Federal Register Vol. 81, No.76,

Background and Proposed Changes

Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA) (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade and packaging, and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural products while maintaining the integrity of the USDA grademark. Shell egg grading is a voluntary program provided under the AMA and offered on a fee-for-service basis. It is designed to assist in the orderly marketing of shell eggs by providing the official certification of egg quality, size, condition, and other factors.

This proposed amendment is in accordance with recommendations stated in the 2012 Audit Report, USDA Controls Over Shell Egg Inspection, issued by the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG). In that report, OIG stated the regulatory definition of “condition” for shell eggs was confusing as it relates to quality and food safety. OIG also stated the integrity of the USDA grademark for quality was not adequately protected from adulterated shell eggs.

AMS is proposing to revise the definition of “condition” to remove any food safety implications resulting from the use of the term “wholesomeness” and clarify that AMS' role in grading and certification of shell eggs is solely for a quality determination. The revised definition will remove the term “wholesomeness” and state that “condition” is a characteristic detected by sensory examination. The presence of microorganisms, specifically Salmonella Enteritidis (SE) or other pathogens, in the content of an egg cannot be detected during such an examination. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, not AMS, maintain jurisdiction for food safety related issues associated with shell eggs.

AMS is also proposing to revise the prerequisite requirement of shell eggs eligible for USDA grading and certification. The revision will prohibit the use of SE-adulterated or recalled shell eggs from being presented to USDA for grading and certification. This action protects the integrity of the USDA grademark for quality and is consistent with the current AMS policy implemented subsequent to the referenced 2012 OIG audit.

USDA is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13175, and 13563.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-602, AMS has performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis regarding economic effects of this proposed rule on small entities.

AMS is proposing to amend the Regulations Governing the Voluntary Grading of Shell Eggs, 7 CFR part 56 to revise the definition of the term “condition” to clarify that it relates solely to a quality determination and not food safety. The current regulation definition for “condition” includes the term “wholesomeness” which denotes a food safety connotation. AMS' role in grading and certification of shell eggs is for a quality determination only. By removing any food safety related terms from the current definition of “condition,” AMS will remove confusion or misunderstanding over use of the term.

Since this change is a technical correction and editorial in nature, and will not result in a change to the way service is provided to our customers, AMS has determined it will not have a financial impact on small entities that utilize their services.

AMS also proposes to revise the prerequisite requirement of shell eggs eligible for USDA grading and certification. The revision will prohibit the use of SE-adulterated shell eggs or recalled shell eggs from being presented to USDA for grading and certification.

The FDA prohibits the use of SE-adulterated shell eggs from being sold to consumers. When shell eggs are suspected of being adulterated with SE, the packing facility is obligated to test the shell eggs to assure only safe product is distributed to consumers. If shell eggs are found to be adulterated with SE, the FDA will issue a request to the packing facility to voluntarily recall the product, or will exercise its mandatory recall authority to return the product to the origin facility. The product must either be destroyed or reconditioned under FDA supervision.

Since SE-adulterated shell eggs or shell eggs that have been recalled are no longer eligible for distribution to consumers, but are either destroyed or reconditioned under the direction of the FDA, changing the AMS regulation will not have an impact on small entities since those shell eggs are deemed unfit for human consumption.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection and recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule, and there are no new requirements. Should any changes become necessary they would be submitted to OMB for approval. The assigned OMB control number is 0581-0128, as approved on July 8, 2014.

AMS is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, which requires government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002 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 the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed that 7 CFR part 56 be amended as follows:

Background

The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended, establishes uniform national eligibility standards for SNAP, including the definition of a SNAP household, countable income and assets, allowable deductions from gross income, and maximum benefit levels. Households are allowed to deduct certain amounts from their gross monthly income, including shelter expenses that exceed 50 percent of their income after all other deductions (up to a maximum limit for households that do not have elderly or disabled members). Household benefits are calculated based on the household's maximum allotment and net income; households with lower net incomes generally receive larger benefits than households with higher net incomes.

Shelter expenses include the basic cost of housing as well as utilities and other allowable expenses. In order to simplify program administration, States are permitted to establish Standard Utility Allowances (SUAs) that households may use in lieu of actual utility expenses. States may establish multiple SUAs to reflect differences in households' circumstances. The heating or cooling SUA (HCSUA) is one such SUA and is available to households that pay heating or cooling expenses separate from their rent or mortgage, as well as households that receive Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) payments or other similar energy assistance program payments. Households that do not pay heating or cooling expenses out-of-pocket but that are billed directly for other utility costs are entitled to a SUA (or SUAs) appropriate to the types of utility expenses they incur, where applicable.

For the purposes of the HCSUA, receipt of a LIHEAP payment serves as a reasonable proxy for the actual utility costs that a household incurs, providing a simpler way for States and applicants to determine utility costs. Before the enactment of the Agricultural Act of 2014, Section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv) of the Act provided that all households receiving a LIHEAP payment or on behalf of which a LIHEAP payment was made automatically qualified for the HCSUA, regardless of the amount of the LIHEAP payment. Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(iii)(C) reflect this requirement.

Section 4006 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 amends Section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I) of the Act by requiring States electing to use an HCSUA to make the HCSUA available to households that received a payment or on behalf of which a payment was made under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 or other similar energy assistance program, if in the current month or in the immediately preceding 12 months, the household either received such a payment or such a payment was made on behalf of the household that was greater than $20 annually.

This rule codifies guidance FNS issued to States following passage of the Agricultural Act of 2014. The Department is proposing to amend the regulations at 7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(iii)(C) to incorporate these changes.

Section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I) of the Act, as amended by Section 4006 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, provides for the HCSUA upon receipt of LIHEAP payments as well as payments from an “other similar energy assistance program.” The Department is also proposing to amend the regulations at 7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(iii)(C) to establish a standard for determining what constitutes an “other similar energy assistance program.” “[O]ther similar energy assistance program” would be defined as a separate home energy assistance program designed to provide heating or cooling assistance through a payment directly to or on behalf of low-income households.

For the purposes of this preamble discussion, the phrase “qualifying LIHEAP or other payment” refers to those LIHEAP or other similar energy assistance program payments that are in excess of $20 annually and have been received by or made on behalf of the household in the current or immediately preceding 12 months.

The language in the Act refers to LIHEAP or other similar energy assistance program payments received by or made “on behalf of” households, while the existing regulatory language refers to direct or indirect payments received by households. To support consistency, the Department proposes that the regulatory language reflect the statutory language.

Section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I) of the Act, as amended by Section 4006 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, requires that the payment received by or made on behalf of the household must exceed $20 annually. The Department does not have discretion to alter the $20 threshold. However, standards regarding the payment would be important and helpful in order to ensure uniformity across State agencies. Therefore, the payment must be quantifiable in order to be acceptable for purposes of granting the HCSUA. By quantifiable, the Department means that the State agency must be able to quantify, in dollars, the amount of the payment. The Department is proposing to codify these requirements at revised 7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(iii)(C)(1)(iii).

Section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I) of the Act also requires receipt of the payment in the “current” month or the immediately preceding 12 months in order to confer eligibility for the HCSUA. As proposed, the “current month” refers strictly to the calendar month, meaning from the first to the final day of a given month.

On a related note, the Department proposes to revise language at 7 CFR 273.10(d)(6), which currently provides that all energy assistance payments except for those made under the LIHEAA must be prorated over the entire heating or cooling season that the payment is intended to cover. This was a technical error that FNS proposes to correct in this rule. Such a correction is consistent with the language in the Agricultural Act of 2014 that qualifying LIHEAP payments must be received in the current month or the immediately preceding 12 months in order to confer eligibility for the HCSUA. Additionally, the Agricultural Act of 2014 struck language in Section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I) of the Act requiring that households incur “out-of-pocket heating or cooling expenses in excess of any assistance paid on behalf of the household to an energy provider.” In light of these changes made by the Agricultural Act of 2014, FNS is proposing to amend 7 CFR 273.10(d)(6) to reflect the requirement in Section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv)(IV) that assistance under LIHEAA be considered to be prorated over the heating or cooling season.

The new language in Section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I) of the Act no longer allows a household to qualify for a HCSUA based on anticipated receipt in future months. This rule proposes that applying the HCSUA to a household's case based on anticipated receipt is only permissible if the payment is anticipated to be received by the household within the current calendar month. At the State agency's option, if a qualifying LIHEAP or other payment greater than $20 (or payment which would bring the household's total payments for the year to a total greater than $20) is scheduled for the current month, the payment may be considered to have been received for the purposes of conferring eligibility for the HCSUA. However, if the payment is not actually made within that month, benefits received by the household would be considered an overissuance and the State agency should pursue a claim against the household for any benefits issued in error in accordance with its established claims management procedures. The Department is proposing to revise 7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(iii)(C) accordingly to codify these requirements.

State agencies would be responsible for tracking the date and receipt of the qualifying LIHEAP or other payment to ensure the payment satisfies the timing requirements and exceeds the $20 minimum threshold. The Department encourages State agencies to modify data sharing agreements with their respective LIHEAP agencies, as appropriate, to ensure transmission of timely and accurate information needed for SNAP eligibility and benefit determinations.

If a household has not received a qualifying LIHEAP or other payment at the time of certification and has not incurred actual utility expenses, the household would not be entitled to the HCSUA at certification. If the household were to subsequently receive a qualifying LIHEAP or other payment, or if one were made on the household's behalf during the certification period, the State agency would need to take action according to the rules of their chosen reporting system under 7 CFR 273.12.

The Department notes that this provision does not affect a household's ability, if any, to use actual costs rather than the standardized HCSUA. SNAP households that are billed directly for utility costs are entitled to a Standard Utility Allowance (SUA) appropriate to the types of utility expenses they incur. In States that do not have mandatory SUA policies, the household is entitled to use its actual costs, rather than the standard. The Department encourages all State agencies to review their available utility allowances to ensure that all households with actual expenses are able to claim an allowance that best represents that types of utility expenses they have.

As a related issue, the regulations at 7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(iii)(C) as currently written provide that a HCSUA is available to households in private rental housing who are billed by their landlords on the basis of individual usage or who are charged a flat rate separately from their rent. However, the Department understands that some individuals renting in public housing may also be billed based on individual usage or separately from their rent. Although the more common situation is for public housing properties to include heating and cooling costs in the rent, public housing rental situations with separate heating and cooling costs do exist. For these reasons, the Department is proposing a technical correction to § 273.9(d)(6)(iii)(C) by removing the word “private” from this provision.

In States with mandatory HCSUAs, utility costs do not require verification for SNAP purposes, unless questionable. Similarly, receipt of more than $20 in qualifying LIHEAP or other payments would not require verification for SNAP purposes, unless questionable. In States that do not mandate use of the HCSUA, verification of utility costs is mandatory if the household wishes to claim utility costs in excess of the State agency's HCSUA and the expense would actually result in a deduction. State agencies should consider program access, integrity, and the potential for Quality Control errors in determining their verification procedures.

