Federal Register Vol. 81, No.8,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 8 (January 13, 2016)

Page Range1481-1849
FR Document

81_FR_8
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 1596 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Defense Contractors Performing Private Security Functions (DFARS Case 2015-D021)PDF
81 FR 1597 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To Downlist the West Indian Manatee, and Proposed Rule To Reclassify the West Indian Manatee as ThreatenedPDF
81 FR 1671 - CSX Transportation, Inc.-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in Harlan County, KYPDF
81 FR 1665 - In the Matter of DC Brands International Inc., Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
81 FR 1654 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 1627 - Stony Hill Road Superfund Site; Wake Forest, Wake County, North Carolina; Notice of Proposed SettlementPDF
81 FR 1625 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) PlansPDF
81 FR 1625 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New UsesPDF
81 FR 1526 - Propyzamide; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
81 FR 1522 - Methacrylate Type Copolymer, Compound With Aminomethyl Propanol; Tolerance ExemptionPDF
81 FR 1632 - Clinical Outcome Assessment CompendiumPDF
81 FR 1622 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 1622 - Charter Amendment of Department of Defense Federal Advisory CommitteesPDF
81 FR 1672 - Petition for Waiver of CompliancePDF
81 FR 1635 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0004PDF
81 FR 1671 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; SkyPhilly, Inc.PDF
81 FR 1511 - Amendment of Authority Citation for Standard Instrument ProceduresPDF
81 FR 1637 - Announcement of Requirements and Registration for “Innovation in Affordable Housing Student Design and Planning Competition”PDF
81 FR 1638 - HEARTH Act Approval of Ohkay Owingeh RegulationsPDF
81 FR 1629 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10326, Legacy Bank; Scottsdale, ArizonaPDF
81 FR 1629 - Cargo Agents, Inc, International Transport Management Corp., and RCL Agencies, Inc., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, NYK Line (North America) Inc., Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd., MITSUI O.S.K. Bulk Shipping (USA) Inc., World Logistics Service (U.S.A.), Inc., Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd., “K” Line America, Inc., Eukor Car Carriers Inc., Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics as, Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics Americas LLC, Compañia Sud Americana de Vapores S.A., CSAV Agency North America, LLC, Höegh Autoliners Holdings as, Höegh Autoliners as, Höegh Autoliners, Inc., Autotrans as, Alliance Navigation LLC, and Nissan Motor Car Carrier Co., LTD.; Notice of Filing of Complaint and AssignmentPDF
81 FR 1630 - Notice of Agreement FiledPDF
81 FR 1602 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Determining Eligibility for Free and Reduced Price Meals and Free MilkPDF
81 FR 1619 - Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 1632 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 1630 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 1619 - Technical Advisory Committees; Notice of Recruitment of Private-Sector MembersPDF
81 FR 1618 - Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 1605 - Rocky Mountain Region; Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests; Grand Valley Ranger District; Mesa County, Colorado; Enlargement of Monument No. 1 and Hunter ReservoirsPDF
81 FR 1618 - Annual Retail Trade SurveyPDF
81 FR 1603 - Summer Food Service Program 2016 Reimbursement RatesPDF
81 FR 1601 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service DeliveryPDF
81 FR 1599 - Request for Information: Software Vendors of State and Local Management Information Systems (MIS) and Other Technology Solutions for the National School Lunch and School Breakfast ProgramsPDF
81 FR 1645 - Contraband Detection Market SurveyPDF
81 FR 1642 - Proposed Information Collection: Comment Request: NPS Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) General Submission, Annual Review, Amendment, and Exhibitor FormsPDF
81 FR 1640 - Proposed Renewal of Information Collection; Historic Preservation Certification ApplicationPDF
81 FR 1628 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
81 FR 1627 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
81 FR 1639 - Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations Under Cobell SettlementPDF
81 FR 1636 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Certificate of RegistrationPDF
81 FR 1661 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Changes to Rules 11.5, Registration of Market Makers, 11.6, Obligations of Market Maker Authorized Traders, 11.7, Registration of Market Makers in a Security, and 11.8, Obligations of Market MakersPDF
81 FR 1621 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive Patent LicensePDF
81 FR 1672 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 1512 - Automobile or Other Conveyance and Adaptive Equipment Certificate of Eligibility for Veterans or Members of the Armed Forces With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Connected to Military ServicePDF
81 FR 1624 - Southwestern Power Administration; Notice of FilingPDF
81 FR 1623 - Southwestern Power Administration; Notice of FilingPDF
81 FR 1624 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 1679 - Proposed Information Collections; Comment Request (No. 57)PDF
81 FR 1611 - Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA) for Section 514 Farm Labor Housing Loans and Section 516 Farm Labor Housing Grants for Off-Farm Housing for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016PDF
81 FR 1598 - Codex Alimentarius Commission: Meeting of the Codex Committee on Food AdditivesPDF
81 FR 1642 - Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan; Scheduling of Full Five-Year ReviewsPDF
81 FR 1643 - Certain Tissue Paper Products From China; Scheduling of a Full Five-Year ReviewPDF
81 FR 1683 - Unblocking of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons Pursuant to Executive Order 12978PDF
81 FR 1685 - Unblocking of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons Pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation ActPDF
81 FR 1531 - General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); Technical AmendmentsPDF
81 FR 1656 - Investment Company Act Release No. 31953; File No. 812-14411 Columbia Funds Series Trust I, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 1670 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Establish Rules To Adopt FINRA Rule 6191(a) To Implement the Quoting and Trading Requirements of the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 1670 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Establish Rules To Adopt FINRA Rule 6191(b) and Amend FINRA Rule 7440 To Implement the Data Collection Requirements of the Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 1651 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rules 11.17, Registration of Market Makers, and 11.20, Obligations of Market MakersPDF
81 FR 1647 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rules 11.17, Registration of Market Makers, and 11.20, Obligations of Market MakersPDF
81 FR 1666 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Expiration Date of FINRA Rule 0180 (Application of Rules to Security-Based Swaps)PDF
81 FR 1657 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Changes to Rules 11.5, Registration of Market Makers, 11.6, Obligations of Market Maker Authorized Traders, 11.7, Registration of Market Makers in a Security, and 11.8, Obligations of Market MakersPDF
81 FR 1668 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 132.30(9) To Conform the Exchange's Rules to Industry-Wide Standards for Recording the Capacity in Which a Member Organization Executes a TransactionPDF
81 FR 1655 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.PDF
81 FR 1634 - National Cancer Institute: Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 1633 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request; Cancer Genomics Cloud Pilots Survey (NCI)PDF
81 FR 1634 - National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 1635 - National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 1620 - Marine Mammals; File Nos. 14856 and 14809PDF
81 FR 1621 - Endangered Species; File No. 19496PDF
81 FR 1534 - Injurious Wildlife Species; Listing Salamanders Due to Risk of Salamander Chytrid FungusPDF
81 FR 1674 - General Motors LLC (GM), Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
81 FR 1676 - Maserati S.p.A and Maserati North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
81 FR 1678 - Decision That Nonconforming Model Year 2009 Ford F-150 Trucks Are Eligible for ImportationPDF
81 FR 1630 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMBPDF
81 FR 1481 - Revision To Incorporate the Electronic Submission of the Import Request of Shell EggsPDF
81 FR 1644 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; COPS Application PackagePDF
81 FR 1592 - Relief From Joint and Several Liability; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 1557 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization ProgramPDF
81 FR 1482 - Changes to Production Certificates and Approvals; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 1511 - Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following New York Towns: Elmira, NY; Ithaca, NY; Poughkeepsie, NYPDF
81 FR 1586 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 1584 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 1563 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 1590 - Proposed Establishment of Class D and Class E Airspace, and Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Lake City, FLPDF
81 FR 1761 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf, and South Atlantic; AquaculturePDF
81 FR 1620 - Coral Reef Conservation ProgramPDF
81 FR 1486 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 1492 - Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. HelicoptersPDF
81 FR 1489 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 1494 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 1588 - Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Formerly Known as Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) AirplanesPDF
81 FR 1514 - Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; South Coast; Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5PDF
81 FR 1504 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 1508 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 1565 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 1568 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 1580 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation AirplanesPDF
81 FR 1573 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 1570 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 1577 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 1502 - Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 1592 - Alaska; Subsistence CollectionsPDF
81 FR 1582 - Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan EnginesPDF
81 FR 1687 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Ceiling FansPDF
81 FR 1483 - Airworthiness Directives; ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional AirplanesPDF
81 FR 1497 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 1801 - Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio ServicesPDF

Issue

81 8 Wednesday, January 13, 2016 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Electronic Submission of the Import Request of Shell Eggs, 1481-1482 2016-00438 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Food Safety and Inspection Service

See

Forest Service

See

Rural Housing Service

AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Exclusive Patent Licenses; Proposed Approvals, 1621 2016-00492 Alcohol Tobacco Tax Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 1679-1683 2016-00484 Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Annual Retail Trade Survey, 1618 2016-00507 Coast Guard Coast Guard NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 1635-1636 2016-00524 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Defense Acquisition Defense Acquisition Regulations System PROPOSED RULES Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplements: Defense Contractors Performing Private Security Functions, 1596-1597 C1--2015--32874 Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

See

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 1622 2016-00528 Charter Amendments: Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees, 1622-1623 2016-00526
Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Program: Standards for Ceiling Fans, 1688-1759 2015-33062
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; South Coast; Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 1514-1522 2015-33304 Pesticide Tolerances: Propyzamide, 1526-1531 2016-00534 Tolerance Exemptions: Methacrylate type copolymer, compound with aminomethyl propanol, 1522-1526 2016-00533 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plans; Renewal, 1625-1627 2016-00538 Pesticide Product Registration; Applications for New Uses, 1625 2016-00537 Proposed Settlements: Stony Hill Road Superfund Site, Wake Forest, Wake County, NC, 1627 2016-00539 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters, 1492-1494 2016-00013 Airbus Airplanes, 1486-1489 2016-00014 ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Regional Airplanes, 1483-1485 2015-32892 Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 1508-1511 2015-33288 Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes, 1502-1504 2015-33170 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 1489-1492 2016-00011 Amendment of Class E Airspace: Elmira, NY; Ithaca, NY; Poughkeepsie, NY, 1511 2016-00172 Changes to Production Certificates and Approvals; Correction, 1482 2016-00307 Standard Instrument Procedures: Amendment of Authority Citation, 1511-1512 2016-00522 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 1573-1577 2015-33175 Bombardier Inc. Airplanes, 1586-1588 2016-00171 Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 1584-1586 2016-00169 Dassault Aviation Airplanes, 1580-1582 2015-33178 Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes, 1565-1568 2015-33283 General Electric Company Turbofan Engines, 1582-1584 2015-33097 Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Formerly Known as Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Airplanes, 1588-1590 2016-00003 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 1577-1579 2015-33172 Establishment of Class D and E Airspace and Amendment of Class E Airspace: Lake City, FL, 1590-1592 2016-00166 NOTICES Petitions for Exemptions; Summaries: SkyPhilly, Inc., 1671-1672 2016-00523 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Use of Spectrum Bands above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services, 1802-1849 2015-31852 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 1628-1629 2016-00499 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Receivership Termination: 10326, Legacy Bank Scottsdale, AZ, 1629 2016-00517 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 1624 2016-00487 Filings: Southwestern Power Administration, 1624-1625 2016-00489 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 1630 2016-00515 Class Action Complaints: Cargo Agents, Inc., International Transport Management, Corp., and RCL Agencies, Inc. v. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, NYK Line (North America) Inc., 1629-1630 2016-00516 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 1672-1674 2016-00491 Petitions for Waivers of Compliance, 1672 2016-00525 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 1630-1632 2016-00441 Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 1632 2016-00512 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 1630 2016-00511 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Injurious Wildlife Species: Listing Salamanders Due to Risk of Salamander Chytrid Fungus, 1534-1556 2016-00452 PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 12-Month Finding on a Petition to Downlist the West Indian Manatee, and Proposed Rule to Reclassify the West Indian Manatee as Threatened, 1597 C1--2015--32645 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Clinical Outcome Assessment Compendium, 1632-1633 2016-00529 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 1602-1603 2016-00514 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, 1601-1602 2016-00505 Requests for Information: Software Vendors of State and Local Management Information Systems and Other Technology Solutions for the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs, 1599-1601 2016-00504 Summer Food Service Program 2016 Reimbursement Rates, 1603-1605 2016-00506 Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service NOTICES Meetings: Codex Alimentarius Commission Committee on Food Additives, 1598-1599 2016-00482 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 1683-1684 2016-00477 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Rocky Mountain Region; Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests; Grand Valley Ranger District; Mesa County, CO; Enlargement of Monument No. 1 and Hunter Reservoirs, 1605-1611 2016-00508 General Services General Services Administration RULES Acquisition Regulation; Technical Amendments, 1531-1534 2016-00475 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Innovation in Affordable Housing Student Design and Planning Competition; Requirements and Registration, 1637-1638 2016-00520 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES HEARTH Act Approval of Ohkay Owingeh Regulations, 1638-1639 2016-00518 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee, 1618-1619 2016-00509 Sensors And Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee, 1619 2016-00513 Recruitment of Private-Sector Members: Technical Advisory Committees, 1619 2016-00510 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

National Park Service

NOTICES Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations under Cobell Settlement, 1639-1640 2016-00496
Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Relief from Joint and Several Liability; Correction, 1592 2016-00430 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan, 1642-1643 2016-00481 Tissue Paper Products from China, 1643-1644 2016-00480 Justice Department Justice Department See

Justice Programs Office

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: COPS Application Package, 1644-1645 2016-00434
Justice Programs Justice Programs Office NOTICES Contraband Detection Market Survey, 1645-1647 2016-00503 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Petitions for Import Eligibility; Approvals: Nonconforming 2009 Ford F-150 Trucks, 1678-1679 2016-00446 Petitions for Inconsequential Noncompliance; Approvals: General Motors LLC, 1674-1676 2016-00449 Maserati S.p.A and Maserati North America, Inc., 1676-1678 2016-00448 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Cancer Genomics Cloud Pilots Survey, 1633-1634 2016-00458 Meetings: National Cancer Institute, 1634 2016-00459 National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 1635 2016-00456 National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, 1634-1635 2016-00457 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf, and South Atlantic: Aquaculture, 1762-1800 2016-00147 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program, 1557-1562 2016-00387 NOTICES Meetings: U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, 1620 2016-00017 Permits: Endangered Species; File No. 19496, 1621 2016-00454 Marine Mammals; File Nos. 14856 and 14809, 1620-1621 2016-00455 National Park National Park Service PROPOSED RULES Subsistence Collections: Alaska, 1592-1596 2015-33144 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Historic Preservation Certification Application, 1640-1642 2016-00500 Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee General Submission, Annual Review, Amendment, and Exhibitor Forms, 1642 2016-00501 Rural Housing Service Rural Housing Service NOTICES Funding Availability: Section 514 Farm Labor Housing Loans and Section 516 Farm Labor Housing Grants for Off-Farm Housing for Fiscal Year 2016, 1611-1617 2016-00483 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Columbia Funds Series Trust I, et al., 1656-1657 2016-00470 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 1654 2016-00566 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 1657-1661 2016-00464 BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., 1661-1665 2016-00493 EDGA Exchange, Inc., 1647-1651 2016-00466 EDGX Exchange, Inc., 1651-1654 2016-00467 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 1670 2016-00469 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 1668-1670 2016-00463 Trading Suspension Orders: DC Brands International, Inc., 1665-1666 2016-00591 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Discontinuance of Service Exemptions: CSX Transportation, Inc., Harlan County, KY, 1671 2016-00592 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 1636-1637 2016-00495 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department RULES Automobile or Other Conveyance and Adaptive Equipment Certificate of Eligibility for Veterans or Members of the Armed Forces with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Connected to Military Service, 1512-1513 2016-00490 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Energy Department, 1688-1759 2015-33062 Part III Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1762-1800 2016-00147 Part IV Federal Communications Commission, 1802-1849 2015-31852 Reader Aids

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

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

81 8 Wednesday, January 13, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 57 [Doc. No. AMS-LPS-14-0055] RIN 0581-AD41 Revision To Incorporate the Electronic Submission of the Import Request of Shell Eggs AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is revising the regulations governing the inspection of eggs to streamline the importation process for table eggs, hatching eggs, and inedible liquid egg by allowing the import request to be filed electronically through the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) International Trade Data System.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on January 13, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Bowden, Chief, Standardization Branch, Quality Assessment Division, Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 0258, Room 3932S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, by phone (202) 690-3148, or via email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

AMS administers the Shell Egg Surveillance Program, a mandatory inspection program for shell eggs under the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq.). This inspection program ensures that shell eggs sold to consumers contain no more restricted eggs than are permitted in the standards for consumer grades. Restricted eggs may contain dirty or cracked shells, eggs leaking internal contents, and eggs with meat or blood spots in the interior. Regulations governing EPIA are contained in 7 CFR part 57.

On February 19, 2014, the President signed Executive Order (EO) 13659, streamlining the export/import process for America's businesses. EO 13659 outlines the use of the International Trade Data System (ITDS), an efficient and cost effective trade processing infrastructure that will modernize and simplify the export and import of cargo. The goal of ITDS is to eliminate the redundant reporting of data, replacing multiple filings, many of which are on paper, with a single electronic filing. AMS participated in the development of ITDS, a government-wide project that will allow traders to file shipment data through an electronic “single window” instead of completing multiple paper-based forms to report the same information to different government agencies. ITDS will reduce the burden on America's export and import trade, while still providing information necessary for the U.S. to ensure compliance with its laws. AMS will incorporate electronic filing of import requests for shell eggs to comply with EO 13659.

Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Interface

CBP has developed the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), a U.S. commercial trade processing system that automates border processing of products. The ACE system connects the trade community and participating government agencies by providing a single, centralized, online access point. When applicants file entries with CBP through ACE, relevant data is electronically distributed to appropriate government agencies. AMS considers all electronic data entered in ACE as certified by the applicant. In addition, AMS considers any electronic records, digital images, data, or information from a foreign government for foreign inspection and foreign establishment certification to be equivalent to paper records and certified by the foreign government. When developing, procuring, maintaining, or using electronic information technology (EIT), Federal agencies are required by Section 508(a)(1)(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794d) to ensure that EIT is accessible to people with disabilities, including employees and members of the public. The ACE interface meets these requirements.

Therefore, for the reasons specified above, we are revising the shell egg import regulations to include that applicants may submit LPS Form 222-Import Request electronically.

Comments

A proposed rule to streamline the importation process was published in the Federal Register (80 FR 32867) on June 10, 2015. Comments on the proposed rule were solicited from interested parties until August 10, 2015. No comments were received.

Executive Order 12866, 13563, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act

This action has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis regarding economic effects of this final rule on small entities. Copies of the analysis are available by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Based on the information we have, AMS has determined that this regulation, as revised, will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12988

This action has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This action would have no retroactive effects and would not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule. Pursuant to section 23 of the EPIA (21 U.S.C. 1052), states or local jurisdictions are preempted from requiring the use of standards of quality, condition, weight, quantity, or grade which are in addition to or different from Federal standards for any eggs which have moved or are moving in interstate or foreign commerce.

Executive Order 13175

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), OMB has approved the information collection and recordkeeping requirements included in this final 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 0581-0113.

AMS is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, which requires that, when practicable, Federal agencies allow individuals to submit information and transact with the agency electronically.

E-Government Act

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.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 57

Eggs and egg products, Exports, Food grades and standards, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 57 is amended as follows:

PART 57—REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE INSPECTION OF EGGS (EGG PRODUCTS INSPECTION ACT) 1. The authority citation for part 57 continues to read as follows: Authority:

21 U.S.C. 1031-1056.

2. Revise § 57.920 to read as follows:
§ 57.920 Importer to make application for inspection of imported eggs.

Each person importing any eggs as defined in these regulations, unless exempted by § 57.960 shall make application for inspection upon LPS Form 222- Import Request. The application may be submitted to the address located on LPS Form 222, filed through electronic submission via [email protected], or by accessing the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's International Trade Data System. Application shall be made as far in advance as possible prior to the arrival of the product. Each application shall state the approximate date of product arrival in the United States, the name of the ship or other carrier, the country from which the product was shipped, the destination, the quantity and class of product, and the point of first arrival in the United States.

Dated: January 7, 2016. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-00438 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 21 and 45 [Docket No. FAA-2013-0933; Amdt. Nos. 21-98A and 45-29A RIN 2120-AK20 Changes to Production Certificates and Approvals; Correction AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY:

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is correcting a final rule correction published on December 17, 2015. In that correction, the FAA changed the effective date of the final rule to permit an earlier implementation of the rule's provisions that allow production approval holders to issue authorized release documents for aircraft engines, propellers, and articles. It also permits an earlier implementation date for production certificate holders to manufacture and install interface components, and provides earlier relief from the current requirement that fixed-pitch wooden propellers be marked using an approved fireproof method. This action corrects an error in the preamble of that document.

DATES:

This correction is effective January 13, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical questions concerning this action, contact Priscilla Steward or Robert Cook, Aircraft Certification Service, Production Certification Section, AIR-112, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-1656; email: [email protected] or telephone: (202) 267-1590; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

On October 1, 2015, the final rule, “Changes to Production Certificates and Approvals,” 80 FR 59021, was published in the Federal Register. In that final rule the FAA revised the regulations pertaining to certification requirements for products and articles in part 21 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) and removed certain marking requirements in 14 CFR part 45 applicable to fixed-pitch wooden propellers. The final rule afforded production approval holders (PAHs) a number of privileges not currently permitted under current regulations.

On December 17, 2015, a correction to the final rule, “Changes to Production Certificates and Approvals; Correction,” 80 FR 78650, was published in the Federal Register. In that correction, the FAA revised the effective date of the final rule to permit an earlier implementation of the rule's provisions that allow production approval holders to issue authorized release documents for aircraft engines, propellers, and articles. It also permits an earlier implementation date for production certificate holders to manufacture and install interface components, and provides earlier relief from the current requirement that fixed-pitch wooden propellers be marked using an approved fireproof method.

In the correction to the final rule, it stated that the FAA and EASA have agreed to delay the implementation of Change 5 to the Maintenance Annex Guidance (MAG) until March 29, 2016. The March 29, 2016 referenced date is incorrect, and the correct date is April 1, 2016. This action corrects an error in the preamble of that document.

Correction

In FR Doc. 2015-31639, beginning on page 78650 in the Federal Register of December 17, 2015, make the following correction to the preamble:

On page 78651, in the first column, twelfth line, correct “March 29” to read “April 1”.

Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in Washington, DC, on December 24, 2015. Lirio Liu, Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2016-00307 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0080; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-189-AD; Amendment 39-18357; AD 2015-26-09] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42 airplanes. This AD was prompted by several reports of a cracked floor beam at frame (FR) 26, and of discrepancies in certain wing inspection tasks in maintenance documents that could lead to errors in scheduling inspection intervals of structurally significant items (SSIs). This AD requires repetitive inspections of certain floor beams and revision of the maintenance or inspection program to include inspections of several areas of the wings. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct any cracking of the floor beam at FR 26 and several areas of the wings, which could lead to reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective February 17, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 17, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0080 or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

For service information identified in this final rule, contact ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional, 1, Allée Pierre Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21; fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.aerochain.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0080.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 26, 2015 (80 FR 3921).

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0193, dated September 25, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42 airplanes. The MCAI states:

Floor beam at Frame 26: During maintenance checks, the floor beam at frame (FR) 26 was found cracked on several ATR 42 aeroplanes.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to reduce the structural integrity of the aeroplane. A new Structural Significant Items (SSI) task will be introduced in the next revision of the ATR42 Time Limits document in order to address this issue.

MRBR/MPD discrepancy on Wings item: A discrepancy has been noticed between the Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR)/Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) and the Time Limits document. ATR modifications 02805 and 08039 were erroneously stated similar in the MRBR/MPD, inducing misleading applicability of the SSI tasks depending upon the document used and leading operators to miss several inspections, as evidenced during a recent review.

Following the structural investigation, new inspection thresholds have been calculated and will be introduced in the next revisions of the ATR Time Limits documents (Revision 8 and Revision 9, as applicable to the aeroplane models) and MRBR/MPD documents.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive inspections of the FR26 floor beam, and of several areas of the wings, as defined in the ATR42 Time Limits document and, depending on findings, the accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-0080-0002. Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comment received. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM (80 FR 3921, January 26, 2015) and the FAA's response.

Request To Resolve Conflict Between the Effectivity of Certain Tasks and the Applicability of Paragraph (h) of This AD

Empire Airlines requested that a conflict between the affected airplanes identified in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (80 FR 3921, January 26, 2015) and the effectivity of certain SSI tasks listed in table 1 to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD be removed. Empire Airlines noted that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD would apply to Model ATR42 airplanes on which ATR Modification 02805 was not embodied in production. The ATR MRBRs, however, identify certain SSI tasks as being effective only for airplanes on which ATR Modification 02805 has been embodied. Empire Airlines suggested that revising the NPRM to address this conflict could result in avoiding the need to request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC).

We agree and have revised table 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD to remove the tasks that are associated only with post-Modification 02805 airplanes, i.e., tasks 572301-3 and -5 for Model ATR-42-200, -300, and -320 airplanes. As stated in the MCAI, the time limit documents and the MRBR/MPD documents will be updated to include the new compliance times.

We have clarified paragraph (h) of this AD by replacing the text “incorporating the SSI tasks” with the text “incorporating the applicable SSI tasks and compliance times” to match the title of table 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD.

Conclusion

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 3921, January 26, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 3921, January 26, 2015).

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Avions de Transport Régional (ATR) has issued Job Instruction Card 535100 DVI 10097, “DVI of FR26 Floor Beam Around Cut-outs for Cooling & Hydrau Ducts,” dated February 9, 2012 (for Model ATR42-200, -300, -320, and -500 airplanes). The service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection for damage (cracks, corrosion, dents, scratches, scores and abrasions) of the floor beam at FR 26, on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides, and, for certain inspection findings, contacting the manufacturer for repair instructions. 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.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 31 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $10,540, per inspection cycle, or $340, per inspection cycle, per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0080; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-26-09 ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional: Amendment 39-18357. Docket No. FAA-2015-0080; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-189-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective February 17, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to all ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional (ATR) Model ATR42-200, -300, -320, and -500 airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Codes 53, Fuselage; and 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by several reports of a cracked floor beam at frame (FR) 26 on several Model ATR42 airplanes, and of discrepancies in certain wing inspection tasks in maintenance documents that could lead to errors in scheduling inspection intervals of structurally significant items (SSIs). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct any cracking of the floor beam at FR 26 and several areas of the wings, which could lead to reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions for FR 26 Floor Beam for All Model ATR42 Airplanes

(1) For all Model ATR42 airplanes: At the later of the compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12,000 flight cycles, accomplish a detailed inspection for damage (cracks, corrosion, dents, scratches, scores and abrasions) of the floor beam at FR 26, on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides, in accordance with the instructions of ATR Job Instruction Card 535100 DVI 10097, “DVI of FR26 Floor Beam Around Cut-outs for Cooling & Hydrau Ducts,” dated February 9, 2012 (for Model ATR42-200, -300, -320, and -500 airplanes).

(i) Before the accumulation of 24,000 total flight cycles.

(ii) Within 5,000 flight hours or 24 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.

(2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, any damage (corrosion or scratches that are greater than allowed, cracks, dents, scores and abrasions) is found: Before further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

(h) SSI Tasks for Certain Model ATR42 Airplanes

For Model ATR42 airplanes on which ATR modification 02805 was not embodied in production: Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the SSI tasks and compliance times identified in table 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA.

Table 1 to Paragraph (h) of This AD—Applicable SSI Tasks and Compliance Times For Model— Use SSI Task— At this initial time— And repeat at intervals not to exceed— ATR-42-500 airplanes 572301-1 or -3, as applicable Before 45,000 total flight cycles or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later 7,300 flight cycles. ATR-42-500 airplanes 572305 Before 46,000 total flight cycles or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later 3,900 flight cycles. ATR42-200, -300, and -320 airplanes 572301-1, or -4, as applicable Before 45,000 total flight cycles or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later 7,300 flight cycles. ATR42-200, -300, and -320 airplanes 572305-1 Before 46,000 total flight cycles or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later 3,900 flight cycles. ATR42-200, -300, and -320 airplanes 572409 Before 42,000 total flight cycles or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later 9,000 flight cycles. ATR42-200, -300, and -320 airplanes 572410, 572411, 572412, 572413, 572414, and 572415 Before 43,000 total flight cycles or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later 10,000 flight cycles. ATR42-200, -300, and -320 airplanes 572416 and 572417 Before 44,000 total flight cycles or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later 7,300 flight cycles.

Note 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD: For ATR42-500 airplanes, additional guidance for the maintenance or inspection program revision may be found in the ATR ATR 42-400/-500 Maintenance Review Board Report, Revision 13, dated November 30, 2011.

Note 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD: For ATR42-200, -300, and -320 airplanes, additional guidance for the maintenance or inspection program revision may be found in the ATR ATR 42-200/-300/-320 Maintenance Review Board Report, Revision 13, dated November 30, 2011.

(i) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0193, dated September 25, 2012, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-0080-0002.

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

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) ATR Job Instruction Card 535100 DVI 10097, “DVI of FR26 Floor Beam Around Cut-outs for Cooling & Hydrau Ducts,” dated February 9, 2012.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional, 1, Allée Pierre Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21; fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.aerochain.com.

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

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 21, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-32892 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0678; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-207-AD; Amendment 39-18367; AD 2016-01-08] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-13-04, for certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 2013-13-04 required installing a power interruption protection circuit for the landing gear control interface unit (LGCIU). This new AD requires a new modification of any previously modified LGCIU. This new AD also requires revising the maintenance or inspection program to reduce a certain functional check interval. This new AD also adds airplanes to the applicability. This AD was prompted by a determination that additional work is necessary to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to prevent untimely unlocking and/or retraction of the nose landing gear (NLG), which, while on the ground, could result in injury to ground personnel and damage to the airplane.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective February 17, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 17, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of August 14, 2013 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013) .

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0678; or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0678

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013). AD 2013-13-04 applied to certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 31, 2015 (80 FR 17007).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0202, dated September 5, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

After a push back from the gate, an A320 aeroplane was preparing to initiate taxi, when an uncommanded nose landing gear (NLG) retraction occurred, causing the nose of the aeroplane to hit the ground. Investigations revealed that the retraction was caused by a combination of a power interruption to Landing Gear Control and Interface Units (LGCIU) and an internal hydraulic leak through the landing gear (LG) selector valve 40GA.

Deeper investigations have revealed that LGCIU power interruption appears during engine start at each flight. Even though no incident has been reported in service, it has been determined that a non-compliance to the safety objective exists when combined with a dormant single failure of the selector valve seal leaking.

This condition, if not corrected, could lead to further incidents of untimely unlocking and/or retraction of the NLG which, while on the ground, could result in injury to ground personnel and damage to the aeroplane.

To address the possible hydraulic leak of the LG selector valve, EASA issued AD 2007-0065 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2007_0065.pdf/AD_2007-0065] currently at Revision 2.

To address the risk of untimely unlocking and/or retraction of the NLG, EASA issued AD 2011-0202 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2011_0202.pdf/AD_2011-0202] to require installation of a power interruption protection circuit to the LGCIU and accomplishment of associated modifications.

Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it has been discovered that additional work is necessary to adequately correct this unsafe condition and consequently, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-32-1346 to Revision 05. An update of the maintenance programme is required as well, following the required modification.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2011-0202, which is superseded, and requires certain additional actions, as defined in the revised Airbus SB, as applicable to aeroplane model, and an update of the approved maintenance programme.

The additional actions include a new modification of any previously modified LGCIU, and reducing a certain functional check interval. This AD also adds airplanes on which Airbus modification 37866 has been embodied in production to the applicability. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-0678-0002.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (80 FR 17007, March 31, 2015) and the FAA's response to the comment.

Request To Include Revised Service Information

United Airlines (UAL) stated that paragraphs (i) and (j) of the proposed AD (80 FR 17007, March 31, 2015) would be required to be done in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 05, dated January 13, 2012. UAL asked that we allow use of the latest revision available, Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 07, dated February 10, 2015, for accomplishing the modification.

We agree with the commenter's request. Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 06, dated January 12, 2015, and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 07, dated February 10, 2015. These revisions state that no additional work is necessary on airplanes changed in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 05, dated January 13, 2012, which was specified as the appropriate source of service information in the NPRM (80 FR 17007, March 31, 2015).

We have changed paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD to specify accomplishing the modification in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 07, dated February 10, 2015. We have also added a new paragraph (l)(2) to this AD (paragraph (l) of the proposed AD (80 FR 17007, March 31, 2015) has been changed to paragraph (l)(1) in this AD) to give credit for actions done before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 05, dated January 13, 2012; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 06, dated January 12, 2015.

Request To Include Terminating Action

UAL stated that the NPRM (80 FR 17007, March 31, 2015) does not include a terminating action. UAL asked that we create a new paragraph detailing all actions that will be terminated by accomplishing the modification of the LGCIU, as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 07, dated February 10, 2015.

We do not agree with the request. Paragraph (i) of this AD specifies that the modification terminates the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD. Therefore, no change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Conclusion

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 17007, March 31, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 17007, March 31, 2015).

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 07, dated February 10, 2015, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated February 10, 2015; and Task 32.30.00.17, “Functional Check of LGCIU Power Supply Relays,” of Section C-32 of Section C, Systems and Powerplant, of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Maintenance Review Board Report, Revision 18, dated March 2013. The service information describes procedures for installing a power interruption protection circuit for the LGCIU, and for a new modification of any previously modified LGCIU. 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.

Costs of Compliance

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

The actions required by AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013), take about 48 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $8,220 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2013-13-04 is $12,300 per product.

We estimate that it takes about 46 work-hours per product to comply with the new modification in this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $9,650 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the new modification on U.S. operators to be $11,539,560, or $13,560 per product.

We estimate that it takes about 1 work-hour per product to revise the maintenance or inspection program in this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of revising the maintenance program on U.S. operators to be $72,335, or $85 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0678; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013), and adding the following new AD: 2016-01-08 Airbus: Amendment 39-18367. Docket No. FAA-2015-0678; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-207-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective February 17, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD replaces AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013).

(c) Applicability

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

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by a determination that additional work is necessary to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to prevent untimely unlocking and/or retraction of the nose landing gear (NLG), which, while on the ground, could result in injury to ground personnel and damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Modification With No Changes

This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013) with no changes. For all airplanes except airplanes on which Airbus modification 37866 has been embodied in production: At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD: Install a power interruption protection circuit for the landing gear control interface unit (LGCIU), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 04, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated April 22, 2011 (for Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes other than the Model A319CJ (corporate jet) airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1349, Revision 03, including Appendix 1, dated October 5, 2011 (for Model A319CJ (corporate jet) airplanes).

(1) For airplanes that have embodied Airbus Modification 38947 specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1348 during production or in service: Within 72 months after August 14, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013)).

(2) For all airplanes other than those identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: Within 60 months after August 14, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013)).

(h) Retained Re-Identification of Identification Plates With No Changes

This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013) with no changes. For airplanes on which the installation required by paragraph (g) of this AD has been done before August 14, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-13-04) using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, dated December 4, 2008 (for Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes other than Model A319CJ (corporate jet) airplanes): Within the applicable times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, re-identify the identification plates, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 04, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated April 22, 2011 (for Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes other than Model A319CJ (corporate jet) airplanes).

(i) New Modification

For airplanes identified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD except airplanes on which Airbus modification 37866 has been embodied in production: Modify the LGCIU at the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 07, dated February 10, 2015, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated February 10, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1349, Revision 03, including Appendix 1, dated October 5, 2011 (for Model A319CJ (corporate jet) airplanes), which was incorporated by reference on August 14, 2013 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013). Accomplishing the modification in this paragraph terminates the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

(1) For airplanes on which any landing gear (LG) selector valve having part number (P/N) 114079019 is installed and that have embodied Airbus Modification 38947 specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1348 during production or in service: Modify the LGCIU within 72 months after the effective date of this AD.

(2) For airplanes on which any LG selector valve 40GA having a part number listed in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (i)(2)(xii) of this AD, provided the valve has the marking “DI” or “DI-BE” recorded on its amendment plates: Modify the LGCIU within 72 months after the effective date of this AD.

(i) P/N 114079001.

(ii) P/N 114079005.

(iii) P/N 114079009.

(iv) P/N 114079013.

(v) P/N 114079001A.

(vi) P/N 114079005A.

(vii) P/N 114079009A.

(viii) P/N 114079015.

(ix) P/N 114079001AB.

(x) P/N 114079005AB.

(xi) P/N 114079009AB.

(xii) P/N 114079017.

(3) For all airplanes other than those identified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD: Modify the LGCIU within 60 months after the effective date of this AD.

(j) New Modification for Airplanes Previously Modified

For airplanes that have been modified as of the effective date of this AD as specified in the applicable service information identified in paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), (j)(3), or (j)(4) of this AD, except airplanes on which Airbus modification 37866 has been embodied in production: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, do the additional modification of the LGCIU, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 07, dated February 10, 2015, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated February 10, 2015.

(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2009, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 02, dated November 4, 2009, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 03, dated January 7, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(4) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, including Appendices 01 and 02, Revision 04, dated April 22, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013).

(k) New Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

Before further flight after accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD or within 7 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate Task 32.30.00.17, “Functional Check of LGCIU Power Supply Relays,” of Section C-32 of Section C, Systems and Powerplant, of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Maintenance Review Board Report, Revision 18, dated March 2013. The initial compliance time is within 4,000 flight hours after accomplishing the additional modification of the LGCIU.

(l) Credit for Previous Actions

(1) This paragraph provides credit for A319 Corporate Jet airplanes for the modification required by paragraph (g) of this AD if that modification was performed before the effective date of this AD using the following applicable service information. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1349, dated December 4, 2008;

(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1349, Revision 01, dated August 31, 2009;

(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1349, Revision 02, dated June 16, 2010.

(2) This paragraph provides credit for the modification required by paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD, as applicable, if that modification was performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 05, dated January 13, 2012; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 06, dated January 12, 2015. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(m) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].

(i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013) are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

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

(n) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0202, dated September 5, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-0678-0002.

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

(o) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on February 17, 2016.

(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 07, dated February 10, 2015, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated February 10, 2015.

(ii) Task 32.30.00.17, “Functional Check of LGCIU Power Supply Relays,” of Section C-32 of Section C, Systems and Powerplant, of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Maintenance Review Board Report, Revision 18, dated March 2013.

(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on August 14, 2013 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013).

(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 04, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated April 22, 2011.

(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1349, Revision 03, including Appendix 1, dated October 5, 2011.

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

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

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 31, 2015. Philip Forde, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-00014 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1984; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-022-AD; Amendment 39-18363; AD 2016-01-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2005-01-09, which applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, and 747SR series airplanes. AD 2005-01-09 required a one-time detailed inspection for discrepancies of the frame web and inner chords on the forward edge frame of the number 5 main entry door cutout, and corrective action if necessary. This new AD adds repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking of the frame inner chords (forward and aft), and corrective action if necessary. This AD was prompted by additional cracking found in the same area after completion of the one-time detailed inspection. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct discrepancies of the frame web and inner chords, which could result in cracking, subsequent severing of the frame, and consequent rapid depressurization of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD is effective February 17, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 17, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1984.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1984; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6428; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2005-01-09, Amendment 39-13933 (70 FR 1340, January 7, 2005). AD 2005-01-09 applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, and 747SR series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 24, 2015 (80 FR 36255) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by additional cracking found in the same area after completion of the one-time detailed inspection. The NPRM proposed to continue to require a one-time detailed inspection for discrepancies of the frame web and inner chords on the forward edge frame of the number 5 main entry door cutout, and corrective action if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to require repetitive HFEC inspections for cracking of the frame inner chords (forward and aft), and corrective action if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct discrepancies of the frame web and inner chords, which could result in cracking, subsequent severing of the frame, and consequent rapid depressurization of the airplane.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment. United Airlines concurred with the NPRM.

Request for Credit for Accomplishing Certain Inspections Required by AD 2013-17-08, Amendment 39-17572 (78 FR 57053, September 17, 2013) (“AD 2013-17-08”)

UPS asked that credit be included in the proposed AD (80 FR 36255, June 24, 2015) for accomplishing the inspections required by AD 2013-17-08. UPS stated that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD would require accomplishing the same inspections that are required by AD 2013-17-08. UPS added that the proposed AD has a lower threshold for accomplishing the inspections than that in AD 2013-17-08. UPS noted that Boeing confirmed that these inspections are duplicated and stated that a revision of the service information may be forthcoming to provide clarification.

We agree with the commenter that accomplishing the inspections required by AD 2013-17-08 before the effective date of this AD is acceptable for compliance with the inspections required by this AD. We had already included credit for accomplishing the inspections required by AD 2013-17-08 in paragraph (i)(2) of the proposed AD.

However, since the compliance time in AD 2013-17-08 is later than the compliance time required by this AD, we have not given credit for inspections that will be done for AD 2013-17-08 on or after the effective date of this AD. Operators may apply for approval of an AMOC in accordance with the provisions specified in paragraph (j) of this AD, by submitting data substantiating that the request would provide an acceptable level of safety. Therefore, we have made no further change to this AD.

Request To Include Terminating Action

UPS also recommended adding a sentence to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to terminate the repetitive inspections required by AD 2013-17-08, after accomplishment of the initial inspections required by the proposed AD.

We do not agree to specify that the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminate the repetitive inspections required by AD 2013-17-08, because those inspections are more extensive than the inspections in this AD. However, affected operators who wish to terminate the repetitive inspections required by AD 2013-17-08 may apply for approval of an AMOC in accordance with the provisions specified in paragraph (j) of this AD, by submitting data substantiating that the request would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Correct Typographical Error

Boeing asked that a typographical error in the “Related AD” section of the proposed AD be corrected. Boeing stated that the description of the inspection area in AD 2013-17-08 of the frame segment should be changed from “between 16 and 31” to “between 15 and 31.” Boeing noted that this is a typographical error.

We agree that there is a typographical error in the “Related AD” section of the proposed AD, as noted by the commenter. That section should specify “the frame segment between 15 and 31”; however, since that section of the preamble does not reappear in the final rule, no change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Conclusion

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2494, Revision 1, dated January 9, 2015. The service information describes procedures for a one-time detailed inspection and repetitive surface HFEC inspections of the Station 2231 frame inner chords (forward and aft), and repair of discrepancies. 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.

Costs of Compliance

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

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Detailed inspection 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 $0 $170 $29,580. HFEC inspections 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 0 $340 per inspection cycle $59,160 per inspection cycle.

    We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2005-01-09, Amendment 39-13933 (70 FR 1340, January 7, 2005), and adding the following new AD: 2016-01-04 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18363; Docket No. FAA-2015-1984; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-022-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective February 17, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2005-01-09, Amendment 39-13933 (70 FR 1340, January 7, 2005) (“AD 2005-01-09”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, -100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, and 747SR series airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2494, Revision 1, dated January 9, 2015.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of additional cracking found in the same area after completion of the one-time detailed inspection. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct discrepancies of the frame web and inner chords, which could result in cracking, subsequent severing of the frame, and consequent rapid depressurization of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspections

    Do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), and (g)(4) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2494, Revision 1, dated January 9, 2015, except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.

    (1) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2494, Revision 1, dated January 9, 2015, except as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection for nicks, scratches, or gouges of the Station 2231 frame inner chords, forward and aft, at stringer 26 at the edge and side of the inner chords.

    (2) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2494, Revision 1, dated January 9, 2015, except as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD: Do a surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracks of the frame inner chords, forward and aft.

    (3) Based on the findings from the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, do all applicable corrective actions, before further flight.

    (4) Repeat the HFEC inspection specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2494, Revision 1, dated January 9, 2015.

    (h) Exceptions to Service Bulletin Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2494, Revision 1, dated January 9, 2015, specifies a compliance time “after the release of Revision 1 of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2494, Revision 1, dated January 9, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (i) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, if those inspections were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2494, dated September 18, 2003, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2005-01-09.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, if those inspections were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2450, Revision 7, dated November 2, 2011, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2013-17-08, Amendment 39-17572 (78 FR 57053, September 17, 2013).

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

    (4) AMOCs approved for AD 2005-01-09 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

    (k) Related Information

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

    (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2494, Revision 1, dated January 9, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

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

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 28, 2015. Philip Forde, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00011 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8695; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-042-AD; Amendment 39-18365; AD 2016-01-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. This AD requires inspecting each full ice protection system tail rotor slip ring (slip ring) for chatter marks, witness marks, or scoring, and determining the depth of each mounting hole. Based on the findings from the inspection, this AD requires either re-identifying the slip ring or replacing the slip ring. This AD is prompted by two incidents of the slip ring body separating from the supporting flange due to improper torque. These actions are intended to prevent separation of the mounting flange from the slip ring body and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective January 28, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of January 28, 2016.

    We must receive comments on this AD by March 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to the “Mail” address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8695; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any incorporated by reference service information, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact AgustaWestland, Product Support Engineering, Via del Gregge, 100, 21015 Lonate Pozzolo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Maurizio D'Angelo; telephone 39-0331-664757; fax 39-0331-664680; or at http://www.agustawestland.com/technical-bulletins; and Moog Inc., Components Group, Blacksburg Operations, 1213 North Main St., Blacksburg, Virginia 24606-3127, telephone (540) 552-3011, or at www.moog.com. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Martin R. Crane, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

    Discussion

    We are adopting a new AD for Agusta Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters with certain slip rings installed. This AD requires inspecting each slip ring for chatter marks, witness marks, or scoring. Based on the findings from the inspection, the AD requires either re-identifying the slip ring by marking a letter “T” after the serial number or replacing the slip ring with a slip ring that is not affected by this AD. This AD is prompted by two reports of detached slip ring bodies from the supporting flange due to improperly low torque of the affected screws during installation. These actions are intended to prevent separation of the mounting flange from the slip ring body and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

    This AD was prompted by AD No. 2015-0155, dated July 28, 2015, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for the Agusta Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. EASA advises of two incidents of the screws being found loose and broken on two Model AW139 helicopter tail rotor slip rings. EASA states that subsequent technical investigation revealed that the torque of the screws was improperly low. The slip ring manufacturer established that this occurred on the production line by improper installation of the affected screws on a number of slip rings. EASA advises that this condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to other events of detachment of the slip ring, possibly resulting in reduced control of the helicopter.

    FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed AgustaWestland Bollettino Technico No. 139-404, dated December 22, 2014 (BT), including Annex A Moog Service Bulletin SB 14-02, Revision D, undated (Moog SB). The BT specifies inspecting and replacing the slip ring mounting screws and reinstalling the lockwire by complying with the Moog SB. The Moog SB advises of insufficient torqueing of the screws and incorrect lock wiring used to affix the tail rotor mountain plate to the slip ring frame. If the slip ring does not pass the inspection, the BT specifies returning the slip ring to AgustaWestland, replacing it, and marking the letter “T” after the serial number of the unit. AgustaWestland states that slip rings already marked with a “T” after the serial number or “MOD 1” marked in the manufacturing plate do not have to be inspected. 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.

    AD Requirements

    This AD requires within 25 hours time-in-service:

    • Removing each slip ring, lockwire, fastener, and washer.

    • Inspecting the wall of the mounting plate hole for a chatter mark, witness mark, or scoring. If there is a chatter mark, witness mark, or scoring, replacing the slip ring with an airworthy slip ring.

    • Determining the depth of the mounting plate hole. If the depth exceeds the grip length of the screw, replacing the slip ring with an airworthy slip ring.

    • Re-identifying the slip ring by marking a letter “T” after the serial number with permanent black pen and applying acrylic lacquer (CO81 or equivalent).

    This AD also prohibits installing an affected slip ring on any helicopter unless the slip ring has passed the inspections in accordance with this AD.

    Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    This AD requires compliance within 25 hours time-in-service; the EASA AD requires compliance within 14 days.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 106 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work hour. We estimate 3 work hours to inspect the slip ring for a cost of $255 per helicopter and $27,030 for the fleet. We estimate $56,806 in required parts and no additional labor costs to replace a slip ring.

    FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Providing an opportunity for public comments before adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because the previously described unsafe condition can adversely affect the controllability of the helicopter and the required corrective actions must be accomplished within 25 hours TIS. These helicopters have a variety of uses including offshore and emergency medical flights and are expected to accumulate 25 hours TIS within a few weeks.

    Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska 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.

    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-01-06 Agusta S.p.A.: Amendment 39-18365; Docket No. FAA-2015-8695; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-042-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters, certificated in any category, with a Full Icing Protection System tail rotor slip ring (slip ring) part number (P/N) 4G6420V00151, P/N 4G6420V00152, or P/N 4G6420V00153 installed, except a slip ring with a letter “T” after the serial number or marked with “MOD 1.”

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a loose or missing screw connecting the mounting flange and the slip ring body. This condition could result in separation of the mounting flange from the slip ring body and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

    (c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective January 28, 2016.

    (d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.

    (e) Required Actions

    Within 25 hours time-in-service:

    (1) Remove each slip ring from the helicopter. Remove each lockwire, fastener, and washer by following the Compliance Instructions, paragraphs 3 through 5, of Moog Service Bulletin SB 14-02, Revision D, undated, included as Annex A to Agusta Westland Bollettino Tecnico (BT) No. 139-404, dated December 22, 2014, except you are not required to discard parts.

    (2) Inspect the wall of the mounting plate hole for a chatter mark, witness mark, or scoring. If there is a chatter mark, witness mark, or scoring, replace the slip ring with a slip ring that is not listed in paragraph (a) of this AD.

    (3) Determine the depth of the mounting plate hole. If the depth exceeds the grip length of the screw, replace the slip ring with a slip ring that is not listed in paragraph (a) of this AD.

    (4) Re-identify the slip ring by marking a letter “T” after the serial number with permanent black pen and applying acrylic lacquer (CO81 or equivalent).

    (5) Do not install an affected slip ring on any helicopter unless the slip ring has passed the inspections in accordance with this AD.

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Martin R. Crane, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

    (g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2015-0155, dated July 28, 2015. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2015-8695.

    (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 3060 Propeller/Rotor Anti-ice/De-Ice System.

    (i) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) AgustaWestland Bollettino Technico No. 139-404, dated December 22, 2014, including Annex A, Moog Service Bulletin SB 14-02, Revision D, undated.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Moog Inc., Components Group, Blacksburg Operations, 1213 North Main St., Blacksburg, Virginia 24606-3127, telephone 540/552-3011, or at www.moog.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.

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

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 28, 2015. Lance T. Gant, Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00013 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1990; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-027-AD; Amendment 39-18364; AD 2016-01-05] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-400 series airplanes, as modified by a certain supplemental type certificate. This AD was prompted by the discovery of a design drawing error regarding placards that identified incorrect squibs and pressure switches for certain fire extinguisher bottles. This AD requires a detailed inspection of certain cargo placards to determine if they are the correct placards and in the correct location, a detailed inspection of the harnesses to verify that they are marked and installed correctly, and corrective action if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct incorrectly installed harnesses for the cargo fire suppression system bottles, which could result in an incorrect activation sequence of the bottles, the inability to suppress a cargo fire quickly, and a possible uncontrollable fire.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective February 17, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 17, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1990.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1990; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul DeVore, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Propulsion Branch, ACE-116W, FAA, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone: 316-946-4142; fax: 316-946-4107; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-400 series airplanes, as modified by a certain supplemental type certificate. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 2, 2015 (80 FR 38033). The NPRM was prompted by the discovery of a design drawing error regarding placards that identified incorrect squibs and pressure switches for certain fire extinguisher bottles. The NPRM proposed to require a detailed inspection of certain cargo placards to determine if they are the correct placards and in the correct location, a detailed inspection of the harnesses to verify that they are marked and installed correctly, and corrective action if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct incorrectly installed harnesses for the cargo fire suppression system bottles, which could result in an incorrect activation sequence of the bottles, the inability to suppress a cargo fire quickly, and a possible uncontrollable fire.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comments received. The European Aviation Safety Agency stated that it is following the progress of this activity of the NPRM (80 FR 38033, July 2, 2015). Boeing stated that the NPRM does not address any Boeing designs; therefore, Boeing can neither review the data, nor comment on the content of the NPRM, and that no file attachment accompanies its comment.

    Conclusion

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

    • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 38033, July 2, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 38033, July 2, 2015).

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Advanced Aircraft Extinguishers Service Bulletin TFA10-26-0020, Revision IR, dated January 12, 2015. The service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection of Advanced Aircraft Extinguishers cargo fire protection system placards to determine if they are the correct placards and in the correct location, and applicable corrective actions; and a detailed inspection of the harnesses to verify that they are correctly marked and installed, and doing steps C.(5) through C.(11) of Advanced Aircraft Extinguishers Service Bulletin TFA10-26-0020, Revision IR, dated January 12, 2015, if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 3 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Detailed inspection 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 N/A $170 $510

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

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Corrective actions 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 $900 $1,070

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-01-05 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18364; Docket No. FAA-2015-1990; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-027-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective February 17, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-400 series airplanes, certificated in any category, having serial numbers 23865, 24231, 24706, 24474, 25417, 27003, 27149, 25375, 26281, 28661, and 28881, as modified by Supplemental Type Certificate ST01114WI (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/f9490633c04cbc8286257301006ed621/$FILE/ST01114WI.pdf).

