39.373′ N., 087°39.026′ W The first Saturday of May; 6:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. (3) Rockets for Schools Rocket Launch Sheboygan, WI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Sheboygan Harbor, near the Sheboygan South Pier, within the arc of a circle with a 1,500-yard radius from the rocket launch site located with its center in position 43°44.914′ N., 087°41.869′ W The first Saturday of May; 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (4) Celebrate De Pere Fireworks De Pere, WI. All waters of the Fox River, near Voyageur Park, within the arc of a circle with a 500- foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 44°27.167′ N., 088°03.833′ W The Saturday or Sunday before Memorial Day; 8:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. (d) June Safety Zones (1) International Bayfest Green Bay, WI. All waters of the Fox River, near the Western Lime Company 1.13 miles above the head of the Fox River, within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 44°31.408′ N., 088°00.710′ W The second Friday of June; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (2) Harborfest Music and Family Festival Racine, WI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Racine Harbor, near the Racine Launch Basin Entrance Light, within the arc of a circle with a 200-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°43.722′ N., 087°46.673′ W Friday and Saturday of the third complete weekend of June; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. each day. (3) Spring Lake Heritage Festival Fireworks Spring Lake, MI. All waters of the Grand River within the arc of a circle with a 700-foot radius from a barge in center position 43°04.375′ N., 086°12.401′ W The third Saturday of June; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (4) Elberta Solstice Festival Elberta, MI. All waters of Betsie Lake within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in approximate center position 44°37.607′ N., 086°13.977′ W The last Saturday of June; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (5) World War II Beach Invasion Re-enactment St. Joseph, MI. All waters of Lake Michigan in the vicinity of Tiscornia Park in St. Joseph, MI beginning at 42°06.918′ N., 086°29.421′ W.; then west/northwest along the north breakwater to 42°06.980′ N., 086°29.682′ W.; then northwest 100 yards to 42°07.018′ N., 086°29.728′ W.; then northeast 2,243 yards to 42°07.831′ N., 086°28.721′ W.; then southeast to the shoreline at 42°07.646′ N., 086°28.457′ W.; then southwest along the shoreline to the point of origin The last Saturday of June; 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. (6) Ephraim Fireworks Ephraim, WI. All waters of Eagle Harbor and Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 750-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 45°09.304′ N., 087°10.844′ W The third Saturday of June; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (7) Thunder on the Fox Elgin, IL. All waters of the Fox River from the Kimball Street bridge, located at approximate position 42°02.499′ N., 088°17.367′ W., then 1,250 yards north to a line crossing the river perpendicularly running through position 42°03.101′ N., 088°17.461′ W Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of the third weekend in June; 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. each day. (8) Olde Ellison Bay Days Fireworks Ellison Bay, WI. All waters of Green Bay, in the vicinity of Ellison Bay Wisconsin, within the arc of a circle with a 400-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in approximate center position 45°15.595′ N., 087°05.043′ W The fourth Saturday of June; 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. (9) Sheboygan Harborfest Fireworks Sheboygan, WI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Sheboygan Harbor within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 43°44.914′ N., 087°41.897′ W June 15; 8:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. (e) July Safety Zones (1) Town of Porter Fireworks Display Porter IN. All waters of Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in center position 41°39.927′ N., 087°03.933′ W The first Saturday of July; 8:45 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. (2) City of Menasha 4th of July Fireworks Menasha, WI. All waters of Lake Winnebago and the Fox River within the arc of a circle with an 800-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in center position 44°12.017′ N., 088°25.904′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (3) Pentwater July Third Fireworks Pentwater, MI. All waters of Lake Michigan and the Pentwater Channel within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 43°46.942′ N., 086°26.625′ W July 3; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (4) Taste of Chicago Fireworks Chicago, IL. All waters of Monroe Harbor and Lake Michigan bounded by a line drawn from 41°53.380′ N., 087°35.978′ W.; then southeast to 41°53.247′ N., 087°35.434′ W; then south to 41°52.809′ N., 087°35.434′ W.; then southwest to 41°52.453′ N., 087°36.611′ W.; then north to 41°53.247′ N., 087°36.573′ W.; then northeast returning to the point of origin July 3; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (5) St. Joseph Fourth of July Fireworks St. Joseph, MI. All waters of Lake Michigan and the St. Joseph River within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site in position 42°06.867′ N., 086° 29.463′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (6) US Bank Fireworks Milwaukee, WI. All waters and adjacent shoreline of Milwaukee Harbor, in the vicinity of Veteran's park, within the arc of a circle with a 1,200-foot radius from the center of the fireworks launch site which is located on a barge in approximate position 43°02.362′ N., 087°53.485′ W July 3; 8:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 4; 8:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. (7) Manistee Independence Day Fireworks Manistee, MI. All waters of Lake Michigan, in the vicinity of the First Street Beach, within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 44°14.854′ N., 086°20.757′ W July 3; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (8) Frankfort Independence Day Fireworks Frankfort, MI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Frankfort Harbor, bounded by a line drawn from 44°38.100′ N., 086°14.826′ W.; then south to 44°37.613′ N., 086°14.802′ W.; then west to 44°37.613′ N., 086°15.263′ W.; then north to 44°38.094′ N., 086°15.263′ W.; then east returning to the point of origin July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (9) Freedom Festival Fireworks Ludington, MI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Ludington Harbor within the arc of a circle with a 800-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 43°57.171′ N., 086°27.718′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (10) White Lake Independence Day Fireworks Montague, MI. All waters of White Lake within the arc of a circle with an 800-foot radius from a center position at 43°24.621′ N., 086°21.463′ W July 4; 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. (11) Muskegon Summer Celebration July Fourth Fireworks Muskegon, MI. All waters of Muskegon Lake, in the vicinity of Hartshorn Municipal Marina, within the arc of a circle with a 700-foot radius from a center position at 43°14.039′ N., 086°15.793′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (12) Grand Haven Jaycees Annual Fourth of July Fireworks Grand Haven, MI. All waters of the Grand River within the arc of a circle with a 800-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on the west bank of the Grand River in position 43°3.908′ N., 086°14.240′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. (13) Celebration Freedom Fireworks Holland, MI. All waters of Lake Macatawa in the vicinity of Kollen Park within the arc of a circle with a 2,000-foot radius of a center launch position at 42°47.440′ N., 086°07.621′ W July 4; 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. Rain date: July 4; 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. (14) Van Andel Fireworks Show Holland, MI. All waters of Lake Michigan and the Holland Channel within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in approximate position 42°46.351′ N., 086°12.710′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 3; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (15) Saugatuck Independence Day Fireworks Saugatuck, MI. All waters of Kalamazoo Lake within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site in center position 42°39.074′ N., 086°12.285′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (16) South Haven Fourth of July Fireworks South Haven, MI. All waters of Lake Michigan and the Black River within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in center position 42°24.125′ N., 086°17.179′ W July 3; 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. (17) Town of Dune Acres Independence Day Fireworks Dune Acres, IN. All waters of Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 700-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°39.303′ N., 087°05.239′ W The first Saturday of July; 8:45 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (18) Gary Fourth of July Fireworks Gary, IN. All waters of Lake Michigan, approximately 2.5 miles east of Gary Harbor, within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°37.322′ N., 087°14.509′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (19) Joliet Independence Day Celebration Fireworks Joliet, IL. All waters of the Des Plains River, at mile 288, within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°31.522′ N., 088°05.244′ W July 3; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (20) Glencoe Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks Glencoe, IL. All waters of Lake Michigan in the vicinity of Lake Front Park, within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from a barge in position 42°08.404′ N., 087°44.930′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (21) Lakeshore Country Club Independence Day Fireworks Glencoe, IL. All waters of Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 600-foot radius from a center point fireworks launch site in approximate position 42°09.130′ N., 087°45.530′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (22) Shore Acres Country Club Independence Day Fireworks Lake Bluff, IL. All waters of Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 600-foot radius from approximate position 42°17.847′ N., 087°49.837′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (23) Kenosha Independence Day Fireworks Kenosha, WI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Kenosha Harbor within the arc of a circle with a 1,00-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°35.283′ N., 087°48.450′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (24) Fourthfest of Greater Racine Fireworks Racine, WI. All waters of Racine Harbor and Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 900-foot radius from a center point position at 42°44.259′ N., 087°46.635′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (25) Sheboygan Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks Sheboygan, WI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Sheboygan Harbor, in the vicinity of the south pier, within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 43°44.917′ N., 087°41.850′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (26) Manitowoc Independence Day Fireworks Manitowoc, WI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Manitowoc Harbor, in the vicinity of south breakwater, within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 44°05.395′ N., 087°38.751′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (27) Sturgeon Bay Independence Day Fireworks Sturgeon Bay, WI. All waters of Sturgeon Bay, in the vicinity of Sunset Park, within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 44°50.562′ N., 087°23.411′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (28) Fish Creek Independence Fish Creek, WI. All waters of Green Bay, in the vicinity of Fish Creek Harbor, within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 45°07.867′ N., 087°14.617′ W July 2; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 2; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (29) Fire over the Fox Fireworks Green Bay, WI. All waters of the Fox River including the mouth of the East River from the Canadian National Railroad bridge in approximate position 44°31.467′ N., 088°00.633′ W then southwest to the Main St. Bridge in approximate position 44°31.102′ N., 088°00.963′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (30) Celebrate Americafest Ski Show Green Bay, WI. All waters of the Fox River, including the mouth of the East River from the West Walnut Street Bridge in approximate position 44°30.912′ N., 088°01.100′ W., then northeast to an imaginary line running perpendicularly across the river through coordinate 44°31.337′ N., 088°00.640′ W July 4 from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. (31) Marinette Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks Marinette, WI. All waters of the Menominee River, in the vicinity of Stephenson Island, within the arc of a circle with a 900-foot radius from the fireworks launch site in center position 45°6.232′ N., 087°37.757′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (32) Evanston Fourth of July Fireworks Evanston, IL. All waters of Lake Michigan, in the vicinity of Centennial Park Beach, within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°02.933′ N., 087°40.350′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (33) Gary Air and Water Show Gary, IN. All waters of Lake Michigan bounded by a line drawn from 41°37.217′ N., 087°16.763′ W.; then east along the shoreline to 41°37.413′ N., 087°13.822′ W.; then north to 41°38.017′ N., 087°13.877′ W.; then southwest to 41°37.805′ N., 087°16.767′ W.; then south returning to the point of origin July 6 thru 10; 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. (34) Annual Trout Festival Fireworks Kewaunee, WI. All waters of Kewaunee Harbor and Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 44°27.493′ N., 087°29.750′ W Friday of the second complete weekend of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (35) Michigan City Summerfest Fireworks Michigan City, IN. All waters of Michigan City Harbor and Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°43.700′ N., 086°54.617′ W Sunday of the second complete weekend of July; 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (36) Port Washington Fish Day Fireworks Port Washington, WI. All waters of Port Washington Harbor and Lake Michigan, in the vicinity of the WE Energies coal dock, within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 43°23.117′ N., 087°51.900′ W The third Saturday of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (37) Bay View Lions Club South Shore Frolics Fireworks Milwaukee, WI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Milwaukee Harbor, in the vicinity of South Shore Yacht Club, within the arc of a circle with a 900-foot radius from the fireworks launch site in position 42°59.658′ N., 087°52.808′ W Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of the second or third weekend of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. each day. (38) Venetian Festival Fireworks St. Joseph, MI. All waters of Lake Michigan and the St. Joseph River, near the east end of the south pier, within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°06.800′ N., 086°29.250′ W Saturday of the third complete weekend of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (39) Joliet Waterway Daze Fireworks Joliet, IL. All waters of the Des Plaines River, at mile 287.5, within the arc of a circle with a 300-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°31.250′ N., 088°05.283′ W Friday and Saturday of the third