State agencies that use the HCSUA would need to make the HCSUA available to SNAP households that have received a qualifying LIHEAP or other similar energy assistance program payment, regardless of any change in the household's residence or address. The Act does not specify that the qualifying LIHEAP or other payment must be received at the household's current address or place of residence.

If the State agency has an indication that a household received a qualifying LIHEAP or other payment in another State, the State would need to act on it. Again, for States that have elected to use a HCSUA, the HCSUA would need to be made available to households that have received a qualifying LIHEAP or other payment, provided that the payment was received in the current month or preceding 12 months and was in excess of $20 over the same time period.

If a household that has received a qualifying LIHEAP or other payment subsequently splits into two SNAP households, State agencies would need to determine which one household is eligible for the HCSUA based on the qualifying LIHEAP or other payment. The Department believes the State agency is in the best situation to determine which household would receive the HCSUA based on the qualifying LIHEAP or other payment. As with other discretionary policy decisions, a State's chosen policy would need to be applied in a consistent and equitable way. The Department is proposing to revise 7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(iii)(C) to incorporate these standards.

The Department has received several inquiries regarding weatherization projects and eligibility for the HCSUA. The Department understands that State agencies may use a portion of LIHEAP block grant funding to support weatherization projects. Section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv) of the Act requires State agencies that use the HCSUA to make the HCSUA available to SNAP households that have received a LIHEAP or other payment, provided the payment was received by or made on behalf of the household in the current or preceding 12 months and exceeds $20 annually.

The Act does not explicitly address how State agencies should evaluate LIHEAP funds that are used to pay for weatherization projects on behalf of households in multi-family dwellings. However, to be an acceptable qualifying LIHEAP or other payment, the payment must be quantifiable to the household. The Department is proposing that weatherization projects for multi-family dwellings cannot confer eligibility for the HCSUA for households within the multi-family dwelling. The Act does not explicitly address how State agencies should evaluate LIHEAP funds that are used to pay for weatherization projects in multi-family dwellings. However, in a June 15, 1999 Information Memorandum issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees LIHEAP at the Federal level, HHS determined that weatherization of multi-unit buildings “is not a benefit provided to an individual, household or family eligibility unit.” Because the Act requires that the LIHEAP or other payment must have been received by or made on behalf of a household, the Department is proposing that such payments cannot confer eligibility for the HCSUA. However, the Department requests comment on whether HHS' guidance is fully applicable in this situation, such as when weatherization of multi-family dwellings is funded by other similar energy assistance programs, and is considering alternative approaches that may allow multi-family dwelling weatherization projects to confer eligibility for the HCSUA. The Department requests comment on this proposal as well as potential alternative approaches.

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 proposed rule has been determined to be economically significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in conformance with Executive Order 12866.

As required for all rules that have been designated as significant by OMB, a RIA was developed for this proposed rule. The RIA for this rule was published as part of docket number [Docket Placeholder] on www.regulations.gov. A summary of the analysis follows:

The Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) that accompanies this proposed rule outlines the savings to the Government as well as the effect of the proposed rule on low-income families, program participation, and State agencies. The RIA also outlines the uncertainty in assumptions on savings and alternatives considered when drafting the proposed rule.

The Department estimates that the total savings to the Government from reduced SNAP benefits will be $2.2 billion between FY 2016 and FY 2020. The Department estimates that the effect of the rule on low-income families will result in potentially smaller benefit amounts for some families, primarily those living in States that have minimum LIHEAP payments below the new minimum threshold for LIHEAP payments required to be eligible for a HCSUA. The Department estimates that the impact on SNAP participation will be minimal, with one-fourth of households in States that do not increase their LIHEAP payment above the $20 threshold seeing a decrease in benefits, but likely still being eligible to participate in the program. The Department estimates that the impact on State agencies will be minimal since States already made changes to their current caseload in accordance with the timeframes established under Section 4006 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 and the FNS guidance implementing Section 4006. There is some uncertainty concerning the estimates in the RIA, in part because they assume no changes in State behavior over time. Thirteen States have increased their minimum LIHEAP payments following the enactment of Section 4006 of the Agricultural Act of 2014. If one or more of these thirteen states decreases or discontinues these minimum payments in future years, savings would increase. Conversely, if any additional States decide to issue LIHEAP payments above the $20 threshold in future years, savings would decrease. The Department did not consider any alternatives to this rule because the language in the Agricultural Act of 2014 was very specific and prescriptive regarding the implementation dates and the payment threshold required.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires Agencies to analyze the impact of rulemaking on small entities and consider alternatives that would minimize any significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities. Pursuant to that review, it has been certified that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. State agencies that administer SNAP will be affected to the extent they implement the changes to program operations.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the Department generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Department to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.

This proposed rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and Tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

SNAP is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs under 10.551. For the reasons set forth in the final rule in 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, and related Notice (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), this program is included in the scope of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.

Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments. Where such actions have federalism implications, agencies are directed to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories called for under Section (6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13121.

The Department has determined that this proposed rule does not have Federalism implications. This rule does not impose substantial or direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, under Section 6(b) of the Executive Order, a Federalism summary impact statement is not required.

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule, when published as a final rule, is intended to have preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full and timely implementation. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect unless so specified in the Effective Dates section of the final rule. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of the final rule, all applicable administrative procedures must be exhausted.

The Department has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with the Department Regulation 4300-4, “Civil Rights Impact Analysis,” to identify and address any major civil rights impacts the rule might have on minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. After a careful review of the rule's intent and provisions, the Department has determined that this rule will not in any way limit or reduce the ability of protected classes of individuals. The Department has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with USDA Regulation 4300-4, “Civil Rights Impact Analysis,” to identify any major civil rights impacts the rule might have on program participants on the basis of age, race, color, national origin, sex, or disability.

The changes to SNAP regulations in this proposed rule are required by law and are not intended to limit the participation of any group of individuals in the SNAP program.

Impact on Households: This mandatory change will impact all households uniformly, regardless of status in a protected class. Although LIHEAP and other similar energy assistance program payments are issued by agencies other than USDA, FNS understands that these payments are not disseminated to specific portions of the population based on status in a protected class. Nor does FNS have information indicating that particular protected classes receive these payments.

In States that do not provide minimum LIHEAP payments greater than $20, the new legislation may affect the number of households that qualify for the HCSUA and may cause a reduction to those households' monthly SNAP benefit amounts. However, households that previously qualified for the HCSUA based on the receipt of a $20 or less LIHEAP payment may still qualify for the HCSUA if they incur heating or cooling expenses. Only those households without actual heating and cooling costs will experience a benefit change due to the implementation of this provision of the Agricultural Act of 2014.

Further, FNS specifically prohibits the State and local government agencies that administer the program from engaging in discriminatory actions. Discrimination in any aspect of program administration is prohibited by SNAP regulations, the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Where State agencies have options, and they choose to implement a certain provision, they must implement it in such a way that it complies with these requirements and the regulations at 7 CFR 272.6.

Impact on State Agencies: State agencies have already implemented this requirement, and have already completed necessary changes to eligibility systems, manuals, and training procedures for staff. Also, although State agencies had some flexibility to stagger the application of this provision to ongoing caseloads, at this point, the new requirements are being used to determine program eligibility for all new applicants and ongoing cases.

Training and Outreach: SNAP is administered by State agencies which communicate program information and program rules based on Federal law and regulations to those within their jurisdiction, including individuals from protected classes that may be affected by program changes. After the passage of the Agricultural Act of 2014, FNS worked with State agencies to ensure their understanding of the changes required by Section 4006. FNS released an implementation memorandum on this provision with all State agencies on March 5, 2014. In response to various State agencies' questions on LIHEAP-related issues, FNS shared guidance through a Question & Answer memorandum on April 7, 2014 and a second Q&A memorandum on August 20, 2014 to address the State agencies' questions and concerns and ensure clarity on requirements for implementing the requirement.

FNS also maintains a public Web site that provides basic information on each program, including SNAP. Interested persons, including potential applicants, applicants, and participants can find information about these changes as well as State agency contact information, downloadable applications, and links to State agency Web sites and online applications.

After careful review of the rule's intent and provisions, and the characteristics of SNAP households and individual participants, the Department has determined that this proposed rule will not have a disparate impact on any group or class of persons.

This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

FNS has assessed the impact of this proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. On February 18, 2015, the agency held a webinar for tribal participation and comments. No comments were received. If a Tribe requests consultation, FNS will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions, and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; 5 CFR 13200) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve all collections of information by a Federal agency before they can be implemented. This proposed rule does not contain information collection requirements subject to approval of OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1994. State agencies were required to make minimal, one-time changes to their eligibility systems, manuals, and training procedures for staff by May 5, 2014 to comply with the provisions of the statute. Other minimal burdens imposed on State agencies by this proposed rule are usual and customary within the course of their normal business activities.

The Department is committed to complying 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.

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 273 is proposed to be amended as follows:

Background

FSIS is proposing to amend its poultry products inspection regulations to add Poland to the list of countries eligible to export poultry products to the United States (9 CFR 381.196(b)). Poland is not currently listed as eligible to export such products to the United States.

Section 17 of the PPIA (21 U.S.C. 466) prohibits importation into the United States of slaughtered poultry, or parts or products thereof, of any kind unless they are healthful, wholesome, fit for human food, not adulterated, and contain no dye, chemical, preservative, or ingredient that renders them unhealthful, unwholesome, adulterated, or unfit for human food. Under the PPIA and the regulations that implement it, poultry products imported into the United States must be produced under standards for safety, wholesomeness, and labeling accuracy that are equivalent to those of the United States. Section 381.196 of Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sets out the procedures by which foreign countries may become eligible to export poultry and poultry products to the United States.

Section 381.196(a) requires a foreign country's poultry inspection system to include standards equivalent to those of the United States and to provide legal authority for the inspection system and its implementing regulations that is equivalent to that of the United States. Specifically, a country's legal authority and regulations must impose requirements equivalent to those of the United States with respect to: (1) Ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection by, or under the direct supervision of, a veterinarian; (2) official controls by the national government over establishment construction, facilities, and equipment; (3) direct and continuous official supervision of slaughtering of poultry and processing of poultry products by inspectors to ensure that product is not adulterated or misbranded; (4) complete separation of establishments certified to export from those not certified; (5) maintenance of a single standard of inspection and sanitation throughout certified establishments; (6) requirements for sanitation and for sanitary handling of product at establishments certified to export; (7) official controls over condemned product; (8) a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system; and (9) any other requirements found in the PPIA and its implementing regulations (9 CFR 381.196(a)(2)(ii)).

The country's inspection system must also impose requirements equivalent to those of the United States with respect to: (1) Organizational structure and staffing to ensure uniform enforcement of the requisite laws and regulations in all certified establishments; (2) national government control and supervision over the official activities of employees or licensees; (3) assignment of qualified inspectors; (4) enforcement and certification authority; (5) administrative and technical support; (6) inspection, sanitation, quality, species verification, and residue standards; and (7) any other inspection requirements (9 CFR 381.196(a)(2)(i)).