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire Protection.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the discovery of a design drawing error regarding placards that identified incorrect squibs and pressure switches for certain fire extinguisher bottles. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct incorrectly installed harnesses for the cargo fire suppression system bottles, which could result in an incorrect activation sequence of the bottles, the inability to suppress a cargo fire quickly, and a possible uncontrollable fire.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Placard Inspection

    Within 6 months after effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection of Advanced Aircraft Extinguishers cargo fire protection system (FPS) placards to determine if they are the correct placards and in the correct location, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the “SERVICE BULLETIN INSTRUCTIONS” of Advanced Aircraft Extinguishers Service Bulletin TFA10-26-0020, Revision IR, dated January 12, 2015. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (h) Harness Inspection

    Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection of the harnesses to verify that they are correctly marked and installed, in accordance with the “SERVICE BULLETIN INSTRUCTIONS” of Advanced Aircraft Extinguishers Service Bulletin TFA10-26-0020, Revision IR, dated January 12, 2015. If any harness is not marked or installed correctly, before further flight, do steps C.(5) through C.(11) specified in and in accordance with the “SERVICE BULLETIN INSTRUCTIONS” of Advanced Aircraft Extinguishers Service Bulletin TFA10-26-0020, Revision IR, dated January 12, 2015, except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD.

    (i) Exception to the Service Information Specification

    Where Advanced Aircraft Extinguishers Service Bulletin TFA10-26-0020, Revision IR, dated January 12, 2015, specifies contacting the manufacturer for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.

    (j) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane, provided the airplane does not carry cargo in the lower cargo bay.

    (k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

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

    (3) Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(3)(i) and (k)(3)(ii) of this AD apply.

    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

    (l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Paul C. DeVore, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Propulsion Branch, ACE-116W, FAA, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone: 316-946-4142; fax: 316-946-4107; email: [email protected]

    (m) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Advanced Aircraft Extinguishers Service Bulletin TFA10-26-0020, Revision IR, dated January 12, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

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

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 28, 2015. Philip Forde, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00004 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0937; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-024-AD; Amendment 39-18348; AD 2015-25-10] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-24-05 for certain Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. AD 2011-24-05 required repetitive inspections for cracking of the hole(s) of the horizontal flange of the keel beam, and repair if necessary. This new AD requires changing the inspection compliance times, and, for certain airplanes, adding a one-time ultrasonic inspection for cracking at a certain fastener hole. This new AD also provides optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This AD was prompted by a determination that the rototest inspection and applicable corrective actions of a certain fastener hole were inadvertently omitted from the requirements in AD 2011-24-05. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the fastener holes, which could result in rupture of the keel beam, and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective February 17, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of February 17, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of January 3, 2012 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011).

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of September 13, 2007 (72 FR 44731, August 9, 2007).

    ADDRESSES:

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0937; or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0937.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011). AD 2011-24-05 applied to certain Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 4, 2015 (80 FR 25249).

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0010R1, dated May 5, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During A330 and A340 aeroplanes fatigue tests, cracks were detected on the RH [right-hand] and LH [left-hand] sides between the crossing area of the keel beam fitting and the front spar of the Centre Wing Box (CWB).

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to keel beam rupture which would affect the structural integrity of the area.

    Prompted by this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2006-0315 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2006_0315.pdf/AD_2006-0315] (later revised to R1) to require repetitive special detailed inspections (SDI) [rotating probe inspection for cracking] on the horizontal flange of the keel beam in the area of first fastener hole aft of Frame (FR) 40 in order to maintain the structural integrity of the aeroplane.

    After that [EASA] AD was issued, EASA issued AD 2010-0024 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011)], retaining the inspection requirements of EASA AD 2006-0315R1 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2006_0315R1.pdf/AD_2006-0315R1], which was superseded, extending the applicability to aeroplanes with Airbus Mod 49202 embodied, and reducing the inspection thresholds and intervals.

    Since that [EASA] AD [2010-0024] was issued, a new fatigue and damage tolerance evaluation has been conducted by Airbus, which concluded that due to the aeroplane utilization, the current inspection threshold and intervals have to be modified.

    In addition, it was determined that the rototest inspection of fastener hole Nr 6, necessary to ensure that no crack was left unrepaired at the time of fastener hole cold working, was inadvertently not included in Revisions 01 and 02 of both Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A330-57-3098 and A340-57-4106.

    Prompted by these findings, EASA issued AD 2014-0010 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2014-0010.pdf/AD_2014-0010], retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2010-0024, which was superseded, and redefined the inspection thresholds and intervals [by reducing certain compliance times], and added a one-time ultrasonic inspection of fastener hold Nr 6 in the junction keel beam fitting at FR40 on both LH and RH side[s].

    Following issuance of EASA AD 2014-0010, it was identified that there was a need for clarifications [of affected airplanes] * * *.

    The compliance times vary depending on airplane utilization and configuration. The earliest compliance time for the initial rotating probe inspections is the later of (1) before 10,400 total flight cycles or 67,800 total flight hours, whichever occurs first; and (2) within 24 months or 14,590 flight cycles or 43,790 flight hours, whichever occurs first. The latest compliance time for the initial inspections is the later of (1) before 20,800 total flight cycles or 67,900 total flight hours, whichever occurs first; and (2) within 24 months or 21,180 flight cycles or 63,560 flight hours, whichever occurs first. The compliance times for the repetitive intervals range between 7,800 flight cycles or 50,900 flight hours and 10,700 flight cycles or 35,200 flight hours. The compliance times for the one-time ultrasonic inspection are the latest of (1) 21,000 flight cycles or 60,600 flight hours and within 2,400 flight cycles or 24 months; or the latest of (2) 22,100 flight cycles and 64,400 flight hours, or within 1,300 flight cycles or 24 months.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-0937-0002.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 25249, May 4, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

    Conclusion

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

    • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 25249, May 4, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 25249, May 4, 2015).

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, Revision 05, dated November 13, 2012.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3090, Revision 01, dated June 15, 2011.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, dated August 30, 2007.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, Revision 02, June 15, 2011.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, Revision 03, dated September 24, 2012.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3117, dated January 25, 2013.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, Revision 05, dated November 13, 2012.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4098, Revision 01, dated June 15, 2011.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, dated August 30, 2007.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, Revision 02, dated June 15, 2011.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, Revision 03, dated September 24, 2012.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4126, dated January 25, 2013.

    This service information describes procedures for inspections for cracking of the hole(s) of the horizontal flange of the keel beam, and contacting the manufacturer for repair instructions. Additionally, this service information describes procedures for a one-time ultrasonic inspection for cracking at fastener hole “Nr 6,” and provides optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

    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.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 35 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions that were required by AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011), and retained in this AD take about 41 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Required parts cost about $191 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2011-24-05 is $3,676 per product.

    We also estimate that it takes about 23 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $68,425, or $1,955 per product.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0937; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011), and adding the following new AD: 2015-25-10 Airbus: Amendment 39-18348. Docket No. FAA-2015-0937; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-024-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective February 17, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011).

    (c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) of this AD, certificated in any category, except as provided by paragraph (c)(2) of this AD.

    (i) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, all serial numbers, except those on which Airbus modification 55306 or 55792 has been embodied in production.

    (ii) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes, all serial numbers, except those on which Airbus modification 55306 or 55792 has been embodied in production.

    (2) This AD does not apply to Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes on which the repair specified in Airbus Repair Drawing R57115053, R57115051, or R57115047 (installation of titanium doubler on both sides) has been accomplished. AD 2007-12-08, Amendment 39-15086 (72 FR 31171, June 6, 2007), applies to these airplanes.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks on the keel beam fitting and the front spar of the center wing box. This AD was also prompted by a determination that the rototest inspection and applicable corrective actions of fastener hole “Nr 6” were inadvertently omitted from the requirements in AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the fastener holes, which could result in rupture of the keel beam, and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Non-Destructive Test (NDT) Inspection

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (n) of AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011), with new service information and revised credit for certain actions. At the applicable time in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, do an NDT inspection of the hole(s) of the horizontal flange of the keel beam located on frame (FR) 40 datum on the right-hand (RH) and/or left-hand (LH) side of the fuselage, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraph (g)(3), (g)(4), (g)(5), or (g)(6) of this AD. Accomplishing an inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD terminates the inspections required by this paragraph.

    (1) For airplanes on which an inspection required by paragraph (h) of AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011), has not been done as of January 3, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2011-24-05): At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) For all airplanes except those identified in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD: Within the “Mandatory Threshold” (flight cycles or flight hours) specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E.(2) of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, including Appendix 01, Revision 04, dated May 31, 2011; or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, including Appendix 01, Revision 04, dated May 31, 2011; as applicable; or within 3 months after January 3, 2012 (the effective date AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011)); whichever occurs later. The compliance times for configurations 02 through 06 specified in the “Mandatory Threshold” column in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” are total flight cycles and total flight hours.

    (ii) For Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, except those on which Airbus modification 49202 has been embodied in production, or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3090 has been embodied in service; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes, except those on which Airbus modification 49202 has been embodied in production or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4098 has been embodied in service, and except Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes on which the repair specified in Airbus Repair Drawing R57115053, R57115051, or R57115047 has been accomplished: At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(ii)(A) and (g)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD.

    (A) Within the “Mandatory Threshold” (flight cycles or flight hours) specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E.(2) of Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, including Appendix 01, Revision 02, dated January 24, 2006; or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, including Appendix 01, Revision 02, dated January 24, 2006; depending on the configuration of the aircraft model; or within 3 months after September 13, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-16-02, Amendment 39-15141 (72 FR 44731, August 9, 2007)), whichever occurs later. The compliance times for Model A330 post-mod. 41652 and pre-mod. 44360, post-mod. 44360, and pre-mod. 49202 (as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, including Appendix 01, Revision 02, dated January 24, 2006); and Model A340 post-mod. 41652, post-mod. 43500 and pre-mod. 44360, post-mod. 44360 and pre-mod. 49202, and weight variant 027 (as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, including Appendix 01, Revision 02, dated January 24, 2006); specified in the “Mandatory Threshold” column in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” are total flight cycles and total flight hours.

    (B) Within the “Mandatory Threshold” (flight cycles or flight hours) specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E.(2) of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, including Appendix 01, Revision 04, dated May 31, 2011; or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, including Appendix 01, Revision 04, dated May 31, 2011; as applicable; or within 3 months after January 3, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011)); whichever occurs later. The compliance times for configurations 02 through 06 specified in the “Mandatory Threshold” column in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” are total flight cycles and total flight hours.

    (2) For airplanes on which an inspection required by paragraph (h) of AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011), has been done as of January 3, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2011-24-05): At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Within the “Mandatory Intervals” given in table 1 of paragraph 1.E.(2) of Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, including Appendix 01, Revision 02, dated January 24, 2006; or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, including Appendix 01, Revision 02, dated January 24, 2006; as applicable.

    (ii) Within the applicable “Mandatory Interval” specified in table 1 of Paragraph 1.E.(2) of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, including Appendix 01, Revision 04, dated May 31, 2011; or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, including Appendix 01, Revision 04, dated May 31, 2011; as applicable; or within 3 months after January 3, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011)); whichever occurs later.

    (3) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, including Appendix 01, Revision 04, dated May 31, 2011.

    (4) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, Revision 05, dated November 13, 2012.

    (5) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, including Appendix 01, Revision 04, dated May 31, 2011.

    (6) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, Revision 05, dated November 13, 2012.

    (h) Retained Repetitive Inspections

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (p) of AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011). If no cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, do the actions required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Before further flight: Install a new or oversized fastener, as applicable; seal the fastener; and do all other applicable actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraph (g)(3), (g)(4), (g)(5), or (g)(6) of this AD.

    (2) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed the “Mandatory Intervals” specified in Paragraph 1.E.(2) of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, including Appendix 01, Revision 04, dated May 31, 2011; or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, including Appendix 01, Revision 04, dated May 31, 2011; as applicable.

    (i) Retained Corrective Action and Optional Modification

    (1) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (o) of AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011), with revised method of compliance language. If any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (2) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (r) of AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011), with new service information and revised method of compliance language. Modifying the fastener installation in the junction keel beam fitting at FR 40, as specified in paragraph (i)(2)(i), (i)(2)(ii), (i)(2)(iii), or (i)(2)(iv) of this AD, as applicable, terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD; except, for airplanes on which a crack was detected at hole 5 before oversizing of the keel beam, in accordance with step 3.B.(1)(b)3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, dated August 30, 2007; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, dated August 30, 2007; or in accordance with step 3.C.(2)(c) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, Revision 03, dated September 24, 2012, or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, Revision 03, dated September 24, 2012; before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. In case of any crack finding during any modification specified in this paragraph: Where the service information specifies to contact Airbus, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

    (i) Modification in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, dated August 30, 2007, before January 3, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011)).

    (ii) Modification in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, Revision 03, dated September 24, 2012, before the effective date of this AD.

    (iii) Modification in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, dated August 30, 2007, before January 3, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011)).

    (iv) Modification in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, Revision 03, dated September 24, 2012, before the effective date of this AD.

    (j) New Repetitive Rotating Probe Inspections

    At the applicable times specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD: Do a rotating probe inspection for cracking of the fastener hole(s) of the horizontal flange of the keel beam located on FR 40 datum on the RH and LH side of the fuselage, as applicable to airplane type and depending on airplane configuration and utilization, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, Revision 05, dated November 13, 2012; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, Revision 05, dated November 13, 2012; as applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed the “Mandatory Intervals” specified in Paragraph 1.E.(2) of the Accomplishment Timescale of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, Revision 05, dated November 13, 2012; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, Revision 05, dated November 13, 2012; as applicable. Accomplishing an inspection required by this paragraph terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (1) For airplanes on which the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD has not been done as of the effective date of this AD: Do the inspection before exceeding the applicable compliance times specified in the “Mandatory Threshold” column of the tables in paragraph 1.E.(2) of the Accomplishment Timescale of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, Revision 05, dated November 13, 2012; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, Revision 05, dated November 13, 2012; as applicable; or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD; whichever occurs later.

    (2) For airplanes on which the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD has been done as of the effective date of this AD: Do the inspection within the applicable compliance times specified in the “Mandatory Interval” column of the tables in paragraph 1.E.(2) of the Accomplishment Timescale of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, Revision 05, dated November 13, 2012; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, Revision 05, dated November 13, 2012; as applicable; or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD; whichever occurs later.

    (k) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the initial rotating probe inspection that is part of the inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (j)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph (k)(1)(i) or (k)(1)(ii) of this AD. This service information was incorporated by reference in AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011).

    (i) Airbus A330/A340 200-300 Technical Disposition F57D03012810, Issue B, dated August 18, 2003.

    (ii) Airbus A330/A340 Technical Disposition 582.0651/2002, Issue A, dated October 17, 2002.

    (2) This paragraph restates the credit for the actions specified in paragraph (k) of AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011), if those actions were performed before January 3, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2011-24-05), using the service information specified in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) through (k)(2)(viii) of this AD.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, dated October 30, 2003, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, Revision 01, dated May 18, 2004, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated January 24, 2006, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2007-12-08, Amendment 39-15086 (72 FR 31171, June 6, 2007).

    (iv) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, Revision 03, dated July 31, 2009, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (v) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, dated October 30, 2003, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, Revision 01, dated March 2, 2004, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (vii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated January 24, 2006, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2007-12-08, Amendment 39-15086 (72 FR 31171, June 6, 2007).

    (viii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, Revision 03, dated July 31, 2009.

    (l) New One-Time Ultrasonic Inspection

    For airplanes in Configuration 2, as defined in the applicable service information identified in paragraph (l)(3), (l)(4), (l)(5), or (l)(6) of this AD, on which the modification has been done as of the effective date of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (l)(3), (l)(4), (l)(5), or (l)(6) of this AD; as applicable to airplane type; and on which fastener hole “Nr 5” has been bushed before embodiment of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098 or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, as applicable; or on which a crack has been found on fastener hole “Nr 5” during embodiment of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098 or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, as applicable: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (l)(1) or (l)(2) of this AD, do a one-time ultrasonic inspection for cracking at fastener hole “Nr 6” in the junction keel beam fitting at FR 40 LH and RH sides, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3117, dated January 25, 2013; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4126, dated January 25, 2013; as applicable.

    (1) For Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) and (l)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.(2), of the Accomplishment Timescale of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3117, dated January 25, 2013.

    (ii) Within 2,400 flight cycles or 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    (2) For Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i) and (l)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.(2) of the Accomplishment Timescale of Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4126, dated January 25, 2013.

    (ii) Within 1,300 flight cycles or 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, excluding Appendix 1, Revision 01, dated July 31, 2009.

    (4) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, Revision 02, dated June 15, 2011.

    (5) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, excluding Appendix 1, Revision 01, dated July 31, 2009.

    (6) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, Revision 02, dated June 15, 2011.

    (m) Corrective Actions

    (1) If no cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, before further flight: Install new or oversized fastener, as applicable; seal the fastener; and do all other applicable corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, Revision 05, dated November 13, 2012; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, Revision 05, dated November 13, 2012; as applicable. Thereafter, repeat the inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD at intervals not to exceed the “Mandatory Intervals” specified in Paragraph 1.E.(2) of the Accomplishment Timescale of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, Revision 05, dated November 13, 2012; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, Revision 05, dated November 13, 2012; as applicable.

    (2) If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (j) or (l) of this AD; before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (n) Airplanes Excluded From Certain Requirements

    (1) For airplanes on which a rototest was done at fastener hole “Nr 6” before cold working of the fastener hole during accomplishment of the actions specified in the applicable service information identified in paragraph (n)(1)(i), (n)(1)(ii), (n)(1)(iii), or (n)(1)(iv) of this AD: The ultrasonic inspection specified in paragraph (l) of this AD is not required.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, excluding Appendix 1, Revision 01, dated July 31, 2009.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, Revision 02, dated June 15, 2011.

    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, excluding Appendix 1, Revision 01, dated June 31, 2009.

    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, Revision 02, dated June 15, 2011.

    (2) For airplanes that have been modified as of the effective date of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (n)(1)(i), (n)(1)(ii), (n)(1)(iii), or (n)(1)(iv) of this AD: No action is required by this paragraph, except as otherwise required by paragraph (l) of this AD and, provided that if any crack was found during any modification specified in this paragraph and the service information specified to contact Airbus, repair was done before further flight using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (o) Optional Terminating Actions

    (1) Modification of an airplane in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (o)(1)(i), (o)(1)(ii), (o)(1)(iii), (o)(1)(iv), (o)(1)(v), or (o)(1)(vi) of this AD; as applicable to airplane type and depending on airplane configuration; terminates the requirements of this AD, provided that in case of any crack finding during any modification specified in this paragraph, and the service information specifies to contact Airbus, repair is done before further flight, using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3090, dated March 27, 2006.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3090, Revision 01, dated June 15, 2011.

    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, Revision 03, dated September 24, 2012.

    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4098, dated March 27, 2006.

    (v) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4098, Revision 01, dated June 15, 2011.

    (vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, Revision 03, dated September 24, 2012.

    (2) Accomplishment of the ultrasonic inspection required by paragraph (l) of this AD and all applicable corrective actions required by paragraph (m) of this AD terminate the requirements of this AD for those airplanes.

    (p) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

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

    (q) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0010R1, dated May 5, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0937-0002.

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

    (r) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on February 17, 2016.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, Revision 05, dated November 13, 2012.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3090, Revision 01, dated June 15, 2011.

    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, dated August 30, 2007.

    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, Revision 02, June 15, 2011.

    (v) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, Revision 03, dated September 24, 2012.

    (vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3117, dated January 25, 2013.

    (vii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, Revision 05, dated November 13, 2012.

    (viii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4098, Revision 01, dated June 15, 2011.

    (ix) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, dated August 30, 2007.

    (x) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, Revision 02, dated June 15, 2011.

    (xi) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, Revision 03, dated September 24, 2012.

    (xii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4126, dated January 25, 2013.

    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on January 3, 2012 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011).

    (i) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, including Appendix 01, Revision 04, dated May 31, 2011.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 1, dated July 31, 2009.

    (iii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, including Appendix 01, Revision 04, dated May 31, 2011.

    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, excluding Appendix 1, Revision 01, dated July 31, 2009.

    (5) The following service information was approved for IBR on September 13, 2007 (72 FR 44731, August 9, 2007).

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated January 24, 2006.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated January 24, 2006.

    (6) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 9, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-32256 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-4213; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-022-AD; Amendment 39-18359; AD 2016-01-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. Model PA-46-500TP airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of the wing upper skin joints being manufactured without sealant, which allows water to enter and stay in sealed, bonded stringers. This AD requires inspecting the upper wing surface for sealant; inspecting the wing stringers for water intrusion; inspecting for deformation and corrosion if evidence of water intrusion exists; and taking corrective actions as necessary. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective February 17, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 17, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer Service, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (877) 879-0275; fax: none; email: [email protected]; Internet: www.piper.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4213.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4213; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gregory “Keith” Noles, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone: (404) 474-5551; fax: (404) 474-5606; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. Model PA-46-500TP airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 19, 2015 (80 FR 63151). The NPRM was prompted by a report of wing upper skin joints on Piper Aircraft, Inc. Model PA-46-500TP airplanes being manufactured without sealant, which allows water to enter and stay in sealed, bonded stringers. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting the upper wing surface for sealant; inspecting the wing stringers for water intrusion; inspecting for deformation and corrosion if evidence of water intrusion exists; and taking corrective actions as necessary. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1262B, dated April 23, 2015. The service bulletin provides instructions for inspecting the upper wing surface for sealant and sealing or resealing (if necessary). This service bulletin also provides instructions for inspecting the wing stringers for water intrusion, and, if water intrusion was found as a result of the inspection, inspecting for corrosion or deformation. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 63151, October 19, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

    Conclusion

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

    • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 63151, October 19, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 63151, October 19, 2015).

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 440 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspection for sealant 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 Not Applicable $170 $74,800

    We estimate the following costs to do any additional necessary inspections, rework of the stringers, and installation of sealant that will be required based on the results of the initial inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need this rework of the stringers and installation of sealant:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Rework stringers and seal skin joints 12 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,020 $200 $1,220

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-01-01 Piper Aircraft, Inc.: Amendment 39-18359; Docket No. FAA-2015-4213; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-022-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective February 17, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Piper Aircraft, Inc. Model PA-46-500TP airplanes, serial numbers 4697001 through 4697528, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 5700, Wings.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of wing upper skin joints being manufactured without sealant, which allows water to enter and stay in sealed, bonded stringers. We are issuing this AD to prevent water from entering the stringers common to the upper wing skin. Left uncorrected, corrosion could develop, and freeze/thaw cycles of water at this location could cause deformation of the skin with follow-on disbonding between the stringer flanges and the inner surface of the wing skin. Consequently, the corrosion or disbonding could reduce the structural integrity of the wing.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspect the Upper Skin Joints for Adequate Sealant

    Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after February 17, 2016 (the effective date of this AD) or 12 months after February 17, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, inspect the upper skin joints for adequate sealant following Part I of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1262B, dated April 23, 2015. No further action per this AD is required if adequate sealant is already applied.

    (h) Inspect for Evidence of Water Intrusion/Moisture

    If you find missing or inadequate sealant during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, inspect for evidence of water intrusion/moisture following Part II of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1262B, dated April 23, 2015.

    (1) If no evidence of water intrusion/moisture is found during the inspection required in paragraph (h) of this AD, before further flight, rework the stringers and apply sealant as required in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (2) If evidence of water intrusion/moisture is found during the inspection required in paragraph (h) of this AD, before further flight, do the actions required in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD.

    (i) Inspect for Corrosion

    If you find, as a result of the inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, evidence of water intrusion/moisture, before further flight, inspect for corrosion following Part II of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1262B, dated April 23, 2015.

    (1) If no evidence of corrosion is found during the inspection required in paragraph (i) of this AD, before further flight, rework the stringers and apply sealant as required in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (2) If evidence of corrosion is found during the inspection required in paragraph (i) of this AD, before further flight, obtain and implement an FAA-approved corrective action approved specifically for this AD. At the operator's discretion, assistance may be provided by contacting Piper Aircraft, Inc. at the address identified in paragraph (p)(3) of this AD. After obtaining and implementing an FAA-approved corrective action, approved specifically for this AD, before further flight, rework the stringers and apply sealant as required in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (j) Inspect for Deformation

    If you find, as a result of the inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, evidence of water intrusion/moisture, before further flight, do a visual inspection for skin or stringer deformation.

    (1) If no evidence of deformation is found during the inspection required in paragraph (j) of this AD, before further flight, rework the stringers and apply sealant as required in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (2) If any visible deformation is found during the inspection required in paragraph (j) of this AD, before further flight, obtain and implement an FAA-approved corrective action, approved specifically for this AD. At the operator's discretion, assistance may be provided by contacting Piper Aircraft, Inc. at the address identified in paragraph (p)(3) of this AD. After obtaining and implementing an FAA-approved corrective action, approved specifically for this AD, before further flight, rework the stringers and apply sealant as required in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (k) Rework Stringers and Seal Skin Joints

    If any inspection required by paragraphs (g) through (j) of this AD reveals discrepancies (no sealant/inadequate sealant, evidence of water intrusion/moisture, corrosion, or deformation), before further flight, after completing any necessary corrective actions, rework wing stringers and seal skin joints following Part II of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1262B, dated April 23, 2015.

    (l) Credit for Actions Done in Accordance With Previous Service Information

    Actions done before February 17, 2016 (the effective date of this AD) following Part I and Part II of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1262, dated October 16, 2013, or Part I and Part II of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1262A, dated November 14, 2013, as applicable, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) (including subparagraphs) of this AD. Additional inspections beyond Service Bulletin No. 1262 are required to fully comply with paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (m) Special Flight Permit

    (1) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.23, a single flight is allowed to a location to do the actions in paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (2) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.23, a single flight is allowed to a location to do the inspections, rework and installation of sealant required in paragraphs (h) through (k) of this AD. Prior to the flight to perform the inspections, rework, and installation of sealant, the following inspection must be performed: If the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD reveals no sealant, inspect for evidence of wing damage (skin or stringer deformation, e.g. buckling). Any wing damage that is found must be repaired before further flight and before any special flight permit is authorized.

    (n) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

    (o) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Gregory “Keith” Noles, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone: (404) 474-5551; fax: (404) 474-5606; email: gregory.nol[email protected]

    (p) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1262B, dated April 23, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For Piper Aircraft, Inc. service information identified in this AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer Service, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (877) 879-0275; fax: None; email: [email protected]; Internet: www.piper.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4213.

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

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 24, 2015. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-33170 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1981; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-204-AD; Amendment 39-18362; AD 2016-01-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports that the inner bore of some main landing gear (MLG) unit bogie beams were insufficiently re-protected against corrosion after inspection or maintenance actions were accomplished. This AD requires for certain MLG units, determining which revision of the component maintenance manual (CMM) was used to accomplish the most recent MLG unit overhaul; a detailed inspection for missing or damaged paint, and if necessary, a detailed inspection of the cadmium plating for discrepancies, measurement of the depth of the cadmium plating, a general visual inspection of the base metal for corrosion or damage, a detailed inspection of repaired areas for cracking or corrosion; and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion in the bore of each MLG unit bogie beam, which could result in collapse of a MLG unit, and subsequent damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective February 17, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of February 17, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-1981; or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

    For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. For Messier-Dowty service information contact Messier-Dowty Limited, Cheltenham Road, Gloucester, GL2 9QH, England; telephone +44(0) 1452 712424; fax+ 44(0) 1452 713821; Internet http://www.safranmbd.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1981.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM 116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 15, 2015 (80 FR 34098).

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0222, dated October 6, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    From in-service experience, it was found that the inner bore of some bogie beams had been insufficiently re-protected against corrosion after inspection and/or possible maintenance actions accomplished in this area (absence of corrosion inhibitor and damage to paint have been found in some specific areas).

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to corrosion on the bore of the bogie beam, potentially resulting in Main Landing Gear (MLG) collapse, ultimately resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to the occupants.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A32L004-14, providing inspection instructions for some aeroplane configurations.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires identification of the MLG units that are possibly affected, [a detailed] inspection [for missing or damaged paint] of the MLG Bogie Beam bore and, depending on findings, accomplishment of the applicable corrective actions.

    This [EASA] AD also prohibits the installation of MLG units that have been overhauled by using instructions from an earlier Components Maintenance Manual (CMM) revision.

    Required actions also include a detailed inspection of the cadmium plating for discrepancies (gray in color), measurement of the depth of the cadmium plating if necessary, and a general visual inspection of the base metal for corrosion or damage, and a detailed inspection of repaired areas for cracking or corrosion. Corrective actions include removing cadmium plating and repairing any cracked, corroded, or damaged areas; re-applying cadmium plating and paint; and re-applying temporary corrosion protection to the bores of the MLG bogie beams.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-1981-0002.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comments received. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (80 FR 34098, June 15, 2015) and the FAA's response to each comment.

    Request for Clarification of Optional Method of Compliance

    Air France and American Airlines (AA) requested that paragraph (j) of the proposed AD (80 FR 34098, June 15, 2015) be revised to clarify that after accomplishment of the actions in the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272, dated November 16, 2007, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, dated November 16, 2007; or Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272, Revision 1, dated September 22, 2008, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, dated September 22, 2008; the actions specified in the Messier-Dowty service information identified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(5) of the proposed AD must not be accomplished on that same MLG unit.

    We agree with the commenters' request and have revised paragraph (j) of this AD to clarify that after accomplishment of the actions in the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272, dated November 16, 2007, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, dated November 16, 2007; or Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272, Revision 1, dated September 22, 2008, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, dated September 22, 2008; the actions specified in the Messier-Dowty service information identified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(5) of this AD must not be accomplished on that same MLG unit. The actions in the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Dowty service information identified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(5) do not provide sufficient corrosion protection for the MLG units.

    Request To Correct Service Information Reference

    Air France requested that the references to the Airbus component maintenance manual in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD be changed to Messier-Dowty component maintenance manual.

    We agree with the commenter's request because the component maintenance manuals were published by Messier-Dowty, not Airbus. We have revised paragraphs (g) and (k) of this AD accordingly.

    Conclusion

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

    • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 34098, June 15, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 34098, June 15, 2015).

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission A32L004-14, dated July 28, 2014, including Appendixes 1, 2, 3, and 4. This service information describes procedures for inspections of the bogie beam bore of the MLG.

    Messier-Dowty has issued the following service information, which describes procedures for inspections of the internal diameter of the bogie beam for corrosion.

    • Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272, dated November 16, 2007, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, dated November 16, 2007.

    • Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272, Revision 1, dated September 22, 2008, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, dated September 22, 2008.

    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.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 89 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it will take about 12 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD, and 1 work-hour to report the inspection findings. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $98,345, or $1,105 per product.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for any necessary follow-on actions.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this 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.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-1981; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.075

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-01-03 Airbus: Amendment 39-18362. Docket No. FAA-2015-1981; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-204-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective February 17, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

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

    (1) Model A330-201, A330-202, A330-203, A330-223, A330-223F, A330-243, A330-243F, A330-301, A330-302, A330-303, A330-321, A330-322, A330-323, A330-341, A330-342, and A330-343 airplanes; all manufacturer serial numbers; except those on which Airbus Modification 58896 has been embodied in production or embodied through Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3237.

    (2) Model A340-211, A340-212, A340-213, A340-311, A340-312, and A340-313 airplanes; all manufacturer serial numbers; except those on which Airbus Modification 58896 has been embodied in production or embodied through Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4279.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports that the inner bore of some main landing gear (MLG) unit bogie beams were insufficiently re-protected against corrosion after inspection or maintenance actions were accomplished. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion in the bore of each MLG unit bogie beam, which could result in collapse of a MLG unit, and subsequent damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Identification of Affected MLG Units

    Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD: For MLG units having a 201252 series or 201490 series part number, determine the revision of the Messier-Dowty component maintenance manual (CMM) used to do the most recent MLG unit overhaul. If it is determined that the Messier-Dowty CMM revision specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD was used to accomplish the most recent MLG unit overhaul: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, clean the area between the bogie pivot pin and the bogie beam bore of each MLG unit and do a detailed inspection for missing or damaged paint, in accordance with Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A32L004-14, dated July 28, 2014, including Appendixes 1, 2, 3, and 4, which do not have a date.

    (1) For MLG units having a part number in the 201252 series: Messier-Dowty CMM 32-11-74, Revision 25 or earlier.

    (2) For MLG units having a part number in the 201490 series: Messier-Dowty CMM 32-12-05, Revision 20 or earlier.

    (h) Inspection of Cadmium Plating

    If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any missing or damaged paint is found: Before further flight, do a detailed inspection of the cadmium plating for discrepancies, measure the depth of the plating as applicable, and do a general visual inspection of the base metal for corrosion or damage, in accordance with Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A32L004-14, dated July 28, 2014, including Appendixes 1, 2, 3, and 4, which do not have a date. If any discrepancy, damage, or corrosion is found, before further flight, do all applicable corrective actions, and do a detailed inspection of repaired areas for cracking or corrosion, in accordance with Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A32L004-14, dated July 28, 2014, including Appendixes 1, 2, 3, and 4, which do not have a date, except where Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A32L004-14, dated July 28, 2014, including Appendixes 1, 2, 3, and 4, specifies to contact Messier-Dowty if cracking or corrosion is found in a repaired area, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (i) Reporting Requirement

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, report the findings of the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD to Airbus, Customer Services Engineering—SEEL1, Attn: Philippe Kerangueven, Product Leader A330/A340, ATA-32, Landing Gear Systems, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; phone +33 (0) 5 67 19 18 42; fax +33 0 5 67 19 12 05; email [email protected]. The report must include the information specified in Appendix 2 of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A32L004-14, dated July 28, 2014.

    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Within 90 days after that inspection.

    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (j) Optional Method of Compliance

    Accomplishment of the boroscope inspection of the internal diameter of the bogie beam for corrosion or damage to the protective treatments, measurement of the depth of the protective treatments as applicable, and accomplishment of all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272, dated November 16, 2007, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, dated November 16, 2007; or Revision 1, dated September 22, 2008, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, dated September 22, 2008; are acceptable for the corresponding actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD for that MLG unit; however, after accomplishment of the actions in the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272, dated November 16, 2007, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, dated November 16, 2007; or Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272, Revision 1, dated September 22, 2008, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, dated September 22, 2008; the actions specified in the Messier-Dowty service information identified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(5) of this AD must not be accomplished on that same MLG unit. Where Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272, dated November 16, 2007, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, dated November 16, 2007; or Revision 1, dated September 22, 2008, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, dated September 22, 2008; specify to contact Messier-Dowty for repair information, the repair must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

    (1) Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34 32-285, dated July 9, 2010.

    (2) Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34 32-285, Revision 1, dated October 4, 2011.

    (3) Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34 32-285, Revision 2, dated October 4, 2012.

    (4) Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34 32-285, Revision 3, dated September 11, 2013.

    (5) Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34 32-285, Revision 4, dated January 23, 2014.

    Note 1 to paragraph (j) of this AD: Inspections done using the instructions in Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-285, Revision 5, dated August 14, 2014, do not affect the optional method of compliance provided by this paragraph.

    (k) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, any overhauled MLG unit having a 201252 series or 201490 series part number may be installed on an airplane, provided the most recent MLG overhaul was done using a Messier-Dowty CMM that is not specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, or, prior to installation, the MLG unit passes the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425 227 1149. Information may be emailed to: 9 [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

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

    (m) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0222, dated October 6, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-1981-0002.

    (n) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A32L004-14, dated July 28, 2014, including Appendixes 1, 2, 3, and 4, which are not dated.

    (ii) Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272, dated November 16, 2007, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, dated November 16, 2007.

    (iii) Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272, Revision 1, dated September 22, 2008, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, dated September 22, 2008.

    (3) For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

    (4) For Messier-Dowty service information identified in this AD, contact Messier-Dowty Limited, Cheltenham Road, Gloucester, GL2 9QH, England; telephone +44(0) 1452 712424; fax+ 44(0) 1452 713821; Internet http://www.safranmbd.com.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 29, 2015. Philip Forde, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-33289 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-1049; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-110-AD; Amendment 39-18361; AD 2016-01-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports that the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA) spur gear bolts inside the gearbox were found loose, broken, or backed out due to incorrect bending of the anti-rotation tab washer and the improper application of Loctite glue during installation. This AD requires replacing certain HSTAs with a new HSTA. This AD also requires revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) and the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HSTA and subsequent loss of control of the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective February 17, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of February 17, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-1049; or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-1049.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Luke Walker, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7363; fax 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 23, 2015 (80 FR 3522).

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-14, dated June 4, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    There have been a number of reports where the HSTA spur gear bolts inside the gearbox were found loose, broken or backed out. Investigation revealed that the root cause is incorrect bending of the anti-rotation tab washer and the improper application of Loctite glue during installation.

    The function of these bolts is to generate sufficient preload between the two spur gears such that the full torque is transferred by friction between the two spur gears. Loosening of the bolts would reduce the pre-load between two spur gears and decrease the torque transfer. Partial or full torque would be re-distributed to the secondary load path (Tie-Rod) in torsion. The Tie-Rod is designed to withstand axial load only in case of failure of the primary load path (ACME screw), and not torsional load. The secondary load path (Tie-Rod) is therefore considered ineffective and no longer provides protection as a failsafe design of the system. Loose bolt(s) on the HSTA spur gear combined with the failure of the primary load path, could lead to failure of the HSTA and subsequent loss of the aeroplane.

    In addition, Bombardier Aerospace (BA) has introduced a modified HSTA [part number] P/N 601R92305-5 (vendor P/N 8396-4) to rectify the loose bolt problem. However, this modified HSTA, has several quality control problems which could affect safety.

    This [Canadian] AD is issued to mandate the replacement of the affected HSTA(s) with the new HSTA P/N 601R92305-7 (vendor P/N 8396-5).

    This AD also requires revising the AFM and maintenance or inspection program, as applicable. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-1049-0002.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comments received. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (80 FR 3522, January 23, 2015) and the FAA's response to each comment.

    Request To Extend the Compliance Time in Paragraph (j)(2)(iii) of the NPRM (80 FR 3522, January 23, 2015)

    SkyWest Airlines (SWA) requested that the compliance time in paragraph (j)(2)(iii) of the proposed AD (80 FR 3522, January 23, 2015) be extended to alleviate the impact on its fleet. SWA stated that currently HSTAs are replaced prior to the accumulation of 19,200 total flight hours, and in paragraph (j)(2)(iii) of the proposed AD, the replacement time is reduced to 10,000 total flight hours. SWA stated that it has 86 airplanes with HSTAs that are approaching 10,000 total flight hours. SWA is concerned that replacement HSTAs might not be available in time to comply with the requirements proposed in the NPRM.

    We do not agree that the compliance time in paragraph (j)(2)(iii) of this AD should be extended. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the manufacturer's recommendation for an appropriate compliance time, and the availability of required parts. Under the provisions of paragraph (m)(1) of this AD, however, we may consider requests for adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.

    Request To Reduce the Compliance Time for HSTA Replacement

    Air Line Pilots Association International (ALPA) requested that the compliance time for replacement of the HSTAs be reduced to ensure that the identified safety issue is corrected within the Bombardier, Inc. CRJ fleet as soon as possible.

    We do not agree with the commenter's request to reduce the compliance time. In developing an appropriate compliance time, we considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for timely replacement of the HSTAs. In consideration of all of these factors, we determined that the compliance time, as proposed, represents an appropriate interval in which the HSTAs can be replaced in a timely manner within the fleet, while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. Most ADs, including this one, permit operators to accomplish the requirements of an AD at a time earlier than the specified compliance time; therefore, an operator may choose to replace the HSTAs before the applicable compliance times specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. If additional data are presented that would justify a shorter compliance time, we may consider further rulemaking on this issue. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.

    Request To Remove the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision Requirement

    ALPA also requested that once the HSTAs have been replaced the FAA re-evaluate the need for the revision to the AFM to include a first flight check of the horizontal stabilizer trim. No justification was provided for the request to omit the AFM revision.

    We do not agree with the commenter's request to remove the requirement to revise the AFM. We have determined that the first flight check of the horizontal stabilizer trim is still necessary after the HSTAs have been replaced to ensure the safety of the Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplane fleet. Also, this AFM revision requirement is included in Canadian AD CF-2013-14, dated June 4, 2013, which corresponds to this final rule. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.

    Conclusion

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

    • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 3522, January 23, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 3522, January 23, 2015). We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued the following service information.

    • Supplement 23, “Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Check,” of Chapter 7 “Supplements,” of Bombardier CL -600-2B19 Airplane Flight Manual CSP A-012, Volume 3, Revision 61, dated April 2, 2013. This service information includes procedures for revising the AFM.

    • Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-161, Revision A, dated January 30, 2014. This service information describes procedures for installing a HSTA.

    • Bombardier CL-600-2B19, Temporary Revision 2A-56, dated June 4, 2012, to Appendix A, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), of Part 2, Airworthiness Requirements, of the Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual (MRM). This service information adds new CMR tasks to the Airworthiness Requirements of the MRM. These CMR tasks include an inspection, functional check, and operational check.

    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.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 85 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it will take about 10 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $38,569 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $3,350,615, or $39,419 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-1049; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-01-02 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18361. Docket No. FAA-2014-1049; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-110-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective February 17, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 7003 and subsequent, equipped with horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA) part numbers (P/N) 601R92305-1 (vendor P/N 8396-2), 601R92305-3 (vendor P/N 8396-3), or 601R92305-5 (vendor P/N 8396-4).

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports that the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA) spur gear bolts inside the gearbox were found loose, broken, or backed out due to incorrect bending of the anti-rotation tab washer and the improper application of Loctite glue during installation. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HSTA and subsequent loss of control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the Limitations section and Normal Procedures section of the AFM to include the information in Supplement 23, “Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Check,” of Chapter 7 “Supplements,” of Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Airplane Flight Manual CSP A-012, Volume 3, Revision 61, dated April 2, 2013.

    (h) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate Task C27-40-103-04, “Operational Check (ground maintenance test) of the horizontal stabilizer trim control unit,” specified in Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Temporary Revision 2A-56, dated June 4, 2012, to Appendix A, Certification Maintenance Requirements, of Part 2, Airworthiness Requirements, of the Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual (MRM). The compliance time for the initial operational check is within 500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) and/or intervals may be used unless the actions and/or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.

    (j) HSTA Replacement

    (1) For airplanes equipped with an HSTA having P/N 601R92305-1 (vendor P/N 8396-2) or P/N 601R92305-3 (vendor P/N 8396-3): At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (j)(1)(ii) of this AD, replace the HSTA with a new HSTA having P/N 601R92305-7 (vendor P/N 8396-5), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-161, Revision A, dated January 30, 2014. The compliance times specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (j)(1)(ii) of this AD do not alleviate any existing life limit requirements.

    (i) Within 3,700 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.

    (ii) Within 27 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) For airplanes equipped with an HSTA having P/N 601R92305-5 (vendor P/N 8396-4): At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i), (j)(2)(ii), and (j)(2)(iii) of this AD, replace the HSTA with a new HSTA having P/N 601R92305-7 (vendor P/N 8396-5), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-161, Revision A, dated January 30, 2014. The compliance times specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i), (j)(2)(ii), and (j)(2)(iii) of this AD do not alleviate any existing life limit requirements.

    (i) Within 4,400 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.

    (ii) Within 32 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (iii) Before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight hours on HSTA P/N 60192305-5 (vendor P/N 8396-4).

    (k) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-161, dated May 31, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (l) Parts Installation Limitations

    (1) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an HSTA, P/N 601R92305-1 (vendor P/N 8396-2) or P/N 601R92305-3 (vendor P/N 8396-3) on any Model CL-600-2B19 airplane.

    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an HSTA, P/N 601R92305-5 (vendor P/N 8396-4) having S/N 287, 724, 813, 841, 998, 1031, 1035, 1049, 1053, 1067, 1068, 1136, 1252, 1268, 1303, 1319, 1338, 1354, 1374, 1378, 1445, 1470, 1498, 1513, 1546, 1632, 1736, 1766, 1846, 1849, 2002 through 2009 inclusive, 2011, 2013 through 2016 inclusive, 2019, 2020, or 2022, on any Model CL-600-2B19 airplane.

    (3) As of the effective date of this AD: It is acceptable to replace an HSTA P/N 601R92305-1 (vendor P/N 8396-2), P/N 601R92305-3 (vendor P/N 8396-3), or P/N 601R92305-5 (vendor P/N 8396-4) with an HSTA having P/N 601R92305-5 (vendor P/N 8396-4) that is not identified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD, provided the actions required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD are accomplished within the compliance time specified in that paragraph.

    (m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-14, dated June 4, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-1049-0002.

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

    (o) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-161, Revision A, dated January 30, 2014.

    (ii) Supplement 23, “Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Check,” of Chapter 7 “Supplements,” of Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Airplane Flight Manual CSP A-012, Volume 3, Revision 61, dated April 2, 2013.

    (iii) Task C27-40-103-04, “Operational Check (ground maintenance test) of the horizontal stabilizer trim control unit,” in Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Temporary Revision 2A-56, dated June 4, 2012, to Appendix A, Certification Maintenance Requirements, of Part 2, Airworthiness Requirements, of the Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 23, 2015. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-33288 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-4514; Airspace Docket No. 15-AEA-9] Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following New York Towns: Elmira, NY; Ithaca, NY; Poughkeepsie, NY AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; technical amendment, withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    This action withdraws a Final rule; technical amendment published in the Federal Register on November 30, 2015, amending Class E airspace at Elmira/Corning Regional Airport, Elmira, NY; Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport, Ithaca, NY; and Duchess County Airport, Poughkeepsie, NY is being withdrawn. The FAA has determined that withdrawal of the final rule is warranted as additional analysis is needed.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC. As of January 13, 2016 the final rule; technical amendment published November 30, 2015, at 80 FR 74676, is withdrawn.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    History

    On November 30, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a final rule, technical amendment to amend Class E airspace at Elmira/Corning Regional Airport, Elmira, NY; Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport, Ithaca, NY; and Duchess County Airport, Poughkeepsie, NY. (80 FR 74676). Docket No. FAA-2015-4514. Subsequent to publication the FAA found errors in the airspace descriptions that now need further analysis. Therefore, the final rule is being withdrawn.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Withdrawal

    In consideration of the foregoing, the final rule technical amendment for FR Doc. FAA-2015-4514, Airspace Docket No. 15-AEA-9 as published in the Federal Register of November 30, 2015 (80 FR 74676) (FR Doc. 2015-30187), is hereby withdrawn.

    Authority:

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

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on December 18, 2015. Ryan W. Almasy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00172 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8761] RIN 2120-AA65 Amendment of Authority Citation for Standard Instrument Procedures AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    To update and clarify the Administrator's rulemaking authority to be consistent with other parts of its regulations, the FAA is amending the authority citation for part 97.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, January 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For 14 CFR part 97 rulemaking actions: All Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) are available online at https://nfdc.faa.gov. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located. For information on the availability of this information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Frenzel, Regulations Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone: (202) 267-3073.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 97 amends the authority citation for part 97; Standard Instrument Procedures, by adding an additional citation, 49 U.S.C. 106(f), at the beginning of the authority citation string. This action updates and clarifies the Administrator's rulemaking authority to be consistent with other parts of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.

    This is an administrative change reflecting clarification of rulemaking authority, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary. Also, as provided in 5 U.S.C. 553(d), this rule is being published with an effective date of less than 30 days in order to keep current standard instrument approach procedures (SIAPs) previously published in the Federal Register with later effective dates, and other SIAPs soon to be published.

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103, sovereignty and use of airspace and Subpart iii, section 44701, general requirements. Under these sections, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to regulate the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace; to govern the flight, navigation, protection, and identification of aircraft for the protection of persons and property on the ground, and for the efficient use of the navigable airspace (49 U.S.C. 40103(b)), and to promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security (49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5)). This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it further describes the authority of the FAA Administrator for part 97 rulemaking.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 97 as follows:

    PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, and 44721-44722.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 6, 2016. Lirio Liu, Director, Office of Rulemaking.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00522 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 3 RIN 2900-AP26 Automobile or Other Conveyance and Adaptive Equipment Certificate of Eligibility for Veterans or Members of the Armed Forces With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Connected to Military Service AGENCY:

    Department of Veterans Affairs.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published an Interim Final Rule on February 25, 2015, to amend its adjudication regulations to provide a certificate of eligibility for financial assistance in the purchase of an automobile or other conveyance and adaptive equipment for all veterans with service-connected amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and servicemembers serving on active duty with ALS. The amendment authorized automatic issuance of a certificate of eligibility for financial assistance in the purchase of an automobile or other conveyance and adaptive equipment to all veterans with service-connected ALS and members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty with ALS. The intent of this final rule is to confirm the amendment made by the interim final rule without change.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: This final rule is effective January 13, 2016.

    Applicability Date: The provisions of this regulatory amendment apply to all applications for a certificate of eligibility for an automobile or other conveyance and adaptive equipment allowance pending before VA on or received after February 25, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephanie Li, Chief, Regulations Staff (211D), Compensation Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-9700. (This is not a toll-free number.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In a document published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2015 (80 FR 10001), VA amended its regulation at 38 CFR 3.308 to provide a certificate of eligibility for financial assistance in the purchase of an automobile or other conveyance and adaptive equipment for all veterans with service-connected amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and servicemembers serving on active duty with ALS.

    VA provided 60 days in which to comment on the amendments made by the Interim Final Rule, with the comment period ending April 27, 2015. We received three comments. Two of the commenters expressed support for this amendment. The third commenter discussed the initial evaluation rating and entitlement to special monthly compensation for veterans with service-connected ALS and servicemembers serving on active duty with ALS. Because those comments were not directed to the subject of this amendment, we make no changes based on those comments. Based on the rationale set forth in the interim final rule published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 10001 on February 25, 2015, VA is adopting the provisions of the interim final rule as a final rule without change.

    Administrative Procedure Act

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3), we found that there was good cause to dispense with advance public notice and opportunity to comment on the interim final rule and good cause to publish that rule with an immediate effective date. The interim final rule was necessary to implement immediately the Secretary's decision to establish entitlement for a certificate of eligibility for automobile or other conveyance and adaptive equipment for all veterans with service-connected ALS and members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty with ALS. Delay in the implementation of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, particularly to veterans and members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty.

    Because the survival period for persons suffering from ALS is generally 18-48 months or less from the onset of symptoms, any delay in establishing entitlement for a certificate of eligibility for automobile or other conveyance and adaptive equipment eligibility would have been extremely detrimental to veterans and members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty who are currently afflicted with ALS. Any delay in implementation until after a public-comment period could have delayed modifying the regulated certificate of eligibility process, depriving ALS veterans and members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty with ALS of quick and efficient access to automobile or other conveyance and adaptive equipment benefits.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” which requires 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 regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's Web site at http://www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for VA Regulations Published From FY 2004 Through FYTD.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Secretary hereby certifies that this final 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 final rule will not affect any small entities. Only VA beneficiaries will be directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is exempt from the final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of section 604.

    Unfunded Mandates

    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 1 year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

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

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

    The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.100, Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment for Certain Disabled Veterans and Members of the Armed Forces and 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability.

    Signing Authority

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Nabors II, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on January 7, 2016, for publication.

    Accordingly, the Department of Veterans Affairs adopts the interim rule published February 25, 2015 (80 FR 10001), as final without change.

    List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3

    Administrative practice and procedure; Claims; Disability benefits; Health care; Pensions; Veterans.

    Dated: January 8, 2016. Michael P. Shores, Chief Impact Analyst, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00490 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0204; FRL-9940-84-Region 9] Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; South Coast; Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to reclassify the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin (South Coast) Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area, including areas of Indian country within it, as a Serious nonattainment area for the 2006 PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), based on the EPA's determination that the area cannot practicably attain these NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of December 31, 2015. As a consequence of this reclassification, California must submit, no later than 18 months from the effective date of this reclassification, nonattainment new source review (NNSR) program revisions and a Serious area attainment plan including a demonstration that the plan provides for attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards in the South Coast area as expeditiously as practicable and no later than December 31, 2019.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on February 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0204 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume reports), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the docket materials in person, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    On October 20, 2015 (80 FR 63640), the EPA proposed to approve portions of California's Moderate area plan to address the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast and to reclassify the South Coast nonattainment area, including areas of Indian country within it, from Moderate to Serious nonattainment for these standards, based on the EPA's determination that the area cannot practicably attain these NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of December 31, 2015.1 Under section 188(b)(1) of the CAA, prior to an area's attainment date, the EPA has discretionary authority to reclassify as a Serious nonattainment area “any area that the Administrator determines cannot practicably attain” the PM2.5 NAAQS by the Moderate area attainment date.2 As part of our proposed action, we reviewed recent PM2.5 monitoring data for the South Coast available in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database. These data show that 24-hour PM2.5 levels in the South Coast continue to be above 35 μg/m3, the level of the 2006 PM2.5 standards, and the recent trends in the South Coast area's 24-hour PM2.5 levels are not consistent with a projection of attainment by the end of 2015.3

    1See proposed rule at 80 FR 63640 (October 20, 2015) for a more detailed discussion of the background for this action, including the history of the PM2.5 NAAQS established in 2006, health effects and sources of PM2.5, designation of the SJV as nonattainment for the PM2.5 standards, and the EPA's actions on the submittals from the state of California to address the nonattainment area planning requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.

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

    3 The PM2.5 monitoring data that EPA reviewed indicate that 24-hour PM2.5 design values are at 38 ug/m3 in the South Coast, above the level of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (35 ug/m3). EPA also calculated “maximum allowed” 2015 98th percentile concentrations that would enable the area to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the end of 2015 and found that even conservative estimates of the 98th percentile concentration in 2015 at two monitoring sites—Rubidoux and Mira Loma-Van Buren—were greater than the “maximum allowed” concentration. See 80 FR 63640, 63653 (October 20, 2015) and Memorandum dated August 21, 2015, Michael Flagg, US EPA Region 9, Air Quality Analysis Office.

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

    4 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009).