complete weekend of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. each day. (40) EAA Airventure Oshkosh, WI. All waters of Lake Winnebago in the vicinity of Willow Harbor within an area bounded by a line connecting the following coordinates: beginning at 43°56.822′ N., 088°29.904′ W; then north approximately 5,100 feet to 43°57.653′ N., 088°29.904′ W., then east approximately 2,300 feet to 43°57.653′ N., 088°29.374′ W; then south to shore at 43°56.933′ N., 088°29.374′ W.; then southwest along the shoreline to 43°56.822′ N., 088°29.564′ W.; then west returning to the point of origin The last complete week of July, beginning Monday and ending Sunday; 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. each day. (41) Saugatuck Venetian Night Fireworks Saugatuck, MI. All waters of Kalamazoo Lake within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 42°39.073′ N., 086°12.285′ W The last Saturday of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (42) Roma Lodge Italian Festival Fireworks Racine, WI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Racine Harbor within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°44.067′ N., 087°46.333′ W Friday and Saturday of the last complete weekend of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (43) Chicago Venetian Night Fireworks Chicago, IL. All waters of Monroe Harbor and all waters of Lake Michigan bounded by a line drawn from 41°53.050′ N., 087°36.600′ W.; then east to 41°53.050′ N., 087°36.350′ W.; then south to 41°52.450′ N., 087°36.350′ W.; then west to 41°52.450′ N., 087°36.617′ W.; then north returning to the point of origin Saturday of the last weekend of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (44) New Buffalo Business Association Fireworks New Buffalo, MI. All waters of Lake Michigan and New Buffalo Harbor within the arc of a circle with a 800-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°48.153′ N., 086°44.823′ W July 3rd or July 5th; 9:30 p.m. to 11:15 p.m. (45) Start of the Chicago to Mackinac Race Chicago, IL. All waters of Lake Michigan in the vicinity of the Navy Pier at Chicago IL, within a rectangle that is approximately 1,500 by 900 yards. The rectangle is bounded by the coordinates beginning at 41°53.252′ N., 087°35.430′ W.; then south to 41°52.812′ N., 087°35.430′ W.; then east to 41°52.817′ N., 087°34.433′ W.; then north to 41°53.250′ N., 087°34.433′ W.; then west, back to point of origin July 22; 2 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and July 23; 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. (46) Fireworks at Pier Wisconsin Milwaukee, WI. All waters of Milwaukee Harbor, including Lakeshore Inlet and the marina at Pier Wisconsin, within the arc of a circle with a 300-foot radius from the fireworks launch site on Pier Wisconsin located in approximate position 43°02.178′ N., 087°53.625′ W Dates and times will be issued by Notice of Enforcement and Broadcast Notice to Mariners. (47) Gills Rock Fireworks Gills Rock, WI. All waters of Green Bay near Gills Rock WI within a 1,000-foot radius of the launch vessel in approximate position at 45°17.470′ N., 087°01.728′ W July 4; 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (48) City of Menominee 4th of July Celebration Fireworks Menominee, MI. All waters of Green Bay, in the vicinity of Menominee Marina, within the arc of a circle with a 900-foot radius from a center position at 45°06.417′ N., 087°36.024′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (49) Miesfeld's Lakeshore Weekend Fireworks Sheboygan, WI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Sheboygan Harbor within an 800-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located at the south pier in approximate position 43°44.917′ N., 087°41.967′ W July 29; 9 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Rain date: July 30; 9 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (50) Marinette Logging and Heritage Festival Fireworks Marinette, WI. All waters of the Menominee River, in the vicinity of Stephenson Island, within the arc of a circle with a 900-foot radius from the fireworks launch site in position 45°06.232′ N., 087°37.757′ W July 13; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (51) Summer in the City Water Ski Show Green Bay, WI. All waters of the Fox River in Green Bay, WI from the Main Street Bridge in position 44°31.089′ N., 088°00.904′ W. then southwest to the Walnut Street Bridge in position 44°30.900′ N. 088°01.091′ W Each Wednesday of July through August; 6 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. (52) Holiday Celebration Fireworks Kewaunee, WI. All waters of Kewaunee Harbor and Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 44°27.481′ N., 087°29.735′ W July 4; 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (53) Independence Day Fireworks Wilmette, IL. All waters of Lake Michigan and the North Shore Channel within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located at approximate center position 42°04.674′ N., 087°40.856′ W July 3; 8:30 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. (54) Neenah Fireworks Neenah, WI. All waters of Lake Winnebago within a 700-foot radius of an approximate launch position at 44°11.126′ N., 088°26.941′ W July 3 or 4; 8:45 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (55) Milwaukee Air and Water Show Milwaukee, WI. All waters and adjacent shoreline of Lake Michigan in the vicinity of McKinley Park located within an area that is approximately 4,800 by 1,250 yards. The area will be bounded by the points beginning at 43°02.450′ N., 087°52.850′ W.; then southeast to 43°02.230′ N., 087°52.061′ W.; then northeast to 43°04.543′ N., 087°50.801′ W.; then northwest to 43°04.757′ N., 087°51.512′ W.; then southwest returning to the point of origin July 6 thru 10; 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. (f) August Safety Zones (1) Super Boat Grand Prix Michigan City, IN. All waters of Lake Michigan bounded by a rectangle drawn from 41°43.655′ N., 086°54.550′ W.; then northeast to 41°44.808′ N., 086°51.293′ W., then northwest to 41°45.195′ N., 086°51.757′ W.; then southwest to 41°44.063′ N., 086°54.873′ W.; then southeast returning to the point of origin The first Sunday of August; 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Rain date: The first Saturday of August; 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. (2) Port Washington Maritime Heritage Festival Fireworks Port Washington, WI. All waters of Port Washington Harbor and Lake Michigan, in the vicinity of the WE Energies coal dock, within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 43°23.117′ N., 087°51.900′ W Saturday of the last complete weekend of July or the second weekend of August; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (3) Grand Haven Coast Guard Festival Fireworks Grand Haven, MI. All waters of the Grand River within the arc of a circle with an 800-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on the west bank of the Grand River in position 43°03.907′ N., 086°14.247′ W First weekend of August; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (4) Sturgeon Bay Yacht Club Evening on the Bay Fireworks Sturgeon Bay, WI. All waters of Sturgeon Bay within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in approximate position 44°49.297′ N., 087°21.447′ W The first Saturday of August; 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (5) Hammond Marina Venetian Night Fireworks Hammond, IN. All waters of Hammond Marina and Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°41.883′ N., 087°30.717′ W The first Saturday of August; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (6) North Point Marina Venetian Festival Fireworks Winthrop Harbor, IL. All waters of Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°28.917′ N., 087°47.933′ W The second Saturday of August; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (7) Waterfront Festival Fireworks Menominee, MI. All waters of Green Bay, in the vicinity of Menominee Marina, within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from a center position at 45°06.447′ N., 087°35.991′ W August 3; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (8) Ottawa Riverfest Fireworks Ottawa, IL. All waters of the Illinois River, at mile 239.7, within the arc of a circle with a 300-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°20.483′ N., 088°51.333′ W The first Sunday of August; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (9) Chicago Air and Water Show Chicago, IL. All waters and adjacent shoreline of Lake Michigan and Chicago Harbor bounded by a line drawn from 41°55.900′ N at the shoreline, then east to 41°55.900′ N., 087°37.200′ W, then southeast to 41°54.000′ N., 087°36.000′ W., then southwestward to the northeast corner of the Jardine Water Filtration Plant, then due west to the shore August 18 thru 21; 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. (10) Pentwater Homecoming Fireworks Pentwater, MI. All waters of Lake Michigan and the Pentwater Channel within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 43°46.942′ N., 086°26.633′ W Saturday following the second Thursday of August; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (11) Chicago Match Cup Race Chicago, IL. All waters of Chicago Harbor in the vicinity of Navy Pier and the Chicago Harbor break wall bounded by coordinates beginning at 41°53.617′ N., 087°35.433′ W.; then south to 41°53.400′ N., 087°35.433′ W.; then west to 41°53.400′ N., 087°35.917′ W.; then north to 41°53.617′ N., 087°35.917′ W.; then back to point of origin August 6 thru 11; 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. (12) New Buffalo Ship and Shore Fireworks New Buffalo, MI. All waters of Lake Michigan and New Buffalo Harbor within the arc of a circle with a 800-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°48.150′ N., 086°44.817′ W August 10; 9:30 p.m. to 11:15 p.m. (13) Operations at Marinette Marine Marinette, WI. All waters of the Menominee River in the vicinity of Marinette Marine Corporation, from the Bridge Street Bridge located in position 45°06.188′ N., 087°37.583′ W., then approximately .95 NM south east to a line crossing the river perpendicularly passing through positions 45°05.881′ N., 087°36.281′ W. and 45°05.725′ N., 087°36.385′ W This zone will be enforced in the case of hazardous cargo operations or vessel launch by issue of Notice of Enforcement and Marine Broadcast. (14) Fireworks Display Winnetka, IL. All waters of Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 900-foot radius from a center point barge located in approximate position 42°06.402′ N., 087°43.115′ W Third Saturday of August; 9:15 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (15) Algoma Shanty Days Fireworks Algoma, WI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Algoma Harbor within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in a center position of 44°36.400′ N., 087°25.900′ W Sunday of the second complete weekend of August; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (16) Venetian Night Parade Chicago, IL. All waters of Lake Michigan, in the vicinity of Navy Pier, bounded by coordinates beginning at 41°53.771′ N., 087°35.815′ W.; and then south to 41°53.367′ N., 087°35.814′ W.; then west to 41°53.363′ N., 087°36.587′ W.; then north to 41°53.770′ N., 087°36.601′ W.; then east back to the point of origin Last Saturday of August; 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. (g) September Safety Zones (1) ISAF Nations Cup Grand Final Fireworks Display Sheboygan, WI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Sheboygan Harbor, in the vicinity of the south pier in Sheboygan Wisconsin, within a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on land in position 43°44.917′ N., 087°41.850′ W September 13; 7:45 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. (2) Sister Bay Marinafest Ski Show Sister Bay, WI. All waters of Sister Bay within an 800-foot radius of position 45° 11.585′ N., 087°07.392′ W September 3; 1 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. (3) Sister Bay Marinafest Fireworks Sister Bay, WI. All waters of Sister Bay within an 800-foot radius of the launch vessel in approximate position 45°11.585′ N., 087°07.392′ W September 3 and 4; 8:15 p.m. to 10 p.m. (h) October Safety Zones (1) Corn Festival Fireworks Morris, IL. All waters of the Illinois River within a 560-foot radius from approximate launch position at 41°21.173′ N., 088°25.101′ W The first Saturday of October; 8:15 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. (i) November Safety Zones (1) Downtown Milwaukee Fireworks Milwaukee, WI. All waters of the Milwaukee River in the vicinity of the State Street Bridge within the arc of a circle with a 300-foot radius from a center point fireworks launch site in approximate position 43°02.559′ N., 087°54.749′ W The third Thursday of November; 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. (2) Magnificent Mile Fireworks Display Chicago, IL. All waters and adjacent shoreline of the Chicago River bounded by the arc of the circle with a 210-foot radius from the fireworks launch site with its center in approximate position of 41°53.350′ N., 087°37.400′ W The third weekend in November; sunset to termination of display. (j) December Safety Zones (1) New Years Eve Fireworks Chicago, IL. All waters of Monroe Harbor and Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in approximate position 41°52.683′ N., 087°36.617′ W December 31; 11 p.m. to January 1 at 1 a.m. 1 All coordinates listed in Table 165.929 reference Datum NAD 1983. 2 As noted in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the enforcement dates and times for each of the listed safety zones are subject to change.
    Dated: December 18, 2015. A.B. Cocanour, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00865 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0112; FRL-9941-27-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the Lower Beaver Valley Nonattainment Area for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania) for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2008 lead national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in the Lower Beaver Valley 2008 lead nonattainment area (Lower Beaver Valley Area or Area). The attainment plan includes the base year emissions inventory, modeling demonstration of attainment with the lead NAAQS, and an analysis of reasonably available control measures (RACM), reasonably available control technology (RACT), and reasonable further progress (RFP). The attainment plan also includes contingency measures for the Lower Beaver Valley Area which include parts of a Consent Order and Agreement (COA) between Horsehead Corporation (Horsehead) and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before February 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0112 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gerallyn Duke, (215) 814-2084, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On January 15, 2015, PADEP submitted a revision to its SIP for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS in the Lower Beaver Valley Area in accordance with requirements in sections 172 and 192 of the CAA. Pennsylvania's lead attainment plan for the Area includes a base year emissions inventory, a modeling demonstration of attainment with the 2008 lead NAAQS, an analysis of RACM, RACT, and RFP, and contingency measures. The lead attainment plan also includes paragraphs 3, 5, and 6 of a COA, dated November 21, 2012, between Horsehead and PADEP that demonstrates how Pennsylvania will achieve and maintain compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS. EPA has determined that Pennsylvania's attainment plan for the 2008 lead NAAQS for the Lower Beaver Valley Area meets the applicable requirements of the CAA in sections 172 and 192. Thus, EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's attainment plan for the Lower Beaver Valley Area.