The foreign country's inspection system must ensure that establishments preparing poultry or poultry products for export to the United States, and their products, comply with requirements equivalent to those of the PPIA and the regulations promulgated by FSIS under the authority of that statute. The foreign country certifies the appropriate establishments as having met the required standards and advises FSIS of those establishments that are certified or removed from certification. Before FSIS will grant approval to the country to export poultry or poultry products to the United States, FSIS must first determine that reliance can be placed on the certification of establishments by the foreign country.

As indicated above, a foreign country's inspection system must be evaluated by FSIS before eligibility to export poultry products to the United States can be granted. This evaluation consists of two processes: A document review and an on-site review. The document review is an evaluation of the laws, regulations, and other written materials used by the country to effect its inspection program. To help the country in organizing its materials, FSIS provides the country with a series of questions asking for detailed information about the country's inspection practices and procedures in six areas or equivalence components: (1) Government Oversight, (2) Statutory Authority and Food Safety Regulations, (3) Sanitation, (4) HACCP Systems, (5) Chemical Residue Testing Programs, and (6) Microbiological Testing Programs. FSIS evaluates the information submitted to verify that the critical points in the six equivalence components are addressed satisfactorily with respect to standards, activities, resources, and enforcement. If the document review is satisfactory, an onsite review is scheduled using a multidisciplinary team to evaluate all aspects of the country's inspection program. This comprehensive process is described more fully on the FSIS Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/importing-products/equivalence/equivalence-process-overview.

The PPIA and implementing regulations require that foreign countries determined by the Administrator to have acceptable inspection systems be listed in the regulations as eligible to export poultry products to the United States. FSIS must engage in rulemaking to list a country as eligible. Countries found eligible to export poultry or poultry products to the United States are listed in the poultry inspection regulations at 9 CFR 381.196(b). Once listed, the government of an eligible country must certify to FSIS that establishments that wish to export poultry products to the United States are operating under requirements equivalent to those of the United States (9 CFR 381.196(a)(3)). Countries must renew certifications of establishments annually (9 CFR 381.196(a)(3)). To verify that products imported into the United States are not adulterated or misbranded, FSIS re-inspects and randomly samples those products at ports-of-entry before they enter U.S. commerce.

In 2004, the government of Poland requested approval to export raw, ready-to-eat (RTE), and canned poultry to the United States. Poland stated that, if approved, its immediate intent was to export chicken, turkey, and goose meat to the United States. FSIS conducted a document review of Poland's poultry (slaughter and processing) inspection system to determine whether that system was equivalent to the United States poultry inspection system. FSIS concluded, on the basis of that review, that Poland's laws, regulations, control programs, and procedures were sufficient to achieve the level of public health protection required by FSIS.

Accordingly, FSIS proceeded with an on-site audit of Poland's poultry inspection system from May 10 to June 1, 2011, to verify whether Poland's General Veterinary Inspectorate (GVI), which is Poland's central competent authority (CCA) in charge of food inspection, has effectively implemented a poultry inspection system equivalent to that of the United States. FSIS reviewed two processing and one cold storage establishment intending to export to the United States. From the on-site audit, FSIS concluded that Poland's poultry inspection system did not meet the Government Oversight, Sanitation, HACCP Systems, and Microbiological Testing Programs equivalence components. For example, FSIS found that there was inconsistency in the enforcement of corrective action requirements in response to non-compliances. In addition, FSIS found that the CCA was lacking current policy or regulations that specifically require establishments to develop and implement written Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures and HACCP plans as conditions for gaining certification for export of poultry products to the United States. FSIS also found that the GVI did not possess evidence of staff participation in training, did not maintain tracked records of training at all levels of the CCA, and that the GVI did not have a mechanism to assess the effectiveness of the training programs.

In addition, FSIS was not able to audit the poultry slaughter inspection in operation because the GVI withdrew the poultry slaughter establishment scheduled for the FSIS audit. FSIS's report discussing the findings of the 2011 on-site audit and the initial corrective actions proffered by GVI is available at the following web address: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/18fc607d-9511-4cc8-8e4c-bc9f6b90cb0c/Poland_Poultry_2011_FAR.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.

Following the 2011 on-site audit, Poland addressed the FSIS audit findings through corrective action plans presented to FSIS on September 5, 2012, October 11, 2012, and March 20, 2013. FSIS evaluated the corrective action plans and, based on the information Poland submitted, determined that Poland had addressed FSIS's findings.

In July 2014, FSIS conducted a follow-up initial equivalence on-site audit. During the follow-up audit, the FSIS auditor reviewed the inspection operations at two chicken slaughter and three chicken processing establishments intending to export raw, ready-to-eat (RTE), and thermally processed commercially sterile (canned) products to the United States. Based on the results of the follow-up audit, FSIS concluded that Poland had satisfactorily addressed all initial audit findings and was able to meet FSIS requirements and equivalence criteria related to all six components. The final audit report on Poland's poultry inspection system (slaughter and processing) can be found on the FSIS Web site at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/33c2d71a-6d5c-4224-b64d-fd7725b8282f/Poland-FAR-2011-2014.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.

In summary, FSIS has completed the document review, on-site audits, and verification of corrective actions as part of the equivalence process, and all outstanding issues have been resolved. FSIS has tentatively determined that, as implemented, Poland's poultry inspection system (slaughter and processing) is equivalent to the United States poultry inspection system pending issuance of a final rule.

Following the FSIS audit of Poland's poultry inspection system, on August 21, 2014, FSIS published a final rule to modernize poultry slaughter inspection (79 FR 49566). The rule implemented new U.S. regulatory requirements including (1) the New Poultry Inspection System (NPIS), an optional post-mortem inspection system, and (2) regulatory changes that apply to all poultry slaughter establishments. FSIS expects Poland to submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate how the Polish poultry inspection system achieves an equivalent outcome to the revised U.S. regulations. Before issuing a final rule to add Poland to the list of equivalent countries, and before any product is shipped to the United States, FSIS must verify whether the Polish poultry inspection system is equivalent with the new U.S. regulatory requirements in the August 21, 2014 final rule.

Should this rule become final, Poland will be eligible to export raw, RTE, and thermally processed commercially sterile (canned) poultry products to the United States. The government of Poland must certify to FSIS those establishments that wish to export poultry products to the United States are operating in accordance with requirements equivalent to those of the United States. FSIS will verify that the establishments certified by Poland's government meet the U.S. requirements through periodic and regularly scheduled audits of Poland's poultry inspection system.

Although a foreign country may be listed in FSIS regulations as eligible to export poultry to the United States, the exporting country's products must also comply with all other applicable requirements of the United States. These requirements include restrictions under 9 CFR part 94 of the United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulations, which also regulate the importation of poultry products from foreign countries into the United States. APHIS has recognized Poland as part of the EU Poultry Trade Region and considers them not affected with either HPAI or Newcastle disease. There are specific certification statements required for poultry product imports to address the animal health issues, and these are defined under 9 CFR 94.28. Any poultry product imports from Poland would be required to meet these requirements.

If this proposed rule is adopted, all slaughtered poultry, or parts and products thereof, exported to the United States from Poland will be subject to re-inspection at the U.S. ports-of-entry for, but not limited to, transportation damage, product and container defects, labeling, proper certification, general condition, and accurate count. In addition, FSIS will conduct other types of re-inspection activities, such as incubation of canned products to ensure product safety and taking product samples for laboratory analysis for the detection of drug and chemical residues, pathogens, species, and product composition. Products that pass re-inspection will be stamped with the official U.S. mark of inspection and allowed to enter U.S. commerce. If they do not meet U.S. requirements, they will be refused entry and within 45 days must be exported to the country of origin, destroyed, or converted to animal food (subject to approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)), depending on the violation. The import re-inspection activities can be found on the FSIS Web site at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/importing-products/port-of-ventry-procedures/fsis-import-reinspection.

FSIS has found Poland eligible to export all poultry and poultry products to the United States. Currently, Poland has elected to only certify chicken establishments for export to the United States. In order to export turkey or goose product, Poland will need to notify FSIS and certify any new establishments. FSIS will review information provided by Poland and may decide to audit based on additional product. Poland would not be allowed to export additional products to the United States until FSIS determines that the country's requirements and inspection program for the products are equivalent to FSIS's system.

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 proposed rule has been designated a “non-significant” regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866.

Poland intends to certify seven establishments that would export chicken to the United States. Within the European Union (EU), Poland is a major poultry producer. According to a 2014 report, the EU listed Poland as the top poultry producer.1 Over the past 10 years, Poland has doubled its poultry production (2.2 million metric tons in 2014). Poland's poultry production consists of 81% chicken broilers, 14% turkey broilers, and 5% other poultry broilers such as duck and geese. Poland's poultry production uses mostly locally produced grain.2 Lower feed costs and continuing export demand has helped Poland double its poultry exports within the last five years (741 thousand metric tons in 2014.).3 Currently, Poland's primary export markets are Germany, the United Kingdom, and France.

Poland exports chicken, turkey, duck and geese products to other countries. Table 1 provides unit values for Poland's poultry product exports and shows Poland's price competitiveness in the poultry export market. Poland is price competitive for most poultry products that the United States imports from other countries, primarily Canada and Chile.

Both the low cost of poultry production and low export unit price are why the United States is a top poultry exporter.

In total, poultry imports account for only 0.3% of the U.S. poultry supply.4 In 2014, the United States produced 17.3 million Metric Tons (MT) of poultry, exported 3.3 million MT of poultry, consumed 14 million MT of poultry, and imported only 0.053 million MT of poultry.5 U.S. poultry imports have remained relatively unchanged in recent years,6 and there is no reason to believe the amount will change substantially in the future. For Poland to export poultry to the United States, it must be export-eligible, export-capable, and price-competitive. After comparing Poland's price competitiveness with the United States, Chile, and Canada, FSIS estimates that the maximum potential Polish poultry products exports to the United States is expected to be between 29,500 MT and 44,300 MT. This means that the total U.S. poultry supply will increase only between 0.15% and 0.22% due to Poland's projected export volume to the United States, leaving the total U.S. poultry supply almost unchanged. Thus, Poland's projected poultry export volume to the United States would only minimally change U.S. poultry prices, not enough to alter the U.S. poultry market. Currently, however, Poland only intends to certify as eligible seven establishments to export raw, RTE, and thermally processed commercially sterile (canned) chicken products to the United States. The total processing capacity of these seven establishments is less than Poland's total poultry export capacity. With minimal price change expected in the U.S. poultry markets, adopting this proposed rule would not have a negative effect on U.S. consumers.

Companies that export products from Poland to the United States will incur the standard costs associated with exporting products to the United States, such as export fees and freight or insurance costs. They will be willing to bear these costs, however, because of the anticipated financial benefits associated with marketing their products in the United States.