    Our proposed rule also identified the Serious area attainment plan elements that California would, upon reclassification, have to submit to satisfy the statutory requirements that apply to Serious areas, including the requirements of subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act.5 The EPA explained that under section 189(b)(2) of the Act, the State must submit the required provisions to implement best available control measures (BACM), including best available control technology (BACT), no later than 18 months after reclassification and must submit the required attainment demonstration no later than 4 years after reclassification. We noted, however, that section 189(b)(2) establishes outer bounds on the SIP submission deadlines and does not preclude the EPA's establishment of earlier deadlines as necessary or appropriate to assure consistency among the required submissions and to implement the statutory requirements in a timely manner to ensure expeditious attainment of the NAAQS.6 Because an up-to-date emissions inventory serves as the foundation for a state's BACM and BACT determinations, the EPA proposed to require the State to submit the emissions inventory required under CAA section 172(c)(3) within 18 months after the effective date of final reclassification. Similarly, because an effective evaluation of BACM and BACT requires evaluation of the precursor pollutants that must be controlled to provide for expeditious attainment, the EPA proposed to require the State to submit any optional precursor insignificance demonstrations by this same date. The EPA proposed to require the State to submit the attainment demonstration required under section 189(b)(1)(A) and all other attainment-related plan elements for the South Coast area no later than three years after the effective date of final reclassification or by December 31, 2018, whichever is earlier.

    5See proposed rule at 80 FR 63640 (October 20, 2015).

    6Id. at 63658.

    With respect to the nonattainment new source review (NNSR) program revisions to establish appropriate “major stationary source” thresholds for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in accordance with CAA section 189(b)(3), the EPA proposed to require the State to submit these NNSR SIP revisions for the South Coast area no later than 18 months after the effective date of final reclassification.

    II. Summary of Final Action

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

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

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

    III. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    Because we are finalizing only our proposal to reclassify the South Coast area as Serious nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, we are responding only to comments pertaining to the reclassification and its consequences. The EPA received several comment letters on our proposed actions, only one of which contains comments relevant to the reclassification. The comment letter was submitted by Earthjustice on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, Coalition for Clean Air, Communities for a Better Environment, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, and Sierra Club (“Earthjustice”) on November 19, 2015, prior to the close of the comment period on our proposal.7

    7See letter with attachments dated November 19, 2015 to Ms. Wienke Tax, US Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, from Adriano L. Martinez, Earthjustice, Los Angeles Office.

    We summarize and respond to the relevant comments below. In a separate rulemaking, we will take final action on California's submitted Moderate area plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast and will respond to comments pertaining to our proposed action on the submitted plan at that time.

    Comment 1: Earthjustice argues that section 188(b)(1) establishes specific outside deadlines for the EPA's reclassification of appropriate areas as Serious nonattainment and “does not provide general authority to reclassify areas anytime EPA chooses before the attainment deadline.” Citing CAA section 188(b)(1)(B), Earthjustice asserts that the EPA's discretionary authority to reclassify a Moderate area as a Serious area before the attainment deadline is available only within 18 months after the required date for the submission of a Moderate area SIP, which in turn is due within 18 months after the area's designation as nonattainment. Because the South Coast area was designated nonattainment for the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS on December 14, 2009, according to Earthjustice, the Moderate area SIP for the area was due June 14, 2011, and the “deadline for approving a voluntary reclassification request” was therefore December 14, 2012. Thus, Earthjustice argues, “EPA no longer has authority under the statute to use section 188(b)(1) to voluntarily reclassify the South Coast basin and provide four years for submission of a serious area plan.”

    In support of these arguments, Earthjustice quotes from EPA's 1992 General Preamble,8 which states that “[f]or areas designated nonattainment after enactment of the 1990 [Clean Air Act Amendments], EPA must reclassify appropriate areas as serious within 18 months of the required submittal date for the moderate area SIP” and that, read together with the statutory requirement to submit such SIPs within 18 months after nonattainment designations, the Act requires EPA to reclassify these areas as serious within three years of the nonattainment designation.

    8 “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (the “General Preamble”).

    Response 1: We disagree with the commenter's argument that the EPA's discretionary authority in section 188(b)(1) is limited to the timeframes set forth in sections 188(b)(1)(A) and (B).

    The EPA is reclassifying the South Coast area as Serious nonattainment pursuant to the general authority in CAA section 188(b)(1),9 not pursuant to section 188(b)(1)(B). As explained in the 1992 General Preamble, “[u]nder the plain meaning of the terms of section 188(b)(1), EPA has general discretion to reclassify at any time before the applicable attainment date any area EPA determines cannot practicably attain the standards by such date” (emphases added).10 With respect to the dates specified in subsections (A) and (B) of section 188(b)(1), the EPA specifically explained in the General Preamble that “[t]hese subparagraphs do not restrict the general authority [in section 188(b)(1)] but simply specify that, at a minimum, it must be exercised at certain times.”11 This interpretation of section 188(b)(1) as allowing the EPA to reclassify moderate areas as serious “at any time EPA determines that an area cannot practicably attain the standards by the applicable attainment date” facilitates the statutory objective of attaining the PM-10 standards—e.g., by ensuring that additional control measures such as BACM are implemented sooner and by expediting the application of more stringent new source review requirements.12 The EPA reiterated this interpretation of section 188(b)(1) in the 1994 p.m.-10 Addendum 13 and in several discretionary reclassification actions subsequent to the 1990 CAA Amendments.14

    9 Unlike the “voluntary reclassification” provision in CAA section 181(b)(3), which requires EPA to grant the request of any state to reclassify an ozone nonattainment area in that state to a higher classification, the “discretionary reclassification” provision in CAA section 188(b)(1) grants EPA general authority to reclassify areas in accordance with the statutory criteria therein, independent of state requests.

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

    11Id.

    12 General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13537.

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

    14See 58 FR 3334, 3336 (Jan. 8, 1993)(discharging EPA's statutory duty under section 188(b)(1)(A) to “reclassify appropriate initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas as serious by December 31, 1991” but noting EPA's broad discretion under section 188(b)(1) to reclassify additional areas at a later date); see also 80 FR 18528 (April 7, 2015) (final discretionary reclassification of San Joaquin Valley for 1997 p.m.2.5 NAAQS signed March 27, 2015).

    Specifically, with respect to areas designated nonattainment by operation of law upon enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments (i.e., “initial” PM-10 nonattainment areas), the EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 188(b)(1)(A) has been that “the amended Act specifies certain dates by which EPA must propose to reclassify appropriate moderate areas as serious . . . and take final action,” where the EPA determines that the area cannot “practicably” attain the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994.15 The EPA further explained, however, that “EPA also has discretionary authority under section 188(b)(1) to reclassify any of these areas as serious at any time, if EPA determines they cannot practicably attain the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994,” 16 and provided examples of the circumstances that may warrant such discretionary reclassification at a later date—i.e., after the December 31, 1991 date specified in section 188(b)(1)(A).17 In the PM-10 Addendum, the EPA stated that “[s]ection 188(b)(1)(A) provides an accelerated schedule by which EPA is to reclassify appropriate initial PM-10 nonattainment areas” but reiterated the Agency's interpretation of section 188(b)(1) as a general grant of authority to also reclassify initial PM-10 areas at later points in time before the attainment date.18

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

    16 General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13537.

    17Id. (“The EPA may exercise this discretion where, for example, EPA originally believed an area could attain the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994 but later determines that it cannot attain”); see also 56 FR 58656, 58657 (Nov. 21, 1991)(noting that “EPA also has discretion to reclassify any of these areas as serious after December 31, 1991 (e.g., after reviewing the State's PM-10 SIP), if EPA determines they cannot practicably attain the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994”) and 58 FR 3334, 3336 (Jan. 8, 1993) (noting that EPA may in the future reclassify additional PM-10 nonattainment areas using its discretionary authority in section 188(b)(1)).

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

    Likewise, the EPA has long interpreted section 188(b)(1)(B) as establishing a “timeframe within which EPA is to reclassify appropriate areas designated nonattainment for PM-10 subsequent to enactment of the 1990 Amendments” but not as a limitation on EPA's general authority to reclassify such areas at any time before the applicable attainment date.19 In the PM-10 Addendum, the EPA reiterated its view that the directive in section 188(b)(1)(B) “does not restrict EPA's general authority, but simply specifies that it is to be exercised, as appropriate, in accordance with certain dates.” 20 The EPA recently finalized a discretionary reclassification action for a PM2.5 nonattainment shortly before the applicable attainment date, consistent with this interpretation of CAA section 188(b)(1).21

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

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

    21See 80 FR 18528 (April 7, 2015) (final discretionary reclassification of San Joaquin Valley for 1997 p.m.2.5 NAAQS signed March 27, 2015).

    The commenter quotes selectively from a portion of the General Preamble addressing areas designated nonattainment after enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments but fails to acknowledge both the more extensive discussion of section 188(b)(1) that precedes the quoted text, as explained above, and the text in the PM-10 Addendum that reiterates the Agency's interpretation of section 188(b)(1)(B) specifically. Moreover, both the statutory text in CAA section 188(b)(1)(B) and the interpretive language in the General Preamble that the commenter quotes explicitly state that the EPA's obligation under CAA section 188(b)(1)(B) is to reclassify “appropriate” areas within 18 months after the required date for the State's submission of a SIP for the Moderate Area.22 Congress granted the EPA broad discretion to identify the areas that are “appropriate” for such reclassification 23 and to reclassify additional areas after the timeframes specified in subsections (A) or (B). Thus, the fact that the EPA did not find the South Coast area “appropriate” for discretionary reclassification within the timeframe specified in section 188(b)(1)(B) does not preclude the EPA's discretionary reclassification of the area at a later date, based on a determination that the area cannot practicably attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.

    22See CAA section 188(b)(1)(B) (requiring, for areas designated nonattainment after enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments, that the Administrator “reclassify appropriate areas” within 18 months after the required date for the State's submission of a SIP for the Moderate Area).

    23 As EPA explained in its 1993 reclassification of “appropriate” initial PM-10 nonattainment areas from Moderate to Serious under section 188(b)(1)(A), the Act does not specify what information EPA must consider in exercising the authority delegated to it by section 188(b)(1) and thus grants EPA broad discretion to consider any relevant information, including information in SIP submittals. 58 FR 3334, 3336 at n. 7 (Jan. 8, 1993).

    Furthermore, under the commenter's interpretation of section 188(b)(1)(B), the EPA would have no authority to reclassify a Moderate area to Serious at any time between the date 3 years after designation (18 months after the required date for the State's submission of a Moderate Area SIP) and the applicable attainment date, which under section 188(c)(1) may be as late as the end of the sixth calendar year after the area's designation as nonattainment. Thus, for a period of up to 3 years, the EPA would be unable to reclassify such an area to Serious in order to require the State to adopt BACM measures and other Serious Area plan elements, even if information before the Agency indicated the area could not attain the NAAQS by the moderate area attainment date. Such a reading of section 188(b)(1) would frustrate the Congressional intent to ensure that areas that cannot attain the NAAQS in a timely manner adopt the best available controls and develop revised plans to provide for expeditious attainment. EPA's interpretation of section 188(b)(1) as a general grant of discretionary reclassification authority is reasonable in light of the overarching requirement in subpart 4 to ensure attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable.

    In sum, we disagree with the commenter's contention that the EPA's authority to reclassify a Moderate area as a Serious area under CAA section 188(b)(1) is available only within 18 months after the due date for the State's Moderate Area SIP. As the EPA explained in the General Preamble, in the PM-10 Addendum, and in several actions reclassifying PM-10 and PM2.5 nonattainment areas as Serious areas under CAA section 188(b)(1), the EPA has consistently interpreted section 188(b)(1) as a general expression of delegated rulemaking authority that authorizes the Agency to reclassify any Moderate area as a Serious area at any time before the applicable attainment date, based on a determination that the area cannot practicably attain the relevant NAAQS by that date.

    Comment 2: Earthjustice argues that even if the EPA had discretion to reclassify the South Coast area under section 188(b)(1), a December 31, 2018 deadline for the Serious Area plan is “arbitrary in the extreme” and inconsistent with other deadlines that EPA has proposed to establish. First, Earthjustice asserts that the EPA's proposed deadline ignores the statutory requirement to demonstrate attainment by the most expeditious attainment date and allows the District to “assume the maximum amount of time without any such demonstration.” Second, Earthjustice claims that the EPA's proposed approach “undermines the strict schedule established in subpart 4” and cannot be reconciled with either December 14, 2016 or December 31, 2017, the statutory SIP submission deadlines that allegedly apply following voluntary reclassification or failure to attain, respectively. Third, Earthjustice argues that there is no basis for claiming that the District needs 3 years to prepare a serious area plan, in light of the 18-month deadlines in sections 189(a)(2)(B) and 189(b)(2) for moderate area plans and serious area plans, respectively, and the 18-month timeframe allowed in section 179(a) for states to cure disapprovals or failures to submit. Finally, Earthjustice argues that the proposed deadline is internally inconsistent with other components of the EPA's proposal, including the requirements for RFP and quantitative milestones, and undermines the EPA's and the public's ability to ensure timely compliance with these requirements.

    Response 2: We disagree with the commenter's argument that the outside deadline for submitting a Serious area attainment plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS following discretionary reclassification is December 14, 2016. This argument is premised on the commenter's assertion that the EPA's discretionary authority to reclassify the area under CAA section 188(b)(1) was available only within three years after the area's designation as nonattainment (i.e., until December 14, 2012), and that CAA section 189(b)(2) established a deadline 4 years after this date (December 14, 2016) for the State to submit its Serious area attainment plan. The EPA did not reclassify the South Coast area by December 14, 2012 and was not obligated to do so under CAA section 188(b)(1), as explained above in Response 1. Thus, section 189(b)(2) does not establish a December 14, 2016 outer deadline for submission of the Serious area attainment plan.

    Upon further consideration and in light of the specific circumstances in the South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area, however, the EPA is exercising its discretion to establish a deadline of 18 months from the effective date of this final reclassification action for the State to submit all required components of the Serious Area plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast air basin. An 18-month deadline for submission of these SIP elements is appropriate in this instance because it both enables the EPA to evaluate the required attainment plan well before the outermost attainment date applicable to the area under CAA section 188(c)(2) and enables the State to develop its strategy for attaining the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in conjunction with its development of a plan to provide for attainment of the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS in this same area, which is due October 15, 2016.24 Although the State's obligations with respect to implementation of a Moderate area plan for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS are separate and distinct from its obligations with respect to implementation of a Serious area plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, it is reasonable in this instance to require the State to develop its control strategies for both PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast area in a similar timeframe, considering the benefits of streamlining these planning processes to the extent possible.

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

    In addition, as the commenter notes, an 18-month deadline for submission of the Serious area plan is consistent with both the timeframe for initial Moderate area plan submissions upon designation of an area as nonattainment and the timeframe for Serious area plan submissions following an EPA determination of failure to attain and reclassification by operation of law under CAA section 188(b)(2).25 It is reasonable for the EPA to exercise its discretion to establish a similar SIP submission deadline in this instance, given the proximity of this action to the Moderate area attainment date (December 31, 2015) and the likelihood that, should the attainment date pass, the EPA would have to determine under section 188(b)(2) that the South Coast area failed to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by that date. Although CAA section 189(b)(2) generally provides for up to 4 years after a discretionary reclassification for the State to submit the required attainment demonstration, we find it appropriate in this case to establish an earlier SIP submission deadline to assure timely implementation of the statutory requirements.26 Furthermore, the 18-month SIP submission deadline that we are finalizing in this action requires California to submit its Serious Area plan for the South Coast area before the statutory SIP submission deadline that would apply upon reclassification by operation of law under section 188(b)(2).27

    25 CAA 189(a)(2)(B) and 189(b)(2).

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

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

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

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

    Under section 188(c)(2) of the Act, the attainment date for a Serious area “shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the end of the tenth calendar year beginning after the area's designation as nonattainment. . . .” The South Coast area was designated nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 standards effective December 14, 2009.28 Therefore, as a result of our reclassification of the South Coast area as a Serious nonattainment area, the attainment date under section 188(c)(2) of the Act for the 2006 PM2.5 standards in this area is as expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31, 2019.

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

    B. Reclassification of Reservation Areas of Indian Country

    Seven Indian tribes are located within the boundaries of the South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area: the Cahuilla Band of Indians, the Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla, the San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manuel Reservation, the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians.

    We have considered the relevance of our final action to reclassify the South Coast nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 standards to each tribe located within the South Coast area. As discussed in more detail in our proposed rule, we believe that the same facts and circumstances that support the reclassification for the non-Indian country lands also support reclassification for reservation areas of Indian country 29 and any other areas of Indian country where the EPA or a tribe has demonstrated that the tribe has jurisdiction located within the South Coast nonattainment area.30 In this final action, the EPA is therefore exercising our authority under CAA section 188(b)(1) to reclassify reservation areas of Indian country and any other areas of Indian country where the EPA or a tribe has demonstrated that the tribe has jurisdiction geographically located in the South Coast nonattainment area. Section 188(b)(1) broadly authorizes the EPA to reclassify a nonattainment area—-including any such area of Indian country located within such area—-that the EPA determines cannot practicably attain the relevant standard by the applicable attainment date.

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

    30 See 80 FR 63640, at 63659, 63660 (October 20, 2015).

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

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

    Given the potential implications of the reclassification, the EPA contacted tribal officials to invite government-to-government consultation on this rulemaking effort.31 The EPA did not receive requests for consultation or comments on our proposed rule from any tribe. We continue to invite Indian tribes in the South Coast to contact the EPA with any questions about the effects of this reclassification on tribal interests and air quality. We note that although eligible tribes may opt to seek EPA approval of relevant tribal programs under the CAA, none of the affected tribes will be required to submit an implementation plan to address this reclassification.

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

    C. PM2.5 Serious Area SIP Requirements

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

    The Serious area SIP elements that California must submit within 18 months of reclassification are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    8. A revision to the NNSR program to establish appropriate “major stationary source” 32 thresholds for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors (CAA section 189(b)(3)).

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

    Section 189(b)(2) states, in relevant part, that the State must submit the required BACM provisions “no later than 18 months after reclassification of the area as a Serious Area” and must submit the required attainment demonstration “no later than 4 years after reclassification of the area to Serious.” As stated above in section I, the EPA proposed to require the State to submit certain elements of the Serious area plan within 18 months of reclassification and other elements within 3 years of reclassification. For the reasons provided in Section III of this preamble (Public Comments and EPA Responses), the EPA is requiring the State to adopt and submit all required components of the Serious Area plan for the South Coast area, including NNSR SIP revisions to address the statutory requirements for Serious areas under subpart 4, no later than 18 months after the effective date of this reclassification.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

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

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications.

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

    This action may have tribal implications. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. Seven Indian tribes are located within the boundaries of the South Coast nonattainment area for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: the Cahuilla Band of Indians, the Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla, the San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manuel Reservation, the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. We note that only one of the tribes located in the South Coast nonattainment area (the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation) has requested eligibility to administer programs under the Clean Air Act. This final action affects the EPA's implementation of the new source review program because of the lower “major stationary source” threshold triggered by reclassification (CAA 189(b)(3)). The final action may also affect new or modified stationary sources proposed in these areas that require federal permits, approvals, or funding. Such projects are subject to the requirements of the EPA's General Conformity rule, and federal permits, approvals, or funding for the projects may be more difficult to obtain because of the lower de minimis thresholds triggered by reclassification.

    Given these potential implications, consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA contacted tribal officials early in the process of developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. The EPA invited tribal officials to consult during the development of the proposed rule and following signature of the proposed rule. As discussed in more detail in our proposed action, we sent letters to leaders of the tribes with areas of Indian country in the South Coast nonattainment area inviting government-to-government consultation on the rulemaking effort. No Indian tribe has expressed an interest in discussing this action with the EPA. We continue to invite Indian tribes in the South Coast to contact the EPA with any questions about the effects of this reclassification on tribal interests and air quality.

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

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

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

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

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

    K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective on February 12, 2016.

    L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 14, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

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

    40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference.

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

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

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

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

    (d) By August 14, 2017, the New Source Review rules for PM2.5 for the South Coast Air Quality Management District must be revised and submitted as a SIP revision. The rules must satisfy the requirements of sections 189(b)(3) and 189(e) and all other applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act for implementation of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

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

    (e) By August 14, 2017, California must adopt and submit a Serious Area plan to provide for attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area. The Serious Area plan must include emissions inventories, an attainment demonstration, best available control measures, a reasonable further progress plan, quantitative milestones, contingency measures, and such other measures as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, in accordance with the requirements of subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title I of the Clean Air Act.

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

    5. Section 81.305 is amended in the table titled “California—2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS [Primary and secondary],” by revising the entries under “Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA.”
    § 81.305 California.
    § 81.305 California. California—2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS [Primary and secondary] Designated area Designation a Date 1 Type Classification Date 2 Type * * * * * * * Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA: Los Angeles County (part) Nonattainment 02/12/16 Serious. That portion of Los Angeles County which lies south and west of a line described as follows: Beginning at the Los Angeles-San Bernardino County boundary and running west along the Township line common to Township 3 North and Township 2 North, San Bernardino Base and Meridian; then North along the range line common to Range 8 West and Range 9 West; then west along the Township line common to Township 4 North and Township 3 North; then north along the range line common to Range 12 West and Range 13 West to the southeast corner of Section 12, Township 5 North and Range 13 West; then west along the south boundaries of Sections 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, and 7, Township 5 North and Range 13 West to the boundary of the Angeles National Forest which is collinear with the range line common to Range 13 West and Range 14 West; then north and west along the Angeles National Forest boundary to the point of intersection with the Township line common to Township 7 North and Township 6 North (point is at the northwest corner of Section 4 in Township 6 North and Range 14 West); then west along the Township line common to Township 7 North and Township 6 North; then north along the range line common to Range 15 West and Range 16 West to the southeast corner of Section 13, Township 7 North and Range 16 West; then along the south boundaries of Sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, Township 7 North and Range 16 West; then north along the range line common to Range 16 West and Range 17 West to the north boundary of the Angeles National Forest (collinear with the Township line common to Township 8 North and Township 7 North); then west and north along the Angeles National Forest boundary to the point of intersection with the south boundary of the Rancho La Liebre Land Grant; then west and north along this land grant boundary to the Los Angeles-Kern County boundary Nonattainment 02/12/16 Serious. Orange County Nonattainment 02/12/16 Serious. Riverside County (part) Nonattainment 02/12/16 Serious. That portion of Riverside County which lies to the west of a line described as follows: Beginning at the Riverside-San Diego County boundary and running north along the range line common to Range 4 East and Range 3 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian; then east along the Township line common to Township 8 South and Township 7 South; then north along the range line common to Range 5 East and Range 4 East; then west along the Township line common to Township 6 South and Township 7 South to the southwest corner of Section 34, Township 6 South, Range 4 East; then north along the west boundaries of Sections 34, 27, 22, 15, 10, and 3, Township 6 South, Range 4 East; then west along the Township line common to Township 5 South and Township 6 South; then north along the range line common to Range 4 East and Range 3 East; then west along the south boundaries of Sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, Township 5 South, Range 3 East; then north along the range line common to Range 2 East and Range 3 East; to the Riverside-San Bernardino County Line (excluding the lands of the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians) Nonattainment 02/12/16 Serious. That part of the lands of the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians which is excluded from the Riverside County (part) nonattainment area Nonattainment 02/12/16 Serious. San Bernardino County (part) Nonattainment 02/12/16 Serious. That portion of San Bernardino County which lies south and west of a line described as follows: Beginning at the San Bernardino-Riverside County boundary and running north along the range line common to Range 3 East and Range 2 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian; then west along the Township line common to Township 3 North and Township 2 North to the San Bernardino-Los Angeles County boundary Nonattainment 02/12/16 Serious. a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 1 This date is 30 days after November 13, 2009, unless otherwise noted. 2 This date is July 2, 2014, unless otherwise noted.
    [FR Doc. 2015-33304 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0718; FRL-9940-29] Methacrylate Type Copolymer, Compound With Aminomethyl Propanol; Tolerance Exemption AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymers with tert-Bu acrylate, Me methacrylate, polyethylene glycol methacrylate C16-C18-alkyl ethers and vinylpyrrolidone, tert-Bu 2-ethylhexaneperoxoate-initiated, compounds with 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation. BASF Corporation submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymers with tert-Bu acrylate, Me methacrylate, polyethylene glycol methacrylate C16-C18-alkyl ethers and vinylpyrrolidone, tert-Bu 2-ethylhexaneperoxoate-initiated, compounds with 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol on food or feed commodities.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective January 13, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or March 14, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0718, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

    C. Can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0718 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before March 14, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0718, by one of the following methods.

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

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

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

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of November 23, 2015 (80 FR 72941) (FRL-9936-73), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-10843) filed by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Dr. Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymers with tert-Bu acrylate, Me methacrylate, polyethylene glycol methacrylate C16-C18-alkyl ethers and vinylpyrrolidone, tert-Bu 2-ethylhexaneperoxoate-initiated, compounds with 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol; CAS Reg. No. 1515872-09-9. That document included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner and solicited comments on the petitioner's request. EPA received one comment to the Notice of Filing.

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .” and specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

    III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymers with tert-Bu acrylate, Me methacrylate, polyethylene glycol methacrylate C16-C18-alkyl ethers and vinylpyrrolidone, tert-Bu 2-ethylhexaneperoxoate-initiated, compounds with 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.

    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.

    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.

    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).

    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.

    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.

    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.

    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).

    7. The polymer does not contain, as an integral part of its composition, perfluoroalkyl moieties consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length.

    8. The polymer's number average MW of 2,600 is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive functional groups.

    Thus, 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymers with tert-Bu acrylate, Me methacrylate, polyethylene glycol methacrylate C16-C18-alkyl ethers and vinylpyrrolidone, tert-Bu 2-ethylhexaneperoxoate-initiated, compounds with 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymers with tert-Bu acrylate, Me methacrylate, polyethylene glycol methacrylate C16-C18-alkyl ethers and vinylpyrrolidone, tert-Bu 2-ethylhexaneperoxoate-initiated, compounds with 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol.

    IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymers with tert-Bu acrylate, Me methacrylate, polyethylene glycol methacrylate C16-C18-alkyl ethers and vinylpyrrolidone, tert-Bu 2-ethylhexaneperoxoate-initiated, compounds with 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymers with tert-Bu acrylate, Me methacrylate, polyethylene glycol methacrylate C16-C18-alkyl ethers and vinylpyrrolidone, tert-Bu 2-ethylhexaneperoxoate-initiated, compounds with 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol is 2600 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymers with tert-Bu acrylate, Me methacrylate, polyethylene glycol methacrylate C16-C18-alkyl ethers and vinylpyrrolidone, tert-Bu 2-ethylhexaneperoxoate-initiated, compounds with 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.

    V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    EPA has not found 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymers with tert-Bu acrylate, Me methacrylate, polyethylene glycol methacrylate C16-C18-alkyl ethers and vinylpyrrolidone, tert-Bu 2-ethylhexaneperoxoate-initiated, compounds with 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymers with tert-Bu acrylate, Me methacrylate, polyethylene glycol methacrylate C16-C18-alkyl ethers and vinylpyrrolidone, tert-Bu 2-ethylhexaneperoxoate-initiated, compounds with 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymers with tert-Bu acrylate, Me methacrylate, polyethylene glycol methacrylate C16-C18-alkyl ethers and vinylpyrrolidone, tert-Bu 2-ethylhexaneperoxoate-initiated, compounds with 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

    VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymers with tert-Bu acrylate, Me methacrylate, polyethylene glycol methacrylate C16-C18-alkyl ethers and vinylpyrrolidone, tert-Bu 2-ethylhexaneperoxoate-initiated, compounds with 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

    VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymers with tert-Bu acrylate, Me methacrylate, polyethylene glycol methacrylate C16-C18-alkyl ethers and vinylpyrrolidone, tert-Bu 2-ethylhexaneperoxoate-initiated, compounds with 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol.

    VIII. Other Considerations A. Existing Exemptions From a Tolerance

    Not available.

    B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

    C. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    The Codex has not established a MRL for 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymers with tert-Bu acrylate, Me methacrylate, polyethylene glycol methacrylate C16-C18-alkyl ethers and vinylpyrrolidone, tert-Bu 2-ethylhexaneperoxoate-initiated, compounds with 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol.

    IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymers with tert-Bu acrylate, Me methacrylate, polyethylene glycol methacrylate C16-C18-alkyl ethers and vinylpyrrolidone, tert-Bu 2-ethylhexaneperoxoate-initiated, compounds with 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

    X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    EPA received one comment to the Notice of Filing. The commenter stated that the application of these chemicals on food should not be allowed and are poisoning the environment. The Agency understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops and that they are poisoning the environment. However, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) states that tolerances may be set when persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. The citizen's comment appears to be directed at the underlying statute and not EPA's implementation of it; the citizen has made no contention that EPA has acted in violation of the statutory framework.

    XI. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: January 4, 2016. G. Jeffery Herndon, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. In § 180.960, alphabetically add the following polymer to the table to read as follows:
    § 180.960 Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Polymer CAS No. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymers with tert-Bu acrylate, Me methacrylate, polyethylene glycol methacrylate C16-C18-alkyl ethers and vinylpyrrolidone, tert-Bu 2-ethylhexaneperoxoate-initiated, compounds with 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol, minimum number average molecular weight (in amu), 2,600 1515872-09-9 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-00533 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0680; FRL-9940-90] Propyzamide; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of propyzamide, also known as pronamide, in or on leaf lettuce. Dow AgroSciences, LLC requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective January 13, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before March 14, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0680, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/test-guidelines-pesticides-and-toxic-substances.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify the request by the docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0680 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before March 14, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0680, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of Wednesday, December 17, 2014 (79 FR 75109) (FRL-9918-90), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 4F8301) by Dow AgroSciences, LLC, 9330 Zionsville Rd., Indianapolis, IN 46268-1054. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.317 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide pronamide (propyzamide) and its metabolite containing the 3,5-dichlorobenzoyl moiety calculated as 3,5-dichloro-N-(1,1-dimethyl-2-propynyl)benzamide, in or on lettuce, leaf at 1.0 part per million (ppm). That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Dow AgroSciences, LLC, the registrant, which is available in the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0680 at http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe”. Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information”. This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue * * *.”

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for propyzamide including exposure resulting from the tolerance established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with propyzamide follows.

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

    Propyzamide has low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure, is non-irritating to the eyes or skin, and is not a dermal sensitizer.

    The primary target organ for propyzamide is the liver. There are other target organs as well, including the thyroid, testes, and pituitary, but effects on these organs are secondary to primary effects on the liver. Liver-related effects include increases in absolute and relative liver weights, hypertrophy, elevated levels of enzymes associated with liver damage, and histopathology of liver cells. Adverse liver effects were consistently observed in every animal species studied, with progression towards more severe effects over time ultimately leading to tumorigenesis in rats and mice. Based on the studies submitted, the rat is the most sensitive species. In most studies, there is no gender sensitivity in response to propyzamide.

    Propyzamide is a carcinogen in rats and mice, causing liver tumors in mice, thyroid tumors in male rats, and testicular tumors in rats. Based on MOA studies, tumorigenesis for all three tumor types has been shown to be mediated by liver enzymes induced in response to treatment with propyzamide. In mice, the MOA data clearly show rapid induction of Cyp2b10 associated with the constitutive androstane nuclear receptor (CAR), as well as induction of peroxisomes and peroxisomal enzymes such as Cyp4a10 associated with a second nuclear receptor, PPAR-α. Induction of the nuclear receptors leads to mitogenesis followed by hepatocellular proliferation and eventually, liver tumors.

    In rats, propyzamide induces Cyp2b1 200-fold over background levels, but has no effect on other CYPs commonly associated with carcinogenic modes of action. In the rat Cyp2b1 is a biological marker for the CAR receptor. The CAR pathway is associated with the activation of uridine diphosphate glucuronyl transferase (UGT) which catalyzes the condensation of glucuronic acid with thyroxine (T4), leading to enhanced biliary excretion of T4. Eventually the continued stimulus to produce more T4 leads to the formation of thyroid follicular tumors. In male rats, the tumorigenic dose of propyzamide for both thyroid tumors and Leydig cell tumors is 1,000 ppm in the diet (34-75 mg/kg/day based on age of the rats). Tumor precursor effects such as decreases in T4 levels, increases in liver weight, liver hypertrophy, and elevated testosterone metabolism occur at doses below or equivalent to the tumorigenic dose.

    In nearly every oral repeated-dose study of propyzamide as well as in the 28-day dermal toxicity study in rats, there were dose-related decreases in body weight, body weight gain, and food consumption. Typically, these effects on body weight occurred at or above effects on the liver such as hypertrophy or increases in liver weight.

    There was evidence of neurotoxicity in rats based on an increase in landing foot splay in females and decreases in motor activity in both genders in the acute neurotoxicity study. In the subchronic neurotoxicity study however, there was no evidence of neurotoxicity following dietary administration, and only body-weight effects were observed. There was no evidence of neurotoxicity in the rest of the toxicology database across other species or other strains of rat. There was no evidence of immunotoxicity.

    There was no evidence of quantitative or qualitative increased susceptibility in the fetuses or the offspring of rats or rabbits following pre- and/or postnatal exposure to propyzamide. In the prenatal developmental toxicity study in rabbits and the multi-generation reproduction study in rats, any observed toxicity to the fetuses or offspring occurred at equivalent or higher doses than effects to parental animals.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by propyzamide as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document “Pronamide Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review and to Support New Section 3 Use on Leaf Lettuce (Revised)” on pages 14-22 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0680.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for propyzamide used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

    Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Propyzamide for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment Exposure/Scenario Point of departure and uncertainty/
  • safety factors
  • RfD, PAD, LOC for risk assessment Study and toxicological effects
    Acute dietary (All populations) LOAEL = 40 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • UFL = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Acute RfD = 0.04 mg/kg/day
  • aPAD = 0.04 mg/kg/day
  • Acute Neurotoxicity Rat Study
  • No NOAEL established.
  • LOAEL = 40 mg/kg/day based on increased landing foot splay and decreased motor activity.
  • Acute dietary (Females 13-49 years of age) No endpoint attributable to a single exposure was identified, including developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits. Chronic dietary (All populations) LOAEL = 40 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • UFL = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Chronic RfD = 0.04 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 0.04 mg/kg/day
  • POD = 4 mg/kg/day based on a weight-of-evidence approach from the following rat studies:
  • Acute Neurotoxicity Study.
  • No NOAEL established.
  • LOAEL = 40 mg/kg/day based on increased landing foot splay and decreased motor activity
  • POD = 4 mg/kg/day (LOAEL of 40 mg/kg/day ÷10x UFL)
  • Subchronic Neurotoxicity Study NOAEL = 2.38 mg/kg/day LOAEL = 11.28 mg/kg/day based on significant decreases in body weight, body weight gain, and food consumption in males Combined Chronic Toxicity/Carcinogenicity Study NOAEL = 8.46/10.69 mg/kg/day LOAEL = 42.59/55.09 mg/kg/day based on increased relative liver weight and histopathological lesions in the liver, thyroid, and ovaries Male Pubertal Study NOAEL = 2.5 mg/kg/day LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day based on decreased serum T4 Incidental oral short-term (1 to 30 days) LOAEL = 40 mg/kg/day LOC for MOE = 1,000 Same as Chronic dietary section above UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • UFL = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days) and intermediate-term (1 to 6 months) NOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day (dermal absorption rate = 24%) LOC for MOE = 100 Subchronic Dermal Toxicity Rat Study
  • LOAEL = 500 mg/kg/day based on decreases in body weight and food consumption
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation) Classification: “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” at doses that do not result in induction of hepatic cell proliferation or metabolic enzymes leading to disruption of thyroid or gonadal endocrine axes. FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). UFL = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL.
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to propyzamide, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerance as well as all existing propyzamide tolerances in 40 CFR 180.317. EPA assessed dietary exposures from propyzamide in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified for propyzamide. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed that propyzamide residues were present at tolerance levels in all commodities for which tolerances have been established or proposed, and that 100% of the crops were treated with propyzamide.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed that propyzamide residues were present at tolerance levels in all commodities for which tolerances have been established or proposed, and that 100% of the crops were treated with propyzamide.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that propyzamide does not pose a cancer risk to humans at doses that do not result in induction of hepatic cell proliferation or metabolic enzymes leading to disruption of thyroid or gonadal endrocrine axes. The MOAs were adequately supported by studies that clearly identified the sequence of key events, dose-response concordance and temporal relationship to the particular tumor type. Quantification of carcinogenic risk is not required. The chronic RfD would be protective of both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects observed in the mouse and rat carcinogenicity studies and MOA studies conducted at higher doses. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for propyzamide. Tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used Tier II screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for propyzamide in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of propyzamide. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

    Based on the Tier II Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM-GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of propyzamide for acute exposures are estimated to be 102 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 21 ppb for ground water; for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 47 ppb for surface water and 18.6 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 102 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 47 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Propyzamide is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Turf grass and golf courses. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Post-application dermal and incidental oral exposures for children 1 to < 2 years old (physical activities on turf and hand-to-mouth ingestion of treated soil); and post-application dermal exposure for children 6 to < 11 years old (golfing), children 11 to < 16 years old (golfing and mowing), and adults (golfing, mowing, and physical activities on turf). Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.

    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    EPA has not found propyzamide to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and propyzamide does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that propyzamide does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no evidence of quantitative or qualitative increased susceptibility in developing fetuses or in offspring of rats or rabbits following prenatal and/or postnatal exposure to propyzamide.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF was reduced to 1X. This decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for propyzamide is complete.

    ii. There is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity despite evidence of neurotoxicity in the acute study based on the increase in landing foot splay in female rats and the decrease in motor activity seen in both genders on day 1. This decision is based on no evidence of neurotoxicity in the subchronic study at dose levels tested via different routes of administration, and no evidence of neurotoxicity in the rest of the toxicology database across other species and other strains of rat.

    iii. There is no evidence that propyzamide results in increased susceptibility in in utero rabbits in the prenatal developmental toxicity study or in young rats in the two-generation reproduction study.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to propyzamide in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by propyzamide.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to propyzamide will occupy 46% of the aPAD for all infants < 1 year old, the population subgroup receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic dietary exposure to propyzamide from food and water will utilize 11% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the population subgroup receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3. regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of propyzamide is not expected.

    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be background exposure level). Propyzamide is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures.

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposure results in an aggregate MOE of 1,700 for children 1 to < 2 years old (chronic dietary exposure with post-application incidental oral exposure from turf use). Because EPA's level of concern for propyzamide is a MOE of 1,000 or below, this MOE is not of concern.

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be background exposure level). Propyzamide is currently registered for uses that could result in intermediate-term residential exposure. However, since the maximum single and yearly application rates are the same, the short-term assessment is protective of intermediate-term incidental oral exposure.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As discussed in Unit III.C.iii., Propyzamide is classified as “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” at doses that do not result in induction of hepatic cell proliferation or metabolic enzymes leading to disruption of thyroid or gonadal endocrine axes. Therefore, quantification of aggregate cancer risk is not required.

    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to propyzamide residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodologies are available to enforce the tolerance expression of residues in/on plant commodities (PAM II Method I, using gas-liquid chromatography with electron-capture detection (GLC/ECD)) and livestock commodities (Method GRM 02.21, using gas chromatography with negative-ion chemical ionization mass spectrometry detection (GC/MS)). These methods may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected]

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not established any MRLs for propyzamide.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of propyzamide (pronamide), 3,5-dichloro-N-(1,1-dimethyl-2-propynyl)benzamide, in or on lettuce, leaf at 1.0 ppm.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: December 31, 2015. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. In § 180.317, add alphabetically “Lettuce, leaf” to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 180.317 Propyzamide; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Lettuce, leaf 1.0 *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2016-00534 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 501, 504, 509, 519, 522, 536, 537, 552, and 570 [GSAR-TA-01; Docket No. 2015-0016; Sequence No. 1] General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); Technical Amendments AGENCY:

    Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    General Services Administration (GSA) is amending the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to make editorial changes. This technical amendment includes updating references and links, as well as deleting repetitive information that is covered elsewhere within the General Services Administration Acquisition Manual (GSAM). Changes incorporate both internal acquisition guidance, and the regulatory acquisition policies.

    DATES:

    Effective: January 13, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Leah Price, Procurement Analyst, by phone at 703-605-2558, or email at [email protected] for clarification of content. For information pertaining to the status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755. Please cite GSAR-TA-01; Technical Amendments.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    GSA is amending the GSAR to make editorial changes throughout the GSAM. There are no significant content changes resulting from this technical amendment.

    Outdated references and links have been updated. Throughout multiple GSAM parts, the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) and the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) have been changed to System for Award Management (SAM). This follows similar Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) updates resulting from FAR Case 2012-033, for which a final rule was published in the Federal Register at 78 FR 37676 on June 21, 2013. Commerce Business Daily has also been replaced with its successor system, FedBizOpps. Multiple Web page links have also been updated, as have organizational references.

    Repetitive information has been removed from the GSAM. Definitions for certain terms have been deleted from their respective sections because these definitions have been added to the non-regulatory portion of the GSAM at Part 502 as a result of GSAR Case 2013-G503.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 501, 504, 509, 519, 522, 536, 537, 552, and 570

    Government procurement.

    Dated: January 5, 2016. Jeffrey A. Koses, Senior Procurement Executive, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.

    Therefore, GSA amends 48 CFR parts 501, 504, 509, 519, 522, 536, 537, 552, and 570 as set forth below:

    PART 501—GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION ACQUISITION REGULATION SYSTEM 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 501 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c).

    501.403 [Amended]
    2. Amend section 501.403 by removing from paragraph (c) “SPE (V)” and adding “SPE (MV)” in its place.
    501.404 [Amended]
    3. Amend section 501.404 by removing from paragraph (c) “SPE (V)” and adding “SPE (MV)” in its place.
    PART 504—ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 4. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 504 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c).

    5. Amend section 504.1103 by— a. Redesignating paragraphs (1) through (4) as paragraphs (a) through (d), respectively; b. Revising the newly redesignated paragraph (a); and c. Removing from newly redesignated paragraphs (b) and (d) “CCR” wherever it appears and adding “SAM” in their places, respectively.

    The revision reads as follows:

    504.1103 Procedures.

    (a) Verify that the prospective contractor's legal business name, Doing-Business-As (DBA) name (if any), physical street address, and Data Universal Number System (DUNS) number or DUNS+4 number, as found in the System for Award Management (SAM), match the information that will be included in the contract, order, or agreement resulting from the vendor's quote or proposal. Correct any mismatches by having the vendor amend the information in the SAM and/or the quote or proposal. The SAM information can be accessed through the SAM Web site (www.sam.gov) by creating a user account.

    6. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 509, 519, and 522 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c).

    PART 509—CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS
    509.105-2 [Amended]
    7. Amend section 509.105-2 in paragraph (c) by removing “the Chief Acquisition Officer” and adding “Acquisition Policy” in its place.
    509.403 [Amended]
    8. Amend section 509.403 by removing the Definitions “Debarring official” and “Suspending official”. 9. Amend section 509.405-1 by— a. Removing from paragraph (a), introductory text, “on the current EPLS” and adding “as a current exclusion in the System for Award Management (SAM)” in its place; b. Removing from paragraph (b), introductory text, “on the current EPLS” and adding “as a current exclusion in the SAM”; and c. Removing from paragraph (c) “GSA Suspension and Debarment Official” and adding “Senior Procurement Executive” in its place.
    509.405-2 [Amended]
    10. Amend section 509.405-2 by removing “GSA Suspension and Debarment Official” and adding “Senior Procurement Executive” in its place.
    PART 519—SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS
    519.7006 [Amended]
    11. Amend section 519.7006 by removing from paragraph (b) “in the “Excluded Parties List System”)” and adding “as an exclusion in the System for Award Management (SAM))” in its place.
    519.7007 [Amended]
    12. Amend section 519.7007 by— a. Removing from paragraph (a)(3) “in the “Excluded Parties List System”)” and adding “as an exclusion in the (SAM))” in its place; and b. Removing from paragraph (b) “Central Contractor Registration (CCR) at www.ccr.gov” and adding “SAM at www.sam.gov” in its place.
    PART 522—APPLICATION OF LABOR LAWS TO GOVERNMENT ACQUISITIONS
    522.001 [Removed]
    13. Remove section 522.001. 14. Amend section 522.804-2 by revising the fourth and fifth sentence to read as follows:
    522.804-2 Construction.

    * * * The current goals for minority participation vary by location and are listed in the Technical Assistance Guide for Construction Participation Goals for Minorities and Females. This guide can be accessed at http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/index.htm.

    522.805 [Amended]
    15. Amend section 522.805 by— a. Removing from paragraph (b) “http://www.dol.gov/esa/contacts/ofccp/ofcpkeyp.htm” and adding “http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/contacts/ofnation2.htm” in its place; and b. Removing from paragraph (c) “http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/posters/pdf/eeopost.pdf” and adding “http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/posters/ofccpost.htm” in its place.
    PART 536—CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS 16. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 536 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c).

    536.602-1 [Amended]
    17. Amend section 536.602-1 by removing from paragraph (b), introductory text, and paragraph (d) “Commerce Business Daily” and adding “FedBizOpps” in their places, respectively.
    18. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 537 and 552 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c).

    PART 537—SERVICE CONTRACTING
    537.110 [Amended]
    19. Amend section 537.110 by removing from paragraph (a) “Ability One” and adding “AbilityOne” in its place.
    PART 552—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
    552.215-70 [Amended]
    20. Amend section 552.215-70 by removing “514.201-7(b) and” from the introductory text. 21. Amend section 552.216-72 by— a. Revising the date of clause; and b. Removing from paragraph (g), “(QI), 2100 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202, Telephone: (703) 605-9444” and adding “(I). Contact information can be found at: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/21404” in its place.

    The revision reads as follows:

    552.216-72 Placement of Orders. Placement of Orders (JAN 2016)
    22. Amend section 552.216-74 by— a. Revising the date of the clause; b. Redesignating the undesignated paragraphs as (a) through (c), respectively; and c. Revising the newly redesignated paragraph (c).

    The revisions read as follows:

    552.216-74 Task-Order and Delivery-Order Ombudsman. Task-Order and Delivery-Order Ombudsman (JAN 2016)

    (c) The GSA Ombudsman is located at the General Services Administration (GSA), Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), Office of Acquisition Policy (MV). Contact information for the GSA Ombudsman can be found at: http://www.gsa.gov/ombudsman.

    23. Amend section 552.228-5 by— a. Revising the date of clause; and b. Removing from paragraph (a) “52.528-5” and adding “52.228-5” in its place.

    The revision reads as follows:

    552.228-5 Government as Additional Insured. Government as Additional Insured (JAN 2016)
    552.232-1 [Amended]
    24. Amend section 552.232-1 by removing from the introductory text “532.7104” and adding “532.908(a)” in its place. 25. Amend section 552.238-74 by— a. Revising the date of the clause; and b. Removing from paragraph (a)(5) “http://www.fms.treas.gov/intn.html” and adding “http://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/treasRptRateExch/treasRptRateExch_home.htm” in its place.

    The revision reads as follows:

    552.238-74 Industrial Funding Fee and Sales Reporting. Modifications (Federal Supply Schedule) (JAN 2016)
    PART 570—ACQUIRING LEASEHOLD INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY 26. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 570 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c).

    570.102 [Amended]
    27. Amend section 570.102, by removing from the Definition “Small business” “http://www.sba.gov/size/sizetable_2002.html” and adding “https://www.sba.gov/content/small-business-size-standards” in its place.
    570.108 [Amended]
    28. Amend section 570.108 by removing from paragraph (a) “the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS)” and adding “exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM)” in its place. 29. Amend section 570.701, in the table, by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (f), (j), and (k) to read as follows:
    570.701 FAR provisions and clauses. If . . . Then include . . . (a) the estimated value of the acquisition exceeds the micro-purchase threshold identified in FAR 2.101 52.204-3 Taxpayer Identification.
  • 52.204-6 Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number.
  • 52.204-7 System for Award Management.
  • 52.219-1 Small Business Program Representations. 52.219-28 Post-Award Small Business Program Rerepresentation (use if lease term exceeds five years). 52.232-23 Assignment of Claims. 52.232-33 Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer—System for Award Management. 52.233-1 Disputes. (b) the estimated value of the acquisition exceeds $10,000 52.222-21 Prohibition of Segregated Facilities. 52.222-22 Previous Contracts and Compliance Reports. 52.222-25 Affirmative Action Compliance. 52.222-26 Equal Opportunity. 52.222-35 Equal Opportunity for Veterans. 52.222-36 Equal Opportunity for Workers with Disabilities. 52.222-37 Employment Reports on Disabled Veterans and Veterans of the Vietnam Era. *         *         *         *         *         *         * (f) the estimated value of the acquisition exceeds the simplified lease acquisition threshold 52.203-2 Certificate of Independent Price Determination.
  • 52.203-7 Anti-Kickback Procedures.
  • 52.204-5 Women-Owned Business (Other than Small Business).
  • 52.209-5 Certification Regarding Responsibility Matters. 52.215-2 Audit and Records—Negotiation. 52.219-8 Utilization of Small Business Concerns. 52.223-6 Drug-Free Workplace. 52.233-2 Service of Protest. *         *         *         *         *         *         * (j) the estimated value of the acquisition exceeds $10 million 52.222-24 Pre-award On-site Equal Opportunity Compliance Evaluation. (k) the contracting officer requires cost or pricing data for work or services exceeding the threshold identified in FAR 15.403-4 52.215-10 Price Reduction for Defective Certified Cost or Pricing Data.
  • 52.215-12 Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data.
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-00475 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-161-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 16 RIN 1018-BA77 [Docket No. FWS-HQ-FAC-2015-0005; FXFR13360900000-156-FF09F14000] Injurious Wildlife Species; Listing Salamanders Due to Risk of Salamander Chytrid Fungus AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Interim rule; request for comments; notice of availability of economic analysis.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is amending its regulations under the Lacey Act to add all species of salamanders from 20 genera, of which there are 201 species, to the list of injurious amphibians. With this interim rule, both importation into the United States and interstate transportation between States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States of any live or dead specimen, including parts, of these 20 genera of salamanders are prohibited, except by permit for zoological, educational, medical, or scientific purposes (in accordance with permit conditions) or by Federal agencies without a permit solely for their own use. This action is necessary to protect the interests of wildlife and wildlife resources from the introduction, establishment, and spread of the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans into ecosystems of the United States. The fungus affects salamanders, with lethal effects on many species, and is not yet known to be found in the United States. Because of the devastating effect that we expect the fungus will have on native U.S. salamanders if introduced and, therefore, the need to act immediately to prevent the disease from being introduced into the United States, the Service is publishing this interim rule.

    DATES:

    This interim rule is effective as of January 28, 2016. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this interim rule on or before March 14, 2016

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket No. FWS-HQ-FAC-2015-0005 and follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail, Hand Delivery, or Courier: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-FAC-2015-0005; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; United States Fish and Wildlife Service; MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

    We will not accept email or faxes. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Comments on the Content of the Interim Rule for more information). All submissions received must include “Docket No. FWS-HQ-FAC-2015-0005” for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see Comments on the Content of the Interim Rule.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and find Docket No. FWS-HQ-FAC-2015-0005.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jason Goldberg or Susan Jewell, Injurious Wildlife Listing Coordinators, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Aquatic Invasive Species; MS: FAC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 telephone 703-358-1715. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Summary

    Under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42, as amended), the Secretary of the Interior may list by regulation those wild mammals, wild birds, fish, mollusks, crustaceans, amphibians, reptiles, and the offspring or eggs of any of the foregoing that are injurious to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, or forestry, or to the wildlife or wildlife resources of the United States.

    We have determined that salamanders that can carry the fungus Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal) are injurious to wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States. This determination was based on a review of the literature and an evaluation under the criteria for injuriousness by the Service. The salamander species listed by this interim rule are those found within a genus for which we have confirmation that at least one species in that genus is a carrier of Bsal, and there is no countervailing conclusive evidence suggesting that some species within the genus are not carriers. We find that, due to shared characteristics by species within a genus, other species within these genera are also highly likely to be carriers of Bsal. Although additional salamander species could be at risk from Bsal infection or could serve as a carrier, we are not listing species in those genera because they have not yet been tested.

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, USFWS, or we) is amending its regulations under the Lacey Act to add to the list of injurious wildlife all species of live and dead specimens from 20 genera, including body parts, from the amphibian order Caudata, which includes animals commonly referred to as salamanders, newts, and other names (hereafter, salamanders). The purpose of listing these species as injurious wildlife is to prevent the introduction, establishment, and spread of the fungus (Bsal) in the wild in the United States. The fungus affects only salamanders, has lethal effects on many salamander species, and is not yet known to be found in the United States.

    The United States has the greatest diversity of salamanders in the world, the salamanders are a vital part of native ecosystems, and numerous salamander populations are at risk of endangerment from Bsal. Experience with the introduction of Bsal into the Netherlands and associated deleterious effects to native salamanders, along with laboratory research, confirms that Bsal can be introduced and cause substantial and immediate harm in the United States.

    A risk assessment conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey concluded that the potential for Bsal introduction into the United States is high, the United States has suitable conditions for Bsal survival, and the consequences of introduction into the United States are expected to be severe and occur across a wide range of the United States. The main pathway for the global spread of Bsal is the international trade in salamanders. The ability and effectiveness of measures to prevent or control Bsal is currently low. Trade in wildlife occurs on a global scale, and amphibians are one of the most commonly traded animals. Therefore, listing the 20 genera will be effective at reducing the likelihood that Bsal enters the United States and presents a threat to native salamander species.

    Of the 190 native U.S. salamander species, at least 2 species are lethally vulnerable to Bsal and at least 1 is tolerant of Bsal infection. At least four are resistant to Bsal infection, of which one is expected to be a carrier because Bsal was able to invade the skin of that species long enough to move or transmit the fungus to other salamanders. In addition, researchers have identified a non-native species that is lethally vulnerable to Bsal that is found within a fifth genus that also includes native species. On this basis, the Service finds that at least 67 native species from 5 genera are carriers of Bsal.