    EPA's analysis and findings are discussed for each applicable requirement in this rulemaking action. Additional details on the base year inventory and modeling portions of the attainment demonstration are contained in two Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for this proposed action.

    I. Background

    On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA revised the lead NAAQS, lowering the level from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 0.15 μg/m3 calculated over a three-month rolling average. EPA established the 2008 lead NAAQS based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures to lead emissions.

    On November 22, 2010, EPA designated Vanport and Potter Townships in Beaver County, Pennsylvania as the Lower Beaver Valley Area for its nonattainment status with the 2008 lead NAAQS. The design value used for this designation was based on monitoring data from 2007-2009. On November 22, 2011, EPA revised the lead NAAQS designation for the Area based on 2008-2010 monitoring data by adding Center Township to the Area. 76 FR 72097. Under sections 191(a) and 192 of the CAA, Pennsylvania is required to submit a SIP revision with a plan for how the Area will attain the 2008 lead NAAQS, as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31, 2015.

    Horsehead owned and operated a permitted zinc production plant in Potter Township, Pennsylvania (the Monaca Smelter or Facility). This Facility was the only industrial source of lead emissions over 0.5 tons per year (tpy) in the Area. On November 21, 2012, PADEP and Horsehead entered into a COA which required Horsehead to permanently discontinue, on or before October 1, 2014, production of zinc metal from its electrothermic furnace line (Furnace Plant), the sintering line (Sinter Plant), and secondary material operations. After these units shut down permanently, the COA provided that Horsehead would be subject to an aggregate potential lead emission rate of 0.1 tpy over each consecutive 12-month rolling period from all of its remaining stationary and fugitive emission sources at the Facility. However, in May 2014, Horsehead permanently ceased operations at additional major sources of emissions at the Facility, including the Larvik Furnaces and Refinery Feed Pot, which were not required under the COA to be shut down. Horsehead's zinc dust sizing circuit, whose emissions are considered insignificant, is allowed to continue to operate periodically, subject to the 0.1 tpy facility-wide limit contained in its federally-enforceable permit as well as in the COA.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On January 15, 2015, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through the PADEP submitted an attainment plan for the Lower Beaver Valley Area as a SIP revision which includes the base year emissions inventory and an attainment demonstration. The attainment demonstration includes: technical analyses that locate, identify, and quantify sources of lead emissions which contributed to violations of the 2008 lead NAAQS; a modeling analysis of an emissions control strategy that demonstrates attainment with the 2008 lead NAAQS by the attainment year 2015; and an analysis of RACT, RACM and RFP, and contingency measures for the Lower Beaver Valley Area. The SIP revision also includes paragraphs 3, 5, and 6 of the COA between Horsehead and PADEP as measures for the attainment plan. EPA's analysis of the submitted attainment plan includes a review of the pollutant addressed, emissions inventory requirements, modeling, RACM, RACT, and RFP requirements, and contingency measures for the Lower Beaver Valley Area.

    1. Emissions Inventory Requirements

    States are required under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for nonattainment areas to develop comprehensive, accurate, and current inventories of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the relevant nonattainment area. These inventories provide a detailed accounting of all emissions and emission sources by relevant pollutant and its precursors. In the November 12, 2008 lead NAAQS rulemaking, EPA finalized the emissions inventory requirements. These inventory requirements at 40 CFR 51.117(e) require, among other things, that the SIP inventory include all sources that emit 0.5 or more tons of lead emissions per year, that the inventory is subject to public hearing requirements, and that the inventory is included in the SIP.

    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires that an identification of emissions from all sources of lead in the nonattainment area be submitted with attainment plans. The base year inventory is typically one of the years in which the area was designated for the standard and includes emissions from stationary point and nonpoint sources. EPA recommends using either 2010 or 2011 as the base year, but does provide flexibility for using other inventory years if states can show another year is more appropriate. Additionally, EPA guidance provides that actual emissions should be used for purposes of the base year inventory.1

    1See “Addendum to the 2008 Lead NAAQS Implementation Questions and Answers” dated August 10, 2012, which is included in EPA's SIP Toolkit located at www3.epa.gov/airquality/lead/implement.html.

    Pennsylvania's lead attainment plan for Lower Beaver Valley Area evaluates lead emissions in the Area, which includes sources in the area bounded by Vanport, Potter, and Center Townships in Beaver County. There are no precursors for lead which EPA requires to be considered for the lead attainment plan required by section 172 of the CAA.

    Pennsylvania developed its base-year inventory using data from 2010, the year the Area was designated nonattainment, for stationary source lead emissions. For the nonpoint sources of lead emissions, PADEP submitted EPA's 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) v2 data as a surrogate for the 2010 inventory, since inventories for nonpoint source emissions are only prepared every three years (2008, 2011) and 2011 was the most recent inventory available.

    The only source of lead emissions above 0.5 tpy within the Lower Beaver Valley Area was the Monaca Smelter. The only other stationary source of lead emissions in the Lower Beaver Valley Area was AES Beaver Valley, a 125-MW coal-fired cogeneration plant, though its lead emissions are less than 0.5 tpy. Another source of lead emissions above 0.5 tpy, an electric generating unit (EGU), Bruce Mansfield Power Station (Bruce Mansfield), is located in the adjacent municipality of Shippingsport. The monitor associated with Bruce Mansfield was in attainment with the 2008 lead NAAQS, demonstrating it had no impact on the Lower Beaver Valley Area, so Bruce Mansfield was not included in the Inventory.

    Horsehead produced high purity zinc oxide and high grade zinc metal at the Facility. Two sources emitted the majority of lead emissions from the Facility: the Sinter Plant and the Furnace Plant. Roughly ninety-five percent of the Facility's 2010 lead emissions which volatilized during processing were point sources and the remaining five percent escaped as fugitive emissions. Estimates used for calculating 2010 fugitive lead emissions at the Sinter Plant were based on estimates from samples collected during 2007 and 2008. PADEP considered estimates of 2010 fugitive emissions to be conservative because improvements made in fugitive emission control at the Facility, including controls installed at the Sinter Plant since 2008, were not factored into the analysis for 2010 fugitive emissions.

    Table 1 identifies the 2010 base year emissions inventory for the Lower Beaver Valley Area. In 2010, lead emissions from point sources or stacks in the Area totaled 5.5961 tons. Lead emissions from nonpoint sources, including mobile sources, also were included in the lead inventory but found by PADEP to be insignificant. There are no other sources of lead emissions in the Area above 0.5 tpy of lead emissions nor smaller sources. According to Pennsylvania's inventory, the Monaca Smelter's emissions comprised almost all of the lead emissions in the Area in 2010.

    Table 1—2010 Base Year Lower Beaver Valley Nonattainment Area Emissions Inventory Source Lead emissions
  • (tpy)
  • Monaca Smelter 5.5531 AES Beaver Valley Plant 0.0430 Subtotal for Point Sources 5.5961 Nonpoint Sources 0.0009 Total 5.5970

    Additional information regarding the emissions inventory for the Area and EPA's analysis of the inventory in accordance with CAA requirements in CAA section 172(c) and 40 CFR 51.117(e) can be found in the TSD for the Base Year Inventory for the Lower Beaver Valley Area which is included in the docket for this proposed action (EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0112) and is available online at www.regulations.gov. EPA finds that the 2010 base year emissions inventory prepared by Pennsylvania and included in the January 15, 2015 SIP submission for Lower Beaver Valley Area meets the requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA and the corresponding regulations at 40 CFR 51.117(e).

    2. Attainment Planning Modeling

    Section 172 of the CAA and the lead control strategy regulations found at 40 CFR 51.117 require states to employ atmospheric dispersion modeling for the demonstration of attainment of the lead NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. 40 CFR 51.117(a) requires a demonstration that the attainment plan will attain the NAAQS in the areas in the vicinity of point sources listed in 40 CFR 51.117(a)(1) as well as any other area with lead concentrations in excess of the NAAQS per 40 CFR 1.117(a)(2). The demonstration must meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.112 and 51.117 as well as appendix W of 40 CFR part 51 and include inventory data, modeling results, and emissions reduction analyses on which the state has based its projected attainment. All these requirements comprise the “attainment demonstration” that is required for lead nonattainment areas.

    PADEP performed an air-dispersion modeling analysis to predict the maximum predicted three-month rolling lead concentration using emission inventories representing two facilities, Monaca Smelter and AES Beaver Valley. PADEP used reported lead emissions in 2010 for the base year and projected (future) lead emissions for 2015 because 2015 is the attainment year for the 2008 lead NAAQS. Horsehead's 2010 emissions include point and fugitive emission sources.

    Projected emissions were determined based on the November 21, 2012 COA for Horsehead, which contains a plant-wide lead emission limit of 0.1 tpy for the Facility, as well as maximum throughput information and allowable lead emissions from AES Beaver Valley under its current permit. Only point source emissions were calculated for AES Beaver Valley, as only point source emissions were reported from AES. PADEP did not include emissions from Bruce Mansfield in its modeling for the attainment demonstration because prior modeling had demonstrated Bruce Mansfield did not contribute to nonattainment in the Area. Lead emissions from nonpoint sources and mobile source were also examined, but found to be insignificant, so they were not included in the lead modeling demonstration. The modeling was conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W—Guideline on Air Quality Models.

    The final modeled lead concentration for the future attainment year of 2015 is the maximum projected three-month average lead concentration of 0.0274 μg/m3 plus the background monitored concentration of 0.05 μg/m3 from the Shippingport monitor. This yields a projected lead concentration of approximately 0.08 μg/m3, which is significantly lower than the NAAQS of 0.15 μg/m3.

    Modeling for attainment was based primarily on the lead emissions expected in December 31, 2015. Due to monitored violations in 2013 and early 2014, the Area will not attain the NAAQS by 2015 based on ambient air quality over 36 consecutive three-month periods. However, closure of Horsehead operations in 2014 will facilitate attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS by 2017. More detailed information on the modeling system tools and documents used for the model attainment demonstration for the Area and EPA's analysis of PADEP's attainment modeling conducted for the Area can be found on the EPA Technology Transfer Network Support Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modeling (SCRAM) (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/), in Pennsylvania's January 15, 2015 submittal, and in the TSD for the modeling portion of the proposed SIP in the docket for this proposed action (EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0112) and available online at www.regulations.gov. EPA finds the modeling was conducted in accordance with requirements for a modeled attainment demonstration in the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.112 and 117 and in appendix W of 40 CFR part 51.