Adoption of this proposed rule will increase trade between the United States and Poland. The volume of trade stimulated by the proposed rule is likely to be small and is expected to have little or no effect on U.S. poultry supplies or poultry prices. U.S. consumers, however, are expected to enjoy more choices when purchasing poultry products. The proposed rule would, therefore, expand choices for U.S. consumers and promote economic competition.

The FSIS Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601). The expected trade volume will be small, with little or no effect on U.S. establishments, regardless of size.

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under this rule: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) no administrative proceedings will be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

No new paperwork requirements are associated with this proposed rule. Foreign countries wanting to export poultry and poultry products to the United States are required to provide information to FSIS certifying that their inspection systems provide standards equivalent to those of the United States, and that the legal authority for the system and their implementing regulations are equivalent to those of the United States. FSIS provided Poland with questionnaires asking for detailed information about the country's inspection practices and procedures to assist that country in organizing its materials. This information collection was approved under OMB control number 0583-0094. The proposed rule contains no other paperwork requirements.

FSIS and USDA are committed to achieving the purposes of the E-Government Act (44 U.S.C. 3601, et seq.) by, among other things, promoting the use of the Internet and other information technologies and providing increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

FSIS will officially notify the World Trade Organization's Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (WTO/SPS Committee) in Geneva, Switzerland, of this proposal and will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/vregulations/federal-register/proposed-rules. FSIS also will make copies of this Federal Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:

Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410.

Fax: (202) 690-7442.

Email: [email protected].

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

For the reasons set out in the preamble, FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR part 381 as follows:

On January 20, 2016, ASRAC met and unanimously passed the recommendation to form a Circulator Pumps Working Group. The purpose of the working group is to discuss and, if possible, reach consensus regarding definitions, test procedures, and energy conservation standards, to form the basis of proposed energy conservation standards and test procedures. The Working Group consists of representatives of parties having a defined stake in the outcome of the proposed standards, and will consult as appropriate with a range of experts on technical issues. Per the ASRAC Charter, the Working Group is expected to make a concerted effort to negotiate a final term sheet by September 30, 2016. This document announces the next series of meetings for this working group.

DOE will host public meetings and webinars on the below dates.

Members of the public are welcome to observe the business of the meeting and, if time allows, may make oral statements during the specified period for public comment. To attend the meeting and/or to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, email [email protected]. In the email, please indicate your name, organization (if appropriate), citizenship, and contact information. Please note that foreign nationals participating in the public meeting are subject to advance security screening procedures which require advance notice prior to attendance at the public meeting. If you are a foreign national, and wish to participate in the public meeting, please inform DOE as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Regina Washington at (202) 586-1214 or by email: [email protected] so that the necessary procedures can be completed. Anyone attending the meeting will be required to present a government photo identification, such as a passport, driver's license, or government identification. Due to the required security screening upon entry, individuals attending should arrive early to allow for the extra time needed.

Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recent changes have been made regarding ID requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings from specific states and U.S. territories. Driver's licenses from the following states or territory will not be accepted for building entry and one of the alternate forms of ID listed below will be required.

DHS has determined that regular driver's licenses (and ID cards) from the following jurisdictions are not acceptable for entry into DOE facilities: Alaska, Louisiana, New York, American Samoa, Maine, Oklahoma, Arizona, Massachusetts, Washington, and Minnesota.

Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID include: U.S. Passport or Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver's License or Enhanced ID-Card issued by the states of Minnesota, New York or Washington (Enhanced licenses issued by these states are clearly marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver's License); A military ID or other Federal government issued Photo-ID card.

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

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-2016-5591; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-193-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

On July 13, 2005, we issued AD 2005-15-07, Amendment 39-14196 (70 FR 43024, July 26, 2005) (“AD 2005-15-07”). AD 2005-15-07 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A320-111 airplanes and Model A320-200 series airplanes.

Since we issued AD 2005-15-07, we have received reports of wire chafing in the left-hand wing trailing edge.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0198, dated September 5, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes. The MCAI states:

This proposed AD also removes Model A320-214, -232, and -233 airplanes from the applicability because those airplane models have been modified in production or in service. 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-2016-5591.

Airbus has issued Service Bulletins A320-92-1049, Revision 01, dated November 28, 2011; A320-92-1052, dated December 5, 2007; and A320-24-1062, Revision 07, dated November 28, 2011.

Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1049, Revision 01, dated November 28, 2011, describes procedures to install the additional anti-chafing protection.

Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1052, dated December 5, 2007, describes procedures to replace the current electrical cable with the new standard one.

Airbus A320-24-1062, Revision 07, dated November 28, 2011, describes procedures to install insulator and cable ties to the electrical cables of the S routes at the gaps in the raceway in the wing trailing edge and the wing tip and wing root areas.

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.

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.

The MCAI specifies a compliance time of 72 months for modifying the trailing edges of both wings. However, this proposed AD would require a compliance time of 60 months to be consistent with the 60-month compliance time for installing the insulator and cable ties to the electrical cables of the S routes at the gaps in the raceway in the wing trailing edge and the wing tip and wing root areas specified in AD 2005-15-07. This difference has been coordinated with EASA.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 47 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions required by AD 2005-15-07, and retained in this proposed AD take about 35 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 are required by AD 2005-15-07 is $2,975 per product.

We also estimate that it would take about 76 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 $13,000 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $914,620, or $19,460 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

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-2016-5593; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-184-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

On January 20, 2015, we issued AD 2015-02-23, Amendment 39-18092 (80 FR 5670, February 3, 2015) (“AD 2015-02-23”). AD 2015-02-23 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes. AD 2015-02-23 corresponds to Canadian Emergency Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-39R2, dated December 12, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”). The MCAI was issued by Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada.

The preamble to AD 2015-02-23 explains that we consider the requirements interim action and are considering further rulemaking. We have now determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary and that, instead of continuing repetitive inspections, replacement of the incorrectly oriented fasteners is necessary. This proposed AD follows from that determination. This proposed AD would require terminating action to replace the fasteners on the inboard flap hinge-box forward fittings on affected wings.

The repetitive inspections can only detect if a fastener head has fractured and sheared off. For incorrectly oriented fasteners, it is not possible to detect whether a crack has already initiated and propagated. The fastener fracture speed is unpredictable due to the variability in the quality of the hole preparation prior to fastener installation and whether there was any misalignment in the installation of the fasteners. The failure of two fasteners could result in the loss of the flap attachment, causing flap asymmetry and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

We are proposing this AD to detect and correct incorrectly oriented or fractured fasteners, which could result in detachment of the flap hinge-box and the flap surface, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

Bombardier has issued Alert Service Bulletins A600-0763, Revision 02, dated December 9, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013; and A601-0627, Revision 02, dated December 9, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013. The service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections of the fasteners on the inboard flap hinge-box forward fittings on both wings, and replacement of fasteners. 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.

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 designs.

Paragraph C. of Canadian Emergency AD CF-2013-39R2, dated December 12, 2014, specifies to do the replacement on “both” wings. We have clarified with TCCA that the intent of paragraph C. of Canadian Emergency AD CF-2013-39R2, dated December 12, 2014, is that for airplanes on which any incorrectly oriented fastener, and no fractured or missing fastener, was detected, the replacement only needs to be done on the affected wing on which incorrectly oriented fasteners were found but none were found to be fractured.

The replacement of all forward and aft fasteners, regardless of condition or orientation, at wing station (WS) 76.50 and WS 127.25, on the affected wings, constitutes terminating action. Fasteners that have cracks or fractures were already addressed by the requirements of AD 2015-02-13, which is restated in this proposed AD.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 120 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions required by AD 2015-02-23, 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 2015-02-23 is $85 per product.

We also estimate that it would take about 59 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the parts cost. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $601,800, or $5,015 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 58 work-hours and require parts costing $753, for a cost of $5,683 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.

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 available costs in our cost estimate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-5464; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-097-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

On April 20, 2011, we issued AD 2011-10-01, Amendment 39-16682 (76 FR 25535, May 5, 2011). AD 2011-10-01 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. Since we issued AD 2011-10-01, we received a revision of an ALI document, Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 107838, Revision 4, dated February 2, 2015, of the Dassault Falcon 7X Maintenance Manual, which introduces new and more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive AD 2015-0095, dated May 29, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation FALCON 7X airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5464.

This 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 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 proposed 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 inspections 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 proposed AD, do not need to be reworked in accordance with the CDCCLs. However, once the airplane maintenance or inspection program or airworthiness limitations section (ALS) has been revised as required by this proposed AD, future maintenance actions on these components must be done in accordance with the CDCCLs.

Dassault Aviation issued Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 107838, Revision 4, dated February 2, 2015, of the Dassault Falcon 7X Maintenance Manual, which introduces new and more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and systems. 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.

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

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 45 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions required by AD 2011-10-01, Amendment 39-16682 (76 FR 25535, May 5, 2011), and retained in this proposed AD take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2011-10-01 is $85 per product.

We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $3,825, or $85 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-5465; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-041-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

On April 30, 2010, we issued AD 2010-10-13, Amendment 39-16292 (75 FR 27419, May 17, 2010) (“AD 2010-10-13”). AD 2010-10-13 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 and Avro 146 series airplanes.

Since we issued AD 2010-10-13, the DAH has issued revised inspection procedures that eliminates a previously approved inspection procedure.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0047, correction dated February 26, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition. The MCAI states:

The repetitive inspection interval for the detailed visual inspection for cracking and corrosion of the wing fixed leading edge and front spar structure is:

• 12 years or 36,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs earlier, for airplanes on which the enhanced corrosion protection has not been accomplished.

• 6 years or 36,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs earlier, for airplanes on which the enhanced corrosion protection has been accomplished.

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-2016-5465.

BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited has issued Service Bulletin ISB.57-072, Revision 3, dated August 31, 2010. The service information describes procedures for inspection and repair for cracking and corrosion of the wing fixed leading edge and front spar structure. 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.

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

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

The actions required by AD 2010-10-13, and retained in this proposed AD take about 12 work-hours per product, and 1 work-hour per product for reporting, 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 2010-10-13 is $1,105 per product.

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

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-5595; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-087-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

We determined that occupants of certain Zodiac Seats California LLC seating systems having model numbers 4157, 4170, and 4184, may experience serious injury during forward impacts when subjected to inertia forces as defined by 14 CFR 25.561 and 14 CFR 25.562 (and thus are noncompliant with 14 CFR 25.785). The affected seating systems are installed on, but not limited to, various transport category airplanes.

The impact of the head onto a typical transport passenger seat back during seat qualification testing normally results in an initial contact followed by an unimpeded sliding motion down the back of the seat. That type of interaction does not typically result in excessive neck loading or direct concentrated loading on the neck. The design of the affected seating systems introduce new injury mechanisms such that the chin can catch on the seat, causing high neck bending loads and direct concentrated loading on the neck. This interaction between the head and the seat during forward impacts can result in serious injury to the occupant.