    Native salamander species that demonstrate limited disease under experimental conditions may demonstrate more severe clinical disease when infection is combined with additional stressors in the wild. We concluded from our analysis that the introduction of Bsal into the United States can cause significant, adverse, population-level effects in native species. As keystone species, loss of salamanders from Bsal infection would have significant impacts on ecosystems, including food webs and nutrient cycling.

    All 20 genera of salamanders, plus any new species that may be identified in the future within the genera listed by this interim rule, are found to be injurious. Even if a salamander found to be injurious could not establish a population in the wild, an infected salamander in captivity can still transmit Bsal to native populations if that salamander escapes or if material touching it is disposed of improperly. Bsal is capable of surviving outside of a host and causing extensive damage to wildlife and wildlife resources, including federally endangered and threatened species. Eradicating Bsal would be extremely difficult once introduced and established, the ability to rehabilitate disturbed ecosystems is expected to be low, and controlling Bsal is not practical. Prophylactic treatments for imports of salamanders to manage Bsal are in development but are not yet fully tested or feasible.

    We are amending our regulations under an interim rule and are foregoing a proposed rule. The interim rule will take effect on the date specified above in DATES, with public comment to conclude as set forth in DATES. Based on public comments received, the interim rule may be revised. If Bsal is introduced into the United States, it is expected to have negative effects on many species of native salamanders. No conclusive evidence exists that suggests that Bsal is found in the United States. Therefore, the opportunity exists to take urgent action now to prevent the introduction of Bsal. Listing 20 genera of salamanders as injurious wildlife is an essential step in helping to keep Bsal out of the United States by preventing introduction of salamanders that serve as carriers of the fungus and are capable of introducing it to the United States. This interim rule lists some species that are currently in trade and some that are not; the focus is on species that are likely carriers of Bsal and capable of transmitting it to the same or other species.

    Consistent with the statutory language and congressional intent, it is the Service's longstanding and continued position that the Lacey Act, 18 U.S.C. 42, prohibits both the importation into the United States and all interstate transportation between States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States, including interstate transportation between States within the Continental United States, of injurious wildlife, regardless of the preliminary injunction decision in U.S. Association of Reptile Keepers v. Jewell, No. 13-2007 (D.D.C. May 12, 2015). The Service's interpretation of 18 U.S.C. 42(a)(1) finds support in the plain language of the statute, the Lacey Act's purpose, legislative history, and congressional ratification. First, the statute's use of the disjunctive “or” to separate the listed geographic entities indicates that each location has independent significance. Second, Congress enacted the Lacey Act in 1900 for the purpose of, among other things, regulating the introduction of species in localities, not merely large territories, where they have not previously existed. See 16 U.S.C. 701. Third, the legislative history of Congress's many amendments to the Lacey Act since its enactment in 1900 shows that Congress intended, from the very beginning, for the Service to regulate the interstate shipment of certain injurious wildlife. Finally, recent Congresses have made clear that Congress interprets 18 U.S.C. 42(a)(1) as prohibiting interstate transport of injurious wildlife between the states within the continental United States. In amending § 42(a)(1) to add bighead carp and zebra mussels as injurious wildlife without making other changes to the provision, Congress repeated and ratified the Service's interpretation of the statute as prohibiting all interstate transport of injurious species.

    The prohibitions on importation and all interstate transportation are both necessary to prevent the introduction, establishment, and spread of injurious species that threaten human health or the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or the wildlife or wildlife resources of the United States. By listing the 20 genera as injurious wildlife, both importation and interstate transportation of any live or dead specimen, including parts, is prohibited, except by permit (in accordance with conditions) for zoological, educational, medical, or scientific purposes or by Federal agencies without a permit solely for their own use.

    The Service conducted an economic analysis and regulatory flexibility analysis as required under the rulemaking process. The draft economic analysis considers five alternatives: (1) No action; (2) list species that were shown by Martel et al. (2014) and other sources to be carriers of Bsal; (3) list all species in genera where there is at least one confirmed carrier and all species in the genus are likely to be a carrier, and there is no countervailing conclusive evidence suggesting that some species within the genus are not carriers; (4) list all salamanders; and (5) require a health certificate stating that the animal being moved is free of Bsal, in lieu of or in addition to listing.

    The annual retail sales loss of listing 201 species, based on the 20 genera listed, is estimated to be $3.9 million, of which $2.3 million are losses to small businesses. Impacts per small business may be as high as $453,000 for importers and $23,000 for domestic breeders. The cost estimate represents the loss of revenue from listing the species to companies or individuals involved in the importation, interstate movement, or final consumer sales of salamanders that are imported and moved between States. No significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities is anticipated. The economic loss including direct, indirect, and induced effects from loss in revenue to pet stores is estimated to be $10.0 million. Benefits from decreases in risk from Bsal for ecological, commercial, recreational, and non-use values are not quantifiable. The benefits from these additional factors are unknown, but are certainly positive.

    From 2004 to 2014, nearly 2.5 million live salamanders of at least 59 species were imported into the United States. The 228,000 average annually imported salamanders are primarily for the pet trade. Fewer than 100 total businesses, institutions, and individuals imported salamanders over this time period (USFWS OLE 2015) for a retail value of $44 million dollars. Salamander imports and the number of businesses declined during this period, which may lead to an overestimation of the economic losses due to the uncertainty of industry and consumer responses over the time period used. The timeframe of the trade analysis does not make a difference from a biological perspective of risk. Species are being listed regardless of whether they are in trade. The alternatives are based on the level of perceived risk, which is informed by the current state of scientific knowledge.

    This interim rule is effective as of the date specified above in DATES. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this interim rule on or before the date set forth in DATES.

    Background Purpose of Listing as Injurious

    The purpose of listing the 20 genera of live and dead specimens, including parts, from the order Caudata commonly referred to as salamanders, newts, and other names (hereafter, salamanders) as injurious wildlife is to prevent the accidental or intentional introduction of salamanders into the United States that are expected to serve as carriers of Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (hereafter, Bsal), a fungus that poses a risk to native species of salamanders. If Bsal is introduced into wild populations of native salamanders, we expect it to cause significant damage to wildlife and the wildlife resources of the United States.

    Need for the Interim Rule

    Under the Lacey Act (Act) (18 U.S.C. 42, as amended), the Service, through the Secretary of the Interior, may prescribe by regulation any wild mammals, wild birds, fish, mollusks, crustaceans, amphibians, reptiles, or the offspring or eggs of any of the foregoing found to be injurious to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States. Salamanders are amphibians, and the Service has the authority to list them under the Lacey Act when it finds that they are injurious to one or more of the statutory interests. We may list species before they are introduced into the United States and, therefore, are able to harm interests of the United States as defined under the Act. We have determined that salamanders that potentially carry Bsal are injurious to wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States. With this interim rule, we are attempting to prevent the introduction and subsequent establishment of the chytrid fungus, Bsal, which is a pathogen capable of causing significant harm to native salamander species and their ecosystems. As described below under Role of Salamanders in the Ecosystem, the benefits that these native salamander species provide to ecosystems in ensuring ecosystem health and stability, and, in turn, the ecosystem services that benefit people, are significant.

    Martel et al. (2014) and Cunningham et al. (2015) (as explained further in Chytridcrisis (2015b)) identified some of the salamander species that can carry Bsal and are at risk from infection. The research tested a limited number of the approximately 681 known species of salamanders that exist worldwide and found that not every species was negatively affected by the fungus. However, the results clearly indicate a severe threat for many species of salamanders that will be negatively affected by this pathogen, including 2 of the 7 species tested that are also native to the United States and were found to be lethally vulnerable to the fungus. Recent research has highlighted concerns of emerging infectious disease of fungal origin that can cause a significant loss in biodiversity and ecosystem services (Fisher et al. 2012); Bsal appears to be the latest.

    The research results about Bsal and concerns about emerging infectious disease, especially Spitzen-van der Sluijs et al. (2013), Martel et al. (2013), and Martel et al. (2014), have generated a strong response from academia, industry groups, and conservation and other organizations who have written the Service seeking quick and decisive action to ensure Bsal does not have a similar impact on salamander populations that Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) has had on frogs. We also received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity and SAVE THE FROGS! on May 18, 2015, to take action to prevent the introduction of Bsal into the United States (Center for Biological Diversity and SAVE THE FROGS! 2015). In response to the scientific findings, letters to the Service, and the petition the Service initiated a review to determine whether salamanders capable of carrying Bsal should be listed as injurious. Based on the Service's genus-level carrier extrapolation from data obtained from Martel et al. (2014), and because Bsal has not been found in the United States (Martel et al. 2014; Muletz et al. 2014; Bales et al. 2015), the opportunity exists to take urgent action to prevent the introduction of Bsal. This action will help safeguard U.S. wildlife and natural resources, while providing time for monitoring and other measures to be developed that may allow safe trade in salamanders to resume later.

    We reviewed Bsal and the salamander species that carry this fungus using the Injurious Wildlife Evaluation Criteria, described in more detail as part of this interim rule in Factors That Contribute to Salamanders Being Considered Injurious, which the Service developed to evaluate whether a species qualifies as injurious under the Act. The resulting analysis serves as a basis for the Service's regulatory decision regarding injurious wildlife species listings. This interim rule finds that Bsal is a significant threat to the wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States and lists 20 genera of salamanders that we have determined to be injurious because they are likely carriers of Bsal.

    Rulemaking under the Act is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.). The process of issuing a proposed rule, providing the opportunity for public comment, and completing a final rule can take a significant amount of time to complete. During this time, the species proposed for listing are still allowed to be imported and transported, offering increased opportunities for introduction, establishment, and harm. Under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA, however, a proposed rule is not required “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” There is good cause to forgo notice and public comment on a proposed rule in this instance and instead take immediate action in the form of an interim rule to help prevent this fungus from being introduced, established, or spread in the United States. Providing notice and public comment prior to implementing the injurious wildlife prohibitions would be contrary to the public interest because of the need to take immediate action due to the significant risk from Bsal. For these reasons, we also find good cause in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make the interim rule effective less than 30 days after the date of publication. Due to the significant risk of introduction, establishment, and spread of Bsal in the United States, this interim rule will take effect 15 days after publication in the Federal Register. Based on prior experience, a shorter-than-normal effective date will also help reduce the risk that importers will rush to import these species before the listing becomes effective. For example, in the case of snakeheads (Channidae), the Service documented a nearly three-fold increase in the importation of snakeheads after the proposed rule was first announced (67 FR 48855; July 26, 2002) and before the final rule took effect, approximately two months later (67 FR 62202; October 4, 2002). However, we also recognize that an immediate effective date is not practical when live animals may be in transit on the day the interim rule takes effect. A delay of 15 days before the interim rule goes into effect will allow for the reasonable completion of imports and transports already in progress and give wildlife inspectors and other law enforcement officers time to enforce the interim rule.

    Experience with the introduction of Bsal into the Netherlands and associated deleterious effects to native salamanders, along with laboratory research, confirms that Bsal can be introduced, establish, and spread and cause substantial and immediate harm in the United States (Spitzen-van der Sluijs et al. 2013; Martel et al. 2014; Cunningham et al. 2015; Chytridcrisis 2015b). The United States leads all other countries in salamander diversity (Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, Stein and Kutner 2000). Based on scientific evidence, we know that the fungus is lethal to at least 2 salamander species native to the United States. Of the 190 native U.S. species, we find that at least 67 species are carriers and 20 are not carriers. The remaining 103 species have not been evaluated, and many of these species may also be affected by this potentially deadly fungus. While the Service's greatest concern will be for species that are lethally vulnerable to Bsal, salamander species known to be tolerant of or susceptible to Bsal infection under experimental conditions may also develop clinical disease or increased severity of disease, respectively, when infection is combined with additional stressors in the wild, as has been found for other diseases, including those in amphibians (Wobeser 2007; Kerby et al. 2011; Kiesecker 2011).

    In the United States, Bsal has either not been introduced, has been introduced but has failed to establish, or is present but has not been positively detected. Although we do not have any conclusive evidence showing that introductions have occurred, history from other pathogens similar to Bsal, such as Bd, however, suggests that the fungus is likely to spread quickly throughout the United States if it is not prevented from being introduced. Moreover, efforts to control or eradicate introduced or established invasive species and manage the costs they incur to society are generally less effective and more expensive and difficult than efforts that prevent establishment (Leung et al. 2002; Finnoff et al. 2007). Prevention of invasive species is typically the most cost-effective measure to avoid the damage that such species cause (Leung et al. 2002; Lodge et al. 2006; Keller and Springborn 2014). As noted in the National Invasive Species Management Plan, “prevention is the first line of defense” and “can be the most cost effective approach because once a species becomes widespread, controlling it may require significant and sustained expenditures” (National Invasive Species Council 2008).

    If Bsal has unknowingly been introduced but failed to establish for unknown reasons, it is still important to take action now because additional introductions increase the likelihood of establishment and harm. As more salamanders that can carry Bsal are imported into the United States, the probability increases that one or more of those salamanders, through a phenomenon called propagule pressure or “introduction effort,” described in Lockwood et al. (2005) as a measure of the number of nonnative individuals released into a region, will give Bsal the opportunity to establish and spread.

    Listing the salamanders as injurious will help keep Bsal out of the United States by preventing the importation of salamanders capable of carrying the fungus and serving as the vector of introduction into U.S. ecosystems, thereby causing injurious effects consistent with the Act. Given the expected consequences that Bsal's introduction would have to wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States, we are listing species that we have determined to be injurious. This interim rule lists some species that are currently in trade as well as some that are not. We have the authority under the Act to list certain species as injurious even if they are not currently in trade or known to exist in the United States.

    The salamander species listed by this interim rule are those found within genera for which we have evidence that at least one species in that genus is a carrier of Bsal with no countervailing conclusive evidence that other species in that genus are not carriers. We describe our rationale for this course of action below under Classification and Status as Carriers. Our decision-making included the following considerations: All 20 genera of salamanders, plus any new species identified within the genera listed by this interim rule, are found to be injurious because suitable climate exists in parts of the United States to support Bsal; even if a salamander listed by this interim rule could not establish a population in the wild, an infected salamander in captivity (or the water and soil in which it came into contact) can transmit Bsal to native populations; Bsal is capable of causing extensive damage to wildlife and wildlife resources, including federally endangered and threatened species; eradicating Bsal would be extremely difficult once introduced and established; and controlling Bsal is not practical.

    Although this interim rule takes effect on the date specified above in DATES, it will still provide the public with a period of time to comment on the listing and associated documents. The final rule will contain responses to comments received on the interim rule, state the final decision, and provide the justification for that decision.

    Listing Species That Carry Pathogens

    Pathogens are agents such as viruses, bacteria, and fungi that cause diseases in animals and plants. The Service does not have the direct authority under the Act to list pathogens as injurious. We also cannot list or regulate fomites (materials such as water that can transmit pathogens). However, wild mammals, wild birds, fish, mollusks, crustaceans, amphibians, or reptiles that are hosts to pathogens, such as viruses, bacteria, or fungi that cause disease, can be injurious if the likelihood, scope, and severity of effects significantly affect one or more of the interests listed in the Act. Even if the host species cannot establish populations in the wild, it can present significant risk if the pathogen the host is carrying can infect wildlife or wildlife resources or affect human beings or the interests of agriculture, horticulture, or forestry in the United States. Among other impacts, diseases caused by introduced pathogens reduce biodiversity (the variety of different types of life on earth) and have been implicated in the local extinction of many animal taxa (Daszak et al. 2000).

    We have previously listed species under the Act that serve as hosts to pathogens, as in the case of fish in the salmon family Salmonidae (32 FR 20655; December 21, 1967, 33 FR 6827; May 4, 1968, and 58 FR 58976; November 5, 1993). Members of the family Salmonidae (salmon, trout, and char) are not injurious provided they are free from certain pathogens. However, salmon that are alive or are dead and uneviscerated (internal organs have not been removed) without a health certificate declaring that the fish are pathogen free are injurious to wildlife and wildlife resources due to the risk of transmitting pathogens that cause devastating diseases in fish. Although prophylactic treatments for imports of salamanders to manage Bsal are in development, they are not yet fully tested or feasible.

    Listing and Evaluation Process

    The regulations contained in part 16 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) implement the Lacey Act and include the lists of all species determined by the Service or by Congress to be injurious. Under the terms of the Act, the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe by regulation those wild mammals, wild birds, fish, mollusks, crustaceans, amphibians, reptiles, and the offspring or eggs of any of the foregoing that are injurious to humans, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, or forestry, or to the wildlife or wildlife resources of the United States. The lists of injurious wildlife species are found at 50 CFR 16.11-16.15. Under these regulations, species are added to the lists of injurious wildlife to protect statutorily defined interests from potential and known negative effects. Most species listed have the capacity to establish populations in the wild, spread, and cause harm. However, a species can be listed based solely on its capacity to cause harm. As noted in the previous section, dead, uneviscerated salmonids without a health certificate are not capable of establishing in the United States, but they are injurious because the pathogens they may carry are harmful.

    Under the Act, the Service can list species that are nonnative or indigenous to the United States. In the case of an indigenous species, for example, the Service may find that it is injurious because its transport and release into another State outside the species' range will cause harm to human beings, agricultural or forestry interests, or natural systems. Furthermore, a species does not have to be currently imported or present in the wild in the United States for the Service to list it as injurious. For species not yet imported into the United States, the objective of listing is to prevent that species' importation and likely introduction and possible establishment and spread in the wild, thereby preventing injurious effects consistent with the purposes of the Act. For species that are present in the United States, the Act prevents the further introduction, establishment, or spread of the species by prohibiting interstate transport.

    Importation into the United States of an injurious species is prohibited. Transportation between the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States of an injurious species is also prohibited. These prohibited activities may be undertaken by permit for zoological, educational, medical, or scientific purposes (in accordance with permit regulations at 50 CFR 16.22), or by Federal agencies without a permit solely for their own use, upon filing a written declaration with the District Director of Customs and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service inspector at the port of entry. The Act does not regulate intrastate transport (transport within a State or territory) or possession of injurious species. Any regulations pertaining to the transport or use of these species within a particular State or U.S. territory are the responsibility of that State or territory.

    The Service uses criteria, identified below, to evaluate whether a species does or does not qualify as injurious under the Act. The analysis that is developed using these criteria serves as a general basis for the Service's regulatory decision regarding injurious wildlife species listings. Biologists and risk managers within the Service who are knowledgeable about a species that is being evaluated assess both the factors that contribute to and the factors that reduce the likelihood of injuriousness.

    (1) Factors that contribute to being considered injurious:

    • The likelihood of release or escape;

    • Potential to survive, become established, and spread;

    • Impacts on wildlife resources or ecosystems through hybridization and competition for food and habitats, habitat degradation and destruction, predation, and pathogen transfer;

    • Impacts to threatened and endangered species and their habitats;

    • Impacts to human beings, forestry, horticulture, and agriculture; and

    • Wildlife or habitat damages that may occur from control measures.

    (2) Factors that reduce the likelihood of the species being considered as injurious:

    • Ability to prevent escape and establishment;

    • Potential to eradicate or manage established populations (for example, making organisms sterile);

    • Ability to rehabilitate disturbed ecosystems;

    • Ability to prevent or control the spread of pathogens or parasites; and

    • Any potential ecological benefits to introduction.

    In the case of this interim rule, the issue is not whether a given salamander species is invasive, but rather the role of salamanders in introducing the Bsal fungus into the United States and the scope and severity of effects caused by salamanders that are carriers of Bsal on human beings or the interests of agriculture, horticulture, or forestry, or the wildlife or wildlife resources of the United States.

    Comments on the Content of the Interim Rule

    We are soliciting public comments and supporting data on the draft economic analysis, the draft regulatory flexibility analysis, and this interim rule to add all species from 20 genera of salamanders to the list of injurious amphibians under the Act. We will review the public comments for the preparation of our final rule. The draft economic analysis and regulatory flexibility analysis and this interim rule will be available on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-FAC-2015-0005. You may submit your comments and materials concerning this interim rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not accept comments sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES.

    We will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on http://www.regulations.gov. If your written comments provide personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this interim rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-FAC-2015-0005, or by appointment, during normal business hours at the Service's office in Falls Church, VA (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    We are soliciting public comments and supporting data to gain additional information, and we specifically seek comment on the following questions:

    (1) How many of the species listed by this rule are currently in production for wholesale or retail sale, and in how many and which States?

    (2) How many businesses sell one or more of the species listed by this rule?

    (3) How many businesses breed one or more of the species?

    (4) What species listed as threatened or endangered by one or more States would be affected by the introduction of Bsal?

    (5) What provisions in the interim rule should the Service have considered with regard to: (a) The impact of the provision(s) (including any benefits and costs), if any, and (b) what alternatives, if any, the Service should consider, as well as the costs and benefits of those alternatives, paying specific attention to the effect of the rule on small entities?

    (6) How could the interim rule be modified to reduce costs or burdens for some or all entities, including small entities, consistent with the Service's requirements? For example, we seek comment on the distinct benefits and costs, both quantitative and qualitative, of (a) the prohibitions on importation and (b) the prohibitions on interstate transport of the species listed by this rule. What are the costs and benefits of the modifications?

    (7) Is there any evidence suggesting that Bsal has been introduced into the United States or may have already established?

    (8) Are there other pathways for Bsal into the United States that we should address? If so, what are they?

    (9) Is there evidence suggesting that any of the species listed by this rule are not carriers of Bsal? If so, what species?

    (10) Is there any evidence suggesting that additional species are carriers of Bsal and should be listed by this rule? If so, what species?

    (11) Are there methods (such as thermal exposure) that would allow salamanders imported into the United States to be reliably treated to help ensure Bsal is not introduced into the United States, and how could compliance be monitored?

    (12) Should the Service add eggs or other reproductive material of listed salamanders to the list of injurious wildlife because they may also carry Bsal?

    (13) For the species we are listing, are the scientific and common names the most appropriate ones accepted by the scientific community?

    (14) What are relevant Federal, State, or local rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the interim rule?

    We will also submit the rule for peer review concurrent with public comments. In conducting peer review, we will follow guidance from the Office of Management and Budget “Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review” (OMB 2004) and the Service's own guidance.

    Species Information for Salamanders Salamander Nomenclature and Taxonomy

    Salamander nomenclature and taxonomy remained relatively unchanged from the 1960s until the 1990s, when advances in DNA sequencing enabled researchers to examine species relationships more closely (Petranka 1998). The Service does not have a uniform policy for taxonomically identifying amphibians. In this interim rule, we use taxonomic nomenclature as described by AmphibiaWeb (http://amphibiaweb.org) and the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) (http://www.itis.gov). The system used by AmphibiaWeb represents one of the most widely accepted salamander taxonomic systems in the scientific community because it relies on criteria including, but not limited to, monophyly (common descent from a single ancestor), stability, expertise of scientists, and general acceptance by the amphibian community (Amphibiaweb 2015b). As a Federal resource for taxonomic information, the Service also uses ITIS as an agency resource (ITIS 2015).

    The two databases have some differences. For example, AmphibiaWeb contains some species that are not in ITIS. We addressed all species found in either ITIS or AmphibiaWeb for a given genus to avoid confusion over which species we intended to list by this interim rule. We have also used additional resources where necessary to clarify taxonomy, specifically:

    • The Kurdistan newt (Neurergus microspilotus) is in ITIS but is not in AmphibiaWeb. According to the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH 2015a), it is likely the same species as N. derjugini; consequently, we have included both scientific names in 50 CFR 16.14.

    • Martel et al. (2014) identified the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) as being lethally vulnerable to Bsal. Another species in the genus, T. vittatus (no common name), appears in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Office of Law Enforcement's (USFWS OLE) Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS) data (USFWS OLE 2015). LEMIS is an electronic database utilized by all Service law enforcement offices, including Service Conservation Officers, Wildlife Inspectors, Refuge Officers, and Special Agents. LEMIS serves as the portal in which all Service wildlife violations are documented and intelligence is gathered and shared between law enforcement offices across the country. LEMIS also serves as the conduit for all declared (lawful) imports and exports of wildlife and wildlife products and the database of all wildlife trade data in the United States, both legal and illegal. T. vittatus does not appear in ITIS or AmphibiaWeb but is listed in AMNH (2015b). Because it appears in LEMIS data, we are including it in 50 CFR 16.14 as a species under the same genus, even though that species does not appear in either ITIS or AmphibiaWeb.

    • LEMIS also includes the species Triturus hongkongensis (no common name), even though it is not a valid scientific name in ITIS or AmphibiaWeb. The name may be confused with Paramesotriton hongkongensis (no common name) due to its similarity.

    • As a result, even though sources such as AmphibiaWeb state that there are approximately 679 species of salamanders (AmphibiaWeb 2015c), for purposes of this interim rule, we have identified approximately 681 species.

    Hynobius fuca and H. fucus appear to be the same species (Taiwan lesser salamander) (AMNH 2015c); we have included both of these names in 50 CFR 16.14.

    Speleomantes strinatii is a synonym for Hydromantes strinatii (Nanjappa, pers. comm.; Caudata Culture 2015b), of which the French cave salamander or Strinati's cave salamander are common names; we have included all of these names in 50 CFR 16.14.

    In this interim rule, when we refer to salamanders, we include a variety of animals from the order Caudata, including those commonly referred to as salamanders and newts. Other common names, such as mudpuppy, also exist for certain animals in Caudata.

    Salamander Biology

    Salamanders belong to the class Amphibia, a group of cold-blooded animals with a spinal column. The word “amphibian” is derived from the fact that most of the species spend part of their lives in water and part on land. The class Amphibia also includes frogs and toads, which have legs but no tails as adults, and caecilians, which have tails but no legs. Morphologically, salamanders are characterized by their relatively large, vertically flattened tails, two front and two hind legs that are approximately the same size (Petranka 1998), and skin with glands that can be either rough or smooth (Stebbins and Cohen 1997). Salamanders range in length from around 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) to over 1.5 meters (5 feet) (Stebbins and Cohen 1997).

    Salamanders can live for long periods, but documented lifespans vary. Larger salamanders tend to live longer than smaller ones, and with proper care, salamanders in captivity frequently live longer than those in the wild (Duellman and Trueb 1986). Records for captive animals range from 5 years for most plethodontids to 55 years for the Japanese giant salamander (Andrias japonicus) (Duellman and Trueb 1986). The Olm or blind cave salamander (Proteus anguinus), which lives in caves in southern Europe, has been documented living for at least 48 years in the wild, with an estimated lifespan of more than 100 years (Live Science 2015).

    Salamanders are carnivorous and eat a wide variety of prey, depending on habitat and the stage of their life cycle. Terrestrial salamanders eat earthworms, insect eggs, and other small invertebrates, while aquatic salamanders eat all of these in addition to small fish, aquatic insects, and other amphibians. Some salamander larvae can also be omnivorous and eat both plants and animals.

    Many salamanders have unique structural features, including costal grooves (grooves on the sides of the body that increase skin surface area for water absorption and transport) and nasolabial grooves (vertical slits between the nostril and upper lip used for sensing chemical stimuli in the environment), that can be used to differentiate between salamander species (Petranka 1998). Important features for identifying salamanders include head shape and size, fin shape and color, gill morphology, color patterns, number of toes, size, body shape, tooth patterns, and number of costal grooves. Some species appear similar. For example, similarity of appearance within the family Salamandridae can make it difficult to differentiate between species, requiring close inspection of small physical characteristics.

    Salamanders occupy a wide range of habitats, including streams, trees, land (including forests, grasslands, and rocky slopes), underground, and caves (Amphibiaweb 2015a). Salamanders are cryptic (difficult to find) partly because they occupy moist, cool places, such as underneath logs and between rock crevices on land or under rocks and logs in the water.

    Salamander courtship between males and females is regulated by chemicals that are released from specialized glands in the skin. Most salamanders reproduce by laying eggs in water with two exceptions: members of family Plethodontidae lay their eggs on land, and the European species known as the alpine salamander (Salamandra atra) gives birth to live young (Stebbins and Cohen 1997). Eggs are surrounded by a protective jelly or membrane that keeps them from drying out. Almost all species of salamanders breed during specific seasons, and the length of time between mating and egg-laying varies considerably between species (Petranka 1998). Species that lay aquatic eggs place them in either streams or ponds, and species that lay their eggs on land choose hidden places, such as underground burrows, decaying logs, and moist rock crevices (Petranka 1998).

    One example of a species that spends most of its life on land, but that moves to aquatic areas to breed, is the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). During winter rains, this species migrates across land to aquatic pools, such as cattle tanks and ephemeral pools, for breeding purposes. At the breeding pools, individuals come in contact with each other, even though they may not come in contact with each other during most of the rest of their lives on land (Barry and Shaffer 1994).

    Habitat Conditions and Native Range of U.S. Salamanders

    With more native salamander species than any other country in the world, the United States is a salamander diversity hotspot (Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation 2015; Stein and Kutner 2015). Salamanders are widespread in the United States. (Caudata Culture 2015a; U.S. National Park Service 2015). Areas of particularly high salamander diversity include the southeastern United States, with large numbers of plethodontid salamanders in the southern Appalachian Mountains (Richgels et al. in review).

    Salamanders in the United States occupy a wide range of habitats, including streams, trees, land (including forests, grasslands, and rocky slopes), underground, and caves (Amphibiaweb 2015a). These locations are most conducive to the relatively cool, moist conditions under which both salamanders and Bsal thrive (Duellman and Trueb 1986; Piotrowski et al. 2004; Blooi et al. 2015a). Central and North American salamanders as a group are active at average temperatures of 11 °C (52 °F) to 20 °C (68 °F) (Duellman and Trueb 1986), fully encompassing the optimum temperature for Bsal growth as described below under Climate Tolerance. Most salamanders require some amount of constant moisture, either for respiration, as in the lungless family Plethodontidae, or for temperature regulation (Duellman and Trueb 1986).

    Twenty species, subspecies, or populations of U.S. salamanders from six genera are currently listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA). An additional three species (three genera) are candidates for listing (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015). The specific vulnerability and carrier status of these species to Bsal is described below in Vulnerability and Carrier Status of Threatened and Endangered Species.

    Of the 190 salamander species native to the United States, we find that at least 67 species in 5 genera and in 3 families are capable of being carriers of Bsal: Salamandridae, Sirenidae, and Plethodontidae. In North America, species in the family Salamandridae occur on the west coast of the United States and Canada from southern California to southeastern Alaska, and much of the eastern half of the United States and extreme southeastern Canada (Amphibiaweb 2015a; Caudata Culture 2015a). Members of the family Sirendidae occur throughout the southeastern Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastal plains and the Mississippi River Valley (Leja 2005) (lesser siren (Siren intermedia)) and in the Atlantic coastal plains from south Florida to Virginia (greater siren (Siren lacertina)) (Hendricks 2005). The distribution of salamanders of the family Plethodontidae in the western hemisphere is from southern Canada to Bolivia and Brazil, except for members of the genus Hydromantes, which occur in California (Amphibiaweb 2015a, Caudata Culture 2015a).

    Role of Salamanders in the Ecosystem

    Salamanders play important roles in ecosystem function and as indicators of ecosystem health and stability (Davic and Welsh 2004). For example, salamanders of family Plethodontidae have life-history characteristics that make them exceptional indicators of forest health (Welsh and Droege 2001).

    In forests, salamanders are also among the most abundant vertebrates. Despite the relatively small size of most salamanders compared to most other native vertebrates, this sheer abundance contributes to a significant amount of biomass in the ecosystem, and, therefore, salamanders make significant contributions to nutrient cycling and transport (Burton and Likens 1975). For example, Ambystomatid salamanders can make significant contributions to energy and nutrient transport in forest ecosystems (Regester et al. 2006) and in pond ecosystems (Holomuzki et al. 1994). By consuming arthropods (insects and related invertebrates) that would otherwise release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by decomposing leaf litter in forests, salamanders reduce carbon emissions from leaf litter decomposition, which has implications for the global carbon cycle (Wyman 1998; Best and Welsh 2014). Salamanders that live underground also contribute to soil dynamics by creating, modifying, and otherwise regulating the systems of underground burrows in which they live (Davic and Welsh 2004).

    In vernal pond communities, Ambystoma species are the top predators and, therefore, control the abundance of aquatic invertebrates and other amphibians (Petranka 1998). The high numbers of many amphibians, including salamanders, in some ecosystems also provide a substantial source of prey for other vertebrates in the ecosystem (Harper et al. 2008; Davic and Welsh 2004); therefore, other native species that prey on salamanders can also be affected by disease-related declines.

    Species Information for Bsal General Description of Chytrid Fungus

    In drawing some of our conclusions about the effects of Bsal on U.S. wildlife and wildlife resources, the Service has used Bd as a surrogate. Considerably more is known about Bd than Bsal due to its discovery and description more than 15 years ago (Berger et al. 1998, Longcore et al. 1999), while Bsal was discovered 2 years ago (Martel et al. 2013). The severe effects that Bd, a species closely related to Bsal, has had on amphibian populations, has raised additional alarm about the expected consequences of a Bsal introduction and the need to take immediate action under an interim rule. The two risk assessments of Bsal that have been conducted both used Bd in determining the risk of Bsal based on transmission, spread, and population-level effects (Richgels et al. in review; Stephen et al. 2015).

    Until Bsal was discovered, the fungal disease chytridiomycosis was thought to be caused by a single species of pathogenic fungus, Bd, which was the only chytridiomycete taxon known to parasitize vertebrate hosts (Longcore 1999; Johnson and Speare 2003). Bd has been implicated in the decline and extinction of amphibian species at the global scale (Berger et al. 1998; Daszak et al. 2003; Lips et al. 2006; Walker et al. 2008; Vredenburg et al. 2010; Cheng et al. 2011). Bd has been found on every continent except Antarctica, and it is known to have affected more than 500 species of amphibians, including all orders of amphibians (frogs, salamanders, and caecilians) worldwide (Chytridcrisis 2015a; Fisher et al. 2009; Olson et al. 2013).

    Bsal came to the attention of the scientific community only recently. Spitzen-van der Sluijs et al. (2013) observed a 96 percent decline in fire salamanders (Salamandra salamandra) in the Netherlands but was “unable to attribute this to any known cause of amphibian decline, such as chytridiomycosis [at the time, thought only to be caused by Bd], ranavirus or habitat degradation.” Martel et al. (2013) later identified the cause of the salamander decline in the Netherlands as a newly described species of fungus now known as Bsal. Their work confirmed that Bsal is related to Bd and is also capable of causing chytridiomycosis. Analysis of a broad range of representative chytrid fungi show that Bsal represents a previously undescribed species that shares early evolutionary origins with the pathogenic fungus Bd (Martel et al. 2013). Until Bsal was discovered, Bd was the only species from that phylum known to infect vertebrates.

    While Bd has been found in North America, Bsal has not yet been found in North America, and the two fungi do not have the same effects on the same animals. As the authors noted, “Chytridiomycosis has resulted in the serious decline and extinction of [more than] 200 species of amphibians worldwide and poses the greatest threat to biodiversity of any known disease * * *. We [have discovered] a second * * * chytrid pathogen, [Bsal], that causes lethal skin infections in salamanders * * *. Our finding provides another explanation for the phenomenon of amphibian biodiversity loss that is emblematic of the current global biodiversity crisis.” The natural host ranges of Bsal remain unknown, but so far it has been found only in salamanders and appears capable of causing lethal chytridiomycosis only in salamanders (Martel et al. 2014).

    How the Fungus Affects Salamanders

    The “salamandrivorans” in Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans translates to “salamandereating” and accurately describes the effects of the fungus on salamanders. Bsal infects the skin of amphibians but not deeper tissues or internal organs (Berger 2004; Martel et al. 2013). The cells of the fungus (thalli) embed themselves in the skin cells of the salamander, thereby causing erosive lesions.

    Lesions consist of sores on the skin that erode and ulcerate, with secondary bacterial infection occurring after the sores appear (Martel et al. 2013), although many of the salamanders reported at the beginning of the European Bsal outbreak seemed to lack obvious external lesions (Spitzen-van der Sluijs et al. 2013). Experimental infections of fire salamanders in the laboratory caused death 12 to 18 days after exposure, with the same clinical signs and pathological lesions found in the European outbreak (Martel et al. 2013). Martel et al. (2013) found that infected fire salamanders developed shallow skin lesions and deep ulcerations all over the body, and became anorexic, apathetic, and suffered from neurological signs including a loss of voluntary movement and muscle coordination. Death occurred within 7 days of clinical signs first appearing in species with lethal vulnerability.

    Bsal does not appear to affect reproductive tissue, such as eggs or gametes. Using Bd for comparison, Bd requires keratin, a structural component of organisms found in amphibian skin, which is not found in salamander eggs or gametes (Berger 1998).

    Climate Tolerance

    Temperature has a significant impact on the growth and disease development of Bsal in salamanders (Martel et al. 2014). Bsal appears to prefer a temperature range for growth and infection of 10-15 °C (50-59 °F) (Blooi et al. 2015a; Stephen et al. 2015, Martel et al. 2013). Bsal has shown some growth in temperatures as low as 5 °C (41 °F) and dies at 25 °C (77 °F) and above (Martel et al. 2013). In a laboratory study, salamanders were most easily infected by Bsal at temperatures of 15 °C (59 °F) and 20 °C (68 °F), while Bsal growth was inhibited at 25 °C (77 °F) (Blooi et al. 2015a). The same temperature response was also observed for Bsal raised in culture (Blooi et al. 2015a).

    This experimental data suggests that salamanders living at lower temperatures are more at risk to infection by Bsal. Animals that survive at temperatures above the optimal range for fungal growth are likely to be at reduced risk to infection. However, the average temperature ranges of North and Central American salamander species is from 11 °C (52 °F) to 20 °C (68 °F) (Duellman and Trueb 1986; the citation does not separate North and Central American data), so salamanders regularly reaching 25 °C (77 °F) in the natural environment is uncommon. Bales et al. (2015) noted that the native salamander species, and by extension ecosystems, most at risk from a Bsal introduction would likely be those that occupy similar thermal ranges as the European fire salamander (Bales et al. 2015).

    Ecology and Habitat Preferences

    The chytrid fungus Bd can live outside of a host and requires water to disperse because it reproduces asexually by forming motile zoospores; preliminary studies of Bsal indicate that similar modes of survival and transmission are highly likely (Longcore 1999; Martel et al. 2013). As the threat assessment by Stephen et al. 2015) noted, “Bd is known to remain viable for several days to weeks in water (Johnson and Speare 2013) and moist organic matter (Johnson and Speare 2003), even in the absence of nutrients. It is likely that Bsal can also survive in moist environments, independent of an amphibian host.”

    Environmental Conditions Needed To Survive

    The transmission and ecology of Bsal in the wild is likely to be similar to Bd based on the close taxonomic relationship between the species, their structural similarities, and their comparable pathophysiology (Martel et al. 2013, Stephen et al. (2015). Johnson and Speare (2003) reported that Bd can survive in tap water and deionized water for up to 3 and 4 weeks, respectively, and up to 7 weeks in lake water. Bsal is also likely to survive in moist environments independent of an amphibian host. While we do not have information on the response of Bsal to desiccation, Bd is highly impacted by drying and can survive desiccation for no more than 1 hour in the laboratory (Garmyn et al. 2012); Bsal would likely respond in a similar way. Bsal appears to be adapted to temperatures and humidity conditions most conducive to salamander survival, thus supporting the hypothesis that the pathogen co-evolved with salamanders in the part of the world from which it is endemic, most likely in Asia (Martel et al. 2014).

    Population- and Ecosystem-Level Effects of Bsal Population-Level Effects

    Several pathogens, including Bsal, Bd, ranaviruses, and Saprolegnia sp. (water molds), have caused significant population-level declines in a range of amphibian species, and disease is thought to be a major driver of global amphibian decline (Bosch et al. 2001; Martel et al. 2013; Daszak et al. 2003). Disease poses a greater risk to small, isolated populations as well as those with decreased genetic diversity (Smith et al. 2008). Within the United States, diseases have been cited as contributing factors in the listing or recovery of several native amphibian species under the ESA. Examples include Bd in the Ozark hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis bishopi) (76 FR 61956, October 6, 2011), an undiagnosed disease in Sonora tiger salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi) (62 FR 665, January 6, 1997), and Bd in the mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) (82 FR 24256, April 29, 2014; Vredenburg et al. 2010).

    As noted above in General Description of Fungus, Bsal is the most recently discovered pathogen associated with population-level amphibian declines, including a 96 percent reduction in Dutch populations of the European fire salamander between 2010-2013 (Spitzen-van der Sluijs et al. 2013; Martel et al. 2013). Due to the overall sensitivity of amphibian populations to disease; a history of adverse, population-level effects in native amphibians; a direct association between Bsal and the decline of at least one European salamander population; and the adverse effects of some native salamanders to Bsal under experimental conditions, we conclude that the introduction of Bsal into the United States would cause significant, adverse, population-level effects in a number of native species.

    Ecosystem-Level Effects

    The preferred temperature range of Bsal can help predict those ecosystems that are at greatest risk should Bsal be introduced into the United States (Stephen et al. 2015). The native salamander species, and by extension ecosystems, most at risk from a Bsal introduction would likely be those that occupy similar thermal ranges as the European fire salamander (Bales et al. 2015).

    Salamanders are important parts of the ecosystems in which they occur. Salamanders are often the most abundant vertebrates in terrestrial forest and riparian (the banks of watercourses) ecosystems, where they may compose a total biomass greater than or equal to birds or small mammals (Davic and Welsh 2004). This means that, despite their small size, the total weight of all salamanders in a given area may be more than the combined total weight of all birds or all small mammals. Because of their abundance under normal circumstances, salamanders are important prey species themselves and are energy sources for higher predators (Davic and Welsh 2004), including fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals.

    Salamanders may be the dominant predator in headwater streams and ephemeral waterbodies where fish are absent (Davic and Welsh 2004). Within some food webs, salamanders are considered keystone predators due to their control of invertebrate prey populations and their resulting regulation of detritus decomposition and nutrient cycling (Davic and Welsh 2004). By definition, keystone species are those that occupy niches that affect ecosystems and have little functional overlap with other species (Davic and Welsh 2004). Therefore, loss of these keystone species would result in significant ecosystem-level change.

    In addition to their roles in food webs and nutrient cycling, salamanders participate in a number of interspecific (between species) ecological relationships. Salamander species interact with one another through competition and predation to control the composition of their assemblages (taxonomically related species that occur within the same geographic community) (Davic and Welsh 2004; Fauth et al. 1996). Frequently, a single species is dominant within a given assemblage, particularly in terrestrial habitats, but which species dominates varies by location and ecosystem (Davic and Welsh 2004). We find that ecosystems where the dominant salamander species is vulnerable to lethal or susceptible infections with Bsal would be at risk from an introduction of this pathogen.

    Salamanders also interact with invertebrate species in other ecologically important ways. Semi-aquatic salamander species can move mollusks and shrimp eggs between waterbodies during their migrations, allowing these invertebrates to inhabit new areas (Davic and Welsh 2004). Additionally, one species of salamander, the mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus), is a required host for developing stages of the salamander mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua), a native, freshwater mollusk for which a positive 90-day finding has been made under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (76 FR 59836; September 27, 2011) (Davic and Welsh 2004; Gangloff and Folkerts 2006; United States Fish and Wildlife Service 2015b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service 2015c). We conclude that invertebrate species that depend on salamanders for aspects of their life cycle or ecology are likely to be adversely affected if their host species declines in response to a Bsal introduction.

    Invasiveness of Salamanders and Bsal Invasiveness of Salamanders

    Some salamanders have the ability to invade new environments in which they are not native. Globally, 90 percent of salamander introductions have occurred through intentional releases (Tingley et al. 2010). As of 2010, salamanders comprised 22 percent of all recorded amphibian introductions, with the highest number of salamander introductions (15) from the family Salamandridae, followed by salamanders from the families Ambystomatidae (4), Cryptobranchidae (2), and Proteidae (2) (Tingley et al. 2010).

    Nonnative salamander introductions have been documented in the United States. As described below under Likelihood of Release or Escape, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Nonindigenous Aquatic Species database has U.S. records for 14 salamander species that have been observed outside their native range. Of those, 11 are native to the United States but were discovered outside of their native ranges, and 3 (Japanese newt (also called the Japanese fire-bellied newt, Cynops pyrrhogaster), Oriental fire belly newt (also called the Oriental fire-bellied newt, Cynops orientalis), and the spotless stout newt (Pachytriton labiatus)) are exotic species from outside the United States (USGS 2015). In Florida, the Oriental fire belly newt and spotless stout newt, which are native to China (family Salamandridae), have been found in the wild near an animal importer's facility, either as the result of intentional releases or escapes from enclosures (Krysko et al. 2011).

    Other invasions have been attributed to the use and subsequent release of salamanders used as fishing bait. Surveys of anglers have indicated that they routinely release salamanders into the areas where they fish, which includes areas that are not part of the salamander's native U.S. habitats, suggesting that animals are routinely moved long distances (Picco and Collins 2008). Furthermore, Picco and Collins (2008) found that salamanders sold as bait were highly infected with both ranavirus and Bd, thereby increasing the likelihood of disease transmission into new areas of the United States through the act of fishing.

    Invasiveness and Transmission of Bsal

    As noted above under General Description of Fungus, Europe has been experiencing a severe decline in wild fire salamander populations in the Netherlands (Spitzen-van der Sluijs et al. 2013). This decline is so significant that fire salamander populations are facing local extinction in the Netherlands, though other populations throughout Europe appear to be stable (AmphibiaWeb 2015c). A sharp decline in numbers has been observed since 2010, despite the species being listed as endangered on the Netherlands Red List, and at population levels that were thought to be stable. This enigmatic decline was not attributed to any known cause of amphibian decline, such as chytridiomycosis due to Bd, ranavirus, or habitat degradation. In late 2013, Bsal was isolated from infected fire salamanders in the Netherlands (Martel et al. 2013).

    Martel et al. (2014) later established the highly pathogenic nature of this new chytrid fungus. Molecular testing found Bsal in specimens collected from the wild (though none from North America) and even in an archival (museum) sample that was 150 years old (Martel et al. 2014). A wide variety of salamanders are negatively affected by the pathogen, but frogs, toads, and caecilians do not appear to be (Martel et al. 2014). The pathogenic nature of the fungus and its ability to infect a wide variety of salamanders, as described below in Classification and Status as Carriers, definitively demonstrate an invasive threat to salamanders in the United States.

    In Bd, the ability of the pathogen to be transmitted between individuals is dependent upon the density of populations (Rachowicz and Briggs 2007) and the presence of a vector that can carry the disease to uninfected populations (Greenspan et al. 2012); we expect the same for Bsal. Experiments have shown that Bsal can be transmitted from one species to another when the species come into contact (Martel et al. 2014).

    Salamanders that breed in ponds and temporary wetlands are often explosive breeders, meaning that hundreds to multiple thousands of individuals will reproduce at the same time (Gill 1978), creating dense numbers of individuals and increasing opportunities for the pathogen to spread. Pathogens are also likely to be transmitted by salamander species that travel long distances for breeding and dispersal migrations, such as those that exhibit a metapopulation structure (Bancroft et al. 2011). A metapopulation is a group of discrete breeding populations of the same species (Gill 1978). For example, within salamander metapopulations, California tiger salamanders (Ambystoma californiense) have been documented traveling up to 1.2 miles (1.9 kilometers) from upland habitat to aquatic breeding sites (USFWS 2000), and newts travel many kilometers to breeding sites (Gill 1978).

    Salamander species that have abundant populations with widespread distributions can also contribute to the spread of Bsal because of the increased likelihood that they will come in close contact with other salamanders that could then become infected. Salamanders that can carry Bsal from one place to another are more likely to do so if they have a broad range where they will come in contact with other members of the same species (for abundant distributions) or other species (for widespread distributions). Species with broad distributions are adapted to a wide range of environmental conditions that are more likely to overlap with habitat suitable for Bsal as well as habitat suitable for that species, providing increased opportunities for Bsal to spread.

    For example, the rough-skinned newt (Taricha granulosa) has a wide range along the West Coast from Alaska to California, and the eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens) ranges widely across the eastern United States, occurring in 34 States (Amphibiaweb 2015a). Both species have had lethal responses with laboratory infections of Bsal (Martel et al. 2014), and both are capable of carrying Bsal. In addition to its broad range, N. viridescens also migrates long distances; this species will frequently travel many kilometers to migrate to new ponds (Gill 1978), further increasing the risk of this species spreading Bsal.

    Pathway Analysis Introduction Pathways

    The main pathway for the global spread of Bsal is the international trade in salamanders (Martel et al. 2014). The introduction of Bsal into mainland Europe is linked with the commercial trade of Asian salamanders (Cynops spp.) from East Asia, particularly Thailand, Vietnam, and Japan (Martel et al. 2014). As described above in How the Fungus Affects Salamanders, eggs and gametes are not expected to be pathways. However, salamanders that have been identified as carriers, whether live or dead, are expected to transmit Bsal through their skin, which contains keratin. We are also concerned that any salamanders that are infected and lethally vulnerable may die in transport and continue to carry Bsal into the United States. As such, we also expect dead salamanders and body parts to be a pathway.

    Individual amphibians in trade are often transported in containers with many other individuals of the same species or with many other species that can all be from different sources. These conditions are highly conducive to pathogen transmission and dispersal. Pathogens can transfer from host to host in crowded conditions, and crowded conditions create stress on animals that can reduce amphibian hosts' natural ability to ward off infections (Rowley et al. 2007, Rachowicz et al. 2005, Rollins-Smith et al. 2011).

    Bsal can also be introduced into the environment through the improper disposal of contaminated water or other materials used to transport salamanders. As described above under Environmental Conditions Needed to Survive, the fungus can likely persist in such materials independent of whether a salamander is present. Water and other materials have served as fomites to introduce other similar pathogens into the environment. For example, Bd has been found in water used to transport amphibians that were traded in Hong Kong (Kolby et al. 2014). As the authors noted, “[T]he abundance of aquatic amphibian species traded by Hong Kong . . ., prolonged environmental persistence of infectious . . . Bd particles, and employment of trade activities that neither disinfect water nor safely dispose of deceased animals creates an ideal pathway for disease transmission to native Hong Kong amphibians.”

    Drawing on this evidence, the primary pathway for the entry of salamanders that are hosts of Bsal into the United States is through the international commercial wildlife trade. Overall, 99.9 percent of salamander importation into the United States is for commercial purposes (USFWS OLE 2015). From 2010 to 2014, salamanders were imported through 14 ports of entry into the United States; the 3 ports of entry with the largest numbers of imported salamanders were Los Angeles (California), Tampa (Florida), and New York (New York) (Richgels et al. in review). After import, many of the salamanders are transported to animal wholesalers, who then transport the salamanders to pet retailers.

    The most likely pathway of a salamander that is a host to Bsal into the United States would include a pet store or online retailer. Individuals would purchase the salamander from a pet store (or online retailer) and keep it in captivity as a pet. Many amphibians and reptiles first kept as pets are released by their owners into the wild either intentionally or accidentally (Kraus 2009, Krysko et al. 2011). For example, owners may no longer be able to care for their pets or an animal may escape its enclosure. In addition to the risk from a release of an infected pet salamander into the wild, the water that is used to house an infected pet in captivity would feasibly contain Bsal zoospores. As a result, the discharge of untreated water used to house infected, captive animals could be a pathway for releasing infective zoospores into the environment and exposing native salamanders to Bsal (Stephen et al. 2015).

    International Trade in Salamanders

    Trade in wildlife occurs on a global scale, and amphibians are one of the most commonly traded animals (Smith et al. 2009). More than 52,149,000 documented amphibians were imported into the United States from 2004 to 2014, based on the Service's LEMIS data (USFWS OLE 2015). Salamanders comprised 2,504,590 (4.8 percent) of the total imports of amphibians (USFWS OLE 2015). The 2004 to 2014 LEMIS dataset should be considered as a conservative estimate because many import records identified the animal being imported only as a member of the Class Amphibia (rather than identifying it to species or genus level). In addition, incorrect salamander identifications to genus and species level appear to have commonly occurred in reporting to LEMIS (USFWS OLE 2015). LEMIS data shows that 65 percent of imported salamanders came from captive sources and 35 percent were from wild sources (USFWS OLE 2015). The LEMIS data recorded only 83 percent of declared imports at the species level, whereas 17 percent were recorded to the genus level (USFWS OLE 2015).

    The four salamander genera most commonly imported into the United States from 2004 to 2014 were Cynops, Paramesotriton, Triturus, and Pachytriton (USFWS OLE 2015). Cynops, Triturus, and Paramesotriton are three genera that can serve as carriers for Bsal (Martel et al. 2014). Of the 20 genera listed by this interim rule, 15 have been traded over the 11 years. Salamanders that can carry Bsal have comprised 95 percent of imported salamanders.

    The species with the highest number of imports into the United States from 2004 to 2014 was the Oriental fire belly newt; this species comprised 54 percent of the total number of imported salamanders (USFWS OLE 2015). Twelve species of salamanders that are native to the United States were also imported into the United States from other countries from 2004 through 2014 (USFWS OLE 2015).

    Risk Assessments and Salamander Effects From Bsal Bsal Risk Assessments

    Two Bsal risk assessments are available to help determine the risk associated with Bsal introduction into North America. The USGS conducted a risk assessment for the United States that helped us determine the level of risk associated with Bsal introduction (Richgels et al. in review). Stephen et al. (2015) also conducted a Bsal risk assessment for Canada that showed Canada is also at risk.

    The USGS risk assessment concludes that the potential for Bsal introduction into the United States is high, the United States has suitable conditions for Bsal survival, and the consequences of introduction into the United States are expected to be severe and occur across a wide range of the United States (Richgels et al. in review). To evaluate the potential for Bsal introduction, the USGS assessment combined information on the number of individual salamanders imported at each port of entry and the number of pet supply establishments by county. Based on this evaluation, Bsal introduction potential was highest in central and southern Florida, southern California, and near New York City, New York (Richgels et al. in review).