    3. RACM, RACT, and RFP

    Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires nonattainment areas to implement all RACM, including emissions reductions through the adoption of RACT, as expeditiously as practicable. EPA interprets this as requiring consideration of all available controls and to implement all measures in the nonattainment area that are determined to be reasonably available. However, EPA believes it would be unreasonable to require that a plan which demonstrates attainment include all technologically and economically available control measures even though such measures would not expedite attainment. See 58 FR 67751 (December 22, 1993).

    In March 2012, EPA issued guidance titled, “Guide to Developing Reasonably Available Control Measures for Controlling Lead Emissions” (RACM Guidance).2 Pennsylvania performed a RACM analysis in compliance with the RACM Guidance. The shutdown of the Monaca Smelter Sinter Plant, Furnace Plant, and secondary materials operations on May 19, 2014 are discrete control measures that have already occurred. Pennsylvania has determined that the shutdown of those operations at the Monaca Smelter, along with a plant-wide lead emission limit of 0.1 tpy required in the COA, addresses RACM based on the significant decrease in emissions that will result.

    2http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/lead/pdfs/2012ImplementationGuide.pdf.

    The 2012 COA also incorporates requirements for control of fugitive emissions from the Monaca Smelter, and PADEP has determined that all known significant sources of lead emissions from the Facility have been eliminated, controlled, or found ineffective or not viable, consistent with EPA's RACM Guidance (which also addresses RACT). Because Horsehead agreed in the COA to discontinue metal production operation at the site by October 14, 2014, PADEP considered further investment in additional control strategies to not be reasonable or cost effective. Thus, PADEP has determined that no additional control measures such as RACT are required at the Monaca Smelter. EPA has reviewed PADEP's determinations and analysis and finds it reasonable for RACM and RACT at the Monaca Smelter.

    EPA set a threshold of 0.5 tpy for lead sources to undergo a RACT analysis. 73 FR 67038. Because the lead emissions from the AES Beaver Valley facility are well below 0.5 tpy, PADEP concluded no RACT review is required for that facility and EPA finds PADEP's conclusion reasonable for AES Beaver Valley.

    Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA also requires areas designated as nonattainment for criteria pollutants to include a demonstration of RFP for meeting air quality standards in attainment plans. Section 171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutants as required by Part D of Title I of the CAA, or emission reductions that may reasonably be required by EPA to ensure attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.3

    3 Incremental reductions in lead emissions are not specified in Part D of Title I of the CAA.

    As stated in the final lead NAAQS rule (73 FR 67038), RFP is satisfied by the strict adherence to a compliance schedule which is expected to periodically yield significant emission reductions. Pennsylvania's control strategy in the Lower Beaver Valley Area is not staggered or phased. Nonattainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS is primarily attributable to a single source, the Monaca Smelter, whose major operations shut down in May 2014. Ambient air quality concentrations dropped at or below attainment levels immediately after Horsehead shut down these operations at the Facility, thus fulfilling RFP requirements for the Lower Beaver Valley Area. All of the Area's ambient air quality monitors reported lead concentrations below the 2008 lead NAAQS for the three-month rolling average for May through July, 2014. The monitor located in Center Township and associated with the Monaca Smelter showed a 2013 design value of 0.25 μg/m3, which exceeds the lead NAAQS limit of 0.15 μg/m3.4 However, the maximum three-month rolling average ambient lead concentration for the five-month period since the closure of the Monaca Smelter was 0.02 μg/m3. See Table 3 to Pennsylvania's January 15, 2015 SIP submittal.

    4 The monitoring data for 2010-2013 is included in appendix A of Pennsylvania's January 15, 2015 SIP submittal and uses data queried from the Air Quality System (AQS) Data Mart Database at https://aqs.epa.gov/api.

    With continued implementation of RACM, i.e., continued shutdown of the primary lead emitting units at the Monaca Smelter and the COA emissions limit of 0.1 tpy for the Facility, lead emissions at the Facility are expected to stay well below 0.1 tpy and ambient lead concentrations in the Area are expected to continue to remain well below the NAAQS limit. Thus, EPA finds that Pennsylvania has demonstrated that RFP has been addressed.

    4. Contingency Measures

    In accordance with section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, contingency measures are required as additional measures to be implemented in the event that an area fails to make RFP or fails to attain a standard by its attainment date. These measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures that can be implemented quickly and without additional EPA or state action and should contain trigger mechanisms and an implementation schedule.5 In addition, these measures should be ones that are not already included in the SIP control strategy for attaining the standard. See 73 FR 67038 (November 12, 2008).

    5See EPA document titled “Addendum to the 2008 Lead NAAQS Implementation Questions and Answers” dated August 10, 2012, included in EPA's SIP Toolkit at http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/lead/pdfs/20120810qanda.pdf.

    The contingency measures in Pennsylvania's SIP submittal are primarily focused on control of fugitive dust because there is no longer an operating source with emissions above 0.5 tpy of lead in the Area. The SIP submittal provides for contingency measures in the COA with Horsehead which would apply should Horsehead continue operations at units not required to be shut down under the COA, and should PADEP determine that these operations cause or significantly contribute to ongoing lead NAAQS exceedances. These measures include source testing and reporting, wetting down roads in the facility, installing and operating a vehicle washing facility near material storage and handling areas, and retrofitting baghouses, or alternative control measures approved by PADEP.6

    6 Horsehead's COA does not require closure or shut down of the Larvik Furnaces, the Refinery Feed Pot, and zinc dust sizing circuit. Thus, the COA includes contingency measures applicable to the Facility. The COA is included in the PADEP SIP submittal. Upon final approval of the SIP, the COA's terms will be federally enforceable as part of the Pennsylvania SIP. The COA is available in the docket for this rulemaking which is available online at www.regulations.gov.

    The SIP submittal also states that should PADEP determine that specific activities at the Monaca Smelter or at other sources in the Area are likely to have caused an exceedance of the lead NAAQS, or if PADEP documents a violation of Pennsylvania's fugitive dust regulations at 25 PA Code Section 123.1 or 123.2, additional control measures would be triggered. Specifically, PADEP can enforce those regulations and require the party whose actions likely have caused the exceedance or whose actions resulted in a violation to mitigate the impact on the 2008 lead NAAQS by implementing additional control measures. Such control measures may include paving, vegetating, watering, or chemically stabilizing traffic paths; periodic cleaning of paved roads; wet suppression at bulldozing sites and soil piles; vehicle washing at property exits; and covering soil-bearing trucks.

    The January 15, 2015 SIP submittal provides the following process for triggering the above contingency measures. Any single sample result exceeding 0.15μg/m3 at a monitor in the Lower Beaver Valley Area would trigger investigation by PADEP to determine what specific activities have caused the increased concentration level (because the only significant stationary source of lead emissions is no longer in operation). Should PADEP determine, as the result of observations by PADEP or receipt of a complaint, that specific activities are likely to have caused an exceedance or violation, PADEP will notify the party that an action appears to be adversely affecting the NAAQS or violating Pennsylvania regulations. Corrective action in the form of contingency measures would follow, involving enforcement as appropriate.

    Pennsylvania's SIP submission further provides that persistent lead exceedances at any monitor would trigger increased sampling frequency at the monitor where such an exceedance occurred.7 Four or more sample results within any three-month rolling period reported to exceed 0.15μg/m3 would trigger expanded ambient air monitoring and investigation as needed to identify the potential source(s) and address the source of the exceedance.

    7 Sampling would increase from once every six days to every three days if results from two samples during any three-month rolling period exceed 0.15 μg/m3. Sampling frequency would further increase to daily if results from three samples during any three-month period exceed 0.15 μg/m3.

    Section 172(c)(5) of the CAA requires permits for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources anywhere in a nonattainment area. The Pennsylvania SIP includes provisions consistent with the federal requirements, set forth at 40 CFR 51.165, for nonattainment new source review (NSR).

    PADEP's SIP submittal states that NSR permitting requirements in its SIP ensure that no new or modified sources will cause or contribute to a NAAQS violation by requiring, as part of the NSR permit, a demonstration that such a violation will not occur. See 25 Pa. Code § 127.81 and 127.201-127.217. If Horsehead or any entity proposes to restart or modify operations or construct and operate other activities at the Facility that would result in increased lead emissions, such changes would trigger NSR permitting requirements which include measures to minimize emissions and prevent NAAQS violations.

    In summary, EPA finds these contingency measure triggers and actions will help ensure compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS and meet the requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA to ensure continued attainment of the NAAQS if any events occur interfering with attainment. EPA finds PADEP's SIP submittal contains adequate contingency measures if the Area fails to attain the NAAQS or fails to achieve RFP because the only significant stationary source of lead emissions is no longer in operation, Pennsylvania's existing rules related to control of fugitive dusts and permitting are sufficient to minimize emissions and prevent NAAQS violations, and additional measures are not reasonably available to serve as contingency measures.

    III. Proposed Action

    EPA finds the January 15, 2015 SIP submittal attainment plan for the Lower Beaver Valley Area meets the applicable requirements of the CAA for attainment plans in section 172 and 192 of the CAA and in implementing regulations including 40 CFR 51.112 and 51.117. EPA is proposing to approve the Pennsylvania SIP revision attainment plan for the Lower Beaver Valley Area for the 2008 lead NAAQS including the attainment demonstration, base year emissions inventory, RACM/RACT and RFP analyses, and contingency measures.

    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this proposed rule to approve Pennsylvania's SIP revision containing the attainment plan for the 2008 lead NAAQS in the Lower Beaver Valley Area, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: December 30, 2015. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00871 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 206 [Docket ID FEMA-2016-0003] RIN 1660-AA84 Establishing a Deductible for FEMA's Public Assistance Program AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is considering the establishment of a disaster deductible, requiring a predetermined level of financial or other commitment from a Recipient (Grantee), generally the State, Tribal, or Territorial government, before FEMA will provide assistance under the Public Assistance Program when authorized by a Presidential major disaster declaration. FEMA believes the deductible model would incentivize Recipients to make meaningful improvements in disaster planning, fiscal capacity for disaster response and recovery, and risk mitigation, while contributing to more effective stewardship of taxpayer dollars. For example, Recipients could potentially receive credit toward their deductible requirement through proactive pre-event actions such as adopting enhanced building codes, establishing and maintaining a disaster relief fund or self-insurance plan, or adoption of other measures that reduce the Recipient's risk from disaster events. The deductible model would increase stakeholder investment and participation in disaster recovery and building for future risk, thereby strengthening our nation's resilience to disaster events and reducing the cost of disasters long term. FEMA seeks comment on all aspects of the deductible concept.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by March 21, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments must be identified by docket ID FEMA-2016-0003 and may be submitted by one of the following methods:

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

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 8NE, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jotham Allen, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 202-646-1957.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Public Participation

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act notice, which can be viewed by clicking on the “Privacy Notice” link in the footer of www.regulations.gov.

    You may submit your comments and material by the methods specified in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice. Please submit your comments and any supporting material by only one means to avoid the receipt and review of duplicate submissions.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov and search for the docket ID. Submitted comments may also be inspected at FEMA, Office of Chief Counsel, 8NE, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.

    II. Background

    The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207, provides an orderly and continuing means of assistance by the Federal Government to State, Tribal, Territorial, and local governments in carrying out their responsibilities to alleviate the suffering and damage which result from disasters. 42 U.S.C. 5121(b). A “major disaster,” as defined by the Stafford Act, is “any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, winddriven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought), or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States, which in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance . . . to supplement the efforts and available resources of [State, Tribal, Territorial, and local governments], and disaster relief organizations, in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby.” 42 U.S.C. 5122(2).