14 CFR 25.785 states that seat designs cannot cause a serious injury to the occupant when making proper use of the seat and restraint and subjected to the inertia forces specified in 14 CFR 25.561 and 14 CFR 25.562. Specifically, 14 CFR 25.785(b) states:

Use of the affected seating systems could result in serious injury to the occupant during forward impacts in emergency landing conditions.

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

This proposed AD would require removing affected seating systems.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 10,482 seating systems installed on but not limited to various transport category airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-5594; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-169-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.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0184, dated August 7, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5594.

We reviewed Dassault Service Bulletins F900EX-476, Revision 1, dated June 25, 2014; and F2000EX-350, dated April 9, 2014. This service information describes procedures for removing the aileron servo actuator. 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.

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

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 284 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 14 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 $43,460 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $12,680,600, or $44,650 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-5423; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-09-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

PW reported nine occurrences of fuel leaks on PW engines with the Talon IIB combustion chamber configuration. The subsequent investigation of these fuel leaks determined that the leak occurs at the brazed joint interface on the fuel injector support (fuel nozzle) between the inlet fitting and the nozzle support pad. Cracks are the result of thermal mechanical fatigue due to high thermal gradients on engines equipped with the Talon IIB combustor. The cracking may be aggravated by a laser tack weld that holds the nozzle fitting in place during the braze process. This process change, which adds this laser weld, was introduced to fuel nozzle, part number 51J345, in December 2008.

We reviewed PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW4G-100-A73-45, dated February 16, 2016. The ASB describes procedures for inspecting and replacing the fuel nozzles. 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.

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

This proposed AD would require initial and repetitive inspections and replacement of the affected fuel nozzles.

We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 72 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate 2.2 hours per engine to comply with this proposed inspection and 48 hours to replace the fuel nozzle when it is replaced. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. We estimate that parts cost would be $15,780 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,443,384.

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

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

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

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

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

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

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

I. Introduction

This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) summarizes the Hobby Act, the Rules, and the recent amendments to the Hobby Act. It also summarizes the comments the Commission received in response to its 2014 request for comment and explains why the Commission proposes amendments. Additionally, it poses questions soliciting further comment. It asks, in particular, whether the proposed amendments appropriately implement Congressional changes to the Act, and what regulatory burden the proposed amendments may impose. Finally, the NPRM sets forth the Commission's regulatory analyses under the Regulatory Flexibility and Paperwork Reduction Acts, as well as the text of the proposed amendments.

On November 29, 1973, President Nixon signed the Hobby Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 2101-2106. The Hobby Act requires manufacturers and importers of “imitation political items” 1 to “plainly and permanently” mark them with the “calendar year” the items were manufactured. Id. 2101(a). The Hobby Act also requires manufacturers and importers of “imitation numismatic items” 2 to “plainly and permanently” mark these items with the word “copy.” Id. 2101(b). The Hobby Act further directed the Commission to promulgate regulations for determining the “manner and form” that imitation political items and imitation numismatic items are to be permanently marked with the calendar year of manufacture or the word “copy.” Id. 2101(c).

In 1975, the Commission issued Rules and Regulations Under the Hobby Protection Act, 16 CFR part 304.3 The Rules track the definitions used in the Hobby Act and implement that Act's “plain and permanent” marking requirements by establishing where the item should be marked, the sizes and dimensions of the letters and numerals to be used, and how to mark incusable and nonincusable items.4 In 1988, the Commission amended the Rules to provide additional guidance on the minimum size of letters for the word “copy” as a proportion of the diameter of coin reproductions.5 53 FR 38942 (Oct. 4, 1988).

The Commission reviewed the Rules in 2004. That review yielded many comments proposing that the Commission expand coverage to products beyond the scope of the Hobby Act and address problems involving the selling (or passing off) as originals of reproductions of antiques and other items not covered by the Act. However, the Commission retained the Rules without change, noting that it did not have authority under the Hobby Act to expand the Rules as requested. 69 FR 9943 (Mar. 3, 2004).

In 2014, the Commission again requested public comment on the Rules' costs, benefits, and overall impact.6 That comment period closed on September 22, 2014.

On December 19, 2014, President Obama signed into law H.R. 2754, the Collectible Coin Protection Act (“CCPA”), a short set of amendments to the Hobby Act. The CCPA amends the Act's scope to address not only the distribution by manufacturers and importers of imitation numismatic items, but also “the sale in commerce” of such items. CCPA, Public Law 113-288, § 2(1)(A) (2014). Additionally, the CCPA makes it a violation of the Hobby Act “for a person to provide substantial assistance or support to any manufacturer, importer, or seller if that person knows or should have known that the manufacturer, importer, or seller is engaged in any act or practice” violating the marking requirements of the Act. Public Law 113-288, § 2(1)(B).7

The Commission received six comments in response to its 2014 FRN.8 Members of the general public submitted four comments; a self-identified professional coin and paper money dealer offered a comment; and an attorney with asserted experience pertaining to coins and other collectibles submitted a comment in his personal capacity. As discussed below, commenters who addressed the issue agreed that the Commission should retain the Rules. Some suggested modifying the Rules to expand their scope or to clarify their applicability to certain kinds of collectible coins.

All of the commenters who addressed the issue supported the Rules; none advocated rescinding them. For example, one commenter stated, “there [is] a continuing need for the Rules as currently promulgated because . . . they do protect consumers.” 9 Another described the Act as “a boon to collectors of legitimate numismatic and political items,” and stated: “Over the years the presence of the law and supporting regulations has provided guidance for makers of replicas.” 10 A dealer stated that the Act “is a brilliant effort to help protect the consumer from fraud, and . . . is well thought of across all [l]egitimate [d]ealers.” 11

Some commenters suggested modifications to the Rules. In particular, several commenters suggested modifications to address “fantasy coins,” government-issued coins altered by non-governmental entities to bear historically impossible dates or other features marketed as novelties.12 Commenters variously suggested that the Commission require manufacturers of fantasy coins to stamp such items with a “FANTASY” mark,13 expressly permit the sale of such items without an identifying mark,14 or ban such items altogether.15 Several commenters also reported an increase in imports of unmarked replica coins from Asia, and urged that the Rules cover such sales.16 One commenter specifically suggested expanding the Rules' scope to incorporate the provisions of the CCPA before Congress adopted it and sent it to the President for his signature.17

In light of the record, the Commission concludes there is a continuing need for the Rules, and the costs they impose on businesses are reasonable. Commenters who addressed the subject supported the Rules, and no dealer or business expressed the view that the Rules should be rescinded or revised to reduce costs. Moreover, Congress' recent expansion of the Hobby Act's scope (addressing, among others, persons who substantially assist or support manufacturers, importers, or sellers that violate the Act's marking requirements) also appears to evince Congressional sentiment that the Rules have not imposed undue costs upon businesses or the public. Hence, both the record and recent Congressional action support retaining the Rules.

The Commission recognizes, however, that amendments to the Rules are necessary to bring them into harmony with the amended Hobby Act. The Commission proposes to align its Rules with the Hobby Act by: (1) Extending the Rules' scope to cover persons or entities engaged in “the sale in commerce” of imitation numismatic items; and (2) stating that persons or entities violate the Rules if they provide substantial assistance or support to any manufacturer, importer, or seller of imitation numismatic items, or any manufacturer or importer of imitation political items, when they know, or should have known, that such person is engaged in any act or practice violating the marking requirements set forth in the Hobby Act and the Rules. The Commission solicits comment on the proposed amendments and the regulatory burden they may impose on businesses.

However, the Commission does not propose amending its Rules to incorporate the CCPA's provisions regarding the proper location for lawsuits or the protection of the trademark rights of collectible certification services, summarized supra note 6, as the existing Rules do not address, relate to, or conflict with those provisions.

Additionally, it is not necessary to modify the Rules to address specific collectible items, such as “fantasy coins,” as some commenters suggested. The Commission can address specific numismatic items as the need arises. Notably, the Commission has already addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a “COPY” because otherwise they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item. See id. at 223 (“[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged `copy' are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a `reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an `or[i]ginal numismatic item' and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word `Copy'.”).18

Lastly, the Commission does not propose modifying the Rules to ban the sale of fantasy coins outright. Sales of properly-marked fantasy coins are lawful under the Commission's decision in In re Gold Bullion discussed above, which held that vendors could sell coins with date variations so long as the coins are marked with the word `Copy.' ” 92 F.T.C. at 223. By contrast, the federal statute prohibiting the alteration of U.S. coins requires fraudulent intent. 18 U.S.C. 331. Accordingly, the Commission finds no grounds to adopt a rule banning fantasy coins.

As the CCPA's amendments appear to require conforming changes, the Commission proposes modifying the Rules' “Applicability” section, set forth at 16 CFR 304.3. The specific text of these proposed modifications is set forth at the end of this NPRM.

The Commission solicits comment on the following specific questions:

(A) What costs or burdens would the proposed Rules amendments impose and on whom? How many retailers, manufacturers, and importers are subject to the Rules? The Commission in particular seeks information on any burden each amendment would impose on small businesses and entities. How many small entities are affected by the Rules, what are their annual revenues, and what is their size in terms of number of employees?

(B) What evidence supports your answers?

The proposed amendments to the Rules do not constitute a “collection of information” under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521 (“PRA”). The amendments are proposed to incorporate changes made to the Hobby Act pursuant to the enactment of the CCPA after the Commission last requested public comment on the Rules. Prior to those changes, the Hobby Act already required manufacturers and importers of imitation political items and imitation numismatic items to mark such replica items (with the calendar year of manufacture or the word, “copy,” respectively) so they may be identified as replicas. The disclosure requirement under the existing Rules and the proposed amendments are not a PRA “collection of information” for which “burden” is evaluated and estimated as they specify the wording for proper disclosure (here, the word “copy”). See 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2) (“The public disclosure of language of information originally supplied by the Federal government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public is not included within [the definition of a `collection of information.']”). Moreover, extending this disclosure requirement to sellers of imitation numismatic items should not increase the burden of compliance to the extent they are selling items previously marked in compliance with the Hobby Act by manufacturers or importers. The amendments do not impose any new burden upon manufacturers and importers who produce replica items covered by the Hobby Act and Rules. Nor do the proposed amendments to the Rules impose any burden beyond that imposed by the enactment of the CCPA's changes to the Hobby Act.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires an agency to provide an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with a proposed rule unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 603-605.