    To determine the consequences of Bsal introduction into the United States, the USGS risk assessment evaluated environmental suitability, species richness, and predicted species susceptibility. Overall, the total risk of Bsal to native salamanders is high. Based on both likely introduction and resultant consequences, the risk of Bsal is the highest for the Pacific coast, southern Appalachian Mountains, and mid-Atlantic regions (Richgels et al. in review). The areas most likely to have consequences from Bsal introduction are the Pacific Coast and Appalachian Mountains (Richgels et al. in review). Based on environmental suitability, areas of the United States most suited to Bsal growth (Blooi et al. 2015a), including the Southwest, Southeast, and Pacific regions, are also the areas of highest salamander diversity (Richgels et al. in review). Yap et al. (2015) also identified the southeastern and western United States as zones of high risk.

    Some species may be protected from Bsal by temperatures in their regions that are outside of the Bsal optimal growth range (Richgels et al. in review), but the average temperature preferences of salamanders from Central and North America (Duellman and Trueb 1986), which range from −2.0 °C (28.4 °F) to 30.0 °C (86.0 °F), suggest that most salamander species, including those within the United States, are active near the thermal growth optimum for Bsal (Blooi et al. 2015a). Most U.S. salamander species are also dependent upon forests, a habitat type dominated by relatively cool, moist conditions, for the majority of their life cycle (Davic and Welsh 2004).

    Vulnerability and Carrier Status

    The urgent need to prevent Bsal introduction risks was raised by evidence presented by Martel et al. (2014), who tested Bsal on 35 species from all three orders of amphibians: frogs, salamanders, and caecilians. Martel et al. (2014) further screened 5,391 specimens collected from 4 continents for evidence of Bsal infection.

    Martel et al. (2014) defines a “resistant” salamander as one that either was not infected or developed a short-term infection without clinical signs following exposure to Bsal; a “tolerant” salamander is one that maintains a more prolonged infection with no signs of disease; a “susceptible” salamander becomes infected and has clinical signs of disease with the possibility of subsequent recovery; and a salamander that responds in a “lethal” manner to Bsal dies as a result of infection. According to Martel et al. (2014), resistant salamanders are not a risk for transmitting Bsal. However, based on the available scientific data, we concluded that resistant species with evidence of short-term infection, as well as those reported to have tolerant, susceptible, or lethal responses to Bsal, are “carriers” capable of transmitting Bsal to other salamanders and introducing the fungus into the United States. The Service finds that a species is considered to be a “non-carrier” when Martel et al. (2014) classified the species as “resistant” and no histologic or field surveillance data was found to suggest that short-term Bsal infection could occur; “non-carriers” are considered incapable of transmitting Bsal to other salamanders or introducing the fungus into the United States.

    We also find the likelihood of a species within the same genus being a carrier can be drawn from a comparison to Bd, which as described above under General Description of Chytrid Fungus is a close relative of Bsal. As noted earlier, the two risk assessments of Bsal that have been conducted both used Bd in determining the risk of Bsal based on transmission, spread, and population-level effects (Richgels et al. in review; Stephen et al. 2015). Considerably more is known about Bd than Bsal due to its discovery and description more than 15 years ago (Berger et al. 1998; Longcore et al. 1999), while Bsal was discovered only 2 years ago (Martel et al. 2013). Bd has caused amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide (Skerratt et al. 2007). Bd affects species in patterns (Skerratt et al. 2007), and more closely related species have similar outcomes for Bd at the family level (Smith et al. 2009; Bancroft et al. 2011). Amphibians experiencing the most severe declines are grouped by relatedness, which is likely due to the shared evolutionary histories of closely related species with a similar response to chytridiomycosis (Corey and Waite 2008). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) uses a similar approach. Closely related species are considered more likely to have similar traits and are used in risk assessments to determine threats from a target species of interest; a potential pest is regarded as a threat when other species in a genus pose a similar threat (Wapshere 1974; Gilbert et al. 2012).

    We find that, due to shared characteristics by species within a genus, other species within these genera are also highly likely to be carriers of Bsal if one species has been identified as a carrier, even if not every species in the genus has been tested to verify that it is a carrier of Bsal. Our analysis found no conclusive countervailing evidence that species differed within a genus with respect to their ability to act as carriers. As such, we expect all species in a genus to respond similarly as carriers or non-carriers to Bsal. Therefore, based on existing scientific evidence, and as described in more detail below, we are listing all species in the 20 genera, including 201 known species, that we now conclude constitute a threat to introducing and spreading Bsal in the United States because such species can carry the fungus and transmit it to other species which would be negatively impacted.

    While frogs and caecilians showed resistance to Bsal, many salamanders exhibited a strong, adverse response to Bsal infection; many species from outside of the native range of the fungus (Asia) exhibited lethal vulnerability. Our analysis of Martel et al. (2014) and follow-up communication (Martel, pers. comm.) found 25 species from 19 genera are carriers of Bsal. Additional communications (Chytridcrisis 2015b; Cunningham et al. 2015; Nanjappa, pers. comm.) identified another two species from two separate genera as carriers: The pygmy marbled newt (Triturus pygmaeus) and the golden striped salamander (Chioglossa lusitanica). Because Martel et al. (2014) had previously identified members of the Triturus genus as carriers, it is already accounted for within the 19 genera. The addition of this species brings the total number of known carrier species to 26. In addition to Triturus, Chioglossa was identified as another genus capable of serving as a carrier by Chytridcrisis (2015b), Cunningham et al. (2015), and Nanjappa (pers. comm.). As a result, the total number of species known to serve as carriers of Bsal is 27 from 20 genera. These 20 genera include the following: Chioglossa, Cynops, Euproctus, Hydromantes, Hynobius, Ichthyosaura, Lissotriton, Neurergus, Notophthalmus, Onychodactylus, Paramesotriton, Plethodon, Pleurodeles, Salamandra, Salamandrella, Salamandrina, Siren, Taricha, Triturus, and Tylototriton.

    In conducting its analysis, the Service initially focused on identifying species for listing as injurious that scientific evidence demonstrates are capable of carrying Bsal. As we described above, however, we find that, due to shared characteristics by species within a genus, other species within these genera are also highly likely to be carriers of Bsal, even if not every species in the genus has been tested to verify that it is a carrier of Bsal. This conclusion is because more closely related species, such as those found within the same genus, share common traits. Our analysis found no conclusive evidence to the contrary that suggested that all species within such genera are not carriers.

    We have focused our findings on salamanders and the genera in which they are found that we concluded are capable of carrying Bsal, and we are not listing genera that Martel et al. (2014) identified are not carriers of Bsal: Based on our analysis of their data, such salamanders are not capable of introducing Bsal to the United States or otherwise transmitting Bsal to native populations. In addition, we are not listing genera at this time where there is no data because we do not have a basis for doing so, even though the Service recognizes that it is possible that untested genera may also be capable of carrying Bsal. Likewise, we are not listing hybrids derived from species consisting of a listed genera and an unlisted one because we do not know their status as carriers. However, consistent with our view that species within a genus are likely to be carriers of Bsal if one species within that genus has been identified as a carrier, hybrids consisting of two species from within the same genus are expected also to be carriers.

    In conclusion, we have decided to list all 201 species in the 20 genera where at least one species has been positively identified as a carrier of Bsal and there is no countervailing conclusive evidence suggesting that some species within the genus are not carriers. Where one species has been identified as a carrier, we find that the other species in that genus are also carriers. This finding includes hybrids consisting of species found within the genus.

    In reaching this conclusion, it is worth noting that Martel et al. (2014) classified the slimy salamander (or northern slimy salamander, Plethodon glutinosus) as resistant to infection. Martel et al. (2014) demonstrated by histology, however, that Bsal could invade the skin of the slimy salamander, even though it was otherwise resistant through challenge testing and did not show signs of infection. Our examination of the supplementary data of Martel et al. (2014), including histology (microscopy) tests and subsequent discussions with the authors, indicate that there is sufficient evidence that Bsal was able to invade the skin of this species long enough to move or transmit the infection to other salamanders (Martel et al. 2014; Martel, pers. comm.; Lips, pers. comm.). Because we expect all species within a genus to respond in a similar way as a carrier or not of Bsal, we conclude that all species of Plethodon are carriers.

    Martel et al. (2014) also classified the palmate newt (Lissotriton helveticus) as resistant to infection even though the Italian newt (Lissotriton italicus) was identified as lethally vulnerable to Bsal. Martel conducted histological tests that showed the palmate newt could carry Bsal even though it demonstrated resistant vulnerability. Our examination of the data of Martel et al. (2014), as well as a personal communication from K. Lips (2015), indicates that there is sufficient evidence that Bsal was able to invade the skin of the palmate newt long enough to pass the infection to other salamanders. Because we expect all species within a genus to respond in a similar way as a carrier or not of Bsal, we also conclude that all species of Lissotriton are carriers.

    In addition, Martel et al. (2014) classified the Hokkaido salamander (Hynobius retardatus) as resistant to Bsal under experimental conditions. However, we find that the misty salamander (H. nebulosus) is a carrier based on detection of Bsal by Martel et al. (2014) in a free-ranging specimen from Japan. The histology tests that were conducted for the slimy salamander and the palmate newt, and which we used to find that these species are carriers, were not conducted for the Hokkaido salamander. Bsal's ability to invade the skin of the Hokkaido salamander remains unknown because histologic examination of the skin was not conducted for the species. Because the Hokkaido salamander was resistant in experimental tests but was not tested histologically to look for invasion in the skin, we find that the Hokkaido salamander has an inconclusive status as a carrier and base our finding of whether species from the genus Hynobius are carriers on results identified for the misty salamander (a carrier from the same genus). Because we expect all species within a genus to respond in a similar way as a carrier or not of Bsal, we concluded that all species from the genus Hynobius are also carriers.

    Finally, although Martel et al. (2014) did not test species from the genus Onychodactylus in the laboratory, Martel et al. (2014) observed Bsal on the Japanese clawed salamander (O. japonicas) in a free-ranging specimen from Japan. Based on that evidence, we concluded that this species is a carrier. Because we expect all species within a genus to respond in a similar way as a carrier or not of Bsal, we concluded that the other species in the genus Onychodactylus are also carriers.

    Vulnerability and Carrier Status of Native Species

    There are 190 species of salamander in 23 genera native to the United States (AmphibiaWeb 2015b). Of the 201 salamander species that we conclude are carriers of Bsal (20 genera in 4 families), 67 species (5 genera in 3 families) are native to the United States. Of the remaining 123 species native to the United States, we found that 20 species are not carriers and the vulnerability and carrier status of the remaining 103 species from the other 16 genera is unknown.

    We based our findings of the 67 native species on tests conducted by Martel et al. (2014), who tested 7 native species in the laboratory for Bsal vulnerability. The native species that Martel et al. (2014) tested were the eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), rough-skinned newt (Taricha granulosa), lesser siren (Siren intermedia), slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus), spring salamander (Gyrinophilus porphyriticus), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), and spotted salamander (A. maculatum). Of these, 2 species were found to be lethally affected, 1 was tolerant, and 4 were described as resistant, although additional evidence indicates that one of the resistant species is capable of transmitting the fungus, resulting in a positive carrier status. As we described above in Vulnerability and Carrier Status, although the Service found evidence that species within a genus may vary in their specific vulnerability (that is, lethal, susceptible, tolerant, or resistant, as defined in Martel et al. (2014)), we expect all species in a genus to respond similarly as carriers or non-carriers to Bsal due to the shared characteristics between species. Therefore, we are listing all species within a genus where at least one species in that genus has been identified as a carrier of Bsal.

    Based on the results of Martel et al. (2014), at least 2 native U.S. species, the eastern newt and rough-skinned newt, were found to be lethally vulnerable to Bsal. The French cave salamander (Hydromantes strinatii), which is not native to the United States, was also tested and identified as lethally vulnerable to Bsal (Martel et al. 2014). The Notophthalmus genus has two additional native species: The black-spotted newt (N. meridionalis) and the striped newt (N. perstriatus). The Taricha genus has three additional native species: The red-bellied newt (T. rivularis), Sierra newt (T. sierra), and California newt (T. torosa). The Hydromantes genus has three native U.S. species: The limestone salamander (H. brunus), Mount Lyell salamander (H. platycephalus), and Shasta salamander (H. shastae).

    At least 1 native U.S. species from the Siren genus, the lesser siren, has a tolerant vulnerability (Martel et al. (2014). The genus has one additional native species: The greater siren (S. lacertina).

    Four native species have been identified as resistant by Martel et al. (2014), but we have concluded that one of these species is still capable of carrying Bsal. As we describe above in Vulnerability and Carrier Status, we conclude that the slimy salamander is resistant to sustained infection but it can serve as a short-term carrier of Bsal. The Plethodon genus has 54 other species, all of which are native to the United States (AmphibiaWeb 2015b), bringing the total number of native carrier species to 67.

    Three additional native salamander species were identified as resistant to Bsal infection: The spring salamander (Gyrinophilus porphyriticus), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), and spotted salamander (A. maculatum) (Martel et al. 2014). They are not expected to be carriers; therefore, we conclude that the 20 native U.S. species in their genera are not capable of carrying Bsal. This includes 4 species from the genus Gyrinophilus and 16 species from the genus Ambystoma (AmphibiaWeb 2015b).

    Of the 190 native U.S. salamander species, carrier status has not been assessed in 103 species from 16 genera. The untested genera are Amphiuma, Aneides, Batrachoseps, Cryptobranchus, Desmognathus, Dicamptodon, Ensatina, Eurycea, Hemidactylium, Necturus, Phaeognathus, Pseudobranchus, Pseudotriton, Rhyacotriton, Stereochilus, and Urspelerpes (AmphibiaWeb 2015b). Although based on the gradient responses, from resisting infection to lethal response, among the genera Martel et al. (2014) tested experimentally, some of these additional species could be at risk from Bsal infection or could serve as a carrier, we are not listing species in those genera because these genera have not yet been tested.

    Vulnerability and Carrier Status of Threatened and Endangered Species

    None of the salamander species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA in the United States has been specifically tested for Bsal vulnerability under laboratory conditions; Bsal has not been detected in their wild populations (Martel et al. 2014, Bales et al. 2015). However, several species from the same genera have been tested and on that basis identified as carriers. As we describe above in Vulnerability and Carrier Status, while the Service did find evidence that shows some species within a genus may vary in their specific vulnerability, the carrier status of tested species can be extrapolated to related species including those that are listed as endangered or threatened, are candidates for ESA listing, and under review.

    Of the genera that include native species that we have identified as carriers, the following species are federally listed as threatened or endangered: Jemez Mountains salamander (P. neomexicanus), Cheat Mountain salamander (P. netting), Shenandoah salamander (P. shenandoah) and, one species, the striped newt (Notophthalmus perstriatus) is a candidate species (USFWS 2015).

    Seven of the species, subspecies, or distinct population segments (DPSs) listed as federally endangered or threatened are classified within the Ambystoma genus, which we find is not a carrier of the fungus: Reticulated flatwoods salamander (A. bishopi), California tiger salamander (three DPSs), frosted flatwoods salamander (A. cingulatum), Santa Cruz long-toed salamander (A. macrodactylum croceum), and Sonora tiger salamander (Martel et al. 2014; USFWS 2015).

    No information is available regarding Bsal vulnerability or carrier status of the remaining 11 ESA-listed or candidate species or subspecies native to the United States: desert slender salamander (Batrachoseps aridus), Ozark hellbender, Salado salamander (Eurycea chisholmensis), San Marcos salamander (E. nana), Georgetown salamander (E. naufragia), Texas blind salamander (E. (Typhlomolge) rathbuni), Barton springs salamander (E. sosorum), Jollyville Plateau salamander (E. tonkawae), Austin blind salamander (E. waterlooensis), Berry Cave salamander (Gyrinophilus gulolineatus), and the Alabama waterdog (Necturus alabamensis).

    In addition to those species currently recognized as federally endangered, threatened, or candidates for listing under the ESA, 36 species of native salamander from 16 genera are in various stages of review for possible ESA listing in the future (USFWS 2015). Of the genera that include native species that we have identified as carriers, the following species are currently under review for ESA listing: Limestone salamander (petitioned), Shasta salamander (petitioned), the black-spotted newt (positive 90-day finding completed), Cheoah bald salamander (P. cheoah, petitioned), Fourche Mountain salamander (P. fourchensis, petitioned), Peaks of Otter salamander (P. hubrichti, positive 90-day finding completed), South Mountain gray-cheeked salamander (P. meridianus, petitioned), and the white-spotted salamander (P. punctatus, petitioned) (Martel et al. 2014; USFWS 2015).

    Three species under ESA review are members of genera that are not carriers: (Streamside salamander (Ambystoma barbouri) (substantial 90-day finding completed—76 FR 59836, September 27, 2011), Tennessee cave salamander (Gyrinophilus palleucus) (substantial 90-day finding completed—76 FR 59836, September 27, 2011), West Virginia spring salamander (G. subterraneus) (substantial 90-day finding completed—76 FR 59836, September 27, 2011) (Martel et al. 2014; USFWS 2015).

    No information is available regarding the carrier status for the remaining 25 native species in 11 genera that are currently under review for ESA listing (USFWS 2015).

    Additional Factors That Contribute to Consideration of Salamanders as Injurious Likelihood of Release or Escape

    In general, there is widespread concern over the increasing spread of pathogens moved through the wildlife trade (for example, Karesh et al. 2005). Substantial evidence shows that Bd has spread extensively throughout the world through the amphibian trade (Fisher and Garner 2007; Schloegel et al. 2009; Schloegel et al. 2012; Galindo-Bustos 2014; Kolby 2014; Kolby et al. 2014). Similar mechanisms of transmission and persistence in the closely related Bsal pathogen, along with detection of Bsal in captive salamanders imported by the pet trade into Great Britain, indicate that global movement of Bsal, similar to that of Bd, is not only possible but is already occurring (Cunningham 2015). Considering the occurrence of Bsal in the global pet trade, the risk to North American native species, and the number of salamanders that are imported into and transported throughout the United States through trade, Bsal is likely to be introduced into and spread throughout native salamander populations in the United States unless immediate action is taken to limit the import and interstate transport of salamanders that are likely to carry Bsal.

    Infected salamanders can transmit Bsal to other species even if the introduced salamander fails to establish a population. Evidence indicates that at least some of the salamanders capable of carrying Bsal can escape or be released and introduce Bsal into the environment. As described earlier, evidence exists for release of salamanders into the wild in the United States (Picco and Collins 2008; USGS 2015). As noted above in Invasiveness of Salamanders, the USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species database has records for 14 salamander species that have been observed outside their native range. Of those, 11 are native to the United States and were discovered outside of their native ranges, and 3 are exotic species from outside the United States. These findings mean that salamanders have been shown to exist, even if temporarily, outside their native range. As such, they are capable of transmitting Bsal into nonindigenous ecosystems. Infected native species that are imported and escape or are released into native habitats would also be capable of carrying Bsal into native salamander ecosystems where Bsal has not previously been found.

    Infective Bsal zoospores can also be released into the environment if water or other materials used to house infected salamanders enter the environment due to improper disinfection and disposal methods. The water and materials become fomites to introduce the fungus into the environment if not decontaminated or disposed of properly. As described above under Environmental Conditions Needed to Survive, Bsal can likely live independent of a host long enough to infect other salamanders. Bd is known to remain viable for weeks in water and moist organic matter. Given our finding that Bd can serve as a surrogate for predicting Bsal's effects in salamanders at the population level, and since Bd does not require an amphibian host to remain viable, we expect that Bsal can also persist outside salamanders (as long as it has sufficient water or soil) long enough to come into contact with uninfected salamanders and start the disease cycle anew. As stated earlier, we also find that Bsal can be transmitted on dead salamanders or body parts.

    As discussed above in Introduction Pathways, there is evidence that Bd has escaped into the environment through untreated wastewater, increasing the likelihood that Bsal could also escape if brought in via contaminated water or improperly disposed of materials. While standards for the treatment and prevention of Bd exist, in part due to recognition of its status as an internationally notifiable disease under the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), the effectiveness and widespread application of those standards are uncertain given that international protocols for responding to Bd do not exist and the need to improve international mechanisms to respond to disease-related threats to biodiversity (Voyles et al. 2014).

    Given the number of specimens that have been imported into the United States and Canada, it is unclear why Bsal has not yet been found in these countries (Muletz et al. 2014; Bales et al. 2015; Richgels et al. in review; Stephen et al. 2015). A comparison of Bd, which has spread in the United States, to Bsal yields some insights. Based on genetic analyses and examination of historical specimens, Bd may have originated from different places, including Japan, South Africa, or South America (Farrer et al. 2011; Rodriguez et al. 2014). In contrast, Bsal may have originated only from Asia, giving it fewer pathways to the United States (Martel et al. 2014). Importation of salamanders into the United States has also declined in recent years, suggesting that the propagule pressure may also be a factor by limiting the number of times in which Bsal could possibly be introduced through trade (Lockwood et al. 2005; USFWS OLE 2015). Bd may have spread more quickly than Bsal because of its ability to infect frogs, whereas research suggests that Bsal does not (Martel et al. 2014). Based on LEMIS data, frogs are traded in higher volumes than salamanders, increasing the probability of trade of a Bd-infected individual over a Bsal-infected individual. The USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species database also provides evidence for this higher level of trade, in that greater numbers of frogs are reported than salamanders. In addition, many frogs in trade, such as Rana catesbeiana (bullfrogs), are adaptable to a wide variety of environments and can easily become invasive once released in a watershed, as bullfrogs have become in the American West (Jennings and Hayes 1994; Rosen and Schwalbe 1995; Funk et al. 2011; Sepulveda et al. 2015; USGS 2015).

    Taken together with the other data we reviewed, this evidence suggests that Bsal is less likely to enter the United States than Bd. However, without action, the pathways for introduction and escape of Bsal are a significant and imminent threat that can best be managed by listing salamanders that can carry Bsal as injurious wildlife, thereby minimizing opportunities for Bsal to be introduced, establish, and spread in the United States.

    Potential To Survive, Become Established, and Spread

    There is evidence that several of the species capable of carrying Bsal can survive long enough in the wild to transmit Bsal. The USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species database has records of 14 species and populations that have been observed in the United States outside of their native range (USGS 2015). Of those, 11 are native and have established populations outside of their native U.S. range: Eastern tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum), barred tiger salamander (Ambystoma mavortium mavortium), blotched tiger salamander (Ambystoma mavortium melanostictum), long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum), three-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma tridactylum), black-bellied salamander (Desmognathus quadramaculatus), Santeetlah dusky salamander (Desmognathus santeetlah), mudpuppy, eastern newt, lesser siren, and rough-skinned newt. The three species from outside the United States include Japanese newt, Oriental fire belly newt, and spotless stout newt (Pachytriton labiatus).

    According to Richgels et al. (in review), “Although prevalence of Bsal in live amphibian shipments, probability of release of infected materials (including live or dead animals or wastewater), and likelihood of interaction between infectious material and naïve free-ranging salamanders is unknown, given the large quantities of imported amphibians, even a small probability of infected animals or materials escaping into the wild could lead to introduction of [Bsal].” As discussed earlier under Introduction Pathways and Environmental Conditions Needed to Survive, Bsal is expected to be able to survive outside of salamander hosts for several weeks given suitable conditions in water. If a salamander comes in contact with Bsal and then transmits it during a time when salamanders congregate, such as during breeding as described above under Habitats, Reproductive Processes, and Seasonal Habits, the potential for Bsal to survive, establish, and spread through animals or animal parts is significant. As we describe above under How the Fungus Affects Salamanders, Bsal can be transmitted on dead tissue where keratin is present, particularly skin, but do not find that Bsal can be transmitted through reproductive tissue including eggs and gametes.

    As Richgels et al. (in review) noted, “[T]he patterns of global Bd spread suggests that given release, exposure of native populations is likely. If Bsal follows similar patterns to the spread of Bd and no additional risk mitigation steps are taken, Bsal is likely to be introduced to the US.” The Service finds that the capacity of infected salamanders to serve as the vector for infecting wild salamanders, together with the capacity of Bsal to survive for an extended period independent of an amphibian host, suggests that Bsal has a high likelihood of surviving, establishing, and spreading once it is introduced into a new area.

    Impacts on Wildlife Resources or Ecosystems

    If Bsal is introduced into the United States, we expect the species with lethal vulnerability would be at greatest risk. However, disease outbreaks can result from a combination of biotic and abiotic factors, including species vulnerability, exposure, behavior, immunity, co-infections, and environmental conditions (Wobeser 2007). Therefore, the vulnerability of individuals under laboratory conditions is an incomplete predictor of disease effects (Wobeser 2007). Native salamander species known to be tolerant of Bsal infection under experimental conditions may demonstrate more severe clinical disease when infection is combined with additional stressors in the wild, as has been found for other diseases, including those in amphibians (Wobeser 2007; Kerby et al. 2011; Kiesecker 2011). For example, Bodinof et al. (2011) noted that Bd may be found more frequently in hellbenders that are immune-compromised or that Bd infection increases the adverse effects of such species to other infections. Considering these cumulative factors, as well as the lack of data for the majority of native salamander species, our assessment of risk in native species is likely conservative.

    Bsal can severely affect wildlife resources. At least 2 native species are lethally vulnerable to Bsal and at least 1 is tolerant to Bsal infection. At least 67 native species can act as carriers or sources of infection for other species. While not all species have been tested for their response to Bsal, based on the high rates of infection that have been observed, the fungus may have significant negative effects on additional species.

    As described above in Ecosystem-Level Effects, salamanders are important parts of the ecosystems in which they occur. They are often the most abundant vertebrates in their ecosystems, and, as a vital part of the food web, they are both important prey for and predators of many species (Holomuzki et al. 1994; Regester et al. 2006). In some places, they are considered keystone species that help control some invertebrate populations and affect cycling of nutrients in an ecosystem, contributing significantly to overall ecosystem health. For example, by consuming arthropods that would otherwise release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by decomposing leaf litter in forests, salamanders slow carbon emissions from leaf litter decomposition, which has implications for the global carbon cycle (Best and Welsh 2014). As described earlier, invertebrate species that depend on salamanders for aspects of their life cycle or ecology are likely to be adversely affected if their host species declines in response to a Bsal introduction. Loss of these keystone species would result in significant ecosystem-level change.

    Salamanders constitute much of the vertebrate biomass of forests, and they play an important role in ecosystems as insect consumers, shapers of the landscape, and climate mediators (Burton and Likens 1975; Davic and Welsh 2004; Wyman 1998; Best and Welsh 2014). If native U.S. salamander species were to experience declines from Bsal infection as the fire salamander experienced in the Netherlands (Spitzen-van der Sluijs et al. 2013), we expect detrimental ecological effects.

    The eastern newt, one of the lethally vulnerable species, is one of the most widespread salamander species in North America (Roe and Grayson 2008, Martel et al. 2014). As top predators in pond ecosystems, eastern newts regulate frog tadpole abundance and, therefore, affect the amount and type of nutrients available in the ponds, keeping them in ecological balance (Morin et al. 1983; Morin 1995). If eastern newt populations decline because of Bsal infection in the wild, imbalances could result in ponds and ecosystems throughout the eastern United States. Eastern newts also travel long distances between aquatic and terrestrial habitats (Roe and Grayson 2008), so if the species was to be eliminated from an area, the amount of nutrients available in upland areas would also be affected.

    The other native U.S. species known to be lethally vulnerable to Bsal, the rough-skinned newt, is geographically widespread along the Pacific Coast of North America from Santa Cruz, California, to southeastern Alaska (Martel et al. 2014; Amphibiaweb 2015a). The rough-skinned newt plays an important role in ecosystems through its consumption of invertebrates that break down leaf litter and release carbon into the atmosphere (Davic and Welsh 2004). If rough-skinned newt populations were to experience severe declines from Bsal infection, a result could be significant additional inputs of carbon in the atmosphere, as has been observed with other species (Wyman 1998; Best and Welsh 2014).

    As Richgels et al. (in review) noted, some parts of the United States may reach temperatures above the thermal tolerance of Bsal on a seasonal basis. However, wildlife and habitats would suffer losses if local populations of salamanders affected by Bsal prior to temperatures rising as part of the regular seasonal cycle suffered declines (and possible extirpation) and were unable to return to pre-infection levels in those ecosystems.

    For these reasons, we conclude that the negative impact to wildlife resources or ecosystems is expected to be high if Bsal is introduced into U.S. ecosystems.

    Impact to Threatened and Endangered Species and Their Habitats

    None of the salamander species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA in the United States have been specifically tested for Bsal vulnerability under laboratory conditions; Bsal has not been detected in their wild populations (Martel et al. 2014, Bales et al. 2015). Of the genera that include native species that we have identified as carriers, 4 species are federally listed as threatened or endangered or are candidates for listing. In addition, 8 species of native salamanders from genera that were identified as carriers are in various stages of review for possible ESA listing in the future (USFWS 2015). Because not all species have been tested, it is possible that the fungus will negatively affect other ESA-protected species.

    Impacts to Human Beings, Forestry, Horticulture, and Agriculture

    We do not expect direct effects to forestry, horticulture, or agriculture. Bsal does not appear to infect humans or other animals except for salamanders. Trees and other plants are also not affected. Indirectly, the introduction or establishment of Bsal would have negative effects on humans primarily from the loss of native wildlife biodiversity. These losses would affect the aesthetic, recreational, and economic values currently provided by native wildlife and healthy ecosystems. Educational values would also be diminished through the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem health. However, we are not listing the species because of the indirect impacts to forestry, horticulture, or agriculture, but rather due to their impacts to wildlife and wildlife resources.

    Wildlife or Habitat Damages That May Occur From Control Measures

    Richgels et al. (in review) stated, “[T]here are few known viable treatment or management options for responding to the introduction of Bsal . . . hence mitigation strategies should focus on prevention or reduction of introduction events.” As discussed below in Ability to Prevent or Control the Spread of Pathogens or Parasites, current control strategies appear to focus on treating salamanders in a controlled laboratory setting. We are not aware of control measures that are effective in treating infected salamanders over a large-scale area that could eliminate Bsal without killing the salamanders themselves.

    In an effort to control Bsal, it might be possible to kill all salamanders in an area and repopulate it after the fungus has been given enough time to clear from the environment. However, the life history of salamanders makes it highly unlikely that all individuals, including those that are infected, could be completely eradicated. Many species are long-lived and inhabit areas that may be hard to reach. In addition, the effects on other wildlife of chemically treating an area in order to eradicate infected salamanders is unknown but could be expected to be severe.

    Ability To Prevent Escape and Establishment

    We considered whether it was practical for an exporting foreign nation to produce a health certificate stating that a possible carrier of Bsal has been found to be free of the fungus. Such action would help ensure that Bsal does not escape from an exporting nation by being carried on an infected salamander. However, there are significant concerns regarding the effectiveness and sensitivity of current testing methods (including the return of false negatives), lack of validation and sufficient testing capacity, and agency resources required to conduct inspections, interpret results, and issue health certificates. Although some countries may have the necessary skills to prepare a health certification that salamanders are free of Bsal, not all exporting nations may have the necessary skills or resources. Scientists and diagnostic laboratories are also working to standardize laboratory protocols (Ballard, pers. comm.).

    As discussed below in Ability to Prevent or Control the Spread of Pathogens or Parasites, the ability and effectiveness of measures to prevent or control Bsal is currently low. While less certain, we also expect the ability to prevent escape and establishment is also low. Nonregulatory actions, such as implementing voluntary Best Management Practices or individual State action, are possible. The Service, for example, is working with partners on efforts such as HabitattitudeTM, which encourages responsible consumer actions with respect to pet ownership. Such actions include finding alternatives to releasing pets into the environment. Voluntary actions, such as applying heat therapy as described in Blooi et al. (2015a) and Blooi et al. (2015b), may help reduce the threat posed by Bsal. However, at this time it is not possible to determine the likelihood of success of such measures.

    As described earlier under Invasiveness of Salamanders and General Description of Chytrid Fungus, salamanders have escaped into the ecosystem, and Bd, a related fungus, has also escaped and established in the United States. Therefore, we expect the likelihood of the Service's ability to prevent escape and establishment of Bsal through infected salamanders to be low. Although voluntary actions are vital to help minimize the threat of invasive species, the Service is highly concerned about the extensive damage that introduction of Bsal would do to this nation's resources. As a result, we concluded that we cannot rely on voluntary actions alone to address the severity of the threat that Bsal poses and that other measures to prevent escape and establishment are not sufficient to ensure Bsal is not successfully introduced.

    Therefore, we find that we cannot rely on these approaches to prevent escape and establishment of Bsal and that our current capacity to prevent escape and establishment is low.

    Potential To Eradicate or Manage Established Populations

    While some introduced salamanders in the United States have been successfully controlled, such as the lesser siren (which was eliminated from a backyard pond outside its native U.S. range), others such as the three-toed amphiuma have not (USGS 2015). However, evidence for control is sparse. Given the high rates of infection among salamanders tested by Martel et al. (2014), and the lack of control measures for Bsal that could be employed outside of a controlled facility, it is likely that Bsal would persist once introduced into the environment given appropriate environmental conditions, especially if a tolerant or susceptible salamander established a population and continued to spread Bsal.

    Ability To Rehabilitate Disturbed Ecosystems

    Bsal infection can lead to the loss of keystone species in the ecosystem. The ability to rehabilitate disturbed ecosystems is expected to be low. We considered whether the Service's National Fish Hatchery System (NFHS) could be used to maintain salamanders in refugia while areas are treated, much as we maintain a population of the San Marcos salamander, which is listed as threatened, at the Uvalde National Fish Hatchery. However, it is impractical to equip NFHS facilities to be able to rapidly protect numerous salamander populations and maintain them for an extended time such as might be required due to Bsal's introduction. Although, as described in the next section, a few options exist to treat individual salamanders, none have been identified that can be used to clear Bsal from a widespread area. Consequently, we expect that once Bsal has been introduced, it will persist and spread with little opportunity for widespread disinfection from ecosystems.

    Studies have also questioned the effectiveness of captive-breeding programs to address threats, such as infectious disease, to amphibians, including salamanders (Harding et al. 2015). Research on booroolong frogs (Litoria booroolongensis) demonstrated that exposing them to Bd did not improve their chances of mitigating future reinfection (Cashins et al. 2013). We expect, given similarities of Bd to Bsal, that salamanders will also show a similar response to Bsal infection. As a result, it may not be possible to stimulate an immune response in captive salamander populations that would allow them to be reintroduced into ecosystems where Bsal may still exist.

    Therefore, the ability to rehabilitate disturbed ecosystems is expected to be low because the Service would be unable to ensure that it could treat and protect all salamander populations expected to be affected by Bsal in the wild.

    Ability To Prevent or Control the Spread of Pathogens or Parasites

    The ability and effectiveness of measures to prevent or control Bsal is currently low. Few options can ensure potentially infected salamanders do not carry Bsal. Blooi et al. (2015a) has shown that treating salamanders infected with Bsal by exposing them “to 25 °C [77 °F] for 10 days resulted in complete clearance of infection and clinically cured all experimentally infected animals. This treatment protocol was validated in naturally infected wild fire salamanders.” The authors found that temperature treatment could be an effective option given the host salamander's thermal tolerance. However, the treatment does have some shortcomings. It is unknown whether all salamander species can tolerate the thermal regime required (Kolby, pers. comm.). Blooi et al. (2015a) also noted that there is some uncertainty as to whether the method is completely effective, as evidence of Bsal was found after thermal treatment, although it is possible that the evidence consisted of dead cells only.

    Other treatment options also exist, such as treatment with antifungal medications that can be applied on animals that do not tolerate 25 °C (77 °F) (Martel, pers. comm; Blooi et al. 2015b). It may be possible to treat amphibians in the wild for Bd with antifungals by capturing individuals and soaking them in a bath of the chemical, then releasing them back into the environment. This process does not seem to be as effective as desired, but may delay the eventual outcome of an outbreak enough to help individuals persist in the population (Hardy et al. 2015). Blooi et al. (2015b) identified a method for treating infected salamanders with a combination of antifungals and temperature control that successfully cleared Bsal; however, such treatment worked only for controlled settings such as those found in a laboratory or conservation facility and is impractical to treat widespread areas in the natural environment given the likely cost, personnel, and time needed to locate and treat all salamanders in the wild. As we have noted above under Environmental Conditions Needed to Survive, Bsal is likely capable of persisting in the environment without a host by transmission to infected materials. Even if all individuals of a population could be successfully treated, the threat of reintroduction from environmental contamination would still exist.

    Given the expected severity of consequences of Bsal introduction, all imported salamanders that could be carriers would need to be treated, which is not practical at this time due to the limited conditions under which this treatment is effective. Not all species will tolerate treatment, and reliable diagnostic capacity is needed to verify that animals do not carry Bsal following treatment. If an outbreak occurs, it would not be practical to locate and treat all individuals in the wild in U.S. ecosystems. While antifungal agents could be applied to all animals, either in the laboratory or perhaps applied over a large geographic area, we are concerned about side effects on the animals being treated. We are also concerned about possible negative environmental effects if a chemical was widely applied (Gyllenhammar et al. 2009; Hasselberg et al. 2008).

    Any Potential Ecological Benefits to Introduction

    There are no known benefits of Bsal or of salamanders carrying Bsal. The risks to native wildlife and wildlife resources greatly outweigh any unlikely benefits. There are no other potential ecological benefits for the introduction of Bsal or of Bsal-infected or Bsal-carrier salamanders into the United States.

    Conclusion

    Overall, there is a high risk to the wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States from salamanders that are capable of carrying Bsal. The United States leads all other countries in salamander diversity. Of the 190 native U.S. species, the vulnerability of 7 has been tested. We find that the fungus can infect and is lethal to at least 2 salamander species native to the United States and that a total of 67 native species are carriers of Bsal. The vulnerability and carrier status of 103 species have not been evaluated, many of which may also be vulnerable to this potentially deadly fungus. The disease may stress species with less lethal vulnerability under wild conditions; if these species are stressed by other factors, Bsal could cause harm to additional species in the face of cumulative stressors. The benefits that these native salamander species provide to ecosystems, and in turn the ecosystem services that benefit people, are significant. The Service concludes that preventing Bsal from infecting native salamanders will prevent harmful effects to the wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States and merits listing of salamanders capable of carrying Bsal as injurious.

    Salamanders capable of carrying Bsal have the potential to escape and spread Bsal. Species capable of carrying Bsal can survive long enough in the wild to transmit the fungus or can transmit it to other carriers while in transit. Bsal can also be introduced and infect native salamanders by improper disposal of material that comes in contact with infected salamanders, and persist long enough in the environment without a host to represent a threat.

    There is evidence that all species within a genus, where at least one species has been identified as a carrier of Bsal, can also be a threat. Our analysis found no conclusive evidence to the contrary. We find that, due to shared characteristics by species within a genus, other species within these genera are also highly likely to be carriers of Bsal, even if not every species in the genus has been tested to verify that it is a carrier of Bsal. Hybrids consisting of species found entirely within a genus identified as a carrier are also expected to be carriers.

    The main pathway for the global spread of Bsal is the international trade in salamanders. The most likely pathway of a salamander that is a host to Bsal into the United States would include a pet store or online retailer. Listing salamanders that are capable of carrying Bsal as injurious wildlife will significantly confine this pathway and limit Bsal's capacity to be introduced, establish, and spread in the United States.

    The current capacity to prevent escape and establishment is low. Rehabilitation of disturbed ecosystems is expected to be very difficult. The ability and effectiveness of measures to prevent or control Bsal is currently low. There are no known benefits of Bsal.

    The Service is listing live and dead specimens, including parts. We find the risk of transmission of Bsal to other salamanders is high from both live and dead specimens. Any salamanders that are infected and lethally vulnerable may die in transport and continue to carry Bsal into the United States. The risk is also high from improper disposal of materials that might be contaminated by those live or dead specimens. While we cannot list contaminated materials as injurious under the authority of the Act, by listing the carriers of Bsal, we seek to prevent the introduction of such materials.

    The Service is not adding eggs or gametes because Bsal does not appear to affect reproductive tissue such as eggs or gametes. The Service is not listing genera that we find are not carriers of Bsal because such salamanders are not capable of introducing Bsal to the United States or otherwise transmitting it to native populations. We are also not listing genera where there is no data, even though it is possible that untested genera may also be capable of carrying Bsal.

    For the reasons stated, the Service finds the 20 genera of salamanders to be injurious to the wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States. The potential for Bsal introduction into the United States is high, the United States has suitable conditions for Bsal survival, and the consequences of introduction into the United States are expected to be significant and occur across a wide range of the United States. By listing species that can carry Bsal, we are taking immediate action to help ensure the fungus does not enter the United States and infect native salamander populations and cause severe individual mortality, population declines, and ecosystem harm. We are not listing genera for which data is unavailable because we do not have a basis for doing so.

    Required Determinations Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.

    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that the regulatory system must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these principles.

    Executive Order 12866, Economic Analysis of Federal Regulations under Executive Order 12866 (OMB 1996), and Circular A-4 (OMB 2003) identify guidelines or “best practices” for the economic analysis of Federal regulations. In the context of the specific regulation under consideration, we anticipate minor economic impacts.

    The rule listing 20 genera of salamanders would prohibit an estimated 217,000 salamanders from being imported per year, and a minimum of 338 domestically bred salamanders may be affected due to the interstate transportation prohibition. The maximum annual loss to entities that deal in these species is $3.8 million in revenue. The maximum annual loss to the economy is estimated to be $10.0 million. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3, described below) does not meet the cost criteria for a significant rule. Furthermore, the preferred alternative is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    In the long term, the rule is expected to benefit the economy. Efforts to control or eradicate invasive species, and manage the costs they incur to society, once they have become established are generally recognized as being less effective and more expensive than efforts to prevent potentially invasive species from establishing in the first place (Leung et al. 2002, Finnoff et al. 2007). As a result, sectors of the economy that will not need to expend resources to control or manage injurious wildlife will be expected to gain from a timely listing process.

    The Service considered five alternatives under Executive Order 12866 for the economic analysis for this rule: (1) No action; (2) listing species that were identified by Martel et al. (2014) and other sources to be carriers of Bsal; (3) listing all species in genera in which there is at least one confirmed carrier and all species in the genus are likely to be a carrier; (4) listing all salamanders; and (5) requiring a health certificate stating that the animal being moved is free of Bsal, in lieu of or in addition to listing. The purpose of considering alternatives is to identify whether there is a more effective option that can achieve the desired goals of the rule.

    Alternative 1 was no action. This is the status quo. We would not list any species of salamanders as injurious. We did not select this option because of the significant risk that Bsal poses to native species and other wildlife resources in the United States. We expect that significantly greater financial and natural resources losses will be incurred by us and our partners in having to manage and respond to Bsal if the fungus establishes and spreads in the United States than by taking action now to prevent and minimize its introduction. No loss of retail sales or economic output due to actions by the Service would result from this alternative. It is expected that costs would be incurred by the salamander and ancillary industries due to Bsal management and the impact of Bsal on the supply of salamanders.

    Alternative 2 was listing only those species that Martel et al. (2014) and Cunningham et al. (2015) (as explained further in Chytridcrisis 2015b) confirmed are carriers of Bsal. The list of species that Martel et al. (2014) and Cunningham et al. (2015) evaluated is considerably smaller and consists of 27 species. As described earlier in Vulnerability and Carrier Status, we have determined that all species in a genus will share similar characteristics that make them capable of serving as a carrier of Bsal. Between 2004 and 2014 (USFWS OLE 2015), 1.6 million salamanders of these species were imported that would have been sold for an estimated retail value of $22.8 million; the maximum annual loss to entities that deal in these species would be $2.1 million in revenue. The maximum annual loss to the economy under this alternative is estimated to be $5.6 million.

    Alternative 3 was listing all species in genera where there is at least one confirmed carrier and all species in that genus are likely to be a carrier. As we described earlier, we have a sound scientific basis to conclude that all species in a genus will share similar characteristics in regards to whether they are capable of serving as a carrier of Bsal. Martel et al. (2014) did not find any examples of species in a genus where one species was likely to be a carrier and another species was not, with two exceptions as discussed above. Given the significant risk that Bsal poses, we find it is important to list all species that are likely to be carriers of the fungus. This alternative was selected for this interim rule. Between 2004 and 2014 (USFWS OLE 2015), 2.4 million salamanders of these genera were imported that would have been sold for an estimated retail value of $41.4 million; the maximum annual loss to entities that deal in these species would be $3.8 million in revenue. The maximum annual loss to the economy under this alternative is estimated to be $10.0 million.

    Alternative 4 was listing all salamanders in the world. There are approximately 681 species of salamanders. Although some species that we are not listing may be negatively vulnerable to or serve as carriers of Bsal, we are taking immediate action against those species that current scientific research and analysis has confirmed are carriers of Bsal, along with other species in the genus that share the same traits that make them highly likely to be carriers of Bsal. Between 2004 and 2014 (USFWS OLE 2015), 2.5 million salamanders were imported that would have been sold for an estimated retail value of $43.9 million. The maximum annual loss to entities that deal in these species is estimated to be $4.0 million in revenue. The maximum annual loss to the economy under this alternative is estimated to be $10.7 million.

    Alternative 5 would have required a health certificate that must accompany salamanders being imported and transported across State lines that states that the animal being imported or moved through interstate movement is free of Bsal in lieu of or in addition to listing. The Service did not select this option because of concerns regarding the effectiveness of current testing methods, the lack of available testing capacity, expenses associated with testing each shipment, and inadequate agency resources to conduct inspections, interpret the results, and issue health certificates. It is uncertain what the loss in revenue and economic output would be due to this alternative. The minimum effect would be identical to Alternative 1 (No Action), and the maximum effect would be that of Alternative 4 (prohibiting all salamanders). The effect on the number imported or transported depends on the cost of compliance. Therefore, of the 2.5 million salamanders that were imported between 2004 and 2014 (USFWS OLE 2015), all or none may have been imported or transported under these circumstances. They would have been sold for up to an estimated retail value of $43.9 million. The maximum annual loss to entities that deal in these species is $4.0 million in revenue. The maximum annual loss to the economy is estimated to be $10.7 million.

    We considered other alternatives that we rejected because we do not have the authority under the Lacey Act to implement them ourselves. For example, we do not have the authority or capacity to establish and enforce a quarantine system. As a result, we cannot require all shipments to wait in quarantine for a period of time sufficient to prove that imported animals do not carry Bsal or to treat them prophylactically.

    We also considered encouraging partners to take nonregulatory action, such as voluntary Best Management Practices or individual State action. The Service will pursue such actions as it moves forward, and we are working with partners on efforts such as HabitattitudeTM, which encourages responsible consumer actions with respect to pet ownership. Voluntary actions, such as applying heat therapy as described in Blooi et al. (2015a) and Blooi et al. (2015b), may help reduce the threat posed by Bsal. Although voluntary actions are vital to help minimize the threat of invasive species, the Service is highly concerned about the extensive damage that introduction of Bsal would do to this nation's resources and concluded that we cannot rely on voluntary actions alone in this instance to address the severity of the threat that Bsal poses.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Secretary of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act [SBREFA] of 1996) (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), is not required. The factual basis for this certification is provided in a draft regulatory flexibility analysis in the economic analysis, prepared to accompany this rule, which we briefly summarize below. See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-FAC-2015-0005 for the complete document.

    Although an interim rule allows us to move more quickly to implement the listing, it does not change the substantive basis for the listing decision, modify the types of organizations that would be affected by the rule, or affect the future administration of the Act as it applies to small entities to which the listing decision applies. In general, entities that are affected by an injurious listing decision would include:

    (1) entities importing animals, gametes, viable eggs, and hybrids of species; and

    (2) entities (including breeders and wholesalers) with interstate sales of animals, gametes, viable eggs, and hybrids. (However, this rule does not include provisions pertaining to gametes and viable eggs.)

    The ultimate effects of any listing on these entities would depend on the amount of interstate sales within the taxon's market. Impacts would also depend upon whether or not close substitutes for the species listed by this rule exist. In this case, the rule:

    a. Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

    b. Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

    c. Would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

    Listing 20 genera of salamanders would prohibit an estimated 217,000 salamanders imported per year; 338 domestically bred salamanders would face the interstate transportation prohibition. The maximum annual loss to entities that deal in these species is $3.8 million in revenue. Small businesses are expected to incur $2.3 million of the burden. Impacts per small business may be as high as $453,000 for importers and $23,000 for domestic breeders.

    The interim rule makes no changes in the compliance requirements of any business. The Service is unaware of any duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules. Several States implement similar acts that are more restrictive than the Federal law.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The interim rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

    a. Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The rule listing 20 genera of salamanders, including 201 species, would prohibit an estimated 217,000 salamanders imported per year, and prohibit the interstate movement of at least 338 domestically bred individuals. The maximum annual loss to entities that deal in these species is $3.8 million in revenue. Small businesses are expected to incur $2.3 million of the burden. Impacts per small business may be as high as $453,000 for importers and $23,000 for domestic breeders. In addition, businesses would also face the risk of fines if caught transporting these salamanders or their parts across State lines. The penalty for violation of the Act is not more than 6 months in prison and not more than a $5,000 fine for an individual and not more than a $10,000 fine for an organization.

    b. Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. Businesses breeding or selling the listed salamanders would be able to substitute other species and maintain business. Some businesses, however, may close. We do not have data for the potential substitutions, and, therefore, we do not know the number of businesses that may close.

    c. Would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), the Service makes the following findings:

    a. This rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector.

    b. The rule would not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

    Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), the rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required. This rule would not impose significant requirements or limitations on private property use. While import and interstate transport of any of the listed species is prohibited, any person who currently owns one of the listed species can continue to possess the salamander and engage in intrastate transport and other activities within their State or territory, as allowed under State, tribal, or territorial law.

    Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this interim rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not required. This rule would not have any direct effects on States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, we determine that this rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

    Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the interim rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Executive Order. The interim rule has been reviewed to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, was written to minimize litigation, provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and promotes simplification and burden reduction.

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose new recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. OMB has approved the information collection requirements associated with the required permits and assigned OMB Control No. 1018-0093, which expires May 31, 2017. We may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    We have reviewed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and our Departmental Manual in 516 DM. This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Under Department of the Interior agency policy and procedures, this rule is covered by a categorical exclusion and preparation of a detailed statement under NEPA is not required because it adds species to the list of injurious wildlife under 50 CFR subchapter B, part 16, which prohibits the importation into the United States and interstate transport of wildlife found to be injurious. (For further information, see 80 FR 66554; October 29, 2015.) We have also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

    Clarity of Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

    a. Be logically organized;

    b. Use the active voice to address readers directly;

    c. Use clear language rather than jargon;

    d. Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

    e. Use lists and tables wherever possible.

    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, and the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful.

    Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to tribes. We have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no potential effects. This rule involves the importation and interstate movement of salamanders. We are unaware of such movement in these species by tribes.

    Effects on Energy

    Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not expected to affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore, this action is a not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

    References Cited

    A complete list of all references used in this rulemaking is available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-FAC-2015-0005.

    Authors

    The primary authors of this interim rule are the staff members of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 16

    Fish, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

    Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service amends part 16, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    PART 16—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 16 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    18 U.S.C. 42.

    2. Revise § 16.14 to read as follows:
    § 16.14 Importation of live or dead amphibians or their eggs.

    (a) The importation, transportation, or acquisition of any live or dead specimen, including parts, but not eggs or gametes, of the genera Chioglossa, Cynops, Euproctus, Hydromantes, Hynobius, Ichthyosaura, Lissotriton, Neurergus, Notophthalmus, Onychodactylus, Paramesotriton, Plethodon, Pleurodeles, Salamandra, Salamandrella, Salamandrina, Siren, Taricha, Triturus, and Tylototriton, including but not limited to, the species listed in this paragraph, is prohibited except as provided under the terms and conditions set forth at § 16.22 of this part:

    (1) Chioglossa lusitanica (golden striped salamander).

    (2) Cynops chenggongensis (Chenggong fire-bellied newt).

    (3) Cynops cyanurus (blue-tailed fire-bellied newt).

    (4) Cynops ensicauda (sword-tailed newt).

    (5) Cynops fudingensis (Fuding fire-bellied newt).

    (6) Cynops glaucus (bluish grey newt, Huilan Rongyuan).

    (7) Cynops orientalis (Oriental fire belly newt, Oriental fire-bellied newt).

    (8) Cynops orphicus (no common name).

    (9) Cynops pyrrhogaster (Japanese newt, Japanese fire-bellied newt).

    (10) Cynops wolterstorffi (Kunming Lake newt).

    (11) Euproctus montanus (Corsican brook salamander).

    (12) Euproctus platycephalus (Sardinian brook salamander).

    (13) Hydromantes ambrosii (Ambrosi salamander).

    (14) Hydromantes brunus (limestone salamander).

    (15) Hydromantes flavus (Mount Albo cave salamander).

    (16) Hydromantes genei (Sardinian cave salamander).

    (17) Hydromantes imperialis (imperial cave salamander).

    (18) Hydromantes italicus (Italian cave salamander).

    (19) Hydromantes platycephalus (Mount Lyell salamander).

    (20) Hydromantes sarrabusensis (no common name).

    (21) Hydromantes shastae (Shasta salamander).

    (22) Hydromantes strinatii or Speleomantes strinatii (French cave salamander, Strinati's cave salamander).

    (23) Hydromantes supramontis (Supramonte cave salamander).

    (24) Hynobius abei (Abe's salamander).

    (25) Hynobius amakusaensis (Amakusa-sanshouo).

    (26) Hynobius amjiensis (Anji salamander).

    (27) Hynobius arisanensis (Arisan hynobid).

    (28) Hynobius boulengeri (Odaigahara salamander).

    (29) Hynobius chinensis (Chinese salamander).

    (30) Hynobius dunni (Oita salamander).

    (31) Hynobius formosanus (Taiwan salamander).

    (32) Hynobius fucus or Hynobius fuca (Taiwan lesser salamander).

    (33) Hynobius glacialis (Nanhu salamander).

    (34) Hynobius guabangshanensis (no common name).

    (35) Hynobius hidamontanus (Hakuba salamander).

    (36) Hynobius hirosei (no common name).