    The declaration process is governed by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations at 44 CFR part 206, subpart B. Upon receipt of a declaration request, FEMA formulates a recommendation which is forwarded to the President along with the request. 44 CFR 206.37(c). In developing its recommendation, FEMA considers such factors as the amount and type of damages, the impact of damages on affected individuals, the State, Tribal, Territorial, and local governments, the available resources of the State, Tribal, Territorial, and local governments, and other disaster relief organizations, the extent and type of insurance in effect to cover losses, assistance available from other Federal programs and other sources, imminent threats to public health and safety, recent disaster history, hazard mitigation measures taken by the State, Tribal, Territorial, or local governments (especially implementation of measures required as a result of previous major disaster declarations), and other factors pertinent to a given incident. 44 CFR 206.37(c)(1).

    A disaster declaration specifies the types of assistance that may be awarded under the Stafford Act, such as Public Assistance, Individual Assistance, or Hazard Mitigation assistance. Public Assistance provides assistance for debris removal, emergency protective measures, and permanent restoration of infrastructure to State, Tribal, Territorial, and local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations. 44 CFR part 206, subparts G and H.

    When evaluating the need for Public Assistance in a major disaster request FEMA evaluates the following factors: Estimated cost of assistance, localized impacts, insurance coverage in force, hazard mitigation, recent multiple disasters, and the availability of other Federal assistance programs. 44 CFR 206.48(a). FEMA evaluates the estimated cost of assistance on a per capita basis using the State population (using the most recent decennial Census population), and has established a per capita indicator of $1 (adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers, the indicator is $1.41 for events occurring in Fiscal Year 2015) as a level at which an event might warrant Federal assistance. 44 CFR 206.48(a)(1).

    Currently, once Public Assistance is authorized, FEMA documents all projects, including debris removal, emergency protective measures, and repair and replacement of eligible facilities, on Project Worksheets to reimburse the Recipient (formerly known as the Grantee, this is the State, Tribal, or Territorial government that received the disaster declaration) and Subrecipients (formerly known as Subgrantees, these are local and Tribal governments, and certain private nonprofit organizations that apply for and receive funding through the Recipient) for all of their eligible costs at the level of the Federal cost share designated by the President. 44 CFR part 206, subpart G.

    This practice of funding all eligible costs is somewhat at odds with the principle underlying the Stafford Act that there is a level of disaster activity which the affected State, Tribal, or Territorial government can handle on its own. For simplicity, consider a State that is subject to the $1 million minimum threshold. 44 CFR 206.48(a)(1). An event that causes $999,999 in Public Assistance-eligible damage will most likely not warrant a major disaster declaration and the State and affected Tribal and local governments will need to fund all $999,999 in disaster costs without any supplemental Federal assistance. However, an incident that causes exactly $1 million in damage in the same State likely will result in a major disaster declaration. Once declared, FEMA will reimburse $750,000 under the typical 75% Federal cost share arrangement and the State will only need to fund $250,000. FEMA is arguably supplanting $750,000 that the State should be fully capable to handle itself.

    III. Deductible

    Consistent with the principles of the Stafford Act that assistance from the Federal Government is supplemental in nature and that every recipient of disaster assistance has some measureable capacity to independently respond, FEMA is considering the establishment of a disaster “deductible.” To ensure a Recipient's participation in recovery from disaster losses, following receipt of a major disaster declaration authorizing the Public Assistance Program, the Recipient(s) would be required to demonstrate it has satisfied a predetermined deductible amount before FEMA would provide assistance through a Project Worksheet for eligible Public Assistance work. FEMA would intend for the calculation of the deductible level for each Recipient to be published periodically and to be representative of Recipient capability. In addition to considering how to calculate a deductible amount, FEMA is considering what means by which a Recipient could demonstrate it has satisfied a deductible requirement, including through completion of FEMA-eligible projects entirely with its own funding, or through other Recipient activities for which FEMA would calculate an appropriate credit against the deductible. FEMA might provide a credit toward the deductible, for example, for a Recipient's prior adoption of a building code that reduces risk; for adoption of proactive fiscal planning such as establishing a disaster relief fund or a self-insurance fund; or investment in programs of assistance available when there is not a federal declaration.

    FEMA anticipates a deductible would be calculated and applied at the Recipient (i.e., State, Tribal, or Territorial level), not Subrecipient, level. However, the deductible would need to be satisfied before any project, at either the Recipient or Subrecipient level, would be eligible for assistance.

    FEMA believes that a deductible could result in more effective use of taxpayer resources. It could incentivize proactive fiscal planning by Recipients for disasters, encouraging them to set aside funding specifically reserved for disaster response and recovery. The availability of credits toward the deductible could incentivize increased planning and adoption of specific mitigation activities which will result in risk-informed mitigation strategies on a broad scale. States may be encouraged to develop and fund special programs such as emergency management programs and individual assistance programs, as such plans may be credited toward satisfaction of the deductible. Recipients that adopt standardized and enhanced building codes could be rewarded with a credit toward their deductible amount. The results of these efforts may in turn increase our nation's resiliency to disaster events: Increased self-sufficiency on the part of State and local governments and their ability to support their citizens during and after a disaster, and a decrease in the negative effects of a disaster on our citizens.

    IV. Public Comment

    FEMA welcomes public comment on all aspects of the deductible concept, but would derive particular benefit from commenters addressing one or more of the following questions (“Recipient” in these questions refers to any possible entity that might be a Grantee for Public Assistance, including States, Tribes, and Territories):

    1. Calculating the Deductible: How should FEMA calculate the deductible amount for each Recipient to adequately reflect individual Recipient capacity?

    a. Using the Public Assistance per capita indicator established by 44 CFR 206.48(a)(1)? Why?

    b. Using population estimates? Why?

    i. If so, should FEMA continue to rely upon the decennial census population calculations, consider population estimates, or consider other population calculation sources and why?

    c. Using the Recipient's fiscal capacity? Why?

    i. If so, how should FEMA measure fiscal capacity? Which metrics should be used to assess it and why? Please also identify preferred sources for suggested metrics. Potential metrics include, but are not limited to:

    1. Actual revenue.

    2. Potential revenue.

    3. Total Taxable Resources.

    4. Gross Domestic Product.

    5. Budget surplus/deficit.

    6. Economic projections.

    7. Bond ratings.

    8. Unemployment rate.

    9. Other.

    d. Using a measurement of disaster risk? Why?

    i. If so, how should FEMA measure disaster risk? Which metrics should be used to assess it and why? Potential metrics include, but are not limited to:

    1. Past presidential declarations.

    2. Past FEMA disaster relief.

    3. Insurance industry data.

    4. Climatological data, including projected future risk.

    5. Priority placed on mitigation in the State or local budget.

    2. Scope of Deductible: How should FEMA define the applicability of the deductible to ensure it incentivizes meaningful improvements in planning, fiscal capacity, and risk mitigation?

    a. Should the deductible apply to State governments, Territorial governments, Tribal governments, or all of the above?

    b. To which of the following types of FEMA Public Assistance should the deductible apply and why?

    i. Direct Federal Assistance (emergency work performed, or contracted for, by the Federal government at the request of the Recipient).

    ii. Emergency Work (debris removal and emergency protective measures).

    iii. Permanent Work (infrastructure repair and replacement).

    iv. Management Costs.

    v. Other.

    3. Satisfying the Deductible: How should a Recipient be able to satisfy its deductible?

    a. Should only Recipient actions be allowed to satisfy the deductible, or should Subrecipient actions be considered as well and why?

    i. If Subrecipient actions should be considered, which of the following Subrecipients should be included and why?

    1. Local governments.

    2. Indian Tribal governments.

    3. Private nonprofit organizations.

    b. What of the following types of actions should qualify towards satisfying the deductible and why?

    i. Work that would be eligible for FEMA assistance but for the deductible.

    ii. Management costs for work that would be eligible for FEMA assistance but for the deductible.

    iii. Spending on incidents that do not receive a Presidential declaration and supplemental FEMA assistance (for example, emergencies declared by the Governor).

    iv. For incidents that do receive a Presidential declaration, spending in jurisdictions that were not designated for supplemental FEMA assistance.

    v. Cost-share requirements for FEMA programs.

    1. If so, which programs and why?

    vi. Spending on projects beyond the cost-share required amount.

    vii. Investments in emergency management programs using non-Federal funds.

    viii. Establishment of a disaster relief fund or “rainy day” fund.

    ix. Expenditures from a disaster relief fund or “rainy day” fund.

    x. Establishment of an individual assistance program.

    xi. Expenditures from an individual assistance program.

    xii. Planning, preparedness, or mitigation programs supported by non-Federal funding.

    xiii. Adoption of standardized or enhanced building codes.

    xiv. Proportion of the jurisdiction which is covered by standardized and/or enhanced building codes.

    xv. Other.

    c. How much of an administrative burden would it be for Recipients to track, and submit for verification, documentation related to each manner of satisfying the deductible?

    i. How would Recipients track the documentation?

    ii. How should FEMA verify the information?

    d. How should these actions be counted or credited toward satisfaction the deductible? Why?

    i. Dollar-for-dollar reductions in the deductible. For example, each dollar spent through a Recipient's own individual assistance program could count as a dollar toward meeting the deductible.

    ii. Percentage credits toward the deductible. For example, a Recipient may receive a credit of X percent of the deductible for establishing its own individual assistance program.

    iii. Other. If so, please provide details regarding these other actions.

    4. Incentivizing Change: FEMA believes a deductible could improve the United States' disaster management system and increase disaster resilience nationally by driving Recipient legislative action, budgeting, planning and other measures that further greater resilience. FEMA seeks comment on this, as follows:

    a. Will a deductible requirement incentivize potential future Recipients of disaster assistance to adopt measures that make them more resilient or more capable to respond to future disasters? If so, how?

    b. In which of the following areas should FEMA focus the incentives of a deductible approach in order to achieve those improvements in disaster management and resilience and why?

    i. Increased fiscal capacity to address disasters at the Recipient level.

    ii. Better planning by Recipients for the financial costs of disaster.

    iii. Reduced long-term impact of disasters.

    iv. Reduced risk of loss from disaster.

    v. Decreased future disaster costs.

    vi. Better levels of cooperation among neighboring jurisdictions.

    vii. Increased State emergency management staffing and funding.

    viii. Other.

    c. What specific actions should FEMA seek to incentivize and why? Potential actions include:

    i. Acceptance of greater financial responsibility for disaster costs by non-Federal entities.

    ii. Increased non-Federal investment in emergency management programs generally.

    iii. Increased investment in mitigation strategies at Recipient levels.

    iv. Establishment of Recipient disaster relief funds or “rainy day” funds.

    1. Increased spending from such funds where they already exist.

    v. Establishment of Recipient individual assistance programs.

    1. Increased spending from such funds where they already exist.

    vi. Increased level of Recipient financial relief provided for incidents that do not receive a Presidential declaration pursuant to the Stafford Act.

    vii. Other.

    d. How could a deductible incentivize the actions necessary to achieve improvements in the selected areas and how should FEMA design the deductible to provide that incentive?

    e. Are there alternatives to a deductible that could serve as a better incentive to the selected improvements and actions?

    i. If so, what are those alternatives?

    ii. Why would those alternatives be more effective than a deductible?