FTC staff estimates that approximately 5,000 retailers, manufacturers, and importers of imitation numismatic items are subject to the Rules.19 FTC staff further estimates that there are fewer manufacturers and importers of imitation political items, from 500 to 2,500.20 These are general estimates, and recognizing them as such, the Commission invites public input regarding how many retailers, manufacturers, and importers are subject to the Rules. Commission staff understands from a prominent political memorabilia membership organization, the American Political Items Collectors, that a disclosure that an item is an imitation is built into the manufacturing process. Entities compliant with the Rules mark replica coins with “COPY,” and replica political items with the date of manufacture, when those items are made. The entities subject to these burdens will be classified as small businesses if they satisfy the Small Business Administration's relevant size standards, as determined by the Small Business Size Standards component of the North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”).21 Potentially relevant NAICS size standards, which are either minimum annual receipts or number of employees, are as follows:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port 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 March 16, 2016, the Lake Race Steering Committee notified the Coast Guard that it will be hosting a powerboat race from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. on June 4, 2016. This is the third year for this event and the sponsor has indicated the intent to host this event annually. The Coast Guard will work with the sponsor for future occurrences and may propose to add this event and special local regulation to the list of permanently recurring events for future years to eliminate the need for a separate rulemaking each year. For this year, on June 4, several heats are planned to occur throughout the day in the four-mile race course located on the Lake of the Ozarks Osage Branch. Hazards from the powerboat race include capsizing of participating vessels and loss of control of participating vessels. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Upper Mississippi River has determined that potential hazards associated with the powerboat race would be a safety concern.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the powerboat race. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233.

The COTP proposes to establish a special local regulation from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. on June 4, 2016, designating the race course and location of spectator areas. Vessels transiting near the course would be restricted to transiting at the slowest safe speed. This special local regulation would cover navigable waters on the Lake of the Ozarks Osage Branch between miles 0 and 4. The Coast Guard has also posted a map depicting the location and restricted areas for this special local regulation in the docket. Six anchorage areas for spectators will be designated and are also shown on the map and labeled as A through F. This map may be viewed as indicated under the ADDRESSESS section. The duration of the regulation is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the power boat race, scheduled from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. No vessel or person would be permitted to deviate from the special local regulation without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

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.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the special local regulation. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around the race course and spectators will have designated locations to view the race. Moreover, the Coast Guard would include event information in the Local Notice to Mariners, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to deviate from the regulation.

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.

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).

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.

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

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 a special local regulation designating the race course, location of spectator area, and location for vessels to transit during the race at slowest safe speed. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary 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.

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.

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.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

Background and Purpose

We published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on May 28, 2014 (79 FR 30509), entitled “Anchorage Regulations: Subpart A—Special Anchorage Areas, Marina del Rey Harbor, California.” That NPRM proposed to disestablish the special anchorage area. In response to comments received, we published a supplemental NPRM (81 FR 10156, February 29, 2016) to retain the special anchorage, but amend the shape and reduce the size of the anchorage to remove the anchorage area from a location where it could endanger vessel traffic. We have concluded that a public meeting would aid this rulemaking. Therefore, we are publishing this document announcing a public meeting and changing the end of the comment period from April 14, 2016, to April 30, 2016.

You may view the supplemental NPRM in our online docket, in addition to supporting documents prepared by the Coast Guard and comments submitted thus far by going to http://www.regulations.gov. Once there, insert “USCG-2014-0142” in the “Keyword” box and click “Search.”

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments either orally at the meeting or in writing. If you bring written comments to the meeting, you may submit them to Coast Guard personnel specified at the meeting to receive written comments. These comments will be submitted to our online public docket. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

Comments submitted after the meeting must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 30, 2016. 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.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting, contact Lieutenant Junior Grade Colleen Patton at the telephone number or email address indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

The Coast Guard will hold a public meeting regarding its “Anchorage Regulations: Subpart A—Special Anchorage Areas, Marina del Rey Harbor, California” proposed rule on Tuesday, April 12, 2016 from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., at Burton W. Chace Park Community Room, 13650 Mindanao Way, Marina del Rey, CA 90292, telephone 310-305-9595. Public parking lots are available on a pay basis. For Public transit information to the Community Room, contact the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) at 323-466-3876 or search at http://www.metro.net for additional information. We will provide a written summary of the meeting and additional comments received at the meeting in the docket. The meeting may conclude before the allotted time if all who have come to submit oral comments have done so before 7:30 p.m.

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section UMR Upper Mississippi River U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

On March 18, 2016, Marketing Minneapolis notified the Coast Guard that they will be conducting a fireworks display from 9:30 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 23, 2016, for the official civic celebration of the City of Minneapolis. The sponsor has indicated the intent to host this event and related fireworks display annually. The Coast Guard will work with the sponsor for future occurrences and may propose to add this safety zone to the list of permanently recurring safety zones for future years to eliminate the need for a separate rulemaking each year. For this year, on July 23, the fireworks are to be launch from the Third Avenue Highway Bridge over the Mississippi River. Hazards from fireworks displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone between miles 853.2 and 854.2 as the fireworks being shot from the southern side of the Third Avenue Highway Bridge toward the south. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters between miles 853.2 and 854.2 before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 9:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 23, 2016. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters between miles 853.2 and 854.2 on the Upper Mississippi River in Minneapolis, MN. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

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.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. During the evening vessel traffic is normally low in this area. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Safety Marine Information Broadcast via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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 (Public Law 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.

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).

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.

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

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 a safety zone lasting less than 2 hours that would prohibit entry within one mile of the fireworks display. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary 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.

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.

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.

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

The United State Court of Appeals noted in Menegassi v. Shinseki that Congress has given VA the authority to interpret its own regulations under its general rulemaking authority, citing 38 U.S.C. 501. 638 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Currently, 38 CFR 3.321(b)(1) provides that, “[t]o accord justice . . . to the exceptional case where the schedular evaluations are found to be inadequate,” the Under Secretary for Benefits (USB) or the Director of the Compensation and Pension Service is authorized “to approve . . . an extra-schedular evaluation commensurate with the average earning capacity impairment due exclusively to the service-connected disability or disabilities. The governing norm in these exceptional cases is: A finding that the case presents such an exceptional or unusual disability picture with such related factors as marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization as to render impractical the application of the regular schedular standards.”

In Johnson v. McDonald, the Court explained that the plain language of § 3.321(b)(1) using the plural forms of the “schedular evaluations” and “disabilities” is unambiguous and requires that VA consider the need for extra-schedular review by evaluating the collective impact of two or more service-connected disabilities, in addition to evaluating the effect of a single service-connected disability. 762 F.3d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2014)., that Id. at 1365-66.

The history of 38 CFR 3.321(b)(1) reveals that Federal Circuit's interpretation does not accurately reflect VA's intent in issuing the regulation. Since 1936, VA has interpreted § 3.321(b)(1) to provide for an extra-schedular evaluation for each service-connected disability for which the schedular rating is inadequate based upon the regulatory criteria. Section 3.321(b)(1) was originally promulgated as R & PR 1307, instructing that correspondence from a field office to the Director of the Compensation Service alleging that the rating schedule provides inadequate or excessive ratings in an individual case will contain a statement of facts indicating as clearly as possible the extent to which the reduction in actual earnings is due to the service-connected disability and the extent to which this reduction would probably affect the average worker, in occupations similar to the claimant's preenlistment occupation, suffering a similar disability. R & PR 1307(B) and (C)(1930).

In 1936, R & PR 1307 was recodified as R & PR 1142, requiring a submitting agency to provide a recommendation concerning service connection and evaluation of every disability, under the applicable schedules as interpreted by the submitting agency. Then in 1954, this sentence was deleted from the regulation but later incorporated in the Department of Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) Manual 8-5 Revised, para. 47.j. (Jan. 6, 1958). Thus, for 28 years following promulgating R & PR 1307(B) and (C), the VA predecessor regulations to § 3.321(b)(1) and the Manual provided for an extra-schedular evaluation based upon the effects of a single “disability,” not “disabilities”.

In 1961, VA recodified R & PR 1307(B) and (C) as 38 CFR 3.321(b)(1) and added a sentence authorizing an extra-schedular evaluation commensurate with the average earning capacity impairment due exclusively to the service-connected disability or disabilities. The VBA Manual provision regarding extra-schedular evaluations remained virtually the same from 1992 through June 30, 2015, when it was revised to implement Johnson. In 1992, the Manual was revised by adding the word “individual” before the word “disability(ies)” in paragraph 3.09, Submission For Extra-Schedular Consideration. M21-1, Part VI, para. 3.09 (Mar. 17, 1992). As amended, paragraph 3.09 required preparation of a memorandum to be submitted to Central Office whenever the schedular evaluations are considered to be inadequate for an individual disability(ies).

VBA Manual M21-1, Part III, Subpart iv, chpt. 6, § B, para. 4 (Aug. 3, 2011), stated in pertinent part:

In addition, a 1996 General Counsel precedent opinion regarding the applicability of the regulation reads that “[s]ection 3.321(b)(1) applies when the rating schedule is inadequate to compensate for the average impairment of earning capacity from a particular disability.” VAOPGCPREC 6-96, para. 7, Add. 7. The opinion instructs that “when a claimant submits evidence that his or her service-connected disability affects employability in ways not contemplated by the rating schedule, the Board should consider the applicability of section 3.321(b)(1).” Id.

In 2013, VA published a proposed revision to 38 CFR 3.321(b)(1) as part of its Regulation Rewrite Project. 78 FR 71042, 71217 (Nov. 27, 2013). Consistent with VA's long-standing interpretation, that revision proposes to clarify that extra-schedular evaluations may be assigned for a specific service-connected disability, as distinguished from the combined effects of multiple disabilities. Id. However, that proposed rule was published before the Johnson decision. We are therefore proposing a version of § 3.321(b)(1) in this rulemaking that differs from the 2013 proposed rule in order to respond specifically to the Federal Circuit's analysis of the plain language of the current regulation. VA proposes to amend § 3.321(b)(1) to clarify that § 3.321(b)(1) provides an extra-schedular evaluation for an individual service-connected disability that is so exceptional or unusual due to factors such as marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization as to render evaluation under the rating schedule impractical.

VA proposes to retain the first sentence of current § 3.321(b)(1), which states that ratings will be based on the average impairments of earning capacity and that the Secretary shall periodically readjust the rating schedule, because it explains the limited scope of section 3.321(b)(1). Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1155, VA is authorized to “adopt and apply a schedule of rating of reductions in earning capacity from specific injuries or combination of injuries. The ratings shall be based, as far as practicable, upon the average impairments of earning capacity in civil occupations,” rather than consideration of a veteran's actual wages or income. Based upon section 1155, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) rejected the argument that an inadequacy in the rating schedule for purposes of 38 CFR 3.321(b)(1) can be established solely by showing an asserted gap between a veteran's income and the income of similarly qualified workers in the same field. Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 111, 116 (2008). The Veterans Court explained that extra-schedular consideration cannot be used to undo the approximate nature that results from the rating system based on average impairment of earning capacity authorized by Congress. Id. Consistent with section 1155 and Thun, VA's proposed rule is not intended to authorize personalized ratings as a routine matter but only to provide for limited discretion in cases where the schedule is inadequate to compensate for average impairment of earning capacity.