    (37) Hynobius katoi (Akaishi sansho-uo).

    (38) Hynobius kimurae (Hida salamander).

    (39) Hynobius leechii (northeastern China hynobiid salamander).

    (40) Hynobius lichenatus (northeast salamander).

    (41) Hynobius maoershanensis (no common name).

    (42) Hynobius naevius (blotched salamander).

    (43) Hynobius nebulosus (misty salamander).

    (44) Hynobius nigrescens (black salamander).

    (45) Hynobius okiensis (Oki salamander).

    (46) Hynobius osumiensis (Osumi-sanshouo).

    (47) Hynobius quelpaertensis (no common name).

    (48) Hynobius retardatus (Hokkaido salamander).

    (49) Hynobius shinichisatoi (Sobo-sanshouo).

    (50) Hynobius sonani (Sonan's hynobiid).

    (51) Hynobius stejnegeri (Bekko Sansho-uo).

    (52) Hynobius takedai (Hokuriku Sansho-uo).

    (53) Hynobius tokyoensis (Tokyo salamander).

    (54) Hynobius tsuensis (Tsushima Sansho-uo).

    (55) Hynobius turkestanicus (Turkestanian salamander).

    (56) Hynobius yangi (no common name).

    (57) Hynobius yatsui (no common name).

    (58) Hynobius yiwuensis (Yiwu hynobiid).

    (59) Ichthyosaura alpestris (alpine newt).

    (60) Lissotriton boscai (Bosca's newt).

    (61) Lissotriton helveticus (palmate newt).

    (62) Lissotriton italicus (Italian newt).

    (63) Lissotriton kosswigi (Triton pontue de Kosswig).

    (64) Lissotriton lantzi (no common name).

    (65) Lissotriton montandoni (Carpathian newt).

    (66) Lissotriton vulgaris (smooth newt).

    (67) Neurergus crocatus (no common name).

    (68) Neurergus derjugini or Neurergus microspilotus (Kurdistan newt).

    (69) Neurergus kaiseri (Lorestan newt, Luristan newt, emperor spotted newt, Zagros newt, Iranian harlequin newt, kaiser newt).

    (70) Neurergus strauchii (no common name).

    (71) Notophthalmus meridionalis (black-spotted newt).

    (72) Notophthalmus perstriatus (striped newt).

    (73) Notophthalmus viridescens (eastern newt).

    (74) Onychodactylus fischeri (long-tailed clawed salamander).

    (75) Onychodactylus fuscus (Tadami clawed salamander).

    (76) Onychodactylus intermedius (Bandai clawed salamander).

    (77) Onychodactylus japonicus (Japanese clawed salamander).

    (78) Onychodactylus kinneburi (Shikoku clawed salamander).

    (79) Onychodactylus koreanus (Korai-Sansyouo).

    (80) Onychodactylus nipponoborealis (Riben Bei Zhaoni).

    (81) Onychodactylus tsukubaensis (Tsukuba clawed salamander).

    (82) Onychodactylus zhangyapingi (Jilin Zhaoni).

    (83) Onychodactylus zhaoermii (Liaoning).

    (84) Paramesotriton caudopunctatus (spot-tailed warty newt).

    (85) Paramesotriton chinensis (Chinese warty newt).

    (86) Paramesotriton deloustali (no common name).

    (87) Paramesotriton fuzhongensis (no common name).

    (88) Paramesotriton guanxiensis (Guangxi warty newt).

    (89) Paramesotriton hongkongensis (no common name).

    (90) Paramesotriton labiatus (spotless stout newt).

    (91) Paramesotriton longliensis (no common name).

    (92) Paramesotriton maolanensis (no common name).

    (93) Paramesotriton qixilingensis (no common name).

    (94) Paramesotriton wulingensis (no common name).

    (95) Paramesotriton yunwuensis (no common name).

    (96) Paramesotriton zhijinensis (no common name).

    (97) Plethodon ainsworthi (Catahoula salamander, bay springs salamander).

    (98) Plethodon albagula (western slimy salamander).

    (99) Plethodon amplus (Blue Ridge gray-cheeked salamander).

    (100) Plethodon angusticlavius (Ozark salamander, Ozark zigzag salamander).

    (101) Plethodon asupak (Scott Bar salamander).

    (102) Plethodon aureolus (Tellico salamander).

    (103) Plethodon caddoensis (Caddo Mountain salamander).

    (104) Plethodon chattahoochee (Chattahoochee slimy salamander).

    (105) Plethodon cheoah (Cheoah bald salamander).

    (106) Plethodon chlorobryonis (Atlantic Coast slimy salamander).

    (107) Plethodon cinereus (eastern red-backed salamander, redback salamander, salamandre rayée, red-backed salamander).

    (108) Plethodon cylindraceus (white-spotted slimy salamander).

    (109) Plethodon dorsalis (zigzag salamander, northern zigzag salamander).

    (110) Plethodon dunni (Dunn's salamander).

    (111) Plethodon electromorphus (northern ravine salamander).

    (112) Plethodon elongatus (Del Norte salamander).

    (113) Plethodon fourchensis (Fourche Mountain salamander).

    (114) Plethodon glutinosus (slimy salamander, northern slimy salamander).

    (115) Plethodon grobmani (southeastern slimy salamander).

    (116) Plethodon hoffmani (valley and ridge salamander).

    (117) Plethodon hubrichti (Peaks of Otter salamander).

    (118) Plethodon idahoensis (Coeur d'Alene salamander).

    (119) Plethodon jordani (Appalachian salamander, red-cheeked salamander, Jordan's salamander).

    (120) Plethodon kentucki (Kentucky salamander, Cumberland Plateau salamander).

    (121) Plethodon kiamichi (Kiamichi slimy salamander).

    (122) Plethodon kisatchie (Louisiana slimy salamander).

    (123) Plethodon larselli (Larch Mountain salamander).

    (124) Plethodon meridianus (South Mountain gray-cheeked salamander, southern gray-cheeked salamander).

    (125) Plethodon metcalfi (southern gray-cheeked salamander).

    (126) Plethodon mississippi (Mississippi slimy salamander).

    (127) Plethodon montanus (northern gray-cheeked salamander).

    (128) Plethodon neomexicanus (Jemez Mountains salamander).

    (129) Plethodon nettingi (Cheat Mountain salamander).

    (130) Plethodon ocmulgee (Ocmulgee slimy salamander).

    (131) Plethodon ouachitae (Rich Mountain salamander).

    (132) Plethodon petraeus (Pigeon Mountain salamander).

    (133) Plethodon punctatus (white-spotted salamander, cow knob salamander).

    (134) Plethodon richmondi (southern ravine salamander, ravine salamander).

    (135) Plethodon savannah (Savannah slimy salamander).

    (136) Plethodon sequoyah (Sequoyah slimy salamander).

    (137) Plethodon serratus (southern red-backed salamander).

    (138) Plethodon shenandoah (Shenandoah salamander).

    (139) Plethodon sherando (Big Levels salamander).

    (140) Plethodon shermani (red-legged salamander).

    (141) Plethodon stormi (Siskiyou Mountains salamander).

    (142) Plethodon teyahalee (Southern Appalachian salamander).

    (143) Plethodon vandykei (Van Dyke's salamander).

    (144) Plethodon variolatus (South Carolina slimy salamander).

    (145) Plethodon vehiculum (western red-backed salamander).

    (146) Plethodon ventralis (southern zigzag salamander).

    (147) Plethodon virginia (Shenandoah Mountain salamander).

    (148) Plethodon websteri (Webster's salamander).

    (149) Plethodon wehrlei (Wehrle's salamander).

    (150) Plethodon welleri (Weller's salamander).

    (151) Plethodon yonahlossee (Yonahlossee salamander).

    (152) Pleurodeles nebulosus (no common name).

    (153) Pleurodeles poireti (Algerian newt).

    (154) Pleurodeles waltl (Spanish newt).

    (155) Salamandra algira (Algerian salamander).

    (156) Salamandra atra (alpine salamander).

    (157) Salamandra corsica (Corsican fire salamander).

    (158) Salamandra infraimmaculata (no common name).

    (159) Salamandra lanzai (Lanza's alpine salamander, Salamandra di Lanza).

    (160) Salamandra salamandra (fire salamander).

    (161) Salamandrella keyserlingii (Siberian newt).

    (162) Salamandrella tridactyla (no common name).

    (163) Salamandrina perspicillata (northern spectacled salamander).

    (164) Salamandrina terdigitata (southern spectacled salamander).

    (165) Siren intermedia (lesser siren).

    (166) Siren lacertina (greater siren).

    (167) Taricha granulosa (rough-skinned newt).

    (168) Taricha rivularis (red-bellied newt).

    (169) Taricha sierrae (Sierra newt).

    (170) Taricha torosa (California newt).

    (171) Triturus carnifex (Italian crested newt).

    (172) Triturus cristatus (great crested newt).

    (173) Triturus dobrogicus (Danube crested newt).

    (174) Triturus hongkongensis (no common name)

    (175) Triturus ivanbureschi (Balkan-Anatolian crested newt, Buresch's crested newt).

    (176) Triturus karelinii (Southern crested newt).

    (177) Triturus macedonicus (no common name).

    (178) Triturus marmoratus (marbled newt).

    (179) Triturus pygmaeus (pygmy marbled newt).

    (180) Triturus vittatus (no common name).

    (181) Tylototriton anguliceps (angular-headed newt).

    (182) Tylototriton asperrimus (black knobby newt).

    (183) Tylototriton broadoridgus (no common name).

    (184) Tylototriton dabienicus (no common name).

    (185) Tylototriton daweishanensis (no common name).

    (186) Tylototriton hainanensis (Hainan knobby newt).

    (187) Tylototriton kweichowensis (red-tailed knobby newt).

    (188) Tylototriton liuyangensis (no common name).

    (189) Tylototriton lizhenchangi (Mangshan crocodile newt).

    (190) Tylototriton notialis (no common name).

    (191) Tylototriton panhai (no common name).

    (192) Tylototriton pseudoverrucosus (southern Sichuan crocodile newt).

    (193) Tylototriton shanjing (Yunnan newt).

    (194) Tylototriton shanorum (no common name).

    (195) Tylototriton taliangensis (Thailand newt).

    (196) Tylototriton uyenoi (no common name).

    (197) Tylototriton verrucosus (Himalayan newt).

    (198) Tylototriton vietnamensis (no common name).

    (199) Tylototriton wenxianensis (Wenxian knobby newt).

    (200) Tylototriton yangi (Tiannan crocodile newt).

    (201) Tylototriton ziegleri (Ziegler's crocodile newt).

    (b) Upon the filing of a written declaration with the District Director of Customs at the port of entry as required under § 14.61 of this chapter, all other species of amphibians may be imported, transported, and possessed in captivity, without a permit, for scientific, medical, education, exhibition, or propagating purposes, but no such amphibians or any progeny or eggs thereof may be released into the wild except by the State wildlife conservation agency having jurisdiction over the area of release or by persons having prior written permission for release from such agency.

    Dated: December 30, 2015. Michael J. Bean, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00452 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 680 [Docket No. 150313268-6008-02] RIN 0648-BE98 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS issues this final rule to implement Amendment 44 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (FMP) and a regulatory amendment that modifies regulations governing the Crab Rationalization (CR) Program. This rule revises regulations to reflect that a Right of First Refusal (ROFR) may continue with the current ROFR holder or a new ROFR holder when processor quota share (PQS) is transferred and to require PQS holders to make specific certifications regarding ROFR contracts when annually applying for individual processor quota (IPQ) and when transferring PQS that are subject to a ROFR. In addition, this final rule revises the CR Program regulations to separate the annual individual fishing quota (IFQ)/IPQ application into two separate applications and to require that each crab harvesting cooperative lists the name of each member of the cooperative in its application for IFQ rather than provide NMFS with copies of each member's IFQ application. This final rule is necessary to improve available information concerning transfer and use of PQS and IPQ subject to a ROFR, thereby enhancing the ability of eligible crab communities to retain their historical processing interests in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) crab fisheries, and to improve the administration of the CR Program. This final rule is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws.

    DATES:

    Effective February 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic copies of Amendment 44 to the FMP, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and the Categorical Exclusion prepared for this action may be obtained from http://www.regulations.gov or from the Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), RIR, and Social Impact Assessment prepared for the CR Program are available from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule may be submitted by mail to NMFS Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer; in person at NMFS Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK; and by email to [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rachel Baker, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This final rule implements Amendment 44 to the FMP and regulatory amendments to the CR Program. NMFS published a notice of availability (NOA) for Amendment 44 on October 9, 2015 (80 FR 61150). The comment period on the NOA for Amendment 44 ended on December 8, 2015. The Secretary approved Amendment 44 on January 4, 2016, after accounting for information from the public, and determining that Amendment 44 is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable law. NMFS published a proposed rule to implement Amendment 44 and the regulatory amendments on October 22, 2015 (80 FR 63950). The comment period on the proposed rule ended on November 23, 2015. NMFS received no comments on proposed Amendment 44 or the proposed rule.

    Background CR Program

    Below is a brief description of the CR Program and the elements of the CR Program that apply to Amendment 44 and this final rule. Section 3.1 of the RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES) and the preamble of the proposed rule (80 FR 63950; October 22, 2015) provide a more detailed description of the CR Program and this action.

    The CR Program is a catch share program for nine BSAI crab fisheries that allocates those resources among harvesters, processors, and coastal communities. Under the CR Program, NMFS issued quota share (QS) to eligible harvesters based on their historical participation during a set of qualifying years in one or more of the nine CR Program fisheries. Quota share is an exclusive, revocable privilege allowing the holder to harvest a specific percentage of the annual total allowable catch (TAC) in a CR Program fishery.

    A QS holder's annual allocation, called individual fishing quota (IFQ), is expressed in pounds and is based on the amount of QS held in relation to the total QS pool for that fishery. NMFS issues IFQ in three classes: Class A IFQ, Class B IFQ, and Class C IFQ. Three percent of IFQ is issued as Class C IFQ for captains and crew. Of the remaining IFQ, 90 percent is issued as Class A IFQ and 10 percent is issued as Class B IFQ.

    NMFS issued processor quota share (PQS) to qualified individuals and entities based on processing activities in CR Program fisheries during a period of qualifying years. PQS is an exclusive, revocable privilege to receive deliveries of a fixed percentage of the annual TAC from a CR Program fishery. A PQS holder's annual allocation is known as individual processing quota (IPQ). NMFS issues IPQ at a one-to-one correlation with the amount of Class A IFQ issued for each CR Program fishery. Class A IFQ must be delivered to a processor holding a matching amount of IPQ; Class C IFQ and Class B IFQ may be delivered to any registered crab receiver.

    Right of First Refusal

    The CR Program includes several provisions intended to protect nine specific communities that had historically been active in the processing of king and Tanner crab from adverse impacts that could result from the CR Program. These communities are referred to as “eligible crab communities” for purposes of the CR Program's community protection measures.

    With the exception of one eligible crab community (Adak, Alaska) the CR Program provides the other eight eligible crab communities, or ECCs, with a ROFR on certain PQS and IPQ transfers. A ROFR provides an ECC with the right to intervene in the sale (i.e., transfer) of PQS, IPQ, and “other goods” (i.e., assets) associated with that community under specific conditions. The regulations at § 680.41(l) require an ECC to identify an entity to represent it for purposes of ROFR. These provisions are described in the final rule implementing the CR Program (March 2, 2005, 70 FR 10174). Section 3.1.3 of the RIR/IRFA describes the specific amounts of PQS that were, and are, subject to ROFR.

    Under the ROFR, an ECC entity is provided an opportunity to meet the same terms and conditions being offered to a proposed buyer of a proposed sale of PQS or IPQ. If an ECC entity can meet the terms and conditions of a proposed sale, then the ECC entity receives by transfer the PQS, IPQ, and any other goods instead of the proposed buyer.

    The ROFR is intended to strike a balance between the interest of communities historically reliant on crab processing to retain that processing capacity within their communities, and the interest of PQS or IPQ holders to be able to engage in open market transfers of PQS, IPQ, and other goods. Section 3.1.3 of the RIR/IRFA provides a more detailed summary of the ROFR.

    ROFR Contract Terms

    The ROFR is administered under the CR Program through contractual arrangements between ECC entities and PQS/IPQ holders. Persons who hold PQS/IPQ that are subject to a ROFR must enter into a contract with the ECC entity eligible to exercise a ROFR for those PQS/IPQ shares. The terms required in a ROFR contract between an ECC entity and a PQS/IPQ holder were established with implementation of the CR Program and are set forth in the FMP. ROFR applies to any proposed sale of PQS and any sale of IPQ if more than 20 percent of the PQS holders' community based IPQ in the fishery was processed outside of the community by another company (intra-company transfers within a region are excluded) in three of the preceding five years. Intra-company transfers within a region and transfers of PQS for continued use in the community are exempt from (i.e., do not trigger) the ROFR. The ROFR contract terms require that in order to complete a transfer under a ROFR, an ECC entity must meet “the same terms and conditions of the underlying [proposed sale] agreement and will include all processing shares and other goods included in that agreement.”

    The ROFR contract terms also state that all terms of any ROFR and contract entered into related to ROFR will be enforced through civil law. Additional details on the rationale for the civil enforcement of the terms in a ROFR contract are provided in the EIS, RIR, and Social Impact Assessment prepared for the CR Program (see ADDRESSES), and the final rule implementing the CR Program (March 2, 2005, 70 FR 10174).

    An ECC entity must meet two important requirements to complete a ROFR and receive PQS, IPQ, or other goods associated with a proposed sale. The ECC entity must do the following: (1) Exercise its ROFR, that is, provide a clear commitment to complete a purchase agreement within a specific time frame; and (2) perform under the ROFR, that is, meet all of the terms and conditions of the underlying agreement for the proposed sale within a specific time frame.

    To exercise the ROFR, an ECC entity must provide the seller of PQS or IPQ subject to a ROFR with notice of its intent to exercise the ROFR and earnest money in the amount of 10 percent of the contract amount or $500,000, whichever is less, within 60 days of notice of a sale and receipt of the contract defining the sale's terms. To perform the ROFR, the ECC entity must meet the terms and conditions of the proposed sale (i.e., complete the sale) within 120 days from receipt of the sales contract, or within the time specified in the proposed sales contract, whichever is longer. If an ECC entity does not exercise its ROFR, or it cannot perform under the ROFR contract, then the open market sale may proceed.

    Summary of Amendment 44

    Amendment 44 to the FMP revises several of the existing ROFR contract terms and adds two additional contract terms. These ROFR contract terms are described in detail in the NOA for Amendment 44 (80 FR 61150; October 9, 2015). As noted earlier, the terms in a ROFR contract are enforced through civil contract law rather than through regulations implemented by NMFS. Amendment 44 to the FMP and this final rule do not change the civil enforcement of the terms in a ROFR contract. This final rule only revises regulations to implement Amendment 44 and to amend the CR Program. Therefore, the regulations implemented by this final rule are subject to enforcement by NMFS.

    The following briefly summarizes the provisions of Amendment 44 that do not require implementing regulations. Amendment 44 increases the time allowed for an ECC entity to exercise a ROFR from 60 days to 90 days from receipt of the sales contract. This modification also increases the time allowed for an ECC entity to perform under the ROFR from 120 days to 150 days. The time period to exercise and the time period to perform under a ROFR begin on the date of receipt of the sales contract by the ECC entity and run concurrently.

    Amendment 44 removes the ROFR contract term that allows a ROFR to lapse if the IPQ derived from the PQS subject to ROFR was processed outside the community of origin for a period of three consecutive years. Under this amendment, a ROFR remains in effect for PQS subject to a ROFR regardless of the location in which the IPQ associated with that PQS was processed. Amendment 44 does not reinstate a ROFR that lapsed prior to the date that Amendment 44 was approved, January 4, 2016.

    Amendment 44 removes the ROFR contract term stating that a ROFR will lapse if an ECC entity fails to exercise its ROFR after it is triggered by a transfer of PQS and replaces it with a ROFR contract term that requires the recipient of a PQS transfer to enter into a new ROFR contract with an ECC entity of its choosing in the designated region of the PQS.

    Prior to Amendment 44, ROFR contract terms required that the ROFR apply to all terms and conditions of the underlying sale agreement, including all processing shares and other goods included in the agreement. Amendment 44 revised this ROFR contract term to specify that, “Any ROFR contract must be on the same terms and conditions of the underlying agreement and will include all processing shares and other goods included in that agreement, or to any subset of those assets, as otherwise agreed to by the PQS holder and the community entity.”

    Amendment 44 establishes two new ROFR contract terms. First, Amendment 44 adds a ROFR contract term that requires a PQS holder to notify the ECC entity of any proposed transfer of IPQ or PQS subject to ROFR, regardless of whether the PQS holder believes the proposed transfer triggers the right. Second, Amendment 44 adds a ROFR contract term that requires a PQS holder to annually notify the ECC entity of the location at which IPQ derived from PQS subject to a ROFR was processed and whether that IPQ was processed by the PQS holder.

    With the approval of Amendment 44, all ROFR contracts must contain the newly revised ROFR contract terms. PQS/IPQ holders and ECC entities must establish a new or revised ROFR contract to contain all of these terms.

    The Final Rule

    This final rule contains three actions. The first action implements those aspects of Amendment 44 that require implementing regulations. The second action implements the regulatory amendment adopted by the Council. The third action implements minor administrative changes to the CR Program regulations to improve the application and reporting practices for participants in the CR Program. The following paragraphs briefly described these actions. Additional detail is provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (80 FR 63950; October 22, 2015) and is not repeated here.

    Action 1: Regulatory Revisions Needed To Implement Amendment 44

    This final rule modifies regulations governing transfers of PQS subject to ROFR. This final rule modifies regulations at § 680.41(i)(8) to require the seller of PQS to certify that the ECC entity did not exercise its ROFR within the time provided and to require the buyer of PQS to certify that the buyer has entered into a ROFR contract with an ECC entity in the designated region of the PQS. These changes to § 680.41(i)(8) do not alter the current requirement that NMFS wait 10 days before approving a transfer of PQS subject to ROFR when such transfer triggers the ROFR.

    Action 2: Regulatory Revisions Needed To Implement the Regulatory Amendment

    This final rule modifies two regulations to implement the regulatory amendment. First, this final rule modifies regulations at § 680.4(f)(2) to require an applicant for IPQ, as part of the Application for Annual Crab IPQ Permit, to certify to NMFS that a ROFR contract that includes the required ROFR contract terms specified in the FMP exists between the applicant and the ECC entity that holds the ROFR for that PQS/IPQ. Because Amendment 44 modifies the FMP and the terms required to be included in a ROFR contract, a PQS/IPQ holder and an ECC entity must establish a new or revised ROFR contract to contain all of these terms and the PQS/IPQ holder must certify annually that a ROFR contract is in place. If an applicant for IPQ is unable to establish a revised ROFR contract with an ECC entity and provide that confirmation to NMFS in the Application for Annual Crab IPQ Permit prior to the date that application is due, then NMFS will consider the application to be incomplete. NMFS will withhold issuance of IPQ until this requirement is met.

    Second, this final rule modifies regulations at § 680.41(i)(8) and (9) to require specific certifications by the seller or the buyer when transferring PQS subject to ROFR. If a transfer of PQS triggers a ROFR, regulations at § 680.41(i)(8) require the seller to certify, as part of the application to transfer PQS, that the PQS holder notified the ECC entity holding the ROFR for that PQS of the proposed transfer at least 90 days prior to the date of the transfer application, and that the ECC entity did not exercise its ROFR during that period. If a transfer of PQS does not trigger a ROFR, regulations at § 680.41(i)(9) have been modified to require the buyer and the ECC entity to certify, as part of the application to transfer PQS, either that the ECC entity wishes to permanently waive ROFR for the PQS or that the buyer and the ECC entity completed a ROFR contract that includes the ROFR contract terms specified in the FMP. NMFS will not complete a transfer of PQS until these requirements are met. Section 3.2.5 of the RIR/IRFA provides additional detail on these notice requirements.

    Action 3: Administrative Changes

    This final rule makes two minor administrative changes to CR Program regulations. First, this final rule revises regulations at § 680.4(d) to separate the application for IFQ/IPQ into two separate applications, an application for IFQ and an application for IPQ. This revision allows applicants for IFQ to use an application form specific to IFQ and allows applicants for IPQ to use an application form specific to IPQ. Except for the proposed modification to the annual IPQ application described above in the section Action 2: Regulatory Revisions Needed to Implement the Regulatory Amendment, this revision does not modify the specific information currently required of IFQ or IPQ applicants.

    Second, this final rule revises reporting requirements for crab harvesting cooperatives at § 680.21(b)(1). Currently, regulations at § 680.4(f) require each member of a crab harvesting cooperative to submit to NMFS an Application for Annual Crab IFQ Permit, and regulations at § 680.21(b) require a crab harvesting cooperative to submit to NMFS a copy of each member's Application for Annual Crab IFQ Permit along with the cooperative's Application for Annual Crab Harvesting Cooperative IFQ Permit. This final rule revises the regulations at § 680.21(b)(1) so that a crab harvesting cooperative will be responsible only for submitting a list of the names of each cooperative member with the cooperative's annual IFQ application. This final rule does not modify the requirements at § 680.4(f). Therefore, each cooperative member continues to be responsible for submitting to NMFS a complete annual IFQ permit application by the deadline of June 15.

    Comments and Responses

    NMFS received no public comments on proposed Amendment 44 or this proposed rule.

    Changes From the Proposed Rule

    NMFS did not make any changes from the proposed rule.

    Classification

    The Administrator, Alaska Region, determined that Amendment 44 and this final rule are necessary for the conservation and management of the BSAI CR Program fisheries and that they are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    Small Entity Compliance Guide

    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. The preamble to the proposed rule (80 FR 63950; October 22, 2015) and the preamble to this final rule serve as the small entity compliance guide. This rule does not require any additional compliance from small entities that is not described in the preamble to the proposed rule and this final rule. Copies of the proposed rule and this final rule are available from NMFS at the following Web site: http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

    Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)

    Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires an agency to prepare a FRFA after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking and when an agency promulgates a final rule under section 553 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code. The following paragraphs constitute the FRFA for this action.

    Section 604 describes the required contents of a FRFA: (1) A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule; (2) a statement of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments; (3) the response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the comments; (4) a description of and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such estimate is available; (5) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; and (6) a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.

    Need for and Objectives of the Rule

    A description of the need for, and objectives of, the rule is contained in the preamble to the proposed rule and this final rule and is not repeated here. This FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) and the summary of the IRFA in the proposed rule (80 FR 63950; October 22, 2015).

    Summary of Significant Issues Raised During Public Comment

    NMFS published a proposed rule to implement Amendment 44 on October 22, 2015 (80 FR 63950). An IRFA was prepared and summarized in the Classification section of the preamble to the proposed rule. NMFS received no comments on proposed Amendment 44, this proposed rule, the IRFA, or the economic impacts of this action generally. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration did not file any comments on the proposed rule.

    Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by the Action

    This final rule includes three separate actions described in the section The Final Rule. Action 1 makes regulatory revisions needed to implement Amendment 44; Action 2 makes regulatory revisions needed to implement the regulatory amendment; and Action 3 makes other administrative changes.

    The small entities directly regulated by Action 1 and Action 2 are persons that hold PQS or IPQ under the CR Program. Currently, 21 entities hold PQS or IPQ subject (now or previously) to ROFR. Estimates of the number of large entities were made, based on available records of revenue, employment information, and known affiliations among these entities. Of these 21 entities, 10 are estimated to be large entities and 11 are deemed to be small entities. It is possible that additional entities could be directly regulated under the proposed rule if an entity that does not already hold PQS receives PQS by transfer. The new PQS holder will be directly regulated because the entity will be required to certify to NMFS that it has entered into a ROFR contract. It is not possible to estimate whether these new PQS holders will be small entities for purposes of this proposed rule.

    Action 3 makes minor administrative changes to clarify permit application procedures for IFQ holders and IPQ holders, and reduce reporting requirements for crab cooperatives that are directly regulated under the CR Program. Currently, there are 10 crab harvesting cooperative entities. Based on available records of revenue, and known affiliations among these entities, 4 of the entities are estimated to be large entities and 6 are deemed to be small entities. Because these changes reduce the reporting burden for all crab harvesting cooperatives, Action 3 will not have an adverse impact on directly regulated small entities.

    Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirements

    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements increase slightly under this final rule. This final rule includes new reporting requirements for PQS/IPQ holders. The PQS/IPQ holders are required to certify to NMFS that a current ROFR contract is in place when applying for IPQ and notify NMFS of the status of the ROFR when transferring PQS or IPQ. These additional reporting requirements are relatively straightforward and simple, and NMFS will include these certification requirements in the Application for Annual Crab IPQ Permit and the Application for Transfer of Crab PQS that are already required for directly regulated entities to receive IPQ or to transfer PQS or IPQ. To fulfill the certification requirements when completing the applications, PQS/IPQ holders will have to respond by checking “Yes” or “No” to a maximum of two questions about the status of the ROFR in addition to providing NMFS with the name of the community entity that holds the ROFR. Therefore, the additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with this final rule are minimal.

    Description of Significant Alternatives to the Final Action That Minimize Adverse Impacts on Small Entities

    A FRFA must describe the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statues, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency that affect the impact on small entities was rejected. “Significant alternatives” are those that achieve the stated objectives for the action, consistent with prevailing law, with potentially lesser adverse economic impacts on small entities as a whole.

    The Council and NMFS considered a range of alternatives and options to the preferred alternative that is implemented by this final rule. These alternatives and options are described in Section 2.2 of the RIR/IRFA and are not repeated here. The Council and NMFS did not identify alternatives to the preferred alternative that would minimize the impact on small entities better than the preferred alternative and still meet the objectives for this final rule—to improve available information concerning transfer and use of PQS and IPQ subject to a ROFR and to improve the administration of the CR Program.

    The preferred alternative implemented by this final rule makes modifications to existing regulations necessary that are necessary to meet the objectives of this final rule. The preferred alternative is not anticipated to have adverse impacts on small entities. The regulatory modifications made under this final rule are straightforward and simple, and require PQS holders to provide information at the time of application for an annual IPQ permit or application for approval of transfer of PQS. While the new notification requirements add administrative reporting requirements for 11 PQS holders that are small entities, the administrative burden associated with the notification requirements is minimal and does not negatively impact these entities.

    The Council and NMFS considered and analyzed additional alternatives that would have required regulatory changes. The Council and NMFS did not select these alternatives because they required specific ROFR contract provisions that could have resulted in adverse economic impacts accruing to directly regulated small entities. One of these alternatives applied the ROFR only to PQS, or to PQS and specific assets, within an ECC. The Council and NMFS did not select this alternative because it would impose additional costs on directly regulated small entities, would be difficult to administer, and would not provide ECCs and PQS holders with the flexibility to define the assets subject to a ROFR. The Council and NMFS also considered an alternative that would have required a PQS holder to obtain written approval from the ECC entity prior to processing IPQ subject to a ROFR (or formerly subject to a ROFR), at a facility outside the subject community. The Council and NMFS did not select this alternative because it would have imposed additional costs on directly regulated small entities. Section 3.2 of the Analysis provides additional information on these alternatives that were considered but not selected.

    Collection-of-Information Requirements

    This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which have been approved by OMB under control number 0648-0514. Public reporting burden is estimated to average per response: 1.5 hours for the Annual Application for Crab IFQ Permit; 1.5 hours for the Annual Application for Crab IPQ Permit; 1 hour for the Application for an Annual Crab Harvesting Cooperative IFQ permit; and 2 hours for Application to Transfer Crab QS or PQS. These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES), and by email to [email protected] or fax to 202-395-5806.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirement of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 680

    Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 7, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 680 as follows:

    PART 680—SHELLFISH FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA 1. The authority citation for part 680 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1862; Pub. L. 109-241; Pub. L. 109-479.

    2. In § 680.4, a. Revise paragraphs (d)(3), (e)(1) introductory text, (e)(3), (f) heading, and (f)(2)(ii); b. Redesignate paragraphs (f)(2)(iv) and (v) as (f)(2)(v) and (vi), respectively; and c. Add a new paragraph (f)(2)(iv).

    The revisions and addition read as follows:

    § 680.4 Permits.

    (d) * * *

    (3) On an annual basis, the Regional Administrator will issue a crab IFQ permit to a person who submits a complete Application for Annual Crab Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Permit, described at paragraph (f) of this section, that is subsequently approved by the Regional Administrator.

    (e) * * *

    (1) A crab IPQ permit authorizes the person identified on the permit to receive/process the IPQ crab identified on the permit during the crab fishing year for which the permit is issued, subject to conditions of the permit. A crab IPQ permit is valid under the following circumstances:

    (3) On an annual basis, the Regional Administrator will issue a crab IPQ permit to a person who submits a complete Application for Annual Crab Individual Processing Quota (IPQ) Permit, described at paragraph (f) of this section, that is subsequently approved by the Regional Administrator.

    (f) Contents of annual applications for crab IFQ and IPQ permits.

    (2) * * *

    (ii) Crab IFQ or IPQ permit identification. Indicate the type of crab IFQ or IPQ permit for which applicant is applying by QS fishery(ies) and indicate (YES or NO) whether applicant has joined a crab harvesting cooperative. If YES, enter the name of the crab harvesting cooperative(s) the applicant has joined for each crab fishery.

    (iv) Certification of ROFR contract for crab IPQ permit. Indicate (YES or NO) whether any of the IPQ for which the applicant is applying to receive is subject to right of first refusal (ROFR). If YES certify (YES or NO) whether there is a ROFR contract currently in place between the applicant and the ECC entity holding the ROFR for the IPQ that includes the required ROFR contract terms specified in Chapter 11 section 3.4.4.1.2 of the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs.

    3. In § 680.21, revise paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
    § 680.21 Crab harvesting cooperatives.

    (b) * * *

    (1) June 15 application deadline. A completed Application for Annual Crab Harvesting Cooperative Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Permit listing the name of each member of the crab harvesting cooperative must be submitted annually by each crab harvesting cooperative and received by NMFS no later than June 15 (or postmarked by this date, if sent via U.S. mail or a commercial carrier) for the upcoming crab fishing year for which the crab harvesting cooperative is applying to receive IFQ. If a complete application is not received by NMFS by this date, or postmarked by this date, the crab harvesting cooperative will not receive IFQ for the upcoming crab fishing year. In the event that NMFS has not received a complete and timely application by June 15, NMFS will presume that the application was timely filed if the applicant can provide NMFS with proof of timely filing. Each crab harvesting cooperative member is responsible for submitting a completed Application for Annual Crab Individual Fishing Quota Permit to NMFS by June 15 pursuant to § 680.4.

    4. In § 680.41, revise paragraphs (i)(8) and (9) to read as follows:
    § 680.41 Transfer of QS, PQS, IFQ and IPQ.

    (i) * * *

    (8) In the case of an application for transfer of PQS or IPQ for use outside an ECC that has designated an entity to represent it in exercise of ROFR under paragraph (l) of this section:

    (i) The Regional Administrator will not act upon the application for a period of 10 days. At the end of that time period, the application will be approved pending meeting the criteria set forth in paragraph (i) of this section.

    (ii) The person applying to transfer PQS subject to ROFR must include an affidavit certifying that the ECC entity was provided with notice of the proposed transfer at least 90 days prior to the date of the transfer application and that the ECC entity did not exercise its ROFR during that period.

    (iii) The person applying to receive the PQS must include an affidavit certifying that a ROFR contract that includes the ROFR contract terms specified in Chapter 11 section 3.4.4.1.2 of the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs has been completed with an ECC entity eligible to hold a ROFR under paragraph (l) of this section and that represents an ECC within the region for which the PQS is designated.

    (9) In the case of an application for transfer of PQS for use within an ECC that has designated an entity to represent it in exercise of ROFR under paragraph (l) of this section, the Regional Administrator will not approve the application unless the proposed recipient of the PQS and the ECC entity provide an affidavit to the Regional Administrator certifying that either the ECC wishes to permanently waive ROFR for the PQS or that a ROFR contract that includes the ROFR contract terms specified in Chapter 11 section 3.4.4.1.2 of the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs has been completed by the proposed recipient of the PQS and the ECC entity.

    [FR Doc. 2016-00387 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 8 Wednesday, January 13, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2013-0703; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-004-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for discrepancies on certain AC generator mounting adapters, and replacing discrepant adapters with serviceable ones. The NPRM also proposed to require revising the maintenance program to incorporate a repetitive task specified in certain temporary revisions. The NPRM was prompted by a report of a pilot commanding an in-flight engine shut down in response to a low oil pressure warning indication. Further investigation revealed the mounting studs in the engine mounted alternating current (AC) generator mounting plate were pulled out of position and the threaded interface in the plate was corroded. This action revises the NPRM by expanding the applicability. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to detect and correct corrosion in the AC generator mounting plate, which could result in a gap between the AC generator and the generator mounting plate, and cause loss of engine oil and consequent engine failure. Since these actions impose an additional burden over those proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this SNPRM by February 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations,M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations,M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone: 416-375-4000; fax: 416-375-4539; email: [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-0703; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Services Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7301; fax: 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2013-0703; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-004-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 28, 2013 (78 FR 53080). The NPRM was prompted by a report of a pilot commanding an in-flight engine shut down in response to a low oil pressure warning indication. Further investigation revealed the mounting studs in the engine mounted alternating current (AC) generator mounting plate were pulled out of position and the threaded interface in the plate was corroded. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for discrepancies on certain AC generator mounting adapters, and replacing discrepant adapters with serviceable ones. The NPRM also proposed to require revising the maintenance program to incorporate a repetitive task specified in certain temporary revisions.

    Actions Since Previous NPRM (78 FR 53080, August 28, 2013) Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM (78 FR 53080, August 28, 2013), we have received a report that additional airplanes are affected by the identified unsafe condition. Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive, CF-2012-29R1, dated April 28, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    An incident has been reported, on the DHC-8 aeroplane, where a pilot commanded in-flight engine shut down in response to an engine low oil pressure warning indication.

    Further investigation revealed the mounting studs in the engine mounted alternating current (AC) generator mounting plate were pulled out of position and the threaded interface in the plate corroded. This resulted in a gap between the AC generator and the generator mounting plate, leading to the loss of engine oil and the ensuing illumination of the associated engine low oil pressure warning indication.

    To ensure the integrity of the affected units, Part I of this [Canadian] AD mandates an inspection of the affected AC generator mounting adapters part numbers (P/N) 31708-500 or 31708-501, and, as applicable, replacement with new or serviceable mounting plates.

    Part II of this [Canadian] AD mandates the incorporation of a repeat Maintenance Review Board (MRB) inspection applicable to the replacement of the AC generator mounting adapters P/Ns 31708-510 or 31708-511 only.

    Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD is issued to include additional aeroplane serial numbers (003 through 018) to the Applicability section, and to clarify the compliance schedules in Part I B. and Part II below.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-07030002.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-24-88, Revision A, dated September 23, 2014. The service information describes repetitive inspections for discrepancies on certain AC generator mounting adapters, and replacing discrepant adapters with serviceable ones.

    Bombardier has also issued the following service information, which describes maintenance review board (MRB) task 2420/14 (functional check of the AC generator adapter kit):

    • de Havilland Dash 8 Series 100 Temporary Revision MRB-153, dated July 10, 2012, to Part 1 Section 2—Systems, of the de Havilland Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-8-7 MRB Report.

    • de Havilland Dash 8 Series 200 Temporary Revision MRB 2-31, dated July 10, 2012, to Part 1 Section 2—Systems of the de Havilland Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-82-7 MRB Report.

    • de Havilland Dash 8 Series 300 Temporary Revision MRB 3-162, dated July 10, 2012, to Part 1 Section 2—Systems of the de Havilland Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-83-7 MRB Report.

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

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this proposed AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 53080, August 28, 2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This SNPRM

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

    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM (78 FR 53080, August 28, 2013). As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 88 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $4,000 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $396,880, or $4,510 per product.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2013-0703; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-004-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 29, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes; certificated in any category; serial numbers 003 through 672 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical power.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a pilot commanding an in-flight engine shut down in response to a low oil pressure warning indication. Further investigation revealed the mounting studs in the engine mounted alternating current (AC) generator mounting plate were pulled out of position and the threaded interface in the plate corroded. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion in the AC generator mounting plate, which could result in a gap between the AC generator and the generator mounting plate, and cause loss of engine oil and consequent engine failure.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection of AC Generator Mounting Adaptor and Corrective Action

    Within 6,000 flight hours, or 36 months, or when the AC generator is removed for service, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD: Do a general visual inspection and a mechanical inspection for discrepancies (i.e., damage, corrosion, and failed mechanical inspection) on AC generator mounting adapters having P/N 31708-500 and P/N 31708-501, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-24-88, Revision A, dated September 23, 2014. If any discrepancy (i.e., damage, corrosion, or failed mechanical inspection) is found, before further flight, replace the AC generator mounting adapter with a serviceable mounting adapter having P/N 31708-510, P/N 31708-511, P/N 31708-500, or 31708-501, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-24-88, Revision A, dated September 23, 2014.

    (h) Repetitive Inspections

    For in-service mounting adapters that have P/N 31708-500 or P/N 31708-501: Repeat the general visual and mechanical inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours, or 36 months after the most recent inspection, or when the AC generator is removed for service, whichever occurs first.

    (i) Replacement of Certain AC Generator Mounting Adaptors

    For airplanes having AC generator mounting adapters that have P/N 31708-500 or 31708-501: Within the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, replace the AC generator mounting adapter with a new AC generator mounting adapter having P/N 31708-510 or 31708-511.

    (1) Before the accumulation of 120 months on the AC generator mounting adapter.

    (2) Within 12 months, or 2,000 flight hours, or when the generator is removed from service, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.

    (j) Airplane Maintenance Program Revision

    For airplanes having AC generator mounting adapters that have P/N 31708-510 or 31708-511: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the airplane maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating maintenance review board (MRB) Task 2420/14 in the applicable maintenance program manual specified in paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD. The initial compliance time for MRB Task 2420/14 is prior to the accumulation of 10,000 total flight hours or within 60 months since installation of the part, whichever occurs first.

    (1) For Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes: de Havilland Dash 8 Series 100 Temporary Revision MRB-153, dated July 10, 2012, Part 1 Section 2—Systems, of the de Havilland Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-8-7 MRB Report.

    (2) For Model DHC-8-201 and -202 airplanes: de Havilland Dash 8 Series 200 Temporary Revision MRB 2-31, dated July 10, 2012, Part 1 Section 2—Systems of the de Havilland Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-82-7 MRB Report.

    (3) For Model DHC-8-301, -311, and -315 airplanes: de Havilland Dash 8 Series 300 Temporary Revision MRB 3-162, dated July 10, 2012, Part 1 Section 2—Systems of the de Havilland Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-83-7 MRB Report.

    (k) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.

    (l) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-24-88, dated December 13, 2011.

    (m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7300; fax: 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2012-29R1, dated April 28, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0703-0002.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone: 416-375-4000; fax: 416-375-4539; email: [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 31, 2015. Phil Forde, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00167 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8430; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-093-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by accomplishment of a taxi-out checklist which revealed that the elevator movement was partially obstructed due to rotation of the flight control lock adjuster bracket. This proposed AD would require a one-time inspection of the elevator tension control regulator for discrepancies, and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct discrepancies of the elevator tension control regulators, which could result in jamming of the elevator mechanism and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: (202) 493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone: +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax: +31 (0)88-6280-111; email: [email protected]; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8430; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1137; fax: 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-8430; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-093-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2015-0091, dated May 26, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During the accomplishment of the taxi-out checklist on an F28 Mark 0100 aeroplane, the flight crew noticed that the elevator movement was partially obstructed. The subsequent investigation revealed that this was due to rotation of the flight control lock adjuster bracket, which had come loose from the elevator tension control regulator. Two of the three attachment bolts were found broken, and two nuts were missing. Although no root cause could be identified for the absence of these nuts, they are considered as the main contributor to the occurrence.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to jamming of the elevator mechanism, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Fokker Services published Service Bulletin (SB) SBF 100-27-095 which provides instructions to detect and correct any discrepancies, and to re-install missing or broken parts (if any).

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time inspection of the elevator tension control regulator and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

    More information on this subject can be found in Fokker Services All Operators Message AOF100-198.

    Discrepancies include loose control lock adjuster brackets, broken bracket attachment bolts, and missing nuts. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2015-8430.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Fokker Services B.V. has issued Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-27-095, dated April 22, 2015. The service information describes procedures for a one-time inspection of the elevator tension control regulator for discrepancies, and corrective actions if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take 1 work-hour per product to do the inspection in this proposed AD, and 1 work-hour per product to report inspection findings. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,360, or $170 per product.

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

    Paperwork Reduction Act

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Fokker Services B.V.: Docket No. FAA-2015-8430; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-093-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 29, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by accomplishment of a taxi-out checklist which revealed that the elevator movement was partially obstructed due to rotation of the flight control lock adjuster bracket. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct discrepancies of the elevator tension control regulators, which could result in jamming of the elevator mechanism and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection/Corrective Actions

    At the next scheduled opening of access panels 346AB or 346BL after the effective date of this AD, but no later than 5,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD: Do a one-time detailed inspection of the elevator tension control regulator for discrepancies, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-27-095, dated April 22, 2015. If the flight control lock adjuster bracket is found loose, any bracket attachment bolt is found broken, or any nut is missing, before further flight, do all applicable corrective actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-27-095, dated April 22, 2015.

    (h) Reporting Requirement

    Submit a report of any positive findings during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD to Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone: +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax: +31 (0)88-6280-111; email: [email protected]; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com.

    (1) For airplanes on which the inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD is accomplished on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after performing the inspection.

    (2) For airplanes on which the inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD is accomplished before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1137; fax: 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

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

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

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0091, dated May 26, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2015-8430.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone: +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax: +31 (0)88-6280-111; email: [email protected]; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 29, 2015. Philip Forde, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-33283 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8431; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-128-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that the network interface installed between the Information Management System (IMS) 6000 unit and the Cabin Entertainment System (CES) network could affect the Aircraft Control Domain (ACD) and result in the transmission of misleading navigational information to the flightcrew. This proposed AD would require inspecting the network interface installation between the IMS and the CES, and disconnecting the installation, if necessary. We are proposing this AD to prevent the transmission of misleading navigational information, which could adversely affect the ability of the flightcrew to maintain the safe flight and landing of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8431; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Services Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7301; fax 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-8431; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-128-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-19, dated July 20, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    It was discovered that on certain aeroplanes, the network interface installed between the Information Management System (IMS) 6000 unit and the Cabin Entertainment System (CES) network may affect the Aircraft Control Domain (ACD). This could potentially compromise the operational integrity of the avionics system and result in misleading navigational information to the flight crew. Misleading navigational information could have adverse effects on the safe operation of the aeroplane.

    This [Canadian] AD mandates the [general visual] inspection [to determine if pins are present at positions 25, 27, 48, and 50] and disconnection, as required, of the network interface installation between the IMS and the CES.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8431.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued the following service information, which describes procedures for an inspection of the network interface installation between the IMS and CES and disconnection of the installation.

    • Service Bulletin 700-46-5005, Revision 02, dated June 18, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).

    • Service Bulletin 700-46-6005, Revision 02, dated June 18, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).

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

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 77 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $6,545, or $85 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on action would take about 3 work-hours, for a cost of $255 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 costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2015-8431; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-128-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 29, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Bombardier, Inc. airplanes, certificated in any category, specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes, serial numbers 9381, 9432 through 9708 inclusive; 9711 through 9718 inclusive; and 9720 through 9730 inclusive.

    (2) Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes, serial numbers 9386, 9401, 9445 through 9707 inclusive; 9710 through 9717 inclusive; and 9722, 9732, 9734, and 9737.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that the network interface installed between the Information Management System (IMS) 6000 unit and the Cabin Entertainment System (CES) network could affect the Aircraft Control Domain (ACD) and result in the transmission of misleading navigational information to the flightcrew. We are issuing this AD to prevent the transmission of misleading navigational information, which could adversely affect the ability of the flightcrew to maintain the safe flight and landing of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection and Disconnection, if Necessary

    Within 15 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a general visual inspection of the network interface installation between the IMS and CES to determine if pins are present at positions 25, 27, 48, and 50; and if any pins are present, before further flight, disconnect the installation; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-46-5005, Revision 02, dated June 18, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).

    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-46-6005, Revision 02, dated June 18, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).

    (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(4) of this AD, as applicable. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-46-5005, dated February 23, 2015.

    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-46-5005, Revision 01, dated March 20, 2015.

    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-46-6005, dated February 23, 2015.

    (4) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-46-6005, Revision 01, dated March 20, 2015.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-19, dated July 20, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8431.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 29, 2015. Philip Forde, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-33281 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8428; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-032-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-17-09 for all Airbus Model A330-200 series airplanes, -200 Freighter series airplanes, and -300 series airplanes, and AD 2012-25-12, for all Airbus Model A330-200 series airplanes and -300 series airplanes. AD 2011-17-09 currently requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. AD 2012-25-12 currently requires replacing certain main landing gear (MLG) bogie beams before reaching new reduced life limits. Since we issued AD 2011-17-09 and AD 2012-25-12, we have determined that more restrictive instructions and/or airworthiness limitations should be incorporated into the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or revised airworthiness limitation requirements. This AD results from revisions to the Airworthiness Limitations section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) to include new or more restrictive life limits and/or replacements. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, and possible failure of certain life limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8428; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1138; fax (425) 227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-8428; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-032-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On August 2, 2011, we issued AD 2011-17-09, Amendment 39-16773 (76 FR 53305, August 26, 2011). AD 2011-17-09 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A330-200 series airplanes, -200 Freighter series airplanes, and -300 series airplanes. On December 5, 2012, we issued AD 2012-25-12, Amendment 39-17293 (77 FR 75825, December 26, 2012). AD 2012-25-12 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A330-200 series airplanes and -300 series airplanes.

    Since we issued AD 2011-17-09, Amendment 39-16773 (76 FR 53305, August 26, 2011), and AD 2012-25-12, Amendment 39-17293 (77 FR 75825, December 26, 2012), we have determined that more restrictive instructions and/or airworthiness limitations should be incorporated into the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive, 2014-0009, dated January 8, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A330-200 series airplanes, -200 Freighter series airplanes, and -300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

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

    The instructions and airworthiness limitations applicable to the Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL ALI) are given in Airbus A330 ALS Part 1 and A340 ALS Part 1, which are approved by EASA.

    The revision 07 of Airbus A330 and A340 ALS Part 1 [dated September 23, 2013] introduces more restrictive instructions and/or airworthiness limitations. Failure to comply with this revision could result in an unsafe condition.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2012-0179 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2012_0179_superseded.pdf/AD_2012-0179_1], which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in Airbus A330 or A340 ALS Part 1 revision 07 [dated September 23, 2013].

    In addition, this [EASA] AD also supersedes EASA AD 2011-0122-E [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2011_0122_E_superseded.pdf/EAD_2011-0122-E_1] and EASA AD 2011-0212 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2011_0212_superseded.pdf/AD_2011-0212_1], whose requirements have been transferred into Airbus A330 and A340 ALS Part 1 revision 07 [dated September 23, 2013].

    The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in certain principal structural elements, and possible failure of certain life limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or revised structural inspection requirements. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8428.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Airbus A330 ALS Part 1, ”Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,” Revision 07, dated September 23, 2013. The service information describes Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL ALI) for the landing gear.

    Airbus has also issued the following variations, which describe SL ALIs.

    • Airbus A330 Variation to Revision 07 of ALS Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations Items (SL ALI),” dated September 24, 2013 (variations reference 0GVLG130005C0S, dated October 29, 2013).

    • Airbus A330, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations Items (SL ALI),” Variation 7.6, dated February 24, 2015.

    • Airbus A330, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations Items (SL ALI),” Variation 7.10, dated April 1, 2015.

    • Airbus A330, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations Items (SL ALI),” Variation 7.19, dated June 8, 2015.

    • Airbus A330, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations Items (SL ALI),” Variation 7.20, dated August 28, 2015.

    • Airbus A330, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations Items (SL ALI),” Variation 7.21, dated September 14, 2015.

    • Airbus A330, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations Items (SL ALI),” Variation 7.22, dated June 8, 2015.

    • Airbus A330, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations Items (SL ALI),” Variation 7.23, dated August 31, 2015.

    • Airbus A330, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations Items (SL ALI),” Variation 7.24, dated September 21, 2015.

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

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this 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 (m) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required actions that will ensure the continued damage tolerance of the affected structure.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    Although the applicability in the MCAI also identifies Airbus Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes, this AD applies only to Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter series airplanes, and -300 series airplanes. However, we might consider future separate rulemaking to require incorporating Airbus A340 ALS Part 1, ”Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,” Revision 07, dated September 23, 2013, into the maintenance program or inspection program, as applicable. There are currently no Airbus Model A340 series airplanes on the U.S. Registry.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 82 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions that are required by AD 2011-17-09, Amendment 39-16773 (76 FR 53305, August 26, 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 were required by AD 2011-17-09 is $85 per product.

    The actions that are required by AD 2012-25-12, Amendment 39-17293 (77 FR 75825, December 26, 2012), and retained in this proposed AD take about 16 work-hours per product (2 MLG bogie beams per airplane), at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $255,000 per MLG bogie beam. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2012-25-12 is up to $256,360 per MLG bogie beam.

    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 $6,970, or $85 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-17-09, Amendment 39-16773 (76 FR 53305, August 26, 2011); and AD 2012-25-12, Amendment 39-17293 (77 FR 75825, December 26, 2012); and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-8428; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-032-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 29, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2011-17-09, Amendment 39-16773 (76 FR 53305, August 26, 2011); and AD 2012-25-12, Amendment 39-17293 (77 FR 75825, December 26, 2012).