    5. Implementation Considerations: How could FEMA design deductible implementation so as to maximize effectiveness of the deductible as an incentive, but also ensure Recipients have sufficient opportunity to adjust to it?

    a. What specific actions might Recipients take if a deductible were introduced to FEMA's Public Assistance Program? What specific types of actions should we seek to incentivize through the establishment of a deductible?

    b. How would Recipients meet the deductible?

    i. Would Recipients seek to pass the costs of the deductible on to Subrecipients? How?

    ii. Would the passing on of costs to Subrecipients be appropriate? Why or why not?

    iii. Should FEMA seek to prevent Recipients from passing the costs on to Subrecipients? Why?

    iv. If so, what methods could FEMA use to prevent the transfer of responsibility for costs from Recipients to Subrecipients?

    c. Should the deductible be applied on an annual basis or per disaster?

    i. If annual, how should FEMA define the year? Why?

    ii. If per disaster, should there be a cap on the number of deductibles, or total deductible amount, that a Recipient should be responsible for in a given year? Why? In what way can FEMA be sensitive to problems caused by recurrent disasters through a deductible policy?

    iii. If appropriate, how should FEMA set the cumulative annual deductible cap for repetitive disasters?

    d. Should FEMA ever consider waiving all or part of the deductible? Why?

    i. If so, under what circumstances should FEMA consider waiving all or part of the deductible?

    ii. If so, how should FEMA determine what portion of the deductible should be waived?

    iii. How frequently should FEMA consider waiving all or a portion of the deductible? Why?

    e. If FEMA introduced a deductible concept to the Public Assistance Program, what steps would Recipients take to adjust?

    i. How long would it take Recipients, working with relevant stakeholders, to appropriately adjust to the introduction of a deductible?

    ii. Should FEMA consider a phased implementation approach through which the deductible would be applied over time? Why?

    iii. If so, over how much time should the deductible concept be phased in and in what way? Why?

    6. Estimating Impacts: Implementation of a deductible as a prerequisite for receiving Public Assistance would have an economic impact on future Recipients of disaster assistance.

    a. Do Recipients currently maintain a disaster relief or “rainy day” fund?

    b. If not, how much would it cost to establish and administer a disaster relief or “rainy day” fund?

    c. If a Recipient could satisfy its deductible through provision of its own individual assistance program, would Recipients establish or expand existing individual assistance programs?

    d. What are the costs of establishing and running various individual assistance programs?

    e. If a Recipient could satisfy its deductible through an increase in planning, preparedness, or mitigation programs, would Recipients increase the level of such activities or programs?

    f. If a Recipient could satisfy its deductible through adoption of enhanced building codes, would Recipients or Recipient communities adopt such codes?

    g. What are the costs associated with adoption of such building codes?

    h. What are the costs associated with the specific actions Recipients might take if a deductible were introduced to FEMA's disaster relief programs?

    i. What, if any, disproportionate impacts might be borne by small nonprofit entities or small government jurisdictions (populations less than 50,000)?

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.

    Dated: January 13, 2016. W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00997 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [CG Docket No. 03-123; DA 15-1453] Request for Comment on Petition for Rulemaking Filed by IDT Telecom, Inc., Regarding Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service Fund Contribution AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission seeks comment on a Petition for Rulemaking (Petition) filed by IDT Telecom, Inc. (IDT) requesting that the Commission issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to review and revise its rules and policies on the contribution methodology for the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Fund to include intrastate revenue within the TRS Fund contribution base. Additionally IDT requests that the Commission remove the rule provision requiring that video relay service (VRS) costs be recovered from only interstate and international revenue.

    DATES:

    Comments are due February 4, 2016 and reply comments are due February 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket No. 03-123 by any of the following methods:

    • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), through the Commission's Web site http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal service mailing address, and CG Docket No. 03-123.

    • Paper filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit one additional copy for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gregory Hlibok, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, (202) 559-5158, email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document.

    • Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

    • All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.

    • Commercial Mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

    • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    This is a summary of the Commission's document DA 15-1453, released on December 18, 2015 in CG Docket No. 03-123. The full text of document DA 15-1453, the Petition, and any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Document DA 15-1453 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: https://www.fcc.gov/general/disability-rights-office-headlines. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    Document DA 15-1453 does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

    Synopsis

    On November 25, 2015, IDT filed a petition for rulemaking asking the Commission to issue an NPRM to review and revise its rules and policies concerning the contribution methodology for the TRS Fund. IDT asks the commission to implement a contribution methodology that includes intrastate revenue within the TRS Fund contribution base. Additionally, IDT requests that the Commission remove the rule provision that requires VRS costs to be recovered from only interstate and international revenue. IDT asserts that this would greatly increase and strengthen the base of the TRS Fund.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gregory Hlibok, Chief, Disability Rights Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00910 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 69 [WC Docket No. 05-25 and RM-10593; DA 15-1473] Wireline Competition Bureau Extends Comment and Reply Comment Deadlines in Business Data Services (Special Access) Rulemaking Proceeding AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Wireline Competition Bureau grants in part a request seeking an extension to the comment and reply comment deadlines in the business data services (special access proceeding, Special Access FNPRM.

    DATES:

    Comments may be filed on or before January 22, 2016, and reply comments may be filed by February 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joseph Price, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, 202-418-1540 or at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's order WC Docket 05-25, RM-10593, DA 15-1473, released December 21, 2015. This document does not contain information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-93. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burdens[s] for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002. The full text of this document may be downloaded at the following Internet address: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db1221/DA-15-1473A1.pdf. To request alternative formats for persons with disabilities (e.g., accessible format documents, sign language, interpreters, CARTS, etc.), send an email to [email protected] or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Synopsis

    In Section IV.B of the Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (FNPRM) accompanying the Data Collection Order, adopted on December 11, 2012, the Commission sought comment on possible changes to its rules for the business data services. The Commission set the comment deadlines on this portion of the Special Access FNPRM, 78 FR 2600, several months beyond the document's release date to allow interested parties opportunity to review the data and information collected before filing comments. The Bureau has extended these deadlines, upon request and in consideration of oppositions filed in response to the request for extensions of time, to allow interested parties adequate time to access and review the data and information collected. Accordingly, the deadline for filing comments is extended to January 22, 2016, and the deadline for reply comments is extended to February 19, 2016.

    Federal Communications Commission. Pamela Arluk, Chief, Pricing Policy Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01082 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 19, 42, and 52 [FAR Case 2014-004; Docket No. 2014-0004; Sequence No. 1] RIN 9000-AM98 Federal Acquisition Regulations: FAR Case 2014-004, Payment of Subcontractors AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement a section of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. This statute requires contractors to notify the contracting officer in writing if the contractor pays a reduced price to a small business subcontractor, or if the contractor's payment to a small business contractor is more than 90 days past due.

    DATES:

    Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat at one of the addresses shown below on or before March 21, 2016 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by FAR Case 2014-004 by any of the following methods:

    • Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for “FAR Case 2014-004”. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with FAR Case 2014-004. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “FAR Case 2014-004” in all attached documents.

    • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Second floor, ATTN: Ms. Flowers, Washington, DC 20405.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite FAR Case 2014-004, Payment of Subcontractors in all correspondence related to this case. Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement Analyst, at 202-501-1448 for clarification of content. Please cite FAR case 2014-004. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to implement section 1334 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240) and the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) implementation of section 1334 with its final rule, Small Business Subcontracting, published in the Federal Register at 78 FR 42391, on July 16, 2013, and effective August 15, 2013. This statute requires the prime contractor to self-report to the contracting officer when the prime contractor makes late or reduced payments to small business subcontractors. In addition, the contracting officer is required to record the identity of contractors with a history of late or reduced payments to small business subcontractors in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS).

    The FAR is proposed to be amended as follows to implement the requirements of section 1334:

    FAR 19.701 is revised to add definitions for “reduced payment” and “untimely payment.”

    FAR 19.704(a)(12) and 52.219-9(d)(12) are added to require that the offeror will pay its small business subcontractors on time and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the subcontract, and notify the contracting officer when the prime contractor pays a reduced or an untimely payment to a small business subcontractor.

    FAR 42.1502(g) is revised to include in the past performance evaluation reduced or untimely payments reported to the contracting officer by the prime contractor in accordance with the clause at 52.242-XX, Payments to Small Business Subcontractors, that are determined by the contracting officer to be unjustified.

    FAR 42.1503(b)(2)(v) is revised by including “reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors when a subcontracting plan is required in accordance with 19.702(a)” to the list of “Small business subcontracting” past performance evaluation factors.

    FAR 42.1503(h)(1)(vi) is added to the list of “other contractor performance information” that will be reported to FAPIIS and considered by contracting officers in evaluating contractor past performance to include a contracting officer's determination that a contractor has a history of unjustified reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors.

    FAR table 42-2, “Evaluation Ratings Definitions (for the Small Business Subcontracting Evaluation Factor, When 52.219-9 is Used)” is revised to include the contracting officer's evaluation of a prime contractor's self-reported unjustified reduced or untimely payments (history of three or more) to small business subcontractors.

    FAR 42.1504 is added to require contracting officers to insert the clause at 52.242-XX, Payment to Small Business Subcontractors, in all solicitations and contracts containing the clause at 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

    FAR clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, is revised to add definitions for “reduced payment” and “untimely payment.”

    FAR clause 52.242-XX, Payment to Small Business Subcontractors, is added to FAR part 52 to require the contractor to provide a written notice to the contracting officer if it makes a payment to a small business subcontractor that is for less than the amount agreed upon in a subcontract in accordance with its terms and conditions for supplies and services for which the Government has paid the prime contractor, or if payment to a subcontractor that is more than 90 days past due under the terms and conditions of a subcontract for supplies and services for which the Government has paid the prime contractor. In accordance with the SBA final rule, this proposed rule would apply to prime contracts that require small business subcontracting plans. For the reasons explained in section II, below, the proposed rule would cover acquisitions for commercial items, including acquisitions for commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) items.

    II. Determinations

    The FAR Council has made the following preliminary determinations with respect to the rule's application of section 1334 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, entitled “Payment of Subcontractors,” to contracts for the acquisition of commercial items:

    A. Applicability to Contracts for the Acquisition of Commercial Items

    41 U.S.C. 1906 governs the applicability of laws to the acquisition of commercial items (other than COTS items). This statute limits the applicability of laws to the acquisition of commercial items. However, section 1906 provides that the acquisition of commercial items will not be exempt from a provision of law if—

    • The law contains criminal or civil penalties;

    • The law specifically refers to 41 U.S.C. 1906 and states that the law applies to the acquisition of commercial items; or

    • The FAR Council makes a written determination that it is not in the best interest of the Federal Government to exempt the acquisition of commercial items from the provision of law.

    Section 1334 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 is silent on the applicability of the requirements set forth above to contracts for commercial items and does not provide for criminal or civil penalties. Therefore, under 41 U.S.C. 1906, section 1334 does not apply to acquisitions for commercial items unless the FAR Council makes a written determination that such application is in the best interest of the Federal Government.

    In making its initial determination of whether application of section 1334 to commercial items is in the best interest of the Federal Government, the FAR Council considered the following factors: (i) The benefits of the policy in furthering Administration goals, (ii) the extent to which the benefits of the policy would be reduced if an exemption is provided for commercial items, and (iii) the burden on contractors if the policy is applied to acquisitions for commercial items.

    With respect to the first factor, this Administration has taken a number of steps to ensure that the government promptly and efficiently pays small businesses when they contract to provide goods and services to the government. These steps are part of the Administration's strong commitment to supporting small business growth and prosperity, as an engine to drive economic activity and job creation throughout the country. On September 14, 2011, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M 11-32, titled: “Accelerating Payments to Small Businesses for Goods and Services.” That memorandum established “the Executive Branch policy that, to the full extent permitted by law, agencies shall make their payments to small business contractors as soon as practicable, with the goal of making payments within 15 days” of receipt of relevant documents. OMB explained that such acceleration helps to improve cash flow for small businesses, increases liquidity, unlocks capital for the purposes of investment and growth, and increases small business participation in Federal contracting. To further preserve and increase small business participation in all levels of federal contracting through improved cash flow, OMB broadened the policy to reach small business subcontractors. Memorandum M-12-16, “Providing Prompt Payment to Small Business Subcontractors,” established the Executive Branch policy that, to the full extent permitted by law, agencies shall take certain steps to accelerate payments to all prime contractors, in order to allow them to provide prompt payments to small business subcontractors. The policy was extended by OMB Memoranda M-13-15 and M-14-10. In 2014, the FAR Council finalized FAR changes to implement this policy and provide a clause (see FAR clause 52.232-40) to support the acceleration of payments to subcontractors.