VA proposes to revise the second sentence of 38 CFR 3.321(b)(1) to specify that extra-schedular consideration is available if “the schedular evaluation is inadequate to rate a single service-connected disability.” We have added this language to explain that section 3.321(b)(1) would apply only to a single disability rather than upon consideration of multiple service-connected disabilities as the Federal Circuit held in Johnson. We have also deleted the phrase “or disabilities” at the end of the second sentence for the same purpose. VA also proposes to revise the last sentence of the regulation to clarify that the governing norm is a finding that “application of the regular schedular standards is impractical because the referred disability is so exceptional or unusual due to such related factors as marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization.”

Other parts of the current § 3.321(b)(1) have been rewritten for clarity, including the heading of § 3.321(b), but the concepts remain unchanged. VA proposes to delete the reference to the Under Secretary for Benefits (USB) in current § 3.321(b)(1). Although the regulation has long allowed for referral for USB extra-schedular consideration, in practice VA service centers refer these claims to the Director of the Compensation Service. This revision brings authority in line with actual practice. The Director of the Compensation Service may delegate to other Compensation Service personnel the authority to approve extra-schedular ratings and, currently, such authority has been given to certain personnel in the Policy Staff of the Compensation Service. This is consistent with the established principle that VBA personnel are authorized to carry out such functions as may be assigned to them for purposes of administering VA benefits. See 38 CFR 2.6(b)(1), 3.100(a).

VA's proposed rule is logical and consistent with the regulatory scheme for evaluating disabilities. Individual disabilities are evaluated under criteria in VA's rating schedule describing the effects of specific diseases and injuries. See 38 CFR 4.71-4.150. The ratings assigned for individual conditions are combined into a single “combined evaluation” under a uniform formula set forth in a table. 38 CFR 3.323(a), 4.25. There is plainly a difference between the application of the diverse schedular criteria relating to specific conditions, and the application of a uniform formula for combining individual disability ratings. VA's proposed revision to § 3.321(b)(1), clarifying that that the regulation pertains to a single disability, is consistent with this distinction.

With respect to evaluation of individual conditions, the rating schedule criteria identify the predominant disabling features of the condition. For example, if VA determines that the condition produces significant disabling effects that are not contemplated by the rating-schedule criteria for that condition, VA may find that the rating-schedule criteria are inadequate in that case. In contrast, no criteria in the rating schedule provide for determining the “adequacy” of an overall combined evaluation that derives from several disabilities and their associated symptoms.

When VA assigns disability ratings for two or more individual disabilities, those ratings are combined by applying a standard formula provided in 38 CFR 4.25. There are no provisions in the rating schedule describing impairments that would be associated with a particular combination of disabilities determined by using this formula. Accordingly, there are no applicable standards to determine whether the combined rating is adequate to compensate for the combined effects of those disabilities. Indeed, in view of the vast number of potential combinations of disabilities that could arise, it is not feasible to formulate standards. In the absence of any applicable objective standards for evaluating the “adequacy” of an overall combined rating for multiple disabilities, requiring adjudicators to consider the adequacy of combined ratings would lead to inconsistent and highly subjective determinations. Accordingly, consistent with our long-standing interpretation, VA has determined that consideration of extra-schedular ratings is most logically done only at the level of individual disabilities. Any extra-schedular ratings assigned for individual disabilities may then be combined under the standard formula for combining ratings. The proposed language for section 3.321(b)(1) requiring consideration of the adequacy of the schedular evaluations in VA's rating schedule is consistent with the evaluation of individual conditions.

In addition, statutes and VA's implementing regulations provide additional compensation for the combined effect of more than one service-connected disability. Under 38 U.S.C. 1114(k)-(s), a veteran is entitled to special monthly compensation, in addition to the compensation payable under the VA rating schedule, for certain combinations of disabilities, e.g., anatomical loss or loss of use of both buttocks, both feet, or one hand and one foot, deafness in both ears or blindness in both eyes. See 38 CFR 3.350. In addition, 38 U.S.C. 1160(a) provides that if a veteran has suffered loss of certain paired organs or extremities as a result of service-connected disabilities and non-service-connected disabilities, VA must assign and pay the veteran the applicable rate of compensation as if the combination of disabilities were the result of service-connected disability. See 38 CFR 3.383. Accordingly, in cases where Congress or VA has determined that special rating consideration is warranted based on the combined effects of multiple disabilities, they have expressly specified the manner of considering these combined effects.

Finally, VA regulations authorize a rating of total disability based on individual unemployability for veterans whose disabilities meet certain criteria. Under 38 CFR 4.16(a), an adjudicator may assign a total disability evaluation based upon individual unemployability rating for compensation purposes, without referral to any other official, if, in cases of multiple service-connected disabilities, a veteran has one service-connected disability rated at least 40-percent disabling and a combined rating of at least 70 percent and is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as the result of such disability or disabilities. Under 38 CFR 4.16(b), if a veteran's service-connected disabilities do not meet the percentage requirements of section 4.16(a), but the veteran is unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of such service-connected disability, the rating board must submit the case to the Director of the Compensation Service for consideration of entitlement to a total disability based on individual unemployability rating. VA has thus prescribed a uniform standard for considering whether the combined effects of multiple disabilities produce total impairment of earning capacity. However, in instances where the inability to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation is not shown, VA believes that, to ensure fair and consistent application of rating standards, consideration of extra-schedular ratings should be conducted with respect to individual disabilities rather than the combined effects of multiple disabilities.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”

The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this proposed rule have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of this rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's Web site at http://www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for “VA Regulations Published From FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to Date.”

The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). This proposed rule would directly affect only individuals and will not directly affect small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

This proposed rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number and title for the program affected by this document is 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert D. Snyder, Chief of Staff, approved this document on April 11, 2016, for publication.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR part 3 as follows:

The revisions and additions read as follows:

In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

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

The EPA is proposing approval of the SIP revisions submitted by the State of Louisiana. The proposed revisions modify Louisiana's minor NSR and NNSR Chapters 5 Permit Procedure and Chapter 6 Regulations on Control of Emissions through the Use of Emission Reduction Credits (ERC) Banking rules enacted at Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC) 33:III.501, 502, 503, 504, 511, 513.A.2., 513.A.3, 513.A.4., 513.A.5., 513.A.6., 513.B., 513.C., 515, 517, 519.A., 519.B., 521, 523, 525, 527, 529, 601, 603, 605, 607, 615, and 619. The revisions provide clarity to the rules, correct contradictory language, update permit application and fee requirements, revise the rules to conform to the latest Louisiana laws, and add to the “Insignificant Activities List”.

On November 15, 1993, the LDEQ submitted revisions to the SIP. This SIP submittal incorporated revisions to the Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC) during the year 1993. It includes final revised regulation enacted at LAC 33:III, sections 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 507, 511, 513, 515, 517, 519, 521, 523, 525, 527, 529, and 533. The EPA is proposing to take action on sections 501, 502, 503, 511, 513, 515, 517, 519, 523, 525, 527, and 529. The EPA already approved section 504 (NNSR Procedures) into the SIP on October 10, 1997, 62 FR 52948. The 504 rules were then subsumed into later SIP approval revisions. The EPA returned sections 505, 507, and 533 due to their association with the Title V operating permit program requirements to the LDEQ on August 4, 2015. The EPA is not taking action and severing section 513.A.1 (which references section 531), section 519.C. (which references section 531), and section 531 regarding public notice. Those specific sections will be addressed in a separate action. The EPA is not taking action and is severing section 501.B.1.d. at this time.

On November 10, 1994, the LDEQ submitted revisions to the SIP. This SIP submittal incorporated revisions to the LAC published in the Louisiana Register on November 20, 1994. It includes final revised regulations enacted at LAC 33:III, sections 501, 507, 517, 521, 527, and 533. The EPA is proposing to take action on sections 501, 517, 521, and 527. The EPA returned sections 507 and 533 due to their association with the title V operating permit program requirements to LDEQ on August 4, 2015.

On July 25, 1997, the LDEQ submitted the 1996 General revisions to the SIP. This SIP submittal incorporated revisions to LAC 33:III, sections 501, 504, 509, and 517 adopted during 1996. The EPA is proposing action on section 517. The EPA already approved sections 501, 504 and 509 on November 5, 2015 (80 FR 68451). Section 504 was approved in 1997 as noted above and revisions have been subsumed into the SIP since the EPA's last action approving changes to the 504 rules on September 30, 2002 (67 FR 61260).

On June 22, 1998, the LDEQ submitted the 1997 General revisions to the SIP. This SIP submittal incorporated revisions to the LAC during the year 1997 and revisions to the LAC not previously federally approved. It includes final revised regulation at LAC 33:III, sections 501, 509, and 517. The EPA is proposing action on sections 501 and 517. The EPA already approved section 509 on November 5, 2015 (80 FR 68451).

On June 27, 2003, the LDEQ submitted the 2002 General revisions to the SIP. This SIP submittal incorporated revisions to the LAC during the year 2002. It includes final revised regulation LAC 33:III, section 501 covering the insignificant activities list. The EPA is proposing action on section 501.

On May 5, 2006, the LDEQ submitted the 2005 General revisions to the SIP. This SIP submittal incorporated revisions to the LAC during the year 2005 and revisions to the LAC not previously federally approved. It includes final revised regulation sections LAC 33:III.501, 504, 505, 507, 509, 517, and 521. The EPA is proposing action on sections 501, 517, and 521. Since the last approval of section 504 in 2002, the EPA approved changes to section 504 as well as section 509 on November 5, 2015 (80 FR 68451). The EPA returned to LDEQ sections 505 and 507.C.3. due to their association with the title V operating permit program requirements on August 4, 2015. The EPA returned to LDEQ sections 507.H.4 and 507.H.5.d. due to their association with the title V operating permit program requirements on February 2, 2016.

On November 9, 2007, the LDEQ submitted the 2006 General revisions to the SIP. This SIP submittal incorporated revisions to the LAC during the year 2006 and revisions to the LAC not previously federally approved. It includes final revised regulation sections at LAC 33:III.501, 504, 509, 513, 531, and 607. The EPA is proposing action on sections 513.A.2. and 513.A.6. The EPA already approved sections 501, 504, 509, and 607 on November 5, 2015 (80 FR 68451). The EPA is not taking action and severing section 513.A.1. (which references section 531) and section 531 regarding public notice. Those specific sections will be addressed in a separate action.

On August 14, 2009, the LDEQ submitted the 2007 General revisions to the SIP. This SIP submittal incorporated revisions to the LAC during the year 2007 and includes revisions to the LAC not previously federally approved. It includes final revised regulation sections LAC 33:III.501, 504, 505, 506, and 507 contained in Chapter 5. It also includes final revised regulation sections LAC 33:III.603, 605, 607, 613, and 615 contained in Chapter 6. The EPA is proposing action on section 501. The EPA already approved sections 504, 603, 605, 607, 613, and 615 on November 5, 2015 (80 FR 68451). The EPA already approved section 506 on April 17, 2014, (79 FR 21631). The EPA returned section 505 to LDEQ on February 2, 2016, because it addresses the Acid Rain Program Permitting Requirements, which are implemented in the title V program rather than the SIP. The EPA returned section 507 to LDEQ on February 2, 2016, because it concerns the title V program which is not part of a SIP.