    (c) Applicability

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

    (1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes,

    (3) Airbus Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Periodic inspections.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a revision of certain airworthiness limitations items (ALI) documents, which specify more restrictive instructions and/or airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, and possible failure of certain life limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Maintenance Program Revision, With New Terminating Action

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2011-17-09, Amendment 39-16773 (76 FR 53305, August 26, 2011), with new terminating action. Within 3 months after September 30, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-17-09): Revise the maintenance program by incorporating Airbus A330 ALS Part 1, ”Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,” Revision 05, dated July 29, 2010. Comply with all Airbus A330 ALS Part 1, ”Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,” Revision 05, dated July 29, 2010, at the times specified therein. Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (k) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

    (h) Retained Alternative Intervals or Limits, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2011-17-09, Amendment 39-16773 (76 FR 53305, August 26, 2011), with no changes. Except as provided by paragraph (m) of this AD, after accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternatives to the maintenance tasks, intervals, or limitations specified in paragraph (g) of this AD may be used.

    (i) Retained Bogie Beam Replacement, With Specific Delegation Approval Language and New Terminating Action

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2012-25-12, Amendment 39-17293 (77 FR 75825, December 26, 2012), with specific delegation approval language and terminating action. For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(3) of this AD, at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD: Replace all main landing gear (MLG) bogie beams having part number (P/N) 201485300, 201485301, 201272302, 201272304, 201272306, or 201272307, except those that have serial number (S/N) S2A, S2B, or S2C, as identified in Messier-Dowty Service Letter A33-34 A20, Revision 5, including Appendices A through F, dated July 31, 2009, with a new or serviceable part, using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). After the effective date of this AD, replace all the applicable MLG bogie beams with a new or serviceable part using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (k) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

    (1) At the applicable time specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i), (i)(1)(ii), and (i)(1)(iii) of this AD.

    (i) For Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243 series airplanes, weight variant (WV)02x, WV05x (except WV058), and WV06x series: Before the accumulation of a life limit of 50,000 landings or 72,300 total flight hours, whichever occurs first from the first installation of a MLG bogie beam on the airplane.

    (ii) For Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243 WV058 series airplanes: Before the accumulation of a life limit of 50,000 landings or 57,900 total flight hours, whichever occurs first from the first installation of a MLG bogie beam on the airplane.

    (iii) For Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, -343 series airplanes, WV00x, WV01x, WV02x, and WV05x series: Before the accumulation of a life limit of 46,000 landings or 75,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first from the first installation of a MLG bogie beam on the airplane.

    (2) Within 6 months after January 30, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2012-25-12, Amendment 39-17293 (77 FR 75825, December 26, 2012).

    (j) Retained Parts Installation Limitation, With New Terminating Action

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2012-25-12, Amendment 39-17293 (77 FR 75825, December 26, 2012), with new terminating action. For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(3) of this AD, As of January 30, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2012-25-12), a MLG bogie beam having any part number identified in paragraph (i) of this AD, may be installed on an airplane, provided its life has not exceeded the life limit specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i), (i)(1)(ii), and (i)(1)(iii) of this AD, and is replaced with a new or serviceable part before reaching the life limit specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i), (i)(1)(ii), and (i)(1)(iii) of this AD. Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (k) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

    (k) New Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    (1) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the information in Airbus A330 ALS Part 1, “'Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,” Revision 07, dated September 23, 2013; and variations to it listed in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (k)(1)(x), as applicable.

    (i) Airbus A330 Variation to Revision 07 of ALS Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations Items (SL ALI),” dated September 24, 2013 (variations reference 0GVLG130005C0S, dated October 29, 2013).

    (ii) Airbus A330, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations Items (SL ALI),” Variation 7.6, dated February 24, 2015.

    (iii) Airbus A330, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations Items (SL ALI),” Variation 7.10, dated April 1, 2015.

    (iv) Airbus A330, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations Items (SL ALI),” Variation 7.18, dated April 1, 2015.

    (v) Airbus A330, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations Items (SL ALI),” Variation 7.19, dated June 8, 2015.

    (vi) Airbus A330, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations Items (SL ALI),” Variation 7.20, dated August 28, 2015.

    (vii) Airbus A330, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations Items (SL ALI),” Variation 7.21, dated September 14, 2015.

    (viii) Airbus A330, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations Items (SL ALI),” Variation 7.22, dated June 8, 2015.

    (ix) Airbus A330, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations Items (SL ALI),” Variation 7.23, dated August 31, 2015.

    (x) Airbus A330, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations Items (SL ALI),” Variation 7.24, dated September 21, 2015.

    (2) The initial compliance times for the actions specified Airbus A330 ALS Part 1, ”Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,” Revision 07, dated September 23, 2013; and A330 Airbus Variations listed in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (k)(1)(x) as applicable, are at the times specified in Airbus A330 ALS Part 1, ”Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,” Revision 07, dated September 23, 2013; and Airbus A330 Variations listed in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (k)(1)(x) as applicable, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the actions specified in this paragraph terminates the requirements specified in paragraphs (g) through (j) of this AD.

    (l) New No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, has been revised, as required by paragraph (k) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.

    (m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1138; fax (425) 227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0009, dated January 8, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8428.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 23, 2015. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-33173 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8427; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-212-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2007-10-10 R1, for all Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). AD 2007-10-10 R1 currently requires revising the airworthiness limitations section (ALS) of the instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA) to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. Since we issued AD 2007-10-10 R1, the manufacturer has issued more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance program or inspection program to incorporate revised fuel maintenance and inspection tasks. We are proposing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8427; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-8427; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-212-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On December 2, 2009, we issued AD 2007-10-10 R1, Amendment 39-16134 (74 FR 65398, December 10, 2009). AD 2007-10-10 R1 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes).

    Since we issued AD 2007-10-10 R1, Amendment 39-16134 (74 FR 65398, December 10, 2009), we have determined more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2014-0194, dated October 15, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The MCAI states:

    Prompted by an accident * * *, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 88, [http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/EEFB3F94451DC06286256C93004F5E07?OpenDocument&Highlight=sfar 88], and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) published Interim Policy INT/POL/25/12. In response to these regulations, Airbus conducted a design review to develop Fuel Airworthiness Limitations (FAL) for Airbus on A300-600 and A300-600ST aeroplanes.

    The FAL were specified in Airbus A300-600 FAL document ref. 95A.1929/05 at issue 02 and in the A300-600 [Airworthiness Limitation Section] ALS variation to FAL document issue 02 ref. 0CVLG110007/C0S issue 01, for A300-600 and A300-600ST aeroplanes.

    EASA issued [EASA] AD 2006-0201 to require compliance with the FAL documents (comprising maintenance/inspection tasks and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL)).

    EASA AD 2006-0201 was superseded by EASA AD 2007-0095 (later revised) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2007-10-10 R1, Amendment 39-16134 (74 FR 65398, December 10, 2009)], which retained the original requirements and corrected and updated the compliance paragraphs concerning task ref. 28-18-00-03-1 and CDCCL's.

    Since EASA AD 2007-0095R1 was published, Airbus issued A300-600 ALS Part 5, prompted by EASA policy statement (EASA D2005/CPRO) which requests design approval holders to integrate Fuel Tank Safety items into an ALS document. The A300-600 ALS Part 5 is approved by EASA.

    Failure to comply with the items as identified in Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 5 could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the aeroplane.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2007-0095R1, which is superseded, and requires implementation of the new and more restrictive maintenance instructions and/or airworthiness limitations as specified in Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 5.

    The unsafe condition is the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8427.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section), Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 00, dated May 27, 2014. The airworthiness limitations introduce mandatory instructions and more restrictive maintenance requirements. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

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

    Notwithstanding any other maintenance or operational requirements, components that have been identified as airworthy or installed on the affected airplanes before accomplishment of the revision of the airplane maintenance or inspection program specified in this AD, do not need to be reworked in accordance with the CDCCLs. However, once the airplane maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by this AD, future maintenance actions on these components must be done in accordance with the CDCCLs.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the ALS inspection tasks, corrective actions must be accomplished in accordance with Airbus maintenance documentation. However, this AD does not include that requirement. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are required by general airworthiness and operational regulations to perform maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We consider those methods to be adequate to address any corrective actions necessitated by the findings of ALS inspections required by this AD.

    This proposed AD would require operators to revise the maintenance or inspection program within 3 months after the effective date of this AD to incorporate revised fuel maintenance and inspection tasks. The MCAI specifies compliance with the tasks as of the effective date of the MCAI. In developing the compliance time for this action, we considered the degree of urgency associated with addressing the unsafe condition. We find 3 months an appropriate compliance time to complete these actions. This difference has been coordinated with the EASA.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 122 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions required by AD 2007-10-10 R1, Amendment 39-16134 (74 FR 65398, December 10, 2009), and retained in this proposed AD take about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2007-10-10 R1 is $170 per product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $10,370, or $85 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2007-10-10 R1, Amendment 39-16134 (74 FR 65398, December 10, 2009), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-8427; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-212-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 29, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2007-10-10 R1, Amendment 39-16134 (74 FR 65398, December 10, 2009).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes), certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by Airbus issuing more restrictive instructions and/or fuel airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Revision of the Airworthiness Limitations Section To Incorporate Fuel Maintenance and Inspection Tasks, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD 2007-10-10 R1, Amendment 39-16134 (74 FR 65398, December 10, 2007). Within 3 months after June 27, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-10-10, Amendment 39-15051 (72 FR 28827, May 23, 2007)), revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated May 31, 2006, as defined in Airbus A300-600 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1929/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005 (approved by EASA on March 13, 2006), Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks” (hereafter referred to as Section 1 of Issue 1 of Document 95A.1929/05); or Airbus A300-600 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1929/05, Issue 2, dated May 16, 2007, Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks” (hereafter referred to as “Section 1 of Issue 2 Document 95A.1929/05”). For all tasks identified in Section 1 of Issue 1 or Issue 2 of Document 95A.1929/05, the initial compliance times start from the later of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, and the repetitive inspections must be accomplished thereafter at the intervals specified in Section 1 of Issue 1 or Issue 2 of Document 95A.1929/05, except as provided by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (1) June 27, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-10-10, Amendment 39-15051 (72 FR 28827, May 23, 2007).

    (2) The date of issuance of the original French standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original French export certificate of airworthiness.

    Note 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD:

    Airbus Operator Information Telex (OIT) SE 999.0076/06, dated June 20, 2006, identifies the applicable sections of the Airbus A300-600 airplane maintenance manual necessary for accomplishing the tasks specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1929/05.

    (h) Retained Revision of Initial Compliance Time for Task 28-18-00-03-1

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2007-10-10 R1, Amendment 39-16134 (74 FR 65398, December 10, 2007) with no changes. For Task 28-18-00-03-1, “Operational check of lo-level/underfull/calibration sensors,” identified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1929/05: The initial compliance time is the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, Task 28-18-00-03-1 must be accomplished at the repetitive interval specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1929/05.

    (1) Prior to the accumulation of 40,000 total flight hours.

    (2) Within 72 months or 20,000 flight hours after June 27, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-10-10, Amendment 39-15051 (72 FR 28827, May 23, 2007), whichever occurs first.

    (i) Retained Revision of the ALS to Incorporate CDCCLs

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2007-10-10 R1, Amendment 39-16134 (74 FR 65398, December 10, 2007) with no changes. Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated May 31, 2006, as defined in Airbus A300-600 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1929/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005 (approved by the EASA on March 13, 2006), Section 2, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations”; or Airbus A300-600 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1929/05, Issue 2, dated May 16, 2007, Section 2, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations.”

    (j) New Requirement of This AD: Revise the Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the airworthiness limitations as specified in Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 00, dated May 27, 2014. The initial compliance times for the actions specified Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 00, dated May 27, 2014, are at the later of the times specified in Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 00, dated May 27, 2014, or within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the revision required by this paragraph terminates the actions required by paragraphs (g) through (i) of this AD.

    (k) New Requirement of This AD: No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and/or Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, and/or CDCCLs may be used unless the actions, intervals, and/or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

    (l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

    (m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2014-0194, dated October 15, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8427.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 23, 2015. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-33175 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8429; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-122-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracks in the station 320 crown frame and in window post number 3. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracks and missing fasteners of the station 320 crown frame, cracks in the web and flange surfaces of the forward segment of window post number 3, and missing fasteners and cracks of the window upper sill; post-modification inspections for cracks of the window upper sill; one-time fastener rework; and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking and missing fasteners of the station 320 crown frame, cracking of the window post number 3, and cracking of the window upper sill, which could result in an in-flight decompression and a loss of structural integrity of the fuselage.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8429.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8429; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6432; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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-2015-8429; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-122-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We have received reports of fatigue cracks in the station 320 crown frame on Model 747-400 series airplanes. Other Model 747 airplanes, except Model 747-8F and 747-8 airplanes, are of a similar station 320 crown frame configuration. Inner chord cracks of 0.03- to 0.22-inch in length have been found on 15 airplanes with total flight cycles ranging from 11,498 to 31,315. Also, a 1.8-inch crack was found in the outboard web of the frame on one airplane with 14,749 total flight cycles.

    Cracks have also been found in window post number 3, which connects to the lower end of the inner chord of the station 320 crown frame. Cracks of 0.03- to 0.11-inch in length have been found in window post number 3 on five airplanes with total flight cycles ranging from 12,329 to 15,772.

    Additionally, fatigue cracks that had extended to fully sever the inner chord and outboard web of the frame were found on the Model 747-400 fatigue test airplane at 38,333 total pressure cycles, and significant cracks were found in both the frame inner chord and outboard web at 30,500 total pressure cycles on the Model 747-100SR fatigue test airplane.

    Fatigue cracking and missing fasteners of the station 320 crown frame, cracking of the window post number 3, and cracking of the window upper sill could result in in-flight decompression and a loss of structural integrity of the fuselage.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015. The service information describes procedures for inspections and corrective actions for cracks and missing fasteners in the inner chord and outboard webs of the station 320 crown frame, in the left and right side window post number 3, and in the upper sill 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 of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination

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

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions identified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.” For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8429.

    The phrase “related investigative actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Related investigative actions” are follow-on actions that (1) are related to the primary actions, and (2) further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.

    The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Corrective actions” are actions that correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:

    • In accordance with a method that we approve; or

    • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.

    Explanation of “RC” Steps in Service Information

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

    For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the following provisions apply: (1) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD, and an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures; and (2) steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 165 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspections Up to 193 work-hours × $85 per hour = $16,405 per inspection cycle $0 Up to $16,405 per inspection cycle Up to $2,706,825 per inspection cycle.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-8429; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-122-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 29, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracks in the station 320 crown frame in window post number 3. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking and missing fasteners of the station 320 crown frame, cracking of the window post number 3, and cracking of the window upper sill, which could result in an in-flight decompression and a loss of structural integrity of the fuselage.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Initial Inspections, Related Investigative Actions, and Corrective Actions

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015, except as provided by paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015, except as required by paragraph (j)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.

    (1) Do a detailed inspection for cracks and missing fasteners of the station 320 crown frame.

    (2) Do a surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracks of the station 320 crown frame.

    (3) Do a surface HFEC inspection for cracks in the web and flange surfaces of the forward segment of window post number 3.

    (4) Do a detailed inspection for missing fasteners of the window upper sill.

    (5) Do a surface HFEC inspection for cracks of the window upper sill.

    (h) Repetitive Inspections and Post-Repair Inspections, Related Investigative Actions, and Corrective Actions

    Do applicable repetitive post-repair inspections and repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD for cracking in the window upper sill thereafter at the applicable compliance time and intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015, except as required by paragraph (j)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.

    (i) Fastener Rework, Related Investigative Actions, and Corrective Actions

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015: Do the applicable actions (including fastener rework and a detailed inspection of the condition of the fastener hole) specified in Part 11 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.

    (j) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015, specifies a compliance time “after the original date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015, specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 1 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (3) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for repairs: Before further flight, repair, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

    (4) Except as required by paragraphs (g), (h), and (j)(3) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and (k)(4)(ii) apply.

    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

    (l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6432; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected].

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 23, 2015. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-33172 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8426; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-006-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes, FALCON 900EX airplanes, and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that during a test flight, it was found that the yaw damper on the takeoff roll can increase the Minimum Control Speed on Ground (Vmcg). This proposed AD would require revising the airplane flight manual to incorporate procedures for the flightcrew to check that the yaw damper is set to off before takeoff. We are proposing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has procedures to set the yaw damper to “off” before takeoff, which, if activated, could result in reduced control of the airplane if one engine were to fail during takeoff.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8426; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-8426; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-006-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0005, dated January 14, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes, FALCON 900EX airplanes, and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During a flight test on a development aeroplane, it was found that the yaw damper (YD) working on the take-off roll can increase the Minimum Control Speed on Ground (Vmcg). A review of the certification data of the affected aeroplanes shows that Vmcg values published in the Airplane Flight Manuals (AFM) have been determined without YD.

    This condition, if not corrected, could result, in case of an engine failure occurring during the roll acceleration [during takeoff], in reduced lateral control of the aeroplane.

    To address this condition, Dassault Aviation developed Change Proposals (CP) and Temporary Changes (TC) to the applicable AFMs, which instruct flight crews to check that yaw damper is set to “off” before take-off.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires an amendment of the applicable AFM.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8426.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following service information:

    • Change Proposal 17 (CP017), “AFM: Yaw Damper Off in Line Up Procedure,” dated January 23, 2015, to the Dassault Falcon 2000EX Airplane Flight Manual, DGT84278.

    • Change Proposal 46 (CP046), “AFM: Yaw Damper Off In Line Up Procedure,” dated December 15, 2014, to the Dassault Falcon 2000EX EASy Version, Airplane Flight Manual, DGT88898.

    • Change Proposal 118 (TC118), “AFM: Yaw Damper Off In Line Up Procedure,” dated December 18, 2014, to the Dassault Mystère Falcon 900 Airplane Flight Manual, DTM20103.

    • Change Proposal 48 (TC048), “AFM: Yaw Damper Off In Line Up Procedure,” dated December 16, 2014, to the Dassault Mystère Falcon 900, F900C Version, Airplane Flight Manual (FM900C), TC048.

    • Change Proposal 12 (CP012), “AFM: Yaw Damper Off In Line Up Procedure,” Dassault Falcon 900EX Airplane Flight Manual DTM561.

    • Change Proposal 31 (CP031), “AFM: Yaw Damper Off In Line Up Procedure,” Dassault Falcon 900EX EASy, Airplane Flight Manual DGT84972).

    The service information describes procedures for the flightcrew to check that the yaw damper is set to off before takeoff. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

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

    We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $24,140, or $85 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2015-8426; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-006-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 29, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

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

    (1) Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes, all serial numbers.

    (2) Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes, all serial numbers, except airplanes with “EASy II” “2nd certification” avionics, which are defined as: Airplanes modified in production with Dassault Aviation modification M5595; or airplanes modified in service with Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F900EX-400 or with Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F900EX-414, except for airplanes modified in service with any of the service information in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(vii) of this AD.

    (i) Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F900EX-400, dated July 1, 2011.

    (ii) Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F900EX-400, Revision 1, dated July 5, 2012.

    (iii) Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F900EX-400, Revision 2, dated November 30, 2012.

    (iv) Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F900EX-414, dated July 20, 2011.

    (v) Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F900EX-414, Revision 1, dated July 5, 2012.

    (vi) Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F900EX-414, Revision 2, dated July 27, 2012.

    (vii) Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F900EX-414, Revision 3, dated November 30, 2012.

    (3) Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes, all serial numbers, except airplanes with Dassault Aviation production modification M3254, or modified in service by Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F2000EX-300 (“EASy II” avionics).

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 01, Operations Information.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that during a test flight, it was found that the yaw damper on the take-off roll can increase the Minimum Control Speed on Ground (Vmcg). We are issuing this AD to ensure that the ensure that the flightcrew has procedures to set the yaw damper to “off” before takeoff, which, if activated, could result in reduced control of the airplane if one engine were to fail during takeoff.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Revision of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the normal procedures and limitations sections of the airplane flight manual, as applicable, to include the information in the applicable AFM change specified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD. This may be done by inserting copies of the applicable AFM change specified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD in the AFM. When the applicable AFM change specified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD have been included in general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, provided the relevant information in the general revision is identical to that in the applicable AFM change specified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, and the applicable AFM change specified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD may be removed.

    Table 1 to Paragraph (g) of This AD—Normal Procedures and Limitations Affected airplane/configuration Applicable AFM change Model Mystère Falcon 900 airplanes Change Proposal 118 (TC118), “AFM: Yaw Damper Off In Line Up Procedure,” dated December 18, 2014, to the Dassault Mystère Falcon 900 Airplane Flight Manual, DTM20103. Model Mystère Falcon 900 airplanes with Dassault Aviation production modification M1975, or production modification M2695 embodied, or modified in service by Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F900-250 (“Falcon 900 C” version) Change Proposal 48 (TC048), “AFM: Yaw Damper Off In Line Up Procedure,” dated December 16, 2014, to the Dassault Mystère Falcon 900, F900C Version, Airplane Flight Manual (FM900C), TC048. Model Falcon 900EX airplanes Change Proposal 12 (CP012), “AFM: Yaw Damper Off In Line Up Procedure,” Dassault Falcon 900EX Airplane Flight Manual DTM561. Model Falcon 900EX airplanes with Dassault Aviation production modification M3083 embodied (Falcon 900EX “EASy” version) Change Proposal 31 (CP031), “AFM: Yaw Damper Off In Line Up Procedure,” Dassault Falcon 900EX EASy, Airplane Flight Manual DGT84972). Model Falcon 2000EX airplanes Change Proposal 17 (CP017), “AFM: Yaw Damper Off in Line Up Procedure,” dated January 23, 2015, to the Dassault Falcon 2000EX Airplane Flight Manual, DGT84278. Model Falcon 2000EX airplanes with Dassault Aviation production modification M1691 embodied (Falcon 2000EX “EASy” version) Change Proposal 46 (CP046), “AFM: Yaw Damper Off In Line Up Procedure,” dated December 15, 2014, to the Dassault Falcon 2000EX EASy Version, Airplane Flight Manual, DGT88898. (h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0005, dated January 14, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8426.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 23, 2015. John Piccola, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-33178 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-7491; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-39-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all General Electric Company (GE) GE90-76B, GE90-77B, GE90-85B, GE90-90B, and GE90-94B turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by an uncontained failure of the high-pressure compressor (HPC) stage 8-10 spool, leading to an airplane fire. This proposed AD would require eddy current inspections (ECIs) or ultrasonic inspections (USIs) of the HPC stage 8-10 spool and removing from service those parts that fail inspection. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the HPC stage 8-10 spool, uncontained rotor release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact General Electric Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, phone: 513-552-3272; fax: 513-552-3329; email: [email protected] You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-7491; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Frost, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7756; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-7491; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-39-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM 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 NPRM.

    Discussion

    We received a report of an HPC stage 8-10 spool uncontained failure resulting in an airplane fire. Ongoing investigations have determined that a crack initiated in the stage 8 aft web upper face of the HPC 8-10 spool and propagated until spool rupture. The root cause of the crack initiation is not yet known. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the HPC stage 8-10 spool, uncontained rotor release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    Related Service Information

    We reviewed the following chapters of GE GE90 Engine Manual, GEK100700, Revision 66, dated September 1, 2015:

    • Chapter 72-31-08, Special Procedure 003, piece-part level ECI,

    • Chapter 72-00-31, Special Procedure 006, rotor assembly and module level ECI and,

    • Chapter 72-00-31, Special Procedure 007, rotor assembly level USI.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this NPRM 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.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This NPRM would require accomplishing an ECI or USI of the stage 8 aft web upper face of the HPC stage 8-10 spool and removing from service those parts that fail inspection.

    Interim Action

    We consider this proposed AD interim action. GE is determining the root cause for the unsafe condition identified in this proposed AD. Once a root cause is identified, we might consider additional rulemaking.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 54 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 7 hours per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. We estimate one part will fail inspection at a cost of $780,000. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $812,130.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): General Electric Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-7491; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-39-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 14, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) GE90-76B, GE90-77B, GE90-85B, GE90-90B, and GE90-94B turbofan engines with a high-pressure compressor (HPC) 8-10 stage spool, part numbers (P/Ns) 1694M80G04, 1844M90G01, or 1844M90G02, installed.

    (d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an uncontained failure of the HPC stage 8-10 spool. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPC stage 8-10 spool, uncontained rotor release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

    (e) Compliance

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

    (1) Perform an eddy current inspection (ECI) or ultrasonic inspection (USI) of the stage 8 aft web upper face of the HPC stage 8-10 spool, before exceeding 10,500 cycles since new or within 500 cycles in service, after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (2) At each shop visit, perform an ECI or USI of the stage 8 aft web upper face of the HPC stage 8-10 spool.

    (3) Remove from service any HPC stage 8-10 spool that fails the inspection required by paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this AD and replace the spool with a spool eligible for installation.

    (f) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, an HPC stage 8-10 spool, P/Ns 1694M80G04, 1844M90G01, and 1844M90G02, is not eligible for installation into any engine, unless the spool has passed an ECI or USI required by paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this AD.

    (g) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, an engine shop visit is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance during which the compressor discharge pressure seal face is exposed.

    (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

    (i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact John Frost, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7756; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (2) GE GE90 Engine Manual, GEK100700, Revision 66, dated September 1, 2015, Chapter 72-31-08, Special Procedure 003, Chapter 72-00-31, Special Procedure 006, and Chapter 72-00-31, Special Procedure 007, rotor assembly level USI can be obtained from General Electric Company, using the contact information in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD.

    (3) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact General Electric Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, phone: 513-552-3272; fax: 513-552-3329; email: [email protected]

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

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on December 22, 2015. Colleen M. D'Alessandro, Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-33097 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8435; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-049-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of operator inability to open the main passenger door following severe hot soak conditions. This proposed AD would require the incorporation of a new configuration to the passenger door external handle detent to enhance the performance across the full range of the airplane operating temperatures. We are proposing this AD to prevent thermal expansion and permanent deformation at severe hot soak conditions, creating high friction between the spring pot housing and the slider that could result in inability to open the main passenger door and impede evacuation in the event of an emergency.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8435; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cesar A. Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-8435; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-049-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-03, dated March 13, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    There have been reports where operators experienced an inability to open the main passenger door following severe hot soak conditions.

    Investigation determined that the nylon slider in the plunger assembly of the door handle is susceptible to thermal expansion and permanent deformation at severe hot soak conditions, creating high friction between the spring pot housing and the slider.

    This condition, if not corrected, could result in an inability to open the main passenger door and could impede evacuation in the event of an emergency.

    This [Canadian] AD mandates the incorporation of a new configuration to the passenger door external handle detent to enhance the performance across the full range of the aeroplanes operating temperatures.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8435.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued the following service information:

    • Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-52-021, Revision 01, dated February 3, 2015.

    • Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-044, Revision 01, dated February 3, 2015.

    • Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-5008, Revision 01, dated February 3, 2015.

    • Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-6008, Revision 01, dated February 3, 2015.

    The service information describes procedures to incorporate a new configuration to the passenger door external handle detent. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 60 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $20,400, or $340 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2015-8435; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-049-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 29, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/N) 9002 through 9515 inclusive and S/N 9998.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of operator inability to open the main passenger door following severe hot soak conditions. We are issuing this AD to prevent thermal expansion and permanent deformation at severe hot soak conditions, creating high friction between the spring pot housing and the slider that could result in inability to open the main passenger door that could impede evacuation in the event of an emergency.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Modification

    Within 15 months after the effective date of this AD, incorporate the new configuration to the passenger door external handle detent, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD:

    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-52-021, Revision 01, dated February 3, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).

    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-044, Revision 01, dated February 3, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).

    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-5008, Revision 01, dated February 3, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).

    (4) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-6008, Revision 01, dated February 3, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).

    (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the following service information, as applicable. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-52-021, dated November 9, 2012.

    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-044, dated November 9, 2012.

    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-5008, dated November 9, 2012.

    (4) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-6008, dated November 9, 2012.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-03, dated March 25, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8435.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 30, 2015. Phil Forde, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00169 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8434; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-082-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a discovery of cracking on two test spoiler power control unit (PCU) manifolds during testing by the manufacturer. This proposed AD would require replacement of affected spoiler PCUs. We are proposing this AD to prevent cracking of the spoiler PCUs that could lead to the loss of multiple flight controls and landing gear systems.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8434; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-8434; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-082-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-07, dated April 28, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During endurance and impulse testing of the spoiler PCU, cracks were discovered on two test spoiler PCU manifolds. Investigation determined that the crack initiation was due to the heat treat process. A cracked spoiler PCU manifold could cause the loss of one of the two hydraulic systems, resulting in the loss of multiple flight controls and landing gear systems. This condition, if not corrected, could adversely affect the continued safe operation and landing of the aeroplane.

    This [Canadian] AD mandates the replacement of the affected spoiler PCUs.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8434.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-64, dated July 15, 2014. The service information describes procedures for identification and replacement of affected spoiler PCU manifolds. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 82 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $10,000 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $833,940, or $10,170 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2015-8434; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-082-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 29, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/Ns) 4001, and 4003 through 4453 inclusive, equipped with spoiler power control unit (PCU) part numbers (P/Ns) 390700-1007 and 1009, S/Ns 0474 through 1321 and 1394 through 1876 without suffix “A.”

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the discovery of cracking on two test spoiler power control unit (PCU) manifolds during testing by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking of the spoiler PCUs that could lead to the loss of multiple flight controls and landing gear systems.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection/Replacement

    Within 12,000 flight hours or 72 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Remove and replace the affected spoiler PCUs in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-64, dated July 15, 2014.

    (h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    After paragraph (g) of this AD has been done, no person may install, on any airplane, a spoiler PCU, part number 390700-1007 or -1009, serial numbers 0474 through 1321 and 1394 through 1876, without suffix “A.”

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-07, dated April 28, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8434.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 31, 2015. Phil Forde, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00171 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8432; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-100-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Formerly Known as Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of ruptured horizontal stabilizer de-icing boots. This proposed AD would require a revision of the applicable airplane flight manual (AFM), repetitive inspections of the horizontal stabilizer de-icing boots, and applicable corrective actions. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct damage of the de-icing boot; such damage could lead to a ruptured boot, severe vibrations, and possible reduced control of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Linköping, Sweden; telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.saabgroup.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8432; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1112; fax (425) 227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-8432; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-100-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0129, dated July 6, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes. The MCAI states:

    There have been some reported events of ruptured horizontal stabilizer de-icing boots. In-flight rupture of a de-icing boot will result in complete loss of the de-icing function within its associated zone. In addition, in some of these events, the de-icing boot had formed a large open scoop.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to severe vibrations, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, SAAB issued Alert Operations Bulletin (AOB) No.12 and AOB No. 23 as a temporary measure, recommending performing a flap 0 landing in the event of a suspected rupture of the de-icing boot on the horizontal stabilizer.

    In addition, SAAB issued SB 340-30-094 to provide instructions to inspect the affected de-icing boots.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires an amendment of the applicable Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) and, pending the development of a modification by SAAB, repetitive inspections of the horizontal stabilizer de-icing boots and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

    This [EASA] AD is considered to be an interim action and further AD action may follow.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8432.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics has issued Saab Service Bulletin 340-30-094, dated March 27, 2015. The service information describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections of the de-icing boots installed on the horizontal stabilizers, and repair and replacement of damaged de-icing boots.

    Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics has issued the following AFMs, which describe performance limitations and general data:

    • Saab AFM 340A 001, Revision 57, dated March 27, 2015.

    • Saab AFM 340B 001, Revision 35, dated March 27, 2015.

    • Saab AFM 340B 010, Revision 28, dated March 27, 2015.

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

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 92 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $46,920, or $510 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 6 work-hours and require parts costing $9,500, for a cost of $10,010 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Formerly Known as Saab Aerosystems): Docket No. FAA-2015-8432; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-100-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 29, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (formerly known as Saab Aerosystems) airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) airplanes, serial numbers (S/N) 004 through 138 inclusive, on which Saab Modification 1462 has been embodied in production, or Saab Service Bulletin 340-55-008 has been embodied in service, except those on which Saab Modification 1793 has also been embodied in production, or Saab Service Bulletin 340-55-010 has been embodied in service; and Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) airplanes, S/Ns 139 through 159 inclusive. Applicable Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) airplanes S/N 004-138, Post Modification No. 1462 but Pre Modification No. 1793, have a maximum flap setting of 35 degrees instead of 20 degrees, and horizontal stabilizer boots with spanwise tubes instead of chordwise tubes.

    (2) Model SAAB 340B airplanes, S/Ns 160 through 459 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30, Ice and Rain Protection.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of ruptured horizontal stabilizer de-icing boots. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damage of the de-icing boot; such damage could lead to a ruptured boot, severe vibrations, and possible reduced control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Revision of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the “Abnormal Procedures” section of the applicable Saab 340 AFM to incorporate the revision specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this AD.

    (1) For Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) airplanes, revise AFM 340A 001 by incorporating Revision 57, dated March 27, 2015.

    (2) For Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model SAAB 340B airplanes, revise AFM 340B 001 by incorporating Revision 35, dated March 27, 2015.

    (3) For Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model SAAB 340B airplanes with extended wing tips, revise AFM 340B 010 by incorporating Revision 28, dated March 27, 2015.

    (h) Inspection/Replacement

    Within 400 flight hours or 6 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection for damage of the horizontal stabilizer de-icing boots, in accordance with Saab Service Bulletin 340-30-094, dated March 27, 2015. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 400 flight hours. If, during any inspection required by this paragraph, any damage outside the limits specified in Saab Service Bulletin 340-30-094, dated March 27, 2015, is found, before further flight, repair or replace the horizontal stabilizer de-icing boots, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 340-30-094, dated March 27, 2015. Repair or replacement on an airplane of the horizontal stabilizer de-icing boots, as required by this paragraph, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this paragraph for that airplane.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0129, dated July 6, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8432.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Linköping, Sweden; telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email saab340techsu[email protected]; Internet http://www.saabgroup.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 29, 2015. Philip Forde, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00003 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-4010; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-11] Proposed Establishment of Class D and Class E Airspace, and Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Lake City, FL AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace at Lake City, FL, providing the controlled airspace required for the Air Traffic Control Tower at Lake City Gateway Airport. This action also would amend existing Class E airspace by recognizing the airport's name change. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before February 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg. Ground Floor Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax: 202-493-2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-2015-4010; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-11, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class D and Class E airspace, and amend Class E airspace at Lake City Gateway Airport, Lake City, FL.

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-4010; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-11) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-4010; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-11.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

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

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

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

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace, and amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Lake City Gateway Airport, Lake City, FL, providing the controlled airspace required to support the Air Traffic Control Tower. Class D airspace extending upward from the surface up to and including 2,500 feet would be established within a 4.2 mile radius of the airport. Class E surface area airspace would be established within a 4.2 mile radius of the airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for IFR operations. The airport name under existing Class E airspace would be changed from Lake City Municipal Airport to Lake City Gateway Airport.

    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore; (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5.6.5a, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ASO FL D Lake City, FL [New] Lake City Gateway Airport, FL (Lat. 30°10′56″ N., long. 82°34′37″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,500 feet within a 4.2-mile radius of Lake City Gateway Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace. ASO FL E2 Lake City, FL [New] Lake City Gateway Airport, FL (Lat. 30°10′56″ N., long. 82°34′37″ W.)

    Within a 4.2-mile radius of Lake City Gateway Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASO FL E5 Lake City, FL [Amended] Lake City Gateway Airport, FL (Lat. 30°10′56″ N., long. 82°34′37″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Lake City Gateway Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on December 18, 2015. Ryan W. Almasy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00166 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-134219-08] RIN 1545-BI82 Relief From Joint and Several Liability; Correction AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains corrections to a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-134219-08) that was published in the Federal Register on Friday, November 20, 2015 (80 FR 72649). The proposed regulations are relating to relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 of the Internal Revenue Code.

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing for the notice of proposed rulemaking at 80 FR 72649, November 20, 2015, are still being accepted and must be received by February 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-134219-08), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-134219-08), Courier's desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or sent electronically, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-134219-08).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nancy Rose, at (202) 317-68444 (not a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The notice of proposed rulemaking that is the subject of this document is under section 6051 of the Internal Revenue Code.

    Need for Correction

    As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-134219-08) contains errors that are misleading and are in need of clarification.

    Correction to Publication

    Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking, that is the subject of FR Doc. 2015-29609, is corrected as follows:

    1. On page 72650, in the third column, seventh through ninth lines of the first full paragraph, the language “participated in a prior proceeding. in which relief under section 6015 could have been raised Current § 1.6015-(e)” is corrected to read “participated in a prior proceeding in which relief under section 6015 could have been raised. Current § 1.6015-(e)”.

    2. On page 72651, in the second column, third line from the bottom of the first full paragraph, the language “whether taxpayer's ability to contest the” is corrected to read “whether the taxpayer's ability to contest the”.

    Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
    [FR Doc. 2016-00430 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service 36 CFR Part 13 [NPS-AKRO-19165; PPAKAKROZ5, PPMPRLE1Y.L00000] RIN 1024-AE28 Alaska; Subsistence Collections AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Park Service proposes to allow qualified subsistence users to collect and use nonedible fish and wildlife parts and plant materials for the creation and subsequent disposition (use, barter, or sale) of handicrafts. The rule would also (1) clarify that collecting or possessing living wildlife is generally prohibited and (2) limit the types of bait that may be used to take bears for subsistence uses.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. EST on April 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1024-AE28, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail or hand deliver to: National Park Service, Regional Director, Alaska Regional Office, 240 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or RIN for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For additional information see “Public Participation” under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andee Sears, Regional Law Enforcement Specialist, Alaska Regional Office, 240 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501. Phone (907) 644-3410. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Subsistence Uses Authorized by ANILCA

    In 1980, Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 410hh-410hh-5; 3101-3233) to preserve various nationally significant areas in Alaska. One of the purposes of ANILCA is “to provide the opportunity for rural residents engaged in a subsistence way of life to continue to do so.” 16 U.S.C. 3101(c). Title II of ANILCA established new National Park System units, added to existing units, and determined where subsistence uses would be allowed in those units. Subsistence uses by local rural residents are authorized in all national preserves and in the Alagnak Wild River (managed as a national preserve), Aniakchak National Monument, Cape Krusenstern National Monument, Gates of the Arctic National Park, Kobuk Valley National Park, Lake Clark National Park, Wrangell-Saint Elias National Park, and the additions to Denali National Park. 16 U.S.C. 3113 defines “subsistence uses” as follows:

    [T]he customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild, renewable resources for direct personal or family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or transportation; for the making and selling of handicraft articles out of nonedible byproducts of fish and wildlife resources taken for personal or family consumption; for barter, or sharing for personal or family consumption; and for customary trade.

    This definition reflects that the creation of hand-made crafts from nonedible natural materials has long been a part of the cultural, social, and economic practices of those living a subsistence way of life in Alaska. While ANILCA does not expressly address making and selling of handicraft articles out of plant materials, the NPS believes it falls within this definition, and that it is not otherwise prohibited. Making and selling handicraft articles out of plant materials is clearly use of a wild renewable resource for barter or customary trade. The omission of plant materials from the statute's specific provision on handicraft articles does not indicate any intent to prohibit their use. That definition provides that fish and wildlife-based handicraft articles for subsistence purposes are only made from “nonedible byproducts” to avoid the take of fish and wildlife solely for the purpose of making handicrafts out of them. Plant materials fall within the definition's more general provision of wild, renewable resources. Subsistence users requested NPS regulations be changed to allow this customary and traditional practice.

    Consistency With NPS Regulations

    NPS regulations managing subsistence uses are found in 36 CFR part 13, subpart F—Subsistence. NPS regulations regarding the subsistence use of timber and plant materials allow the noncommercial gathering of plant materials for subsistence uses without a permit. 36 CFR 13.485(b). NPS regulations at 36 CFR 13.420 define the terms “barter” and “customary trade” that are used in the statutory definition of “subsistence uses.” Barter means the exchange of fish or wildlife or their parts for other fish or game or their parts; or for other food or for nonedible items other than money if the exchange is of a limited and noncommercial nature. This definition recognizes the traditional cultural, social, and economic practices of non-cash exchange of subsistence resources among those living a “genuine subsistence lifestyle” (46 FR 31824, June 17, 1981). Customary trade is limited to the exchange of furs for cash, and other activities designated for a particular NPS unit by special regulation. This allowance for the exchange of furs for cash acknowledged that trapping was an “integral and longstanding part of the subsistence lifestyle in many regions in Alaska” (46 FR 31824, June 17, 1981). Since the June 1981 rulemaking, two NPS units in Alaska where such customary trade was known to have occurred, Gates of the Arctic National Preserve and Kobuk Valley National Park, have had special regulations that expand the definition of “customary trade” in those units to include the sale of handicraft articles made from plant material taken by local rural residents of the park area and which do not require any written authorization from the superintendent. 36 CFR 13.1006 and 13.1504, respectively. The proposed rule would not change or remove these special regulations which would control over the proposed rule for these units. The NPS specifically seeks comment on whether these special regulations should continue to apply to Gates of the Arctic National Preserve and Kobuk Valley National Park, or whether they should be removed which would make those units subject to the provisions in the proposed rule.

    Except for these specific and limited authorizations for barter and customary trade of handicraft articles in Alaska, National Park System-wide regulations at 36 CFR 5.3 generally prohibit engaging in any business in park areas without authorization. This means that other forms of sale, barter, and trade that are customary and traditional uses of wild, renewable resources by rural Alaska residents are not allowed under current NPS regulations. In addition, National Park System-wide regulations at 36 CFR 2.1(a)(1) prohibit the collection of wildlife, plants, or parts thereof. There is a limited authorization for the hand-collection of fruits, berries, nuts, or unoccupied seashells for personal use or consumption, but the sale or commercial use of these products is prohibited. 36 CFR 2.1(c).

    Environmental Impact Analysis

    The NPS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the impacts of various alternatives that would address the collection and use of plant materials and nonedible animal parts to make handicrafts that may subsequently be bartered or sold. The NPS received substantial public input during scoping for the EA, including input following presentations to all affected Subsistence Resource Commissions and Regional Advisory Councils. All tribes affiliated with park areas in Alaska were invited to consult on the alternatives in the EA. On April 14, 2014, the Regional Director for the Alaska Region signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) that selected the preferred alternative (Alternative D) in the EA as the selected action.

    The Proposed Rule Subsistence Uses of Plants and Nonedible Animal Parts

    This part of the proposed rule would implement the selected action identified in the FONSI and would apply to all NPS units in Alaska where subsistence uses by local rural residents are authorized by ANILCA. The rule would allow NPS-qualified local rural residents to collect and use the following items to make and sell handicrafts:

    • Plant materials; and

    • nonedible animal parts (e.g., antlers, horns, bones, teeth, claws, hooves, skins, hides, fur, hair, feathers, or quills) that are naturally shed or discarded, lawfully taken, or that remain on the landscape due to the natural mortality of an animal.

    While this proposed rule would authorize the collection and use of feathers of birds not covered by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (which will generally mean grouse and ptarmigan), collection and use of other bird feathers remains subject to any applicable federal and state laws.

    In order to properly manage the collection of nonedible animal parts, subsistence users would be required to have a Federal Subsistence Board customary and traditional use determination for animal species whose nonedible parts would be used to make handicrafts. The determination must be specific to the area where the collection would occur. Eligible persons would also be required to have written authorization from the superintendent to collect plant materials or nonedible animal parts with appropriate terms and conditions to protect area resources and values. The sale of raw, unworked materials or parts would be prohibited. The proposed rule would provide superintendents with authority to set conditions, limits, and other restrictions on collection activities to protect resources and values. Eligibility to collect plants or nonedible animal parts would follow the same criteria for other subsistence uses in national parks, monuments and preserves.

    The proposed rule would allow handicrafts to be sold or exchanged through barter or customary trade. The regulatory definition of “barter” would be amended to allow the exchange of handicraft articles for fish or game or their parts; or for other food or nonedible items other than money if the exchange is of a limited noncommercial nature. The regulatory definition of “customary trade” would be amended to allow the exchange of handicraft articles for cash to support personal and family needs, so long as these exchanges do not constitute a significant commercial enterprise. The NPS specifically seeks comment on how the term “significant commercial enterprise” could be further explained to provide more clarity to the public about what exchanges would be prohibited by this rule.

    The rule would add a definition of “handicraft article” that is taken from the current Federal Subsistence Regulations at 50 CFR 100.25(a). This definition would clarify that a handicraft must result from the alteration or manipulation of the shape and appearance of natural materials to create something of greater monetary or aesthetic value. The NPS specifically seeks comment on how the term “substantially greater monetary and aesthetic value” could be further explained to provide more clarity to the public about what qualifies as a handicraft article under this rule.

    Collection of Live Wildlife

    This part of the proposed rule would clarify that collecting living wildlife (including eggs and offspring) is not authorized in NPS units located in Alaska unless specifically authorized by federal statute or pursuant to (1) an NPS research specimen collection permit issued under 36 CFR 2.5; (2) Federal Subsistence Regulations; or (3) special regulations for Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. This clarification results from public inquiries about the collection of live raptor chicks in national preserves. The take of wildlife is generally prohibited in NPS units. Although hunting and trapping are allowed in national preserves in accordance with applicable federal and non-conflicting state law and regulations, the NPS does not consider the collection of live raptors or eggs to be hunting or trapping. Moreover, this activity is in any event prohibited by 36 CFR 2.2(a)(2), which prohibits “intentional disturbing of wildlife nesting, breeding, or other activities.” This prohibition applies to activities that might be authorized by the State of Alaska under a falconry permit. In 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NPS issued memoranda expressly clarifying that collection of raptors is prohibited in units of the National Park System. Because the State of Alaska has authorized some of these practices as “hunting” under state law, the NPS is proposing to eliminate any potential confusion that these activities could be allowed in national preserves as state-authorized “hunting.” The rule would expressly state that the collection or possession of living wildlife, which includes raptors or eggs, is not allowed as a hunting or trapping activity in national preserves in Alaska. This regulation does not prohibit the use of trained raptors for hunting activities where authorized by applicable federal and state law.

    This proposed clarification would not restrict other collection of wildlife for subsistence uses authorized under Title VIII of ANILCA, collection of migratory bird eggs authorized pursuant to U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service regulations, or collection of gull eggs in Glacier Bay by the Huna Tlingit pursuant to the statutory authorization for that activity.

    Use of Bait for Taking Bears Under Federal Subsistence Regulations

    The NPS is proposing to limit the types of bait that may be used to take bears for subsistence uses under Federal Subsistence Regulations in units of the National Park System in Alaska. Under the proposed rule, bait would be limited to (1) parts of legally taken native fish or wildlife that are not required to be salvaged; or (2) remains of native fish or wildlife that died of natural causes. The proposed rule would prohibit items such as dog food, grease, bread, and marshmallows, which are currently allowed and commonly used to bait bears. These practices are inconsistent with NPS regulations that prohibit feeding wildlife (36 CFR 2.2(a)(2)) and the NPS legal and policy framework which calls for managing wildlife for natural processes. It also furthers NPS efforts to avoid habituating wildlife to unnatural food sources, such as human foods.

    Compliance With Other Laws, Executive Orders, and Department Policy Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This certification is based on the cost-benefit and regulatory flexibility analyses found in the reports entitled “Regulatory Flexibility Threshold Analysis: Special Regulations for National Park Areas in Alaska” and “Preliminary Cost/Benefit Analysis: Special Regulations for National Park Service Areas in Alaska” which can be viewed online at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/akro by clicking the link “Subsistence Uses of Horns, Antlers, Bones and Plants” and then clicking “Document List.”

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the SBREFA. This rule:

    a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

    b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions

    c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

    Takings (Executive Order 12630)

    This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.

    Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

    Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. The proposed rule is limited in effect to federal lands managed by the NPS in Alaska and would not have a substantial direct effect on state and local government in Alaska. A Federalism summary impact statement is not required.

    Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

    This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule:

    (a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

    (b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

    Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175 and Department Policy) and ANCSA Corporations

    The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and under the Department's tribal consultation policy and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Corporations policy and have determined that tribal consultation is not required because the rule will have no substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian tribes or ANCSA Native Corporation lands, water areas, or resources. The NPS is seeking input from Alaska Native tribes and Alaska Native Corporations regarding these potential changes.

    Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This final rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Information collection requirements associated with the requirement for the superintendent's written authorization to collect plant materials or nonedible animal parts under this final rule are covered under OMB Control Number 1024-0026, which expires on 08/31/2016. Information collection requirements associated with Federal Subsistence Board customary and traditional use determinations have been approved under OMB Control Number 1018-0075 which expires on 02/29/2016. We may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because we reached a Finding of No Significant Impact. The EA and FONSI are available online at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/akro by clicking the link “Subsistence Uses of Horns, Antlers, Bones and Plants” and then clicking “Document List.” The other parts of this rule (collection of live wildlife, bear baiting under Federal Subsistence Regulations) are excluded from the requirement to prepare a detailed statement because they fall within the categorical exclusion covering modifications to existing regulations for NPS-administered areas that do not (a) increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature and character of the area or cause physical damage to it; (b) introduce non-compatible uses that might compromise the nature and characteristics of the area or cause physical damage to it; (c) conflict with adjacent ownerships or land uses; or (d) cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants. (For further information see Section 3.3 of Director's Order #12 Handbook). We have also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

    Effects on the Energy Supply (Executive Order 13211)

    This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

    Clarity of This Regulation

    The NPS is required by Executive Orders 12866 (section 1(b)(12)), 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

    (a) Be logically organized;

    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;

    (c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon;

    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section above. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that you find unclear, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

    Drafting Information

    The primary authors of this regulation are Jenna Giddens, Bud Rice, and Andee Sears of the Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service; and Jay Calhoun and Russel Wilson of the Division of Regulations, Washington Support Office, National Park Service.

    Public Participation

    It is the policy of the Department of the Interior, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, interested persons may submit written comments regarding this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section above.

    Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 13

    Alaska, National parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service proposes to amend 36 CFR part 13 as set forth below:

    PART 13—NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM UNITS IN ALASKA 1. The authority citation for part 13 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 3124; 54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751, 320102; Sec. 13.1204 also issued under Sec. 1035, Pub. L. 104-333, 110 Stat. 4240.

    2. Add paragraphs (j) and (k) to § 13.42 as follows:

    (j) Collecting or possessing living wildlife (including eggs and offspring) is prohibited unless expressly authorized by federal statute or pursuant to § 2.5 of this chapter, 50 CFR part 100, or special regulations in subpart N of this chapter. A falconry permit or other permit issued by the State of Alaska for the take of wildlife does not provide the required authorization. These collecting activities are not allowed as hunting or trapping activities in national preserves under paragraph (a) of this section 13.42. This regulation does not prohibit the use of trained raptors for hunting activities where authorized by applicable federal and state law.

    (k)(1) The following types of bait may be used to take bears for subsistence uses:

    (i) Parts of legally taken native fish or wildlife that are not required to be salvaged; or

    (ii) Remains of native fish or wildlife that died of natural causes.

    (2) The use of any other type of bait to take bears for subsistence uses is prohibited.

    3. Amend § 13.420 by: A. Adding the terms “Animal parts” and “Handicraft article” B. Revising the term “Subsistence uses”

    The additions and revisions to read as follows:

    § 13.420 Definitions.

    Animal parts means nonedible antlers, horns, bones, teeth, claws, hooves, skins, hides, fur, hair, feathers, or quills that:

    (1) Are obtained from a lawfully hunted or trapped animal;

    (2) Have been shed or discarded as a result of natural life-cycle events; or

    (3) Remain on the landscape as a result of the natural mortality of the animal.

    Handicraft article is a finished product made by a rural Alaskan resident in which the shape and appearance of the natural material has been substantially changed by the skillful use of hands, such as sewing, weaving, lacing, beading, drilling, carving, etching, scrimshawing, painting, or other means, which has substantially greater monetary and aesthetic value than the unaltered natural material. The term includes products made from plant materials and from nonedible byproducts of fish and wildlife resources taken for personal or family consumption. This term does not include a trophy or European mount of horns or antlers.

    Subsistence uses. As used in this part, this term means the customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild, renewable resources for direct personal or family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools or transportation; for the making and selling of handicraft articles out of nonedible byproducts of fish and wildlife resources taken for personal or family consumption; for barter or sharing for personal or family consumption; and for customary trade. For the purposes of this subpart, the terms—

    (1) “Family” shall mean all persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, or any person living within the household on a permanent basis; and

    (2) “Barter” shall mean the exchange of handicraft articles or fish or wildlife or their parts taken for subsistence uses—

    (i) For other fish or game or their parts; or

    (ii) For other food or for nonedible items other than money if the exchange is of a limited and noncommercial nature; and

    (3) “Customary trade” shall be limited to the exchange of handicraft articles or furs for cash to support personal and family needs; and does not include trade which constitutes a significant commercial enterprise.

    4. Add § 13.482 to read as follows:
    § 13.482 Subsistence collection and use of animal parts.

    (a) Local rural residents may collect animal parts (excluding migratory birds, marine mammals, and threatened or endangered species) for subsistence uses in park areas where subsistence uses are allowed, provided that:

    (1) The resident has a federal customary and traditional use determination for the species collected in the game management unit where the collecting occurs (50 CFR part 100); and

    (2) The resident has written authorization from the superintendent issued under § 1.6 of this chapter that identifies specific areas where this activity is allowed.

    (b) The superintendent may establish conditions, limits, and other restrictions on collection activities. Areas open to collections will be identified on a map posted on the park Web site and available at the park visitor center or park headquarters. Violating a condition, limit, or restriction is prohibited.

    (c) Non-conflicting State regulations regarding the use of bear claws that are now or may later be in effect are adopted as a part of these regulations.

    5. Amend § 13.485 by: a. Revising paragraph (b) b. Redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d) c. Adding new paragraph (c)

    The revisions and additions to read as follows:

    § 13.485 Subsistence use of timber and plant material.

    (b) The gathering by local rural residents of fruits, berries, mushrooms, and other plant materials for subsistence uses, and the gathering of dead or downed timber for firewood for noncommercial subsistence uses, shall be allowed without a permit in park areas where subsistence uses are allowed, provided that local rural residents may not gather plant materials to make handicraft articles for customary trade or barter unless they have written authorization from the superintendent issued under § 1.6 of this chapter that identifies specific areas where this activity is allowed.

    (c) The superintendent may establish conditions, limits, and other restrictions on gathering activities. Violating a condition, limit, or restriction is prohibited.

    Dated: December 11, 2015. Karen Hyun, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
    [FR Doc. 2015-33144 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-EJ-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 216, 225, and 252 [Docket DARS-2015-0045] RIN 0750-AI69 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Defense Contractors Performing Private Security Functions (DFARS Case 2015-D021) Correction

    In notice document 2015-32874, appearing on pages 81496-81499 in the Issue of Wednesday, December 30, 2015, make the following correction:

    On page 81496, in the first column, under the heading DATES: the entry “January 29, 2016” is corrected to read “February 29, 2016”.

    [FR Doc. C1-2015-32874 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0178; FXES11130900000C2-156-FF009E32000] RIN 1018-AY84 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To Downlist the West Indian Manatee, and Proposed Rule To Reclassify the West Indian Manatee as Threatened Correction

    In Proposed Rule document 2015-32645, appearing on pages 1000-1026, in the Issue of Friday, January 8, 2016, make the following correction:

    On page 1000, in the first column, under the heading “DATES:” the entry “April 8, 2015” is corrected to read “April 7, 2016”.

    [FR Doc. C1-2015-32645 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
    81 8 Wednesday, January 13, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2015-0044] Codex Alimentarius Commission: Meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Additives AGENCY:

    Office of the Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of the Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services are sponsoring a public meeting on February 16, 2016. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States (U.S.) positions to be discussed at the 48th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), taking place in Xi'an, China March 14-18, 2016. The Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety and the FDA recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 48th Session of the CCFA and to address items on the agenda.

    DATES:

    The public meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 16, 2016, from 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public meeting will take place at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Harvey Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, Rooms 1A-001 and 1A-002, College Park, MD 20740.

    Documents related to the 48th Session of the CCFA will be accessible via the Internet at the following address: http://www.codexalimentarius.org/meetings-reports/en/.

    Susan Carberry, Ph.D., U.S. Delegate to the 48th Session of the CCFA and the FDA invite interested U.S. parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address: [email protected]

    Registration: Attendees may register to attend the public meeting by emailing [email protected] by February 12, 2016. Early registration is encouraged because it will expedite entry into the building and parking area. If you require parking, please include your vehicle make and tag number when you register. The meeting will take place in a Federal building. Attendees should bring photo identification and plan for adequate time to pass through security screening systems. Attendees who are not able to attend the meeting in person, but wish to participate, may do so by phone. Those wishing to participate by phone should request the call-in-number and the conference code when they register for the meeting.

    For Further Information About The 48th Session of the CCFA Contact: Susan Carberry, Ph.D., Supervisory Chemist, Division of Petition Review, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), Food and Drug Administration, Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, HFS-205, College Park, MD 20740, Telephone: (240) 402-1269, Fax: (301) 436-2972, Email: [email protected]

    For Further Information About The Public Meeting Contact: Daniel E. Folmer, Ph.D., Review Chemist, Division of Petition Review, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), Food and Drug Administration, Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, HFS-265, College Park, MD 20740, Telephone: (240) 402-1269, Fax: (301) 436-2972, Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure that fair practices are used in trade.

    The CCFA establishes or endorses permitted maximum levels for individual food additives; prepares priority lists of food additives for risk assessment by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA); assigns functional classes and International Numbering System (INS) numbers to individual food additives; recommends specifications of identity and purity for food additives for adoption by Codex; considers methods of analysis for the determination of additives in food; and considers and elaborates standards or codes for related subjects, such as labeling of food additives when sold as such. The CCFA is hosted by China.

    Issues To Be Discussed at the Public Meeting

    The following items on the agenda for the 48th Session of the CCFA will be discussed during the public meeting:

    • Matters referred by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and other subsidiary bodies • Matters of Interest arising from FAO/WHO and from the 80th Meeting of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) • Proposed draft Specifications for Identity and Purity of Food Additives arising from the 80th JECFA Meeting • Endorsement or Revision of Maximum Levels for Food Additives and Processing Aids and Codex Standards • Alignment of the food-additive provisions of commodity standards and relevant provisions of the General Standard for Food Additives • Food additive provisions in Table 1 and 2 in food categories 01.2 through 08.4, with the exclusion of food categories 04.1.2.4, 04.2.2.4, 04.2.2.5, 04.2.2.6, 05.1.1, 05.1.3, and 05.1.4 (outstanding from CCFA47) • Use of nisin (INS 234) in food category 08.3.2 in general, and specifically in products conforming to the corresponding commodity standards • Proposed draft provision for quillaia extracts (INS 999 (i), (ii)) in food category 14.1.4 • Uses and use levels of paprika extract (INS 160c(ii)) (replies to CL 2015/9-FA Part C, point 8) • Proposals for new and/or revision of food additive provisions (replies to CL 2015/12-FA) • Proposed draft revision of food category 01.1 “Milk and dairy-based drinks” and its sub-categories • Discussion paper on the use of specific food additives in the production of wine • Proposed draft revision to the International Numbering System (INS) for Food Additives (CAC/GL 36-1989) • Proposals for additions and changes to the Priority List of Substances proposed for evaluation by JECFA (replies to CL 2015/11-FA) • Information on commercial use of: Potassium hydrogen sulfate (INS 515(ii)), sodium sorbates (INS 201) and calcium hydrogen sulfite (INS 227) (replies to CL 2015/9-FA Part C, point 9) • Discussion paper on secondary additives • Proposed draft revision of Section 4.1c and 5.1c of the General Standard for the Labelling of Food Additives When Sold As Such (CODEX STAN 107-1981) • Other Business and Future Work

    Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Codex Secretariat prior to the meeting. Members of the public may access these documents at http://www.codexalimentarius.org/meetings-reports/detail/en/?meeting=CCFA&session=48.

    Public Meeting

    At the February 16, 2016, public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Delegate for the 48th Session of the CCFA, Dr. Susan Carberry at the following address: [email protected] Written comments should state they relate to activities of the 48th Session of the CCFA.

    Additional Public Notification

    Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS Web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register .

    FSIS also will make copies of this 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.

    USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

    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.

    How To File a Complaint of Discrimination

    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).

    Mary Frances Lowe, U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00482 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Request for Information: Software Vendors of State and Local Management Information Systems (MIS) and Other Technology Solutions for the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice; Request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a request for information from Management Information Systems (MIS) software and hardware vendors and developers (“vendors”) to learn about the functionality of State and School Food Authority National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program (NSLP/SBP) data management information systems. It is not a request for proposal and does not commit the Government to issue a solicitation, make an award, or pay any costs associated with responding to this announcement. All submitted information shall remain with the Government and will not be returned. All responses will become part of the public record and will not be held confidential.

    The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is seeking information that will inform future data reporting requirements for the Department's oversight and management of NSLP/SBP. The Department is aware that all States and many school districts have installed and implemented MIS or other technology solutions to improve State and local program management. To better understand the availability and implementation of these solutions, USDA is requesting information from vendors about NSLP/SBP data systems they offer and have deployed at the State and local levels.

    The objectives of this request for information (RFI) are to:

    1. Obtain background data to inform later research on State and School Food Authority (SFA) NSLP/SBP data management information systems.

    2. Describe the functionality and capabilities of systems currently in use by State agencies and SFAs, or available to States and SFA for purchase.

    3. Describe the typical costs of system development, installation, maintenance, and upgrades.

    4. Identify which States and SFAs are using particular systems.

    DATES:

    To be assured of consideration, written comments must be submitted or postmarked on or before March 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, invites the submission of the requested information through one of the following methods:

    Preferred method: Submit information through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submissions.

    Mail: Submissions should be addressed to Dennis Ranalli, Social Science Policy Analyst, Office of Policy Support, FNS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302.

    • Comments may also be emailed to [email protected].

    All information properly and timely submitted, using one of the three methods described above, in response to this request for information will be included in the record and will be made available to the public on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Please be advised that the substance of the information provided and the identity of the individuals or entities submitting it will be subject to public disclosure.

    All written comments will be open for public inspection at the FNS office located at 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia, 22302, Room 1014, during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday). All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of this request for information should be directed to Dennis Ranalli at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The current Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) routine data collection requirements for the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program (NSLP/SBP) have their roots in the paper and early computer eras and reflect concerns with paperwork and reporting burden. Thus, data collected to administer and monitor these programs is typically reported at the State level, with detailed data collected at the service delivery point (e.g., individual meal transactions, school) often aggregated at one or more levels (e.g., school to SFA to State-level) before being submitted to FNS. Data aggregation results in a significant loss of potentially valuable information that could support administration, monitoring, and policy development.

    FNS recognizes that, in fact, managing a school food service program is a complex and data intensive operation, and that SFAs collect, generate, and maintain far more data than they report to their State child nutrition agencies. This includes data on costs, revenues, inventories, vendor management, and other business, administrative and regulatory activity. The same is true of State agencies that are responsible for monitoring the work of many SFAs. Some States and SFAs have developed more sophisticated data management systems to manage program data, however there is no comprehensive inventory of NSLP/SBP management information systems (MIS) in use, the number of States and SFAs that use MIS, or the data elements collected to support FNS reporting and general program management.

    The Review of Child Nutrition Data and Analysis for Program Management project will fill this knowledge gap by fully documenting SFA and State NSLP/SBP management information systems. This baseline “as is” review will document overall NSLP/SBP information system design, capabilities, functions, development/replacement and maintenance costs, and typical lifespan. The “as is” review is focusing particular attention on NSLP/SBP program management data that are collected or generated at the SFA or State agency levels, but are not required to be reported to FNS on any FNS program report forms. Findings from the RFI and additional review activities will provide a baseline for potential improvements to data collection practices and help support future MIS modernization and paperwork reduction efforts. They will also help identify promising and emerging practices and define models for MIS at both the state and local SFA levels.

    FNS requests that vendors respond in detail to the items below. Vendors are encouraged to provide any material that addresses the information requested or any other information that may be pertinent. Additional references or links to materials are welcome.

    I. Vendor Information a. Name of Company b. Address and Telephone Number c. Vendor Representative, contact number and email address II. Vendor Overview & Experience

    Briefly describe your company, your products and services, history, and ownership; for example:

    a. Web site address b. Main product/services c. Main market/customers d. Company location(s) e. Product deployment sites/school systems 1. Number of School District/schools currently deployed 2. Average/typical size of the school system 3. Year of first deployment 4. Years serving schools III. Product Information

    a. List and describe the core modules provided by your product. For example:

    1. Point of Sale/Service (POS) 2. Prepayment system(s) for parents 3. Nutrient Analysis and Menu Planning 4. Inventory Management 5. Purchasing/Vendor Management 6. Production Records 7. Financial Management 8. Free and Reduced-Price Meals Applications • Scanning paper applications • Processing On-line applications • Making eligibility determinations • Creating benefit issuance documents • Conducting verification 9. Direct Certification • SNAP recipients • Extended SNAP household members • Other direct certification—homeless, migrant, foster 10. Meal counting and claiming 11. Administrative Review 12. Reporting 13. Any other not listed above

    b. Describe the capabilities and reporting functionalities of your product.

    c. Describe your platform—site-based, central office w/satellite, cloud-based, etc.

    d. For SFAs, are POS terminals proprietary or third-party?

    e. Is your system a commercial off the shelf (COTS) product with application in multiple industry segments or school nutrition specific?

    f. Does your firm rely on any `third party software products/systems' for implementation and/or operation?

    g. Are any additional licenses required from `third party sources' to utilize your product?

    h. What is your product's ability to interface with other vendor systems? What level of customization is available?

    i. List the minimum and recommended hardware requirements to implement and utilize your product at each level of installation.

    j. Describe the interface capabilities between your product and various within-district student data base systems.

    k. Describe the interface capabilities between your product and State agency systems.

    l. Does your system adhere to Schools Interoperability Framework (SIF) standards?

    m. Please provide a list of data elements captured/stored by your product. For example:

    1. Name of the data element 2. Description of the data element 3. Possible values

    n. Describe the processes/procedures/steps associated with planning, installation, setup, data import and conversion, data migration, quality assurance, deployment, and roll-out for your product.

    IV. Customer Support, Maintenance and Security

    a. Describe your model for providing customer support, including charge/cost structure (e.g., hours of support, levels of support).

    b. Describe your incident reporting and tracking systems, and the ability for customer staff to access those systems directly.

    c. List the types of support access that are available (web, email, chat, telephone etc.).

    d. Describe the communication and escalation processes/protocols in the event of failure, network outages, degraded service, and/or exceeded planned utilization.

    e. Describe your replication, archival and retrieval processes, including your disaster recovery model.

    f. Describe the warranty and maintenance plan(s) for your product. Have there been recent upgrades or updates to your product? How often do you typically develop and release upgrades?

    g. Is your support agreement integrated into the license agreement?

    h. Describe your understanding and system approach to privacy rules, specifically those related to children and students (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, etc.).

    i. Describe your process for upgrading your product to meet federal and state regulations.

    j. Does your product support access through smartphones, tablets, laptops etc.?

    V. Pricing

    a. Describe your pricing models relevant to each component of your product.

    b. Is your pricing model based on purchasing the entire product or individual module(s), or is it based on usage/users?

    c. Describe the upgrade process and cost to upgrade.

    d. List any additional pricing/cost information that would be useful to evaluate the affordability of the product.

    VI. Training

    a. What type of technical training do you provide?

    b. Describe your product's documentation and in-program help?

    Audrey Rowe, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00504 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request—Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to comment on the “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery ” for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This collection is being developed as part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process for seeking feedback from the public on service delivery. This notice announces our intent to submit this “fast track” collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval and to solicit comments on specific aspects for the proposed information collection.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before March 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the proposed information collection burden, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments may be sent to Lynnette Thomas, Planning & Regulatory Affairs Office, Office of Policy Support, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Lynnette Thomas, Planning & Regulatory Affairs Office, Office of Policy Support, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (Fast Track).

    OMB Number: 0584-NEW.

    Expiration Date: Not Yet Determined.

    Type of Request: New collection.

    Abstract: The proposed information collection activity provides a means to garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient and timely manner. By qualitative feedback we mean, information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population. This feedback will, (1) provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, (2) provide an early warning of issues with service and, (3) focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. This collection will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

    The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable.

    The Agency will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:

    • The collections are voluntary;

    • The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;

    • The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;

    • Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;

    • Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;

    • Information gathered will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency;

    • Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and

    • Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.

    Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data usage require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.

    As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.

    Below we provide projected average estimates for the next 3-years:

    Affected Public: Individuals and Households, Businesses and Organizations, State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 30,000.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Annual responses: 30,000.

    Estimated time per response: 60 minutes.

    Burden hours: 30,000.

    Audrey Rowe, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00505 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request—Determining Eligibility for Free and Reduced Price Meals and Free Milk AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this information collection. This is a revision of a currently approved collection for determining eligibility for free and reduced price meals and free milk as stated in 7 CFR part 245. These federal requirements affect eligibility under the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, and the Special Milk Program and are also applicable to the Child and Adult Care Food Program and the Summer Food Service Program when individual eligibility must be established. The current approval for the information collection burden associated with 7 CFR part 245 expires on April 30, 2016. The revisions being requested are primarily adjustments due to updating the number of respondents.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted by March 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments may be sent to: Sarah Smith-Holmes, Director of Program Monitoring and Operational Support Division, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1594. Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval, and will become a matter of public record.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah Smith-Holmes, Director of Program Monitoring and Operational Support Division; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: 7 CFR part 245—Determining Eligibility for Free and Reduced Price Meals and Free Milk in Schools.

    OMB Number: 0584-0026.

    Expiration Date: April 30, 2016.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Abstract: The Food and Nutrition Service administers the National School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Program, and the Special Milk Program as mandated by the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 1751, et seq.), and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1771, et seq.). Per 7 CFR part 245, schools participating in these meal and milk programs must make free and reduced price meals and free milk available to eligible children. This information collection obtains eligibility information for free and reduced price meals and free milk and also incorporates verification procedures as required to confirm eligibility. The Programs are administered at the State and local educational agency levels and operations include direct certification, the submission of household size and income applications for school meal/milk benefits, record maintenance, and public notification. The information collection burden associated with this revision is summarized in the chart below. The difference in burden is mainly due to updating the number of participating school food authorities and local educational agencies and the number of households having to submit an application. All of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with this information collection are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget and are in force. This is a revision of the currently approved information collection.

    Affected Public: State Agencies, School Food Authorities, Schools, and Individuals/Households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,449,186 (56 SAs, 19,822 SFAs, 5,390,000 households).

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 3.035.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 16,540,513.

    Estimated Hours per Response: 0.0580889.

    Estimated Total Annual Reporting Burden: 947,920.

    Estimated Total Annual Recordkeeping Burden: 5,958.

    Estimated Total Annual Public Disclosure Burden: 6,943.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 960,821.

    Current OMB Inventory for Part 245: 966,023.

    Difference (Burden Revisions Requested with this renewal): −5,202.

    Refer to the following table for estimated annual burden per each type of respondent:

    (a)
  • Affected public
  • (b)
  • Estimated number
  • respondents
  • (c)
  • Estimated number
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • (d)
  • Estimated
  • total annual
  • responses
  • (b × c)
  • (e)
  • Estimated
  • hours per
  • response
  • (f)
  • Estimated
  • total annual
  • burden hours
  • (d × e)
  • Reporting State Agencies 56 5.018 281 0.637 179 School Food Authorities 19,600 557.247 10,922,050 0.025 274,741 Individuals/Households 5,390,000 1.03 5,551,000 0.121 673,000 Total Reporting Burden 5,409,656 3.045 16,473,331 0.058 947,920 Recordkeeping State Agencies 54 125.772 6,792 0.249 1,691 School Food Authorities 19,600 1.056 20,692 0.206 4,267 Total Recordkeeping Burden 19,654 1.398 27,484 0.217 5,958 Public Notification State Agencies 54 1 54 0.100 5 School Food Authorities 19,822 2 39,644 0.175 6,938 Total Recordkeeping Burden 19,876 2 39,698 0.17 6,943 Total Reporting, Recordkeeping and Public Disclosure Reporting 5,409,656 3.045 16,473,331 0.058 947,920 Recordkeeping 19,654 1.398 27,484 0.217 5,958 Public Disclosure 19,876 2 39,698 0.17 6,943 Total Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Public Disclosure Burden 5,449,186 16,540,513 960,821
    Dated: December 29, 2015. Audrey Rowe, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00514 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Summer Food Service Program 2016 Reimbursement Rates AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice informs the public of the annual adjustments to the reimbursement rates for meals served in the Summer Food Service Program for Children. These adjustments address changes in the Consumer Price Index, as required under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. The 2016 reimbursement rates are presented as a combined set of rates to highlight simplified cost accounting procedures. The 2016 rates are also presented individually, as separate operating and administrative rates of reimbursement, to show the effect of the Consumer Price Index adjustment on each rate.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: January 1, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Hortin, Program Monitoring and Operational Support Division, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Suite 628, Alexandria, Virginia 22302; 703-305-4375.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.559 and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See, 2 CFR part 415 and final rule-related notice published at 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983.)

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3518, no new recordkeeping or reporting requirements have been included that are subject to approval from the Office of Management and Budget.

    This notice is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act. Additionally, this notice has been determined to be exempt from formal review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

    Definitions

    The terms used in this notice have the meaning ascribed to them under 7 CFR part 225 of the SFSP regulations.

    Background

    This notice informs the public of the annual adjustments to the reimbursement rates for meals served in SFSP. In accordance with sections 12(f) and 13, 42 U.S.C. 1760(f) and 1761, of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) and SFSP regulations under 7 CFR part 225, the United States Department of Agriculture announces the adjustments in SFSP payments for meals served to participating children during calendar year 2016.

    The 2016 reimbursement rates are presented as a combined set of rates to highlight simplified cost accounting procedures. Reimbursement is based solely on a “meals times rate” calculation, without comparison to actual or budgeted costs.

    Sponsors receive reimbursement that is determined by the number of reimbursable meals served, multiplied by the combined rates for food service operations and administration. However, the combined rate is based on separate operating and administrative rates of reimbursement, each of which is adjusted differently for inflation.

    Calculation of Rates

    The combined rates are constructed from individually authorized operating and administrative reimbursements. Simplified procedures provide flexibility, enabling sponsors to manage their reimbursements to pay for any allowable cost, regardless of the cost category. Sponsors remain responsible, however, for ensuring proper administration of the Program, while providing the best possible nutrition benefit to children.

    The operating and administrative rates are calculated separately. However, the calculations of adjustments for both cost categories are based on the same set of changes in the Food Away From Home series of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor. They represent a 2.7 percent increase in this series for the 12-month period, from November 2014 through November 2015 (from 251.987 in November 2014 to 258.805 in November 2015).

    Table of 2016 Reimbursement Rates

    Presentation of the 2016 maximum per meal rates for meals served to children in SFSP combines the results from the calculations of operational and administrative payments, which are further explained in this notice. The total amount of payments to State agencies for disbursement to SFSP sponsors will be based upon these adjusted combined rates and the number of meals of each type served. These adjusted rates will be in effect from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

    Summer Food Service Program 2016 Reimbursement Rates (Combined) Per meal rates in whole or fractions of U.S. dollars All states except Alaska and Hawaii Rural or self-prep sites All other types of sites Alaska Rural or self-prep sites All other types of sites Hawaii Rural or self-prep sites All other types of sites Breakfast 2.1325 2.0925 3.4625 3.3975 2.4950 2.4475 Lunch or Supper 3.7450 3.6850 6.0650 5.9675 4.3850 4.3150 Snack 0.8875 0.8650 1.4350 1.4025 1.0325 1.0100 Operating Rates

    The portion of the SFSP rates for operating costs is based on payment amounts set in section 13(b)(1) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1761(b)(1). They are rounded down to the nearest whole cent, as required by section 11(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1759a(a)(3)(B)(iii).

    Summer Food Service Program Operating Component of 2016 Reimbursement Rates Operating rates in U.S. dollars, rounded down to the nearest whole cent All states
  • except Alaska and Hawaii
  • Alaska Hawaii
    Breakfast 1.94 3.15 2.27 Lunch or Supper 3.39 5.49 3.97 Snack 0.79 1.28 0.92
    Administrative Rates

    The administrative cost component of the reimbursement is authorized under section 13(b)(3) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1761(b)(3). Rates are higher for sponsors of sites located in rural areas and for “self-prep” sponsors that prepare their own meals at the SFSP site or at a central facility instead of purchasing them from vendors. The administrative portion of SFSP rates are adjusted, either up or down, to the nearest quarter-cent.

    Summer Food Service Program Administrative Component of 2016 Reimbursement Rates Administrative rates in U.S. dollars,
  • adjusted, up or down, to the nearest
  • quarter-cent
  • All states except Alaska and Hawaii Rural or self-prep sites All other types of sites Alaska Rural or self-prep sites All other types of sites Hawaii Rural or self-prep sites All other types of sites
    Breakfast 0.1925 0.1525 0.3125 0.2475 0.2250 0.1775 Lunch or Supper 0.3550 0.2950 0.5750 0.4775 0.4150 0.3450 Snack 0.0975 0.0750 0.1550 0.1225 0.1125 0.0900
    Authority:

    Sections 9, 13, and 14, Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, 42 U.S.C. 1758, 1761, and 1762a, respectively.

    Audrey Rowe, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-00506 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region; Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests; Grand Valley Ranger District; Mesa County, Colorado; Enlargement of Monument No. 1 and Hunter Reservoirs AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare a supplemental draft environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG) intends to prepare a Supplement to the June 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Hunter Reservoir Enlargement to also include enlargement of the Monument No. 1 Reservoir in the Proposed Action. The original notice of intent (NOI) for the Hunter Reservoir Enlargement was published in 70 FR 61781 on October 26, 2005; and the notice of availability (NOA) was published in 72 FR 39808 on July 20, 2007. Both reservoirs are owned by the Ute Water Conservancy District (Ute Water) and are located on National Forest System (NFS) lands in the Leon Creek watershed in the eastern portion of Mesa County, Colorado.

    DATES:

    Comments concerning the expanded scope of the analysis must be received by February 12, 2016. The supplemental DEIS is expected to be released in April 2016 for comment and the final environmental impact statement is expected in October 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments to Ute Water Reservoir Enlargement Projects, Grand Valley Ranger District, 2777 Crossroads Boulevard, Unit 1, Grand Junction, CO 81506. Comments may also be sent via email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 970-263-5819.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Linda Bledsoe, Project Manager, at 970-263-5802 or via email at [email protected] Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A DEIS analyzing effects from the enlargement of Hunter Reservoir was issued in 2007. In 2009, Ute Water acquired the rights to Monument No. 1 Reservoir and subsequently commissioned a raw water study to be completed to analyze all of its water rights (storage and flow), how those rights are currently used and what additional rights or facilities might be needed in order for Ute Water to have sufficient water to meet increased municipal water demands for the next several decades. That study identified the need for additional high mountain storage, especially during times of drought. In February 2012, Ute Water submitted a proposal for the enlargement of Monument No. 1 Reservoir to be considered along with the enlargement of Hunter Reservoir.

    With new alternatives and additional information brought forward, as well as the length of time that has passed since issuance of the DEIS in 2007, the Forest Service has determined that a supplemental draft environmental impact statement (SDEIS) that included both reservoir enlargement proposals was appropriate (FSH 1905.18.2, Chapter 10).

    Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose and need for the Forest Service action on the Monument No. 1 and Hunter Reservoirs enlargement project is to respond to a request by the Ute Water Conservancy District for special use permits to expand the dams for these two reservoirs, which were submitted under the Forest Service's special use regulations (36 CFR 251.54).

    Ute Water has proposed these expansions to meet the need for projected municipal water demand. Over the next 30 years, demand is expected to increase by about two and a half times the current amount of 14,300 acre-feet (AF). The Proposed Action is one of several actions that Ute Water has indicated it will need to meet its future demand for municipal water in its service area. Those actions include, but are not limited to, acquiring new water rights, perfecting existing water rights, and upgrading Ute's Colorado River pumping capacity and water treatment plant.

    Proposed Action

    Under the Proposed Action, the Forest Service would authorize the use of NFS lands by Ute Water to enlarge the existing Monument No. 1 and Hunter Reservoirs by increasing the size and height of the dams and spillways, along with the activities associated with those enlargements.

    The reservoirs are located in Mesa County, Colorado, about 15 miles southeast of Collbran, Colorado. Hunter Reservoir is located in Section 27, T. 11 S., R. 93 W., 6th P.M. Monument No. 1 Reservoir is located in Sections 11 and 12, T. 11 S., R. 93 W., 6th P.M.

    Construction associated with the Proposed Action would likely begin with the roads and trails, including necessary relocations, in advance of dam construction activities.

    Both reservoirs hold irrigation water rights and are operated as irrigation reservoirs, meaning that the reservoirs fill each year and are typically drained in the summer after runoff has ended in order to irrigate the ranches below the forest boundary that have historically used the water. Depending on the amount of snowpack, the reservoirs fill during spring and early summer; and the water is stored in the reservoirs until later in the summer when the water is needed to irrigate the ranches or when a senior water rights holder places a call on the stream. The reservoirs are typically empty by late fall, and then the outlets are closed in order to capture water over the winter and the next spring.

    For the enlargement of the two reservoirs, Ute Water applied for and received water rights decrees for primarily municipal uses, which would change how the reservoirs are operated. Because the reservoirs are located high in the watershed and existing senior water rights downstream are required to be satisfied first, it could take two to three years to fill each of the reservoirs. Once filled, Ute Water does not anticipate releasing the water stored in the reservoirs until it needs the water for municipal purposes or when there is a call on the stream by senior water rights holders downstream. Ute Water has identified the need for these reservoirs for periods of drought. The irrigation water rights would still be available for irrigation of the ranches, and that water would still be released. As the reservoirs would not be fully drained each year, the spring runoff would replace whatever irrigation water was released during the previous summer and the majority of runoff would generally pass through the reservoirs and spill downstream. Some municipal water could be released in late fall and/or winter in order to increase water quality in Plateau Creek prior to it being stored in the Jerry Creek Reservoirs and subsequent treatment as drinking water.

    Access to both reservoir sites is primarily on the Park Creek Road (National Forest System Road (NFSR)) 262, which begins at Vega Reservoir below the forest boundary. The Forest Service holds an easement for the portion of the road crossing private lands from Vega Reservoir to the forest boundary.

    Current Forest Service road management objectives (RMOs) classify NFSR 262 as a high clearance, four-wheel drive road; though most travel is presently done on all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). During spring runoff, NFSR 262, as well as other roads and trails in the area, are usually impassable because of high water at the stream crossings.

    Substantial temporary and permanent improvements to the road would be required in order to accommodate all the traffic associated with the reservoir enlargements and to protect resources. Prior to dam construction, NFSR 262 would be narrowed back to its original width of 14 feet with 12-foot ditches and would have inter-visible (in sight of one another) pullouts. Drainage would be reestablished along the road, creek crossings would be hardened and surface rock added in order for the road to accommodate the increased traffic associated with the larger, heavier vehicles needed for construction of the reservoir enlargements. The intent of the road upgrades would be to improve the road structure and stability and not to allow for increased vehicle speeds.

    Approximately three miles south of the forest boundary along NFSR 262, a “transfer area” would be established in an area that has historically been used as an ATV unloading area and livestock gathering site. The area is prone to holding water onsite and prevents proper drainage, which results in rutting and other resource damage. The area would be graded, sloped and hardened to allow for use of the site, while protecting or improving the condition of resources. This transfer area would be used for construction activities including unloading and storing material associated with both reservoir sites and would remain as a parking area for the Forest Service, permittees and the public following construction. The road would be upgraded to the transfer point to allow passage by street-worthy vehicles. From the transfer point to the reservoir sites, NFSR 262 would be used by off-road equipment and trucks, which would require less work on the road.

    It is anticipated that road and trail work for both reservoirs would be done prior to the major construction work commencing on the reservoirs. The Park Creek Road (NFSR 262) to the Monument Trail (National Forest System Trail (NFST) 518) segment would need to be completed prior to the numerous construction vehicles accessing the construction site, although some breaching of the current reservoir could be done at the same time.

    While construction work is ongoing at Monument Reservoir No. 1, improvements would be done on NFSR 262 to its intersection with the Hunter Reservoir Road (NFSR 280). Construction associated with the enlargement of the two reservoirs could last as long as 6 or 7 years; however, construction work on NFSR 262 should be complete within 3 or 4 years.

    There would likely be delays for the public on the access routes to the reservoirs, but none of the routes would be closed to the public during construction activities.

    Monument No. 1 Reservoir

    Under the Proposed Action, Ute Water would enlarge the existing Monument No. 1 Reservoir by increasing the size and height of the dam and spillway. The existing earthen dam impounding Monument No. 1 Reservoir would be rebuilt and increased in size, expanding the water storage capacity of the facility from the current 570 acre-feet (AF) to 5,281 acre-feet. The current inundated area covers approximately 37 surface acres, which would be increased to about 160 acres following construction.

    In order to accommodate construction vehicles and equipment, an administrative-use only road would be constructed over the existing Monument Trail (NFST 518) and would be widened, relocated and realigned, where needed, from its intersection with NFSR 262 to the new Monument No. 1 Reservoir dam site. About one-half mile of the road/trail at its start would be relocated to the north in order to avoid a cultural resource site. Relocating that portion of the route would result in road construction occurring in the Flattops/Elk Park Colorado Roadless Area.

    The Forest Service would manage the realigned access route as a “coincidental road,” which would allow the designation of the route as both an administrative road and trail. As an administrative road, it would be gated and used for (1) operation and maintenance purposes necessary for the water right identified by Ute Water; (2) administrative purposes by the Forest Service; (3) fire; (4) emergency; or (5) law enforcement personnel. As NFST 518, it would remain open to the public as an ATV trail, open to vehicles less than 50 inches in width.

    About 11/2 miles of the Monument Trail starting at the current dam would need to be relocated because the existing trail would be inundated by the water stored in the enlarged reservoir. The relocation would move the trail to higher ground along the northern shoreline of the newly-enlarged reservoir.

    Approximately four miles of the Sunlight-Powderhorn (S-P) Snowmobile Trail would be relocated in order to avoid newly-inundated areas from the enlarged Monument No. 1 Reservoir. Instead of the trail following NFST 518 from NFSR 262, the trail would instead follow the East Leon Creek Trail (NFST 730) for about 11/2 miles and then go in an easterly direction to intersect the S-P Trail upstream of Monument No. 1 Reservoir. This trail is part of a popular 40-mile-long groomed trail system, and the new alignment would need to be about 22 feet wide in order to accommodate the groomer.

    The existing dam is a homogeneous, gravelly clay embankment founded on glacial drift soils placed across Monument Creek, a tributary to East Leon Creek. It has a vertical height of 32 feet with a dam crest elevation at 10,206 feet, a crest width of 10 feet and crest length of about 500 feet. The proposed enlarged dam would increase the vertical height by 52 feet to a total of 85 feet with a dam crest elevation at 10,255 feet. The new crest width would be 25 feet and the crest length would be 1,850 feet.

    The preliminary embankment design concept assumes a zoned earthen embankment with a 3:1 downstream slope and a 3.5:1 upstream slope. Six internal materials are associated with this type of dam construction. These materials include the upstream and downstream shells, a central clay core, sand chimney filter, gravel blanket drain, riprap and riprap bedding. A vertical tower positioned near the upstream toe would connect into a low level outlet works for use during normal operations and as a service spillway designed for storm events up to the 100-year interval. An emergency spillway would be located on the right abutment to convey storm events within the basin tributary to the reservoir greater than the 100-year storm event interval.

    The soils beneath the enlarged embankment dam consist of deposits of glacial till overlying Uinta Formation siltstone, sandstone, and claystone. The proposed enlarged embankment would be constructed using material drawn from on-site borrow areas that would be ultimately inundated. The upstream slope of the dam would be surfaced with a layer of granular riprap bedding and riprap materials to protect against wave erosion. Riprap material, sourced from basaltic talus located throughout the reservoir, would be processed on-site.

    A compacted clay core centrally located within the embankment would act as a barrier to seepage. The clay core would extend from the limits of foundation improvements (grout curtain) to the proposed normal water surface elevation of 10,250 feet above sea level (ASL). It is intended to minimize seepage, reduce pressure on the dam itself, and eliminate the soft soil conditions identified on the downstream toe of the embankment. The material necessary to construct the clay core exists within the reservoir footprint as identified during the Geotechnical Evaluation (URS, October 2011). A cutoff trench located beneath the clay core of the dam and consolidation grouting of this zone may be required.

    The enlarged dam would have an internal drainage system to reduce pore pressures and to prevent internal erosion of embankment and foundation materials. The principal elements of the drainage system would include the filter and chimney drain immediately downstream of the clay core and the blanket drain constructed horizontally downstream of the central clay core along the footprint below the embankment shell. Toe drain collection piping would be constructed along the toe within the blanket drain to convey seepage safely through the embankment for monitoring and measurement. Materials necessary for construction of the internal drainage system are commercially available locally from the Grand Valley area and would need to be transported to the site.

    The outlet works/service spillway tower would be constructed mainly of concrete, positioned near the upstream toe of embankment, and founded in strong, competent materials to prevent settlement. An access bridge would connect the tower to the dam crest for operation and maintenance equipment and personnel. The outlet works pipe would be sized as necessary to accommodate dam safety requirements for emergency drawdown or as necessary for the safe diversion of storm inflows during construction. The service spillway crest would establish the normal water surface elevation of the reservoir at 10,250 feet ASL and would pass excess water up to the 100-year storm event recurrence interval down the outlet works conduit into an energy-dissipating basin below the downstream toe of the dam.

    The emergency spillway would be a new feature, located in a topographic saddle approximately 850 feet north of the right abutment. Releases from the emergency spillway in excess of the 100-year storm event would enter Monument Creek through an adjacent drainage approximately 500 feet downstream of the enlarged dam. Locating the uncontrolled releases from the emergency spillway away from the embankment is an important dam safety upgrade. The emergency spillway crest length and control sill elevation would be constructed based on the determination of the inflow design flood hydrology performed in accordance with the Colorado State Engineer's Dam Safety requirements.

    Most of the materials for the construction would be derived, wherever possible, from the borrow areas and the nearby basaltic talus within the reservoir footprint to minimize haul distance, create additional reservoir storage, and minimize disturbed area. In addition, imported material necessary to construct the drainage collection system (crushed rock and sand), concrete materials including: aggregate, cement, and admixtures would be delivered for on-site batching from commercial locations. An estimated 40,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel, stone and other construction material would need to be imported for the dam enlargement, requiring an estimated 3,000 round trips using 25-ton end-dump haul trucks for an average of about eight round trips per day during the period of construction.

    Because of the high site elevation and short construction season, construction of the dam enlargement and associated features could continue over three to four years. The first season would be used to improve access roads, develop borrow areas, stockpile embankment materials, import drainage materials, remove the existing dam, begin foundation grouting (if required), and establish the coffer dam, outlet works, and flood bypass structures. During the second year, construction of the outlet works/service spillway tower could be completed and embankment fill would begin. The third season would see the completion of the embankment, riprap placement, emergency spillway construction, and the access bridge to the tower.

    All trees below 10,255 feet elevation surrounding the reservoir would need to be cleared prior to construction completion and reservoir filling. This work is necessary to reduce debris in the reservoir which could block spillway channels and impact reservoir operations.

    About 40 acres of timber (predominantly spruce-fir) would be removed in order to accommodate the relocation of the Monument Trail (NFST 518), the S-P Snowmobile Trail and the enlarged inundated area for the reservoir.

    Following construction of the new dam at Monument No. 1 Reservoir, the dam at Monument No. 2 Reservoir, which is located just northeast of Monument No. 1 Reservoir, would be breached, water control structures (outlet, concrete walls, etc.) would be removed and the area would be reseeded with native species. Additionally, willows would be transplanted from the impacted area of Monument No. 1 Reservoir.

    The existing access route used for operation and maintenance of Monument No. 2 Reservoir would be rehabilitated to the extent necessary and closed to all uses. The water currently stored in that reservoir would be transferred to the newly-enlarged Monument No. 1 Reservoir. A wetlands mitigation plan to offset effects to wetlands caused by the enlargement of the Monument No. 1 Reservoir would be developed and would include the restoration of wetlands at Monument No. 2 Reservoir. Additional mitigation could be required by the Forest Service and/or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

    A temporary workers' camp would be located near the construction site to reduce construction traffic and improve construction efficiency. The site would need to be large enough to accommodate six to ten camp trailers for the 15 to 20 workers and five to six trucks that would remain on-site. The camp could be located either at the reservoir site or on an old well pad near the intersection of NFSR 262 and NFST 518. Heavy equipment, including bulldozers, track hoes, road graders, and compactors would be stored near the construction site as work progresses. Temporary sanitary facilities and trash service would be maintained. A temporary special use permit would be required for the workers' camp.

    As mitigation for effects to wetlands at Monument No. 1 Reservoir caused by the enlargement, Ute Water proposes to:

    • Permanently drain Monument No. 2 Reservoir, remove the functioning dam, and transfer the water to Monument No. 1 Reservoir;

    • Rehabilitate and permanently close the administrative access route to Monument No. 2 Reservoir;

    • Reestablish or establish 19.37 acres of wetlands, including 3.18 acres of fen wetlands, within the drained basin of Monument No. 2 Reservoir. Work would include grading with excavators, roughening, and using seedling planting, transplants or seed plugs;

    • Rehabilitate about 0.05-acre of wetlands just west of Monument No. 2 Reservoir degraded by the administrative access route; and

    • Relinquish the Agriculture Irrigation and Livestock Watering System Easement issued by the Forest Service for Monument No. 2 Reservoir. Relinquishment of the easement removes a permanent encumbrance upon NFS lands.

    Additional mitigation could be required by the Forest Service and/or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

    Hunter Reservoir

    The Hunter Reservoir Road (NFSR 280) intersects NFSR 262 and heads south along East Leon Creek to Hunter Reservoir and crosses streams in numerous locations. The current Forest Service RMO for NFSR 280 classifies the road as a high clearance, four-wheel drive road. Road improvements would include improving cross drainage by constructing rolling dips and lead-out ditches within and adjacent to the current road prism, removing extreme dips and bumps, adding rocks to perpetual soft areas of the road, and defining and hardening small stream crossings.

    Approximately the last mile of the Hunter Reservoir Road (NFSR 280) would be relocated to eliminate current wetlands impacts in the creek bottom. This portion of the current road would be obliterated to the extent possible, as well as rehabilitating the wetlands in which the road currently lays. Signing by the Forest Service would be installed to direct the public and other users to the newly-relocated road.

    The new road would leave the creek bottom and approach Hunter Reservoir in an upland location just west of East Leon Creek and go about 5,560 feet to the Hunter Reservoir dam. The road standard for this new route would be a Forest Service Traffic Service Level D, which includes a running surface ranging from 14 to 16 feet wide and an average corridor width, including the road, of 22 feet. The road would have native material surfaces with drainage structures and roadbed stabilization as shown on a plan and profile drawing. The design would show grades, structures, cross sections and alignments for the route, as well as estimated quantities of timber clearing acreage, seeding acreage, volumes of excavation, log deck locations, slash disposal areas, etc. Proposed road improvements and maintenance for the entire access route would be the responsibility of Ute Water during reservoir enlargement construction.

    The new road would not be removed upon completion of the project but would remain in place and allowed to return to the specified high-clearance, four-wheel-drive condition and would be open to the public for use with full-sized vehicles, in accordance with the Grand Mesa Travel Plan. The final alignment of the relocated road would be approved in the field by the Forest Service prior to construction.

    Because of the anticipated increase in traffic to Hunter Reservoir, commercial cattle guards would be installed and approximately one mile of fence relocated to the north at the junction of Leon Lake Road (NFSR 127), Hunter Reservoir Road (NFSR 280), and West Leon Trail (NFST 730). This would eliminate the need for two gates currently in place that need to be opened and closed by the public.

    About a mile of the existing Leroux Creek Snowmobile Trail would be rerouted to avoid newly-inundated areas from the enlarged Hunter Reservoir. This trail is part of a groomed trail system, and the new alignment would need to be about 22 feet wide to accommodate the groomer.

    The existing earthen dam impounding Hunter Reservoir would be rebuilt and increased in size, expanding the water storage capacity of the facility from the current 110 acre-feet to 1,340 acre-feet. The current inundated area covers approximately 19 surface acres, which would be increased to about 80 acres following construction.

    The existing dam is a homogeneous, gravelly clay embankment founded on glacial drift soils placed across East Leon Creek. It has a vertical height of 11 feet with a crest elevation at 10,367 feet, a crest width of eight feet and crest length of 412 feet. The proposed enlarged dam would increase the vertical height by 26 feet to a total of 37 feet with a crest elevation at 10,393 feet. The new crest width would be 18 feet and the crest length would be 1,098 feet.

    The new reservoir would require two saddle dams: The west saddle dam, an embankment located immediately west of the main dam, and the east saddle dam, located in a topographic saddle 600-700 feet east of the main dam. The saddle dams would have vertical heights less than 20 feet and crest lengths less than 570 feet (see Figure 2 below).

    The soils beneath the enlarged embankment and the two saddle dams consist of glacial till overlying Uinta formation sandstone and claystone. The proposed saddle dams and enlarged embankments would be constructed using material drawn from on-site borrow areas that would ultimately be inundated. The upstream slope of the dam would be surfaced with a layer of riprap comprised of basalt boulders. The riprap would be taken from basaltic talus located just south of the reservoir and processed on-site. New outlet works would include replacement of the existing 18-inch outlet conduit with a 24-inch conduit.

    A clay blanket cutoff, consisting of a 3-foot-deep layer of extremely clayey soil that acts as a barrier to seepage, would be located on the face of the dam upstream of the existing embankment. The cutoff would extend into the bedrock or to an elevation of 10,314 feet, whichever is reached first. It is intended to minimize seepage, reduce pressure on the dam itself, and eliminate the soft soil conditions identified on the downstream toe of the embankment.

    The new dam would have two spillways, a replacement service spillway and a new emergency spillway. The new service spillway would control normal pool and pass routine floods downstream. Set in the west saddle dam, the spillway would establish normal pool at 10,388 feet elevation and would pass excess water down a conduit into an impact basin below the face of the dam. The emergency spillway would be a new feature, located in a topographic saddle about 1,600 feet southeast of the dam, with a concrete control beam at 10,389.5 feet elevation, 1.5 feet above normal pool. The emergency spillway is set away from the main embankment to discharge floodwater into a drainage basin just east of East Leon Creek, preventing erosion of the dam because of overtopping.

    The enlarged dam embankment would have an internal drainage system to reduce pore pressures and to prevent internal erosion of embankment and foundation materials. The principal element of the drainage system would be toe drains in the embankment and the saddle dams to collect and convey seepage flows to the downstream side of the embankments. The toe drains would be 4-inch drainpipes surrounded by filter material.

    Most materials for the construction would be derived from the borrow areas and the nearby basaltic talus described above. However, approximately 14,415 cubic yards (26,363 tons) of sand, gravel, stone and other construction material would need to be imported, requiring an estimated 1,056 round trips using 25-ton end-dump haul trucks for an average of about 8 round trips per day during the period of construction. Because of Hunter Reservoir's elevation and snow cover, the season during which construction activities could take place is short, extending from July until late September. The short construction season means that dam enlargement and construction of associated features would require three summers for completion.

    A minimum conservation pool of 27 acre-feet at a maximum depth of 40 feet would be retained in the reservoir to maintain a viable fishery and to avoid winter kill, as proposed by Ute Water.

    A conservation flow of 0.5 cfs or the amount of inflow into the reservoir would be released from October through May to preserve hydrologic function of the stream below the Hunter Reservoir dam. The exact dates in which the conservation flow would be required would fluctuate with the release schedule of the reservoir. At no time would the channel be allowed to be de-watered.

    An on-site workers' camp would be established at Hunter Reservoir because of the time-consuming commute and the need to maximize working time at the site. The camp would be large enough to accommodate four to five camp trailers (approximately 500-600 square feet) for the ten to 15 workers and three to four trucks that would remain on site. Heavy equipment, including bulldozers, track hoes, road graders and a sheep's foot compactor, would be stored near the construction site as work progresses. Temporary sanitary facilities would be maintained on a weekly basis and trash would be contained in a metal bear-proof container. A temporary special use permit for the camp would be required.

    Some of the proposed reservoir area to be inundated is forested. All trees below 10,393 feet elevation in areas that would be inundated would be cleared and the slash disposed of, per Forest Service instructions, prior to filling of the reservoir in order to reduce debris in the reservoir and the potential for blocking spillways. Construction of the new access road would also require the removal of trees. These activities would result in about nine acres of trees, mostly spruce-fir, being removed.

    As mitigation for effects to wetlands at Hunter Reservoir caused by the enlargement, Ute Water proposes following actions:

    • Relocation of the existing Hunter Reservoir Road out of the drainage bottom where it currently impacts wetlands and rehabilitating those wetlands following road relocation;

    • Removal of existing embankment dams and water control structure at Jensen (aka Cold Sore) Reservoir, located in Sections 27 and 34, T. 11 S., R. 95 W., 6th P.M.;

    • Transfer of Jensen Reservoir water rights held by Ute Water to another area, likely within the Cottonwood Creek watershed;

    • Protection of approximately 8.3 acres of existing fen and rehabilitation of about 8.5 acres of degraded fen with the reservoir basin using techniques such as check dams, seed plugs, etc.;

    • Removal of the existing two-track administrative route to the reservoir that crosses several wetland areas and serves access to perform operation and maintenance activities for Jensen Reservoir; and

    • Relinquishment by Ute Water of the easement issued by the General Land Office pursuant to the Act of March 3, 1891, for Jensen Reservoir. This action eliminates a permanent encumbrance on National Forest System lands.

    Additional mitigation could be required by the Forest Service and/or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

    Possible Alternatives

    Over 20 alternatives were initially considered (Scoping—DEIS, 2007), including some that would not involve use of NFS lands. Of those, the following alternatives have been identified for further analysis:

    Alternative 1—Proposed Action: See Proposed Action description above.

    Alternative 2—Big Park Reservoir: A new dam and reservoir would be constructed at a site located on Leon Creek in Section 5, T. 11 S., R. 93 W., 6th P.M., approximately 5.4 miles south of Vega Reservoir and 5 miles downstream from Hunter Reservoir at an elevation of about 9,400 ASL. A conditional water right for 5,650 acre-feet of water would be used to fill the new reservoir. The new earthen dam would have a height of 180 feet and a crest length of 2,100 feet, and surface area of the reservoir impounded behind the dam would be 123 acres at normal pool elevation.

    A concrete diversion structure in Park Creek and a canal about 1.5 miles long would be constructed that would carry water south to the reservoir from the NE1/4 Section 32, R. 93 W., T. 10 S., 6th P.M. The canal would have an estimated capacity of 30 cfs. This would also require construction of new access road.

    A service and emergency spillway, consisting of a 240-feet long concrete side channel and chute on the right abutment of the dam, would be constructed. A concrete hydraulic jump-type stilling basin would be used at the end of the spillway channel to dissipate the energy of the water and reduce the velocity of the water prior to it re-entering Leon Creek.

    Approximately one-third mile of the NFSR 262 would be relocated to avoid inundated areas created by the new reservoir.

    Approximately 85 acres of aspen and 46 acres of spruce-fir timber would be removed to allow for construction of the new dam, canal and relocated NFSR 262.

    Some construction and fill material would be available onsite; however, approximately 526,600 cubic yards of clay core material, sand, and gravel would be imported. The availability of source rock for riprap is extremely limited at Big Park and, therefore, riprap would also need to be imported. With the use of 25-ton dump trucks, a total of about 21,000 round trips would be required to transport the necessary materials to the site.

    The improvements for the rest of NFSR 262, including the transfer site, to the reservoir site would be the same as those described in the Proposed Action. A workers' camp would also be required.

    Alternative 3—Reduced-Capacity Big Park Reservoir: A new dam and reservoir would be constructed at the same site as the Big Park Reservoir Alternative but of smaller scale and of greatly reduced capacity. The dam for this alternative would be 135-ft high with a 1,300-ft crest length, inundating approximately 52 acres, and providing 1,385 acre-feet of storage at normal pool elevation. Water rights from Park Creek would not be utilized under this alternative and, therefore, a feeder canal from Park Creek would not be required.

    Construction access to the Reduced-Capacity Big Park dam site would be along NFSR 262, and the same road improvements described in the Proposed Action, including the transfer area, would be required to accommodate the heavy-truck traffic hauling fill material. Unlike the Big Park Reservoir, no relocation of NFSR 262 would be needed because the dam for the Reduced-Capacity Big Park Reservoir would be constructed farther west of NFSR 262 than the Big Park Reservoir. But that also means a longer access road would be needed to accommodate construction of the dam. It is anticipated that up to a mile of new road would be needed. After construction is completed, an access route to allow for operation and maintenance of the dam and stilling pond would remain. The permanent access route needed for operation and maintenance of the dam and reservoir would be narrowed to the minimum width necessary for this purpose and would be gated to prohibit public motorized access.

    Some construction and fill material would be available onsite; however, about 167,000 cubic-yards of sand and gravel would be imported. Using 25-ton end-dump haul trucks, a total of over 15,000 round trips would be needed to transport the necessary embankment, riprap, and concrete raw materials to the site.

    Approximately 56 acres of aspen and 23 acres of spruce-fir timber would be removed to allow for construction of the new dam and access route.

    A workers' camp would also be necessary near the reservoir site during construction activities.

    Alternative 4—No Action: Analysis of the No Action Alternative is required by 40 CFR part 1502.14(d). In the event the action alternatives were found to be unacceptable, this alternative could be selected. Under the No Action Alternative, the Forest Service would not permit the enlargement of Monument No. 1 or Hunter Reservoirs or the construction of any of the action alternatives that would occur on NFS lands. With no dam construction or enlargement occurring on NFS lands, there would be no need for new access road construction and road improvements associated with dam enlargement or construction; and no timber would be removed. The existing water developments and water resource conditions would continue. Under this alternative, Ute Water would still need to address dam safety concerns identified by the State Engineer's Office for the existing Hunter Reservoir. Ute Water's water rights, for which conditional decrees were issued, would not be developed. Ute Water may submit additional special use authorization applications for water improvements or developments on the GMUG for any of their water rights.

    Lead and Cooperating Agencies

    The Forest Service is the lead agency for preparation of the SDEIS. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the Colorado Department of Natural Resources (DNR) are cooperating agencies.

    Responsible Official

    The responsible official for the Forest Service is the Forest Supervisor of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests. The responsible official for the ACOE is the Chief, Colorado West Regulatory Branch. The responsible official for the DNR is the Chief, Dam Safety Branch.

    Nature of Decision To Be Made

    Given the purpose and need, the Responsible Official for the Forest Service would review the Proposed Action, other alternatives and mitigation measures in order to make the following decisions:

    • Whether or not to authorize the Proposed Action, road reconstruction and other support activities on National Forest System lands to meet the stated purpose by issuing:

    (1) Special use permits pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976, as amended (FLPMA), for each of the reservoir enlargements;

    (2) Temporary special use permits pursuant to the Act of June 4, 1897, for on-site workers' camps;

    (3) Mineral materials contracts for borrow material and riprap (The Materials Act of July 31, 1947);

    (4) Road use permits for the necessary road reconstruction and relocation (National Forest Roads and Trails Act of October 13, 1964 (FRTA)); and

    (5) Timber contracts for the removal of timber that would otherwise be inundated following enlargement of the reservoirs (Timber Settlement Authority (36 CFR 223.12)).

    • If an alternative is selected on National Forest System lands, under what conditions and by which methods implementation of the alternative and associated activities would be conducted.

    • Whether or