    By instilling accountability for untimely payment to subcontractors, section 1334, SBA's implementing regulation, and this rule further the benefits and policies goals described above. Specifically, the proposed rule helps to create greater cash flow certainty, which is critical for small business subcontractors and reduces a potential barrier to their participation in federal contracting.

    With respect to the second factor (the impact of excluding commercial item acquisitions on the overall benefits of the underlying policy), the FAR Council believes based on an analysis of Fiscal Year 2014 Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) data that less than one-third of spending on new contracts over $650,000 (i.e., the threshold for the applicability of this rule) are for commercial item acquisitions, so exclusion could have a material impact on these benefits.

    With respect to the third factor, burden on contractors selling commercial items, the initial analysis under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) suggests that the total number of unique entities in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 that are covered under this requirement (selling either commercial or non-commercial items) is 2,279 and the estimated reporting time per respondent is 2 hours. See the discussion on the PRA at Section VI, below. The FAR Council further estimates that the number of covered entities selling commercial items is not more than 40 percent of this stated total, and some of these entities may only sell COTs items, which as explained below are covered by the rule pursuant to the requirements of 41 U.S.C. 1907.

    Based on the above benefit and burden considerations, the FAR Council has made a preliminary determination that it is in the best interest of the government to apply section 1334 to commercial item acquisitions: covering commercial items helps to further an important ongoing Administration initiative to help ensure effective cash flow to small business subcontractors, which in turn helps to strengthen their participation in federal contracting, whereas exclusion of commercial item acquisitions would remove a significant amount of contracting activity from the accountability that this rule imposes on prime contractors to meet their payment commitments to their small business subcontractors. The limited information currently available to the FAR Council on reporting in accordance with the requirements of this rule suggests the burdens are not expected to be significant. Moreover, the relief provided by an exemption would be limited, since COTS are covered for the reason explained below.

    The Council welcomes public feedback on its initial analysis and preliminary determination to cover commercial items, including additional insight on the need for and cost of retrofitting payment systems to meet the requirements in the rule. This feedback will be considered before the FAR Council finalizes its analysis of benefits and burdens and makes a final determination on the scope of the final rule.

    B. Applicability to Contracts for the Acquisition of COTS Items

    41 U.S.C. 1907 governs the applicability of laws to the acquisition of COTS items. This statute limits the applicability of laws when agencies are acquiring COTS items. However, section 1907 provides similar requirements for a law to be applied to COTS items where the law contains criminal or civil penalties, refers to section 1907 and states the law applies to COTS, or where the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy determines it would not be in the best interest of the Federal Government to exempt the acquisition of COTS items from the provision of law. Of particular relevance to the instant rulemaking, section 1907 further provides that the acquisition of COTS items will not be exempt from a provision of law if the law concerns—

    • Authorities or responsibilities under section 15 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644); or

    • Bid protest procedures developed under the authority of 31 U.S.C. 3551 et seq.; 10 U.S.C. 2305(e) and (f); or 41 U.S.C. 3706 and 3707.

    Section 1334 amends section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) to establish the requirement for a prime contractor for a covered contract to provide written notification to the contracting officer if the contractor pays a reduced price to a subcontractor for goods and services upon completion of the responsibilities of the subcontractor or the payment to a subcontractor is more than 90 days past due for goods or services provided for the covered contract for which the Federal agency has paid the prime contractor.

    Section 1334 requires a contracting officer of a covered contract to consider unjustified untimely or reduced payments to a small business subcontractor of the covered contract in the prime contractor's past performance evaluation. The statute defines a “covered contract” as a contract under which a prime contractor is required to develop a subcontracting plan. Pursuant to section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)), as implemented at FAR 19.702(a), a small business subcontracting plan is required in acquisitions expected to exceed $700,000 that have subcontracting opportunities. Contracts for COTS items in amounts greater than $700,000 that have subcontracting opportunities meet the definition of a “covered contract” provided in the statute.

    The law furthers the Administration's goal of supporting small business and advances the interests of small business subcontractors by encouraging prime contractors to comply with their stated subcontracting objectives. Increased compliance with subcontracting objectives will expand opportunities for small business subcontractors. Exclusion of a large segment of Federal contracting, such as acquisitions for COTS items, will limit the full implementation of these subcontracting-related objectives.

    Further, one of the primary FAR clauses implementing Federal procurement policies governing subcontracting with small business, 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, are currently prescribed for use in solicitations for COTS items. This rule merely revises FAR clause 52.219-9 to implement the new requirements for a prime contractor for a covered contract to provide written notification to the contracting officer if the contractor pays a reduced price to a subcontractor for goods and services upon completion of the responsibilities of the subcontractor or the payment to a subcontractor is more than 90 days past due for goods or services provided for the covered contract for which the Federal agency has paid the prime contractor. A further example that the rule should apply to COTS items is FAR clause 52.232-40, Providing Accelerated Payments to Small Business Subcontractors, which is required in all solicitations and contracts. Exclusion of acquisitions for COTS items from these requirements would create confusion among contractors and the Federal contracting workforce.

    The burden on contractors is not expected to increase significantly if the new requirements of section 1334 were applied to acquisitions for COTS items. Under the FAR clause 52.219-9, which is noted above, contractors are already required to commit to objectives for subcontracting with small business concerns under contracts for COTS items above the subcontracting plan threshold. The effort required for contractors to comply with the new requirements should be relatively small.

    The Council welcomes public feedback on its initial analysis and preliminary determination to cover COTS items, including additional insight on the need for and cost of retrofitting payment systems to meet the requirements in the rule. This feedback will be considered before the FAR Council finalizes its analysis of benefits and burdens and makes a final determination on the scope of the final rule.

    III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

    IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    DoD, GSA, and NASA expect that this proposed rule may 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.. Therefore, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) has been prepared consistent with 5 U.S.C. 603 and is summarized as follows:

    Section 1334 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-240) and the Small Business Administration's final rule, Small Business Subcontracting, published in the Federal Register at 78 FR 42391, on July 16, 2013, require that the prime contractor self-report when the prime contractor makes reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors. Section 1334 also requires the contracting officer to record the identity of contractors with a history of unjustified reduced or untimely payments in FAPIIS.

    This proposed rule implements the self-reporting requirements of section 1334 by amending FAR 42.1504 to require contracting officers to include FAR clause 52.242-XX, Payments to Small Business Subcontractors, in all solicitations and contracts containing the clause at 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The new FAR clause requires prime contractors to notify the contracting officer of reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors.

    The proposed rule also amends FAR 42.1503(h) to require contracting officers to report to FAPIIS a contractor that has a history of three or more reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors within a 12-month period under a single contract that are unjustified. Table 42-2 is also amended to include unjustified reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors as part of the definition of ratings for the “small business subcontracting” past performance evaluation factors.

    The proposed rule would apply to payments made to small businesses that are first-tier subcontractors to prime government contractors. There will be no burden on small businesses, as small businesses do not have subcontracting plans. This regulation will benefit small business subcontractors by encouraging large business prime contractors to pay small business subcontractors in a timely manner and the agreed upon contractual price.

    The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.

    The specifics of the statutory requirement and the SBA final rule do not allow for alternative implementation strategies.

    The Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this proposed rule on small entities.

    DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this proposed rule consistent with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR Case 2014-004) in correspondence.

    V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) applies. The proposed rule contains information collection requirements. OMB has cleared this information collection requirement under OMB Control Number 9000-XXXX, titled: Payments to Small Business Subcontractors. FPDS for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 lists 794 new commercial item contracts over $650,000 where the size determination was other than small and a subcontracting plan was required. FPDS for FY 2014 also lists 1,485 new non-commercial item contracts over $650,000 where the size determination was other than small and a subcontracting plan was required. It is estimated that no more than twenty percent of contractors with new commercial and non-commercial contracts where the size determination was other than small and where a subcontracting plan was required would have to notify the contracting officer that the prime contractor paid a reduced or an untimely payment to a small business subcontractor. It is also estimated that the average time required for a contractor to prepare the information for this collection is two hours. It is estimated also that the responses per respondent would be one.

    The annual reporting burden is estimated as follows:

    Respondents: 456.

    Responses per respondent: 1.

    Total annual responses: 456.

    Preparation hours per response: 2.

    Total response burden hours: 912.

    List of Subject in 48 CFR Parts 19, 42 and 52

    Government procurement.

    Dated: January 11, 2016. William F. Clark, Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.

    Therefore, the DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR parts 19, 42, and 52 as set forth below:

    1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 19, 42, and 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.

    PART 19—SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS 2. Amend section 19.701 by adding, in alphabetical order, the definitions “Reduced payment” and “Untimely payment” to read as follows:
    19.701 Definitions.

    Reduced payment means a payment that is for less than the amount agreed upon in a subcontract in accordance with its terms and conditions, for supplies and services for which the Government has paid the prime contractor.

    Untimely payment means a payment to a subcontractor that is more than 90 days past due under the terms and conditions of a subcontract, for supplies and services for which the Government has paid the prime contractor.

    3. Amend section 19.704 by removing the period from the end of paragraph (a)(11)and adding ”; and” in its place; and adding paragraph (a)(12) to read as follows:
    19.704 Subcontracting plan requirements.

    (a) * * *

    (12) Assurances that the offeror will pay its small business subcontractors on time and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the subcontract, and notify the contracting officer when the prime contractor pays a reduced or an untimely payment to a small business subcontractor.

    PART 42—CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES 4. Amend section 42.1502 by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    42.1502 Policy.

    (g) Past performance evaluations shall include an assessment of the contractor's—

    (1) Performance against, and efforts to achieve, the goals identified in the small business subcontracting plan when the contract includes the clause at 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan; and

    (2) Reduced or untimely payments (see 19.701) determined by the Contracting Officer to be unjustified to small business subcontractors.

    (i) The contracting officer shall consider and evaluate a contractor's written explanation for a reduced or an untimely payment when determining whether the reduced or untimely payment is justified.

    (ii) The contracting officer determines that a history of unjustified reduced or untimely payments has occurred when the contractor has reported three or more occasions of unjustified reduced or untimely payments under a single contract within a 12 month period (see 42.1503(h)(1)(vi) and the evaluation factors in Table 42-2).

    5. Amend section 42.1503 by— a. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(v); b. Removing from paragraph (b)(2)(vi) the phrase “late or nonpayment to subcontractors,”; c. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (h)(1); d. Removing from paragraph (h)(1)(iv) “; or” and adding a semicolon in its place; e. Removing the period from the end of paragraph (h)(1)(v) and adding “; or” in its place; f. Adding paragraph (h)(1)(vi); and g. Revising table 42-2.

    The revisions and additions reads as follows:

    42.1503 Procedures.

    (b) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (v) Small business subcontracting, including reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors when 19.702(a) requires a subcontracting plan (as applicable, see Table 42-2).

    (h) * * *

    (1) Agencies shall ensure information is accurately reported in the FAPIIS or any successor thereto module of CPARS within 3 calendar days after a contracting officer—

    (vi) Determines that a contractor has a history of three or more unjustified reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors within a 12 month period (see 42.1502(g)(2)).

    Table 42-2—Evaluation Ratings Definitions [For the Small Business Subcontracting Evaluation Factor, when 52.219-9 is used] Rating Definition Note (a) Exceptional Exceeded all statutory goals or goals as negotiated. Had exceptional success with initiatives to assist, promote, and utilize small business (SB), small disadvantaged business (SDB), women-owned small business (WOSB), HUBZone small business, veteran-owned small business (VOSB), and service disabled veteran owned small business (SDVOSB). Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Exceeded any other small business participation requirements incorporated in the contract/order, including the use of small businesses in mission critical aspects of the program. Went above and beyond the required elements of the subcontracting plan and other small business requirements of the contract/order. Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner. Did not have a history of three or more unjustified reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors within a 12 month period To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were a benefit to small business utilization. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it constitutes an Exceptional rating. Small businesses should be given meaningful and innovative work directly related to the contract, and opportunities should not be limited to indirect work such as cleaning offices, supplies, landscaping, etc. Also, there should have been no significant weaknesses identified. (b) Very Good Met all of the statutory goals or goals as negotiated. Had significant success with initiatives to assist, promote and utilize SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, VOSB, and SDVOSB. Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Met or exceeded any other small business participation requirements incorporated in the contract/order, including the use of small businesses in mission critical aspects of the program. Endeavored to go above and beyond the required elements of the subcontracting plan. Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner. Did not have a history of three or more unjustified reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors within a 12 month period To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to small business utilization. Small businesses should be given meaningful and innovative opportunities to participate as subcontractors for work directly related to the contract, and opportunities should not be limited to indirect work such as cleaning offices, supplies, landscaping, etc. There should be no significant weaknesses identified. (c) Satisfactory Demonstrated a good faith effort to meet all of the negotiated subcontracting goals in the various socio-economic categories for the current period. Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Met any other small business participation requirements included in the contract/order. Fulfilled the requirements of the subcontracting plan included in the contract/order. Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner. Did not have a history of three or more unjustified reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors within a 12 month period To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor has addressed or taken corrective action. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order. (d) Marginal Deficient in meeting key subcontracting plan elements. Deficient in complying with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and any other small business participation requirements in the contract/order. Did not submit Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate or timely manner. Failed to satisfy one or more requirements of a corrective action plan currently in place; however, does show an interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level and has demonstrated a commitment to apply the necessary resources to do so. Required a corrective action plan. Did not have a history of three or more unjustified reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors within a 12 month period To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event that the contractor had trouble overcoming and how it impacted small business utilization. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the actions taken by the Government that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency. (e) Unsatisfactory Noncompliant with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9, and any other small business participation requirements in the contract/order. Did not submit Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate or timely manner. Showed little interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level or is generally uncooperative. Required a corrective action plan. Had a history of three or more unjustified reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors within a 12 month period To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted small business utilization. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an Unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the actions taken by the Government to notify the contractor of the deficiencies. When an Unsatisfactory rating is justified, the contracting officer must consider whether the contractor made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the subcontracting plan required by FAR 52.219-9 and follow the procedures outlined in FAR 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages-Subcontracting Plan. Note 1: Plus or minus signs may be used to indicate an improving (+) or worsening (−) trend insufficient to change the evaluation status. Note 2: N/A (not applicable) should be used if the ratings are not going to be applied to a particular area for evaluation.
    6. Add section 42.1504 to Subpart 42.15—CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE INFORMATION to read as follows:
    42.1504 Contract clause.

    Insert the clause at 52.242-XX, Payments to Small Business Subcontractors, in all solicitations and contracts containing the clause at 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

    PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 7. Amend section 52.212-5 by revising the date of the clause and paragraph (b)(17)(i) to read as follows:
    52.212-5 Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders-Commercial Items. Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders-Commercial Items (Date)

    (b) * * *

    __(17)(i) 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DATE) (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(4)).

    8. Amend section 52.219-9 by— a. Revising the date of the clause; b. Adding to paragraph (b), in alphabetical order, the definitions “Reduced payment” and “Untimely payment”; and c. Adding paragraph (d)(12).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

    Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Date)

    (b) * * *

    Reduced payment means a payment that is for less than the amount agreed upon in a subcontract in accordance with its terms and conditions, for supplies and services for which the Government has paid the prime contractor.

    Untimely payment means a payment to a subcontractor that is more than 90 days past due under the terms and conditions of a subcontract, for supplies and services for which the Government has paid the prime contractor.

    (d) * * *

    (12) The offeror shall provide assurances that the offeror will pay its small business subcontractors on time, make payments in accordance with the terms and conditions of the underlying subcontract, and notify the contracting officer when the prime contractor makes either a reduced or an untimely payment to a small business subcontractor (see 52.242-XX).

    9. Add section 52.242-XX to read as follows:
    52.242-XX Payments to Small Business Subcontractors

    As prescribed in 42.1504, insert the following clause:

    Payments to Small Business Subcontractors (Date)

    (a) Definitions.

    Reduced payment means a payment that is for less than the amount agreed upon in a subcontract in accordance with its terms and conditions, for supplies and services for which the Government has paid the prime contractor.

    Untimely payment means a payment to a subcontractor that is more than 90 days past due under the terms and conditions of a subcontract, for supplies and services for which the Government has paid the prime contractor.

    (b) Notice. The Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer in writing if—

    (1) A small business subcontractor is entitled to payment under the terms and conditions of the subcontract; and

    (2) The Prime contractor makes a payment that is either reduced or untimely to the small business subcontractor, or if the Contractor failed to make a payment which is now untimely.

    (c) Content of Notice. The Contractor shall include the reason(s) for making the reduced or untimely payment in any notice required under paragraph (b).

    (End of clause)

    [FR Doc. 2016-00950 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    81 12 Wednesday, January 20, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Doc. No. AMS-TM-15-0082] Local Food Directories and Survey: Notice of Request for Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection and To Merge the Collection of National Farmers Market Directory and Survey With Modules and Local Food Directories and Survey AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget, for revision of two currently approved collections by merging them into a single information collection, titled “Local Food Directories and Survey”. AMS intends to combine collection 0581-0169, National Farmers Market Directory and Survey with Modules, and collection 0581-0289, Local Food Directories and Survey, and title it “Local Food Directories and Survey”. Merging the collections will allow for reduced input time for operators of multiple local food enterprises. All directories are national in scope and provide free advertising for producers of local agricultural products. The directories also assist customers to locate local food enterprises.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by March 21, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments concerning this notice. Comments should be submitted online at www.regulations.gov or sent to Edward Ragland, Marketing Services Division, Transportation and Marketing Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Room 4509 South Building, Ag Stop 0269, Washington, DC 20250-0269.

    All comments should be identified with the docket number (AMS-TM-15-0082), the date, and the page number of this issue of the Federal Register. All comments received will be posted without change, including any personal information provided, online at http://www.regulations.gov and will be made available for public inspection during regular business hours at the above physical address from 9 a.m. to 12 noon and from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, (except official Federal holidays). Persons wanting to visit the USDA South Building to view comments received are requested to make an appointment in advance by calling (202) 720-8317.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Edward Ragland, Marketing Services Division, Transportation and Marketing Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Room 4509 South Building, Ag Stop 0269, Washington, DC 20250-0269; Tel. 202-720-8317 FAX 202-690-0031. Comments should reference Docket No. AMS-TM-15-0082.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Local Food Directories and Survey

    OMB Number: 0581-0169

    Expiration Date of Approval: April 30, 2016

    Type of Request: Revision and merger of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: Under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.), AMS is responsible for conducting research to enhance market access for small and medium sized farmers. The role of the Marketing Services Division (MSD) of AMS is to facilitate distribution of U.S. agricultural products. The division identifies marketing opportunities, provides analysis to help take advantage of those opportunities, and develops and evaluates solutions, including improving farmers markets and other direct-to-consumer marketing activities. Various types of direct to customer local food enterprises serve different parts of the food marketing chain but all focus on the small-to medium-sized agricultural producers that have difficulty obtaining access to large scale commercial distribution channels. Information has been collected by the MSD periodically about the size and growth of markets, farmers served, products sold, sales, and management structure to better monitor how this marketing channel changes over time and the impact farmers markets have on the farming community nationwide.

    Merging the two collection instruments would allow sharing of contact information across the two information collections which will reduce input time for operators of multiple local food enterprises. It will also allow AMS to more efficiently manage the collection and prevent duplication of burden. The definitions of on-farm market, community-supported agriculture, (CSA) and food hub are listed below.

    Farmers market information collected serves dual purposes. This information is used to populate USDA's National Farmers Market Directory, and periodically, market managers are invited to participate in a comprehensive survey evaluating the farmers market sector. Collecting data for multiple purposes increases response rates, reduces duplicity in information collected by AMS, and adds convenience for AMS.

    The collection incorporates advanced GIS mapping capability, which provides the ability to immediately stratify the respondents and direct them to the survey modules relevant to their characteristics. The data-driven nature of the collection and the use of modules minimizes the time necessary for respondents to complete the questionnaire. Topic areas in USDA's National Farmers Market Managers Survey include: characteristics and history of farmers markets, types of products sold, including fresh, locally-grown produce, location of the markets, programs to encourage healthy eating, special events, marketing methods, participation in federal programs designed to increase consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables, vendor retention and recruitment, market growth and enhancement, contribution to economic development, awareness and participation in grant and educational programs, what information farmers market managers have or how they derive estimates of the number of customers, sales, number of vendors, and vendor characteristics.

    An on-farm market is an area of a facility affiliated with a farm where transactions between a farm market operator and customers take place. An on-farm market may operate seasonally or year-round. On-farm markets are an important component of direct marketing, adding value by offering customers a visit to the farm and the opportunity to purchase products from the people who grew them.

    A CSA is another type of food-production and direct marketing relationship between a farmer or farmers and a group of consumers who purchase “shares” of the season's harvest in advance of the growing season. The up-front working capital generated by selling shares reduces the financial risk to the farmer(s). Generally; farmers receive better prices for their crops and, have reduced marketing costs. Consumers benefit by receiving weekly delivery of fresh locally-grown fruits, vegetables, meats, eggs and other produce. They also benefit from the ability to collectively support the sustainability of local farmers.

    A Food hub is a business or organization that actively manages the aggregation, distribution, and marketing of source-identified food products primarily from local and regional producers to strengthen their ability to satisfy wholesale, retail, and institutional demand. This marketing channel also allows farm operators to capture a larger share of consumers' food dollar.

    On-farm markets, CSA, as well as food hubs, comprise an integral part of the urban/farm linkage and have continued to rise in popularity, mostly due to the growing consumer interest in obtaining fresh products directly from the farm. The use of these marketing channels has enabled farmers to receive a larger share of the consumer's food dollar. On-farm markets, CSA, and food hubs allow consumers to have access to locally grown, farm fresh produce, enable farmers the opportunity to develop a personal relationship with their customers, and cultivate consumer loyalty with the farmers. They are also providing greater access to fresh locally grown fruits and vegetables, as well as playing an increasing role in encouraging healthier eating.

    For Merged Local Food Directories and Survey—0581-0169

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this combined collection of information is estimated to average 0.183 hours per response.

    Respondents: Farmers market managers, farm operators that operate on-farm stores, operators of CSA, farm operations, and operators of food hubs.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 62,250

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 6,500

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: .104

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,187 hours.

    For Local Food Directories and Survey—0581-0289

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.167 hours per response.

    Respondents: Farm operators that operate on-farm stores, operators of CSA, farm operations, and operators of food hubs.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 56,750 respondents

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 2,125 responses

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: .037 responses

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 355 hours

    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: January 13, 2016. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00859 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Farm Service Agency Commodity Credit Corporation Information Collection Request; Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program and Report of Acreage AGENCY:

    Farm Service Agency, Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on a revision of a currently approved information collection in support of the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP). The revision adds the report of acreage for NAP in the information collection request. The report of acreage is not a new requirement for NAP; it was previously covered in a separate information collection request and FSA is merging it into the NAP information collection request. The information be