On August 29, 2013, the LDEQ submitted the 2008-2010 Volatile Organic Compounds Rule SIP Revision. This SIP submittal incorporated revisions to the LAC during the years 2008-2010 and includes revisions to final revised regulation section LAC 33:III.523. The EPA is proposing action on section 523.

On November 3, 2014, the LDEQ submitted the 2011-2013 Permit Rule revisions to the SIP. This SIP submittal incorporated revisions to the LAC during the years 2011-2012. It includes final revised regulation sections LAC 33:III.211, 223, 317, 319, 501, 502, 503, 504, 523, 537, 601, 603, 605, 607, 615, 619, and 2132. The EPA is proposing action on sections 501, 502, 503, 504, 523, 601, 603, 605, 607, 615, and 619. The LDEQ withdrew sections 211 and 223 from SIP consideration by letter on December 2, 2015. The EPA is not acting on sections 317, 319, and 2132 because this action only addresses Chapters 5 and 6. The EPA is not taking action on section 537 (AQ286) and revised citation 501.B.2.d.i.(a) (AQ270) because the original 2008-2010 rule revision containing these sections was never submitted to the EPA. The EPA is not taking action and is severing section 501.B.1.d. at this time.

Table 1 below summarizes the changes that are in the SIP revision submittals. A summary of the EPA's evaluation of each section and the basis for our proposed approval is included in this rulemaking. The accompanying Technical Support Document (TSD) includes a detailed evaluation of the submittals and our rationale. The TSD may be accessed online at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0821.

We evaluated the SIP submissions and are proposing approval of the Louisiana Permit Procedures Revisions and ERC Banking Provisions, as identified, beginning with the November 15, 1993, through the November 3, 2014, submissions. The Act at section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to develop and submit to the EPA for approval into the SIP, preconstruction review programs applicable to new and modified stationary sources of air pollutants for attainment and nonattainment areas that cover both major and minor new sources and modifications, collectively referred to as the NSR SIP. The CAA NSR SIP program is composed of three separate programs: Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), NNSR, and Minor NSR. PSD is established in part C of title I of the CAA and applies in areas that meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), i.e., “attainment areas”, as well as areas where there is insufficient information to determine if the area meets the NAAQS, i.e., “unclassifiable areas.” The NNSR SIP program is established in part D of title I of the CAA and applies in areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS, i.e., “nonattainment areas.” The Minor NSR SIP program addresses construction or modification activities that do not emit, or have the potential to emit, beyond certain major source thresholds and thus do not qualify as “major” and applies regardless of the designation of the area in which a source is located. This particular SIP action will address the minor NSR and NNSR permitting programs.

The EPA regulations governing the criteria that states must satisfy for the EPA approval of the NSR programs as part of the SIP are contained in 40 CFR 51.160-51.166. However, the PSD rules are not being evaluated in this action and therefore 40 CFR 51.166 does not provide a basis for a decision in this proposal. In addition, there are several provisions in 40 CFR part 51 that apply generally to all SIP revisions. As stated above, 40 CFR 51.160 establishes the enforceable procedures that all NSR programs must include. 40 CFR 51.160-51.164 require that a SIP revision demonstrate that the adopted rules will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Based upon our evaluation of the submittals, the EPA has concluded that the submittals as ultimately revised meet the requirements of the CAA section 110(a).

Our evaluation found that May 20, 2012 and November 20, 2012 adopted revisions to the NNSR program, submitted on November 3, 2014 revised the program to address all nonattainment area pollutants and was necessary to ensure the Louisiana NNSR offset bank is able to be used in future instances where the State is designated nonattainment for other criteria pollutants. Prior to this action, the EPA proposed full approval of the major PSD and NNSR permitting program update, (80 FR 50240), specifically those NNSR requirements submitted prior to November 3, 2014. That action was finalized on November 5, 2015 (80 FR 68451).

Our evaluation of the proposed minor NSR revisions found the proposed revisions address requirements that enhance the SIP. These changes (1) define insignificant activities that will not require permitting; (2) correct contradictory language in the insignificant activities list; (3) provide edits to the Permit Procedure Rule as requested by the EPA; (4) include procedures for incorporating test results; (5) unify and streamline name and ownership changes for all media; and (6) revise references to various LDEQ divisions. All of these changes will help to ensure that the LA Minor NSR rules to meet the CAA requirements.

We have determined that the regulations submitted to the EPA for approval as SIP revisions meet the requirements of CAA section 110(l). The EPA's conclusion is based upon a line-by-line comparison of the proposed revisions with the federal requirements. The goal is to demonstrate that the proposed revisions will not interfere with the attainment of the NAAQS, Rate of Progress, RFP or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

The EPA prepared a CAA section 110(l) analysis in its review of the proposed list to serve as a basis for demonstrating noninterference for the affected pollutants for any applicable requirement for attainment and reasonable further progress such as: (1) Turning a maintenance area back into a nonattainment area; (2) turning an attainment/unclassifiable area into a nonattainment area; (3) leading to a PSD increment exceedance; (4) causing the nonattainment area to have higher violations; or (5) causing a nonattainment area to have a greater number of NAAQS standard exceedances. This evaluation is contained in the individual tables for each regulatory section and is found in Section IV Conclusion of the TSD. The TSD can be found in the docket for this action. The comparison demonstrates that the changes made to the Louisiana rules reflect either the same regulatory language, or are consistent with the requirements found in the federal rules. Further, the Additional Comments to the table contained in section IV for the proposed revisions to section 501 in the TSD contain supporting technical documentation establishing in detail a CAA section 110(l) analysis regarding the tables of Insignificant Activities defined in section 501. Specifically, the Section 501.B.3, Insignificant Activities list, submitted on 5/5/2006, revised the former submittal 11/10/1994, which was then subsumed by the 6/27/2003 submittal.

Our finding is based in part on the historic trends of ambient air quality for the NAAQS pollutants, including ozone and sulfur dioxide (SO2), since those pollutants have caused past air quality issues.1 The EPA took into consideration the following factors when making the decision to propose approval into the SIP of the permit exemptions listed in the Insignificant Activities tables in section 501:

• Compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard has improved state-wide with ozone pollutant concentrations trending downward with an average 23% decrease in ozone since the late 1980's. This average decrease represents air monitoring values in the Louisiana cities of Baton Rouge, Lake Charles, Monroe, New Orleans, and Point Coupee Parish. 8-Hour ozone trends are listed in the table below:

• The Baton Rouge marginal ozone nonattainment area is currently monitoring attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The 8-Hour ozone values have dropped from 83 ppb in 2006-2008 down to 71 ppb design value for 2015 in Baton Rouge.

• Compliance with the SO2 standard has improved significantly state-wide with SO2 pollutant concentrations trending downward with an average 55% decrease in SO2 since the mid 2000's. This average value represents the Louisiana air monitoring locations of Baton Rouge, Lake Charles, Chalmette, Port Allen, Shreveport, and Meraux. SO2 trends are listed in the table below:

• The EPA determined the St. Bernard 2010 SO2 NAAQS nonattainment area was caused primarily by one large source of SO2 emissions, the Rain CII Carbon LLC—Chalmette Coke Plant. The LDEQ is currently preparing a proposed SIP attainment demonstration, “St. Bernard Parish SO 2 Nonattainment Area Louisiana SIP Revision,” which was submitted to the EPA on April 1, 2015, for review. The EPA provided comments and is working with the LDEQ to ensure the SIP revision contains the appropriate emission limits to bring the area into attainment status. The St. Bernard SO2 nonattainment area has documented SO2 pollutant concentrations decreasing from a 331 ppm SO2 design value in 2009 down to a 159 ppm SO2 design value in 2014.

• Compliance with the Particulate Matter (PM10) standard is maintained and is below regulatory NAAQS levels. PM10 emission concentrations have trended downward an average 25% statewide since the mid 2000's. The average statewide 24-hour PM10 concentration is 28 ug/m3 which is 19% of the NAAQS level for PM10. The average value represents the Louisiana air monitoring locations of Baton Rouge, New Orleans, Chalmette, Shreveport, and Lafayette.

• Compliance with the average statewide annual PM2.5 standards is maintained with an average annual maximum concentration of 10.8 ug/m3, which is below the average annual primary standard for PM2.5 of 12 ug/m3.

• The Baton Rouge Capitol air monitor is the only monitor collecting samples and analyzing for Carbon Monoxide (CO). The 2014 annual average CO value was 0.26 ppm and the maximum monitored value was 5.34 ppm which is below the 9 ppm standard (8 hour averaging time).

Since the list of exempted sources included in the proposed revisions have historically operated without coverage by an air permit and there are no anticipated increases in emissions or in the number of these type of sources resulting from the approval of the exempted list into the SIP, the EPA has determined the possibility of a low level of potential impacts on ambient air quality as a result of the emission sources and activities included in the proposed LAC 33:III section 501 exemptions list and this conclusion is supported by ambient air monitoring trends in the State of Louisiana.

Our determination is consistent with our assessment of the environmental insignificance of these emissions. In addition, the LDEQ has been carrying out the minor NSR air permitting program based on the codification of their permitting policy without any indication that these permit exempted sources have interfered with attainment or reasonable further progress or increased PSD increment. Therefore, the EPA proposes to approve the exemptions lists in section 501 into the Louisiana SIP.

Based on supporting air quality monitoring data documenting air quality improvements throughout the State, the EPA proposes to approve Section 501 containing the list of the exempted sources into the Louisiana SIP since it meets the requirements of CAA section 110(l) and since state agencies are provided the latitude to define the types and sizes of facilities, buildings, structures, or installations subject to review in accordance with 40 CFR 51.160(e). We believe the implementation of this rule will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, maintaining PSD increment, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

The EPA proposes approval of the identified sections of the revisions to the air permitting procedures as submitted as revisions to the Louisiana NSR SIP Permit program on November 15, 1993, November 10, 1994, July 25, 1997, June 22, 1998, June 27, 2003, May 5, 2006, November 9, 2007, August 14, 2009, August 29, 2013, and November 3, 2014, submittals. The EPA has made the determination in accordance with the CAA and the EPA regulations at 40 CFR 51.160-51.165. Therefore, under section 110 and part C of the Act, and for the reasons presented above and in our accompanying TSD, the EPA proposes approval of the revisions to the Louisiana SIP identified in Table 2 below which summarizes each regulatory citation that is affected by this action.

In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to the Louisiana regulations as described in the Proposed Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This proposed rule is organized as follows:

Entities such as industries, stormwater management districts, or publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) that discharge pollutants to waters of the United States in Maine could be indirectly affected by this rulemaking, because federal WQS promulgated by EPA are applicable to CWA regulatory programs, such as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting. Citizens concerned with water quality in Maine, including members of the federally recognized Indian tribes in Maine, could also be interested in this rulemaking. Dischargers that could potentially be affected include the following: