Federal Register Vol. 81, No.84,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 84 (May 2, 2016)

Page Range26089-26459
FR Document

81_FR_84
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 26230 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 26095 - Workers Memorial Day, 2016PDF
81 FR 26093 - Loyalty Day, 2016PDF
81 FR 26178 - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Membership and First MeetingPDF
81 FR 26091 - Law Day, U.S.A., 2016PDF
81 FR 26089 - National Physical Fitness and Sports Month, 2016PDF
81 FR 26281 - Order of Suspension of Trading; In the Matter of Pineapple Express, Inc.PDF
81 FR 26265 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 26308 - Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Hudson Tunnel Project in Hudson County, New Jersey and New York County, New YorkPDF
81 FR 26157 - Fisheries Off West Coast States; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; 2016 Management Measures and a Temporary RulePDF
81 FR 26203 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset ReviewsPDF
81 FR 26203 - Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative ReviewsPDF
81 FR 26206 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative ReviewPDF
81 FR 26200 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 22-Chicago, Illinois; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Omron Automotive Electronics, Inc.; (Automotive Electronic Components); St. Charles, IllinoisPDF
81 FR 26200 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 133-Quad-Cities, Iowa/Illinois; Notification of Proposed Production Activity, Deere & Company, Subzone 133D (Construction and Forestry Equipment), Davenport, IowaPDF
81 FR 26211 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 26231 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 26230 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 26210 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public HearingsPDF
81 FR 26209 - Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) ReviewPDF
81 FR 26135 - Carfentrazone-ethyl; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
81 FR 26236 - Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 690.150 Labeling and Marketing of Dog and Cat Food Diets Intended To Diagnose, Cure, Mitigate, Treat, or Prevent Diseases; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 26235 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 26234 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 26147 - Abamectin; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
81 FR 26224 - Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for March 2016PDF
81 FR 26141 - Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- ; Exemption from the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
81 FR 26301 - Presidential Permits: Withdrawal of Request From Plains LPG Services, L.P. for Existing Pipeline Facilities on the Border of the United States and Canada Under the St. Clair RiverPDF
81 FR 26180 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to the General Definitions for Texas New Source Review and the Minor NSR Qualified Facilities ProgramPDF
81 FR 26301 - Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) Meeting Notice: Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 26301 - Renewal of Cultural Property Advisory Committee CharterPDF
81 FR 26188 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Reasonable Further Progress Plan, Contingency Measures, Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Baltimore 1997 8-Hour Ozone Serious Nonattainment AreaPDF
81 FR 26302 - Notice of Renewal of the Advisory Committee on International Law CharterPDF
81 FR 26185 - Limited Disapproval of Air Plan Revisions; Arizona; New Source Review; PM2.5PDF
81 FR 26305 - Buy America Waiver NotificationPDF
81 FR 26214 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request-Standards for Full-Size Baby Cribs and Non-Full Size Baby Cribs; Compliance FormPDF
81 FR 26213 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request-Safety Standard for Cigarette LightersPDF
81 FR 26243 - Intent To Request Renewal From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: Pipeline Corporate Security Review ProgramPDF
81 FR 26198 - Notice of Request for Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 26215 - Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Decision and Order Granting a Waiver to Whirlpool From the Department of Energy Residential Clothes Washer Test ProcedurePDF
81 FR 26214 - President's Council of Advisors on Science and TechnologyPDF
81 FR 26246 - Notice of Realty Action: Recreation and Public Purposes Act Classification (N-92525) for a Department of Motor Vehicles Facility, Clark County, NVPDF
81 FR 26229 - Termination of Dormant ProceedingsPDF
81 FR 26238 - Solicitation of Nominations for Membership on the National Vaccine Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 26129 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Long Creek & Sloop Channel, Hempstead, NYPDF
81 FR 26244 - Endangered and Threatened Species Permit ApplicationsPDF
81 FR 26312 - Reports, Forms and Record Keeping Requirements, Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 26305 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
81 FR 26237 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 26247 - Proposed Information Collection; Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site Education Program FormsPDF
81 FR 26211 - Availability of Seats for National Marine Sanctuary Advisory CouncilsPDF
81 FR 26199 - Notice of Opportunity To Apply for Membership on the National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (NACIE)PDF
81 FR 26314 - Agency Information Collection Activity; Comment Request; Learner's Perceptions Survey (LPS)PDF
81 FR 26313 - Community Development Advisory Board MeetingPDF
81 FR 26304 - Notice and Request for CommentsPDF
81 FR 26303 - Notice and Request for CommentsPDF
81 FR 26302 - Notice and Request for CommentsPDF
81 FR 26262 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Requests To Approve Conformed Wage Classifications and Unconventional Fringe Benefit Plans Under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts and Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards ActPDF
81 FR 26263 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services Activities and Worker Profiling and Reemployment OutcomesPDF
81 FR 26261 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; American Time Use Survey-Eating and Health SupplementPDF
81 FR 26260 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Consumer Expenditure Surveys: Quarterly Interview and DiaryPDF
81 FR 26252 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IAPDF
81 FR 26249 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IAPDF
81 FR 26264 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection Request: Grants to States, State Program Report, Enhancements in Outcome-Based, Performance Measures and EvaluationPDF
81 FR 26264 - Notice of Intent To Grant Partially Exclusive LicensePDF
81 FR 26212 - Procurement List; DeletionsPDF
81 FR 26255 - Certain Windshield Wiper Devices and Components; Commission Final Determination of Violation of Section 337; Termination of Investigation; Issuance of Limited Exclusion OrderPDF
81 FR 26222 - Peak View Wind Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 26277 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Mercury, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Preferenced VolumePDF
81 FR 26285 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of the Shares of the PowerShares Variable Rate Investment Grade Portfolio, a Series of the PowerShares Actively Managed Exchange-Traded Fund TrustPDF
81 FR 26281 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to the Listing and Trading of the Shares of the iSectors Post-MPT Growth ETF of ETFis Series Trust IPDF
81 FR 26295 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt and Amend Rules To Permit the Exchange To Initiate CHX SNAP CyclesPDF
81 FR 26299 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule To Amend the Fees SchedulePDF
81 FR 26272 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Remove From the DTCC Limit Monitoring Tool the 50% Early Warning Limit Alert and Make Technical Revisions to the RulesPDF
81 FR 26269 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend NYSE Rule 98 To Provide That, When Designated Market Makers Enter Interest for the Purpose of Facilitating the Execution of Customer Orders, Those Orders Would Not Be Required To Be Designated as DMM InterestPDF
81 FR 26296 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Update Public Disclosure of Exchange Usage of Market DataPDF
81 FR 26275 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Require an Issuer of Securities Listed Under the Rule 5700 Series To Notify Nasdaq About the Replacement of the Index, Portfolio, or Reference Asset Underlying the Security and Pay a Fee in Connection With the ChangePDF
81 FR 26265 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To List and Trade Shares of the First Trust Municipal High Income ETF of First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund IIIPDF
81 FR 26240 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 26240 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 26222 - Summit Hydropower, Inc.; Aspinook Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
81 FR 26224 - Palmco Power RI LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 26223 - Palmco Power VA LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 26218 - Palmco Power NH LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 26219 - Palmco Power ME, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 26221 - Roswell Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 26219 - CNR Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 26241 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Amended Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 26242 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 26241 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Cancellation of MeetingsPDF
81 FR 26241 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 26241 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 26243 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 26113 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 26176 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 26259 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decrees Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActPDF
81 FR 26231 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 26130 - Technical Corrections-VA Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Nomenclature Change for Position TitlePDF
81 FR 26274 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 26294 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 26279 - Terra Capital Partners, LLC, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 26298 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 26271 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 26231 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 26219 - SunE B9 Holdings, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory OrderPDF
81 FR 26223 - Kenai Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study RequestsPDF
81 FR 26220 - Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed White Oak Mainline Expansion Project and System Reliability ProjectPDF
81 FR 26221 - Rugraw, LLC; Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and PrescriptionsPDF
81 FR 26217 - Notice of Attendance at PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. MeetingsPDF
81 FR 26173 - Recruitment, Selection, and Placement (General) and SuitabilityPDF
81 FR 26452 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Groundfish Fishery; Fishing Year 2016; Recreational Management MeasuresPDF
81 FR 26411 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Groundfish Fishery; Framework Adjustment 55PDF
81 FR 26178 - Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Columbus, Ohio State University Airport, OH, and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Columbus, OHPDF
81 FR 26127 - Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation AdjustmentPDF
81 FR 26256 - Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From Russia; Institution of a Five-Year ReviewPDF
81 FR 26099 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation AirplanesPDF
81 FR 26102 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 26315 - Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Ephemeral Recording and Webcasting Digital Performance of Sound Recordings (Web IV)PDF
81 FR 26109 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 26196 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; State Board RequirementsPDF
81 FR 26133 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; State Board RequirementsPDF
81 FR 26097 - Airworthiness Directives; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 26106 - Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 26103 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters (Previously Eurocopter France)PDF
81 FR 26115 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 26124 - Airworthiness Directives; DG Flugzeugbau GmbH GlidersPDF
81 FR 26121 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 26259 - Meeting of the CJIS Advisory Policy BoardPDF

Issue

81 84 Monday, May 2, 2016 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26198-26199 2016-10210 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26231-26234 2016-10113 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26234-26236 2016-10231 2016-10232 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Long Creek and Sloop Channel, Hempstead, NY, 26129-26130 2016-10204 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Development Administration

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 26212-26213 2016-10181 Community Development Community Development Financial Institutions Fund NOTICES Meetings: Community Development Advisory Board, 26313-26314 2016-10194 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters, 26213-26214 2016-10212 Standards for Full-Size Baby Cribs and Non-Full Size Baby Cribs; Compliance Form, 26214 2016-10213 Copyright Royalty Board Copyright Royalty Board RULES Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Ephemeral Recording and Webcasting Digital Performance of Sound Recordings (Web IV), 26316-26410 2016-09707 Economic Development Economic Development Administration NOTICES Requests for Nominations: National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 26199-26200 2016-10196 Energy Department Energy Department See

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office

See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Meetings: President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 26214-26215 2016-10208
Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office NOTICES Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Approval of Waiver to Whirlpool from the Residential Clothes Washer Test Procedure, 26215-26217 2016-10209 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans: Maryland; State Board Requirements, 26133-26135 2016-09438 Pesticide Tolerances: Abamectin, 26147-26156 2016-10230 Carfentrazone-ethyl, 26135-26141 2016-10235 Tolerance Exemptions: Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl-, 26141-26146 2016-10227 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Arizona; New Source Review PM2.5, 26185-26188 2016-10219 Maryland; Reasonable Further Progress Plan, Contingency Measures, Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Baltimore 1997 8-Hour Ozone Serious Nonattainment Area, 26188-26196 2016-10222 Maryland; State Board Requirements, 26196-26197 2016-09448 Texas; Revisions to the General Definitions for Texas New Source Review and the Minor NSR Qualified Facilities Program, 26180-26185 2016-10225 NOTICES Certain New Chemicals: Receipt and Status Information for March 2016, 26224-26229 2016-10229 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 26113-26121 2016-09119 2016-10117 Airbus Helicopters (previously Eurocopter France), 26103-26106 2016-09235 Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 26102-26103, 26121-26124 2016-08959 2016-09791 Dassault Aviation Airplanes, 26099-26102 2016-09800 DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Gliders, 26124-26127 2016-08961 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Airplanes, 26097-26099 2016-09239 Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes, 26106-26109 2016-09238 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 26109-26112 2016-09650 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 26176-26178 2016-10116 Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace: Columbus, Ohio State University Airport, OH, and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Columbus, OH, 26178 2016-10011 Federal Bureau Federal Bureau of Investigation NOTICES Meetings: Criminal Justice Information Services Advisory Policy Board, 26259 2016-08606 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Terminations of Dormant Proceedings, 26229-26230 2016-10206 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 26230 2016-10329 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Co.; Proposed White Oak Mainline Expansion Project and System Reliability Project, 26220-26221 2016-10097 Hydroelectric Applications: Kenai Hydro, LLC, 26223-26224 2016-10098 Rugraw, LLC, 26221-26222 2016-10096 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: CNR Energy, LLC, 26219 2016-10134 Palmco Power ME, LLC, 26219-26220 2016-10136 Palmco Power NH, LLC, 26218-26219 2016-10138 Palmco Power RI, LLC, 26224 2016-10140 Palmco Power VA, LLC, 26223 2016-10139 Peak View Wind Energy, LLC, 26222-26223 2016-10156 Roswell Solar, LLC, 26221 2016-10135 License Transfer Applications: Summit Hydropower, Inc.; Aspinook Hydro, LLC, 26222 2016-10141 Meetings: PJM Interconnection, LLC; Staff Attendance, 26217-26218 2016-10095 Petitions for Declaratory Orders: SunE B9 Holdings, LLC, 26219 2016-10099 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Buy American Waivers, 26305 2016-10214 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Vision, 26305-26308 2016-10200 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Hudson Tunnel Project in Hudson County, NJ and New York County, NY, 26308-26312 2016-10277 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 26231 2016-10239 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 2016-10102 26230-26231 2016-10238 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species Permit Applications, 26244-26246 2016-10203 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Compliance Policy Guides: Labeling and Marketing of Dog and Cat Food Diets Intended to Diagnose, Cure, Mitigate, Treat, or Prevent Diseases, 26236-26237 2016-10234 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Proposed Production Activities: Deere and Co., Subzone 133D, Davenport, IA, 26200-26203 2016-10241 Omron Automotive Electronics, Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 22, Chicago, IL, 26200 2016-10242 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26237-26238 2016-10199 Requests for Nominations: National Vaccine Advisory Committee, 26238-26240 2016-10205
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Transportation Security Administration

Institute of Museum and Library Services Institute of Museum and Library Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Grants to States, State Program Report, Enhancements in Outcome-Based, Performance Measures and Evaluation, 26264-26265 2016-10183 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews, 26203-26206 2016-10244 Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Advance Notification of Sunset Reviews, 26203 2016-10245 Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 26206-26209 2016-10243 Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 26209-26210 2016-10236 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Russia, 26256-26259 2016-09928 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Windshield Wiper Devices and Components, 26255-26256 2016-10173 Justice Department Justice Department See

Federal Bureau of Investigation

NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees under CERCLA, 26259-26260 2016-10114
Labor Department Labor Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: American Time Use Survey—Eating and Health Supplement, 26261-26262 2016-10187 Consumer Expenditure Surveys: Quarterly Interview and Diary, 26260-26261 2016-10186 Requests to Approve Conformed Wage Classifications and Unconventional Fringe Benefit Plans Under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts, etc., 26262-26263 2016-10189 Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services Activities and Worker Profiling and Reemployment Outcomes, 26263-26264 2016-10188 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Realty Actions: Recreation and Public Purposes Act Classification for a Department of Motor Vehicles Facility, Clark County, NV, 26246-26247 2016-10207 Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Royalty Board

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Approvals of Partially Exclusive Licenses, 26264 2016-10182 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

Institute of Museum and Library Services

National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26312-26313 2016-10201 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 26241-26242 2016-10129 National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 26240 2016-10145 National Cancer Institute, 26240-26241 2016-10143 National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Cancellation, 26241 2016-10130 National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 26242-26243 2016-10131 National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 26241, 26243 2016-10125 2016-10127 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Amendments, 26241 2016-10133 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Northeast Groundfish Fishery; Fishing Year 2016; Recreational Management Measures, 26452-26459 2016-10053 Northeast Groundfish Fishery; Framework Adjustment 55, 26412-26452 2016-10051 Fisheries Off West Coast States; West Coast Salmon Fisheries: 2016 Management Measures and a Temporary Rule, 26157-26172 2016-10250 NOTICES Meetings: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 26210-26211 2016-10237 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 26211 2016-10240 Requests for Nominations: National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Councils, 26211-26212 2016-10197 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site Education Program Forms, 26247-26249 2016-10198 Inventory Completions: Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 26249-26255 2016-10184 2016-10185 National Transportation National Transportation Safety Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 26265 2016-10280 Personnel Personnel Management Office PROPOSED RULES Recruitment, Selection, and Placement (General) and Suitability, 26173-26175 2016-10063 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: Law Day, U.S.A. (Proc. 9428), 26091-26092 2016-10302 Loyalty Day (Proc. 9429), 26093-26094 2016-10309 National Physical Fitness and Sports Month (Proc. 9427), 26089-26090 2016-10298 Workers Memorial Day (Proc. 9430), 26095-26096 2016-10312 Railroad Retirement Railroad Retirement Board RULES Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment, 26127-26129 2016-09959 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26271-26272, 26274, 26294-26295, 26298 2016-10107 2016-10108 2016-10110 2016-10111 Applications: Terra Capital Partners, LLC, et al., 26279-26281 2016-10109 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 26299-26301 2016-10151 Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 26295-26296 2016-10152 ISE Mercury, LLC, 26277-26279 2016-10155 NASDAQ PHLX, LLC, 26296-26298 2016-10148 NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 26265-26269, 26275-26277, 26281-26294 2016-10146 2016-10147 2016-10153 2016-10154 National Securities Clearing Corp., 26272-26274 2016-10150 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 26269-26271 2016-10149 Trading Suspension Orders: Pineapple Express, Inc., 26281 2016-10295 State Department State Department NOTICES Charter Renewals: Advisory Committee on International Law, 26302 2016-10221 Cultural Property Advisory Committee, 26301 2016-10223 Meetings: Overseas Security Advisory Council, 26301 2016-10224 Presidential Permits: Plains LPG Services, LP for Existing Pipeline Facilities on the Border of the United States and Canada under the St. Clair River; Withdrawal, 26301-26302 2016-10226 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26302-26305 2016-10190 2016-10191 2016-10192 2016-10193 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

PROPOSED RULES Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Membership and Meeting, 26178-26180 2016-10307
Security Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Pipeline Corporate Security Review Program, 26243-26244 2016-10211 Treasury Treasury Department See

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department RULES Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Nomenclature Change for Position Title, 26130-26133 2016-10112 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Learner's Perceptions Survey, 26314 2016-10195 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Library of Congress, Copyright Royalty Board, 26316-26410 2016-09707 Part III Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 26412-26459 2016-10053 2016-10051 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 84 Monday, May 2, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-1363; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-040-AD; Amendment 39-18496; AD 2016-08-19] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Models MU-2B-30, MU-2B-35, MU-2B-36, MU-2B-36A, and MU-2B-60 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as reports of cracks found in the attach fittings of the main landing gear oleo strut. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective June 6, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of June 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-1363; or in person at 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 service information identified in this AD, contact Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc., c/o Turbine Aircraft Services, Inc., 4550 Jimmy Doolittle Drive, Addison, Texas 75001; telephone: (972) 248-3108, ext. 209; fax: (972) 248-3321; Internet: http://mu-2aircraft.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 Docket No. FAA-2016-1363.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ASW-143 (c/o San Antonio MIDO), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone: (210) 308-3365; fax: (210) 308-3370; 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 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Models MU-2B-30, MU-2B-35, MU-2B-36, MU-2B-36A, and MU-2B-60 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January 26, 2016 (81 FR 4217). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country.

The Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB), which is the aviation authority for Japan, has issued AD No. TCD-8595-2015, dated July 1, 2015 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) Models MU-2B-30, MU-2B-35, and MU-2B-36 airplanes. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2016-1363.

We have received reports of seven failures of the main landing gear oleo strut attach fitting on certain MHI Models MU-2B-30, MU-2B-35, MU-2B-36, MU-2B-36A, and MU-2B-60 airplanes. Investigation revealed that the failures resulted from improper lubrication and/or hard landings, which caused cracks to develop in the main landing gear oleo strut attach fitting.

Japan is the State of Design for MHI Models MU-2B-30, MU-2B-35, and MU-2B-36 airplanes, which the MCAI AD applies to, and the United States is the State of Design for MHI Models MU-2B-36A and MU-2B-60 airplanes.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (81 FR 4217, January 26, 2016) 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 the 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 (81 FR 4217, January 26, 2016) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 4217, January 26, 2016).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletin No. 243, dated June 30, 2015, and MU-2 Service Bulletin No. 105/32-017, dated September 29, 2015. The service information describes procedures for visually inspecting the lugs of the oleo attach fittings on both sides for cracks, and if any visible cracks are found, replacing with a new fitting. We also reviewed Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service News JCAB T.C.: No. 171, FAA T.C.: No. 124/32-011, dated April 27, 2012, and MU-2 Service News JCAB T.C.: No. 176, FAA T.C.: No. 128/32-013, dated July 18, 2013. This service information specifies doing repetitive ultrasound inspections of the main landing gear oleo upper attach fittings for cracks and ensuring proper lubrication of the main landing gear oleo fitting. 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 the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI

We have determined that the repetitive visual inspections specified in the MCAI are not adequate for detecting cracks in the main landing gear oleo strut attach fitting. Repetitive ultrasonic inspections of the main landing gear oleo strut attach fitting have been added into the maintenance requirement manual for these airplanes, which is not considered mandatory in the FAA's airworthiness regulatory system. Therefore, we are incorporating that requirement through the rulemaking process.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD will affect 95 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 5 work-hours per product to comply with the visual inspection requirement of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the visual inspection requirements of this AD on U.S. operators to be $40,375, or $425 per product.

We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the ultrasound inspection requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the ultrasound inspection requirements of this AD on U.S. operators to be $24,225, or $255 per product.

Owner/operators have the option to do an ultrasound inspection in lieu of the required visual inspection.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 24 work-hours and require parts costing $5,220, for a cost of $7,260 per product to replace the left-hand main landing gear oleo strut. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need this action.

In addition, we also estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 45 work-hours and require parts costing $5,220, for a cost of $9,045 per product to replace the right-hand main landing gear oleo strut. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need this action.

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 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 by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-1363; 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 the NPRM, 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.

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 AD: 2016-08-19  Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.: Amendment 39-18496; Docket No. FAA-2016-1363; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-040-AD. (a) Effective Date

This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 6, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Models MU-2B-30, MU-2B-35, and MU-2B-36 airplanes, serial numbers 502 through 696, except 652 and 661, and Models MU-2B-36A and MU-2B-60 airplanes, serial numbers 661SA, and 697SA through 1569SA, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as reports of cracks found in the upper attach fittings of the main landing gear oleo strut. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the main landing gear oleo strut attach fitting, which could cause the landing gear to fail and result in loss of control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

Unless already done, do the following actions:

(1) Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after June 6, 2016 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 6 months after June 6, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, do a visual inspection of the main landing gear oleo upper attach fittings for cracks. Do the inspection following the INSTRUCTIONS section in Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletin No. 243, dated June 30, 2015, and the INSTRUCTIONS section in Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletin No. 105/32-017, dated September 29, 2015, as applicable.

(2) Before further flight after the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, if no signs of cracks are found, lubricate the pin assembly attached to the main landing gear oleo attach fitting as specified in Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service News JCAB T.C.: No. 171, FAA T.C.: No. 124/32-011, dated April 27, 2012.

(3) Within the next 100 hours TIS after doing the initial visual inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD or within the next 12 months after doing the initial visual inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, whichever occurs first, do an ultrasound inspection of the main landing gear oleo upper attach fittings for cracks as specified in Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service News JCAB T.C.: No. 176, FAA T.C.: No. 128/32-013, dated July 18, 2013. This ultrasound inspection may also be done in place of the visual inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD if done within the next 100 hours TIS after June 6, 2016 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 6 months after June 6, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first. Repetitively thereafter ultrasound inspect the attach fittings every 600 hours TIS or 36 months, whichever occurs first, and any time a hard landing or overweight landing occurs.

(4) Before further flight after any inspection required in paragraph (f)(3) of this AD, if no signs of cracks are found, lubricate the pin assembly attached to the main landing gear oleo attach fitting as specified in Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service News JCAB T.C.: No. 171, FAA T.C.: No. 124/32-011, dated April 27, 2012, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service News JCAB T.C.: No. 176, FAA T.C.: No. 128/32-013, dated July 18, 2013.

(5) Before further flight after any inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) and (f)(3) of this AD where cracks are found, replace the main landing gear oleo upper attach fittings following the INSTRUCTIONS section in Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletin No. 243, dated June 30, 2015, and the INSTRUCTIONS sections in Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletin No. 105/32-017, dated September 29, 2015, as applicable. After replacement, continue with the repetitive ultrasound inspection requirements of paragraph (f)(3) and lubrication requirements of paragraph (f)(4) of this AD.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ASW-143 (c/o San Antonio MIDO), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone: (210) 308-3365; fax: (210) 308-3370; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

Refer to MCAI Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB) AD No. TCD-8585-2015, dated July 1, 2015, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2016-1363.

(i) 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) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletin No. 105/32-017, dated September 29, 2015.

(ii) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletin No. 243, dated June 30, 2015.

(iii) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service News JCAB T.C.: No. 176, FAA T.C.: No. 128/32-013, dated July 18, 2013.

(iv) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service News JCAB T.C.: No. 171, FAA T.C.: No. 124/32-011, dated April 27, 2012.

(3) For Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd service information identified in this AD, contact Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc., c/o Turbine Aircraft Services, Inc., 4550 Jimmy Doolittle Drive, Addison, Texas 75001; telephone: (972) 248-3108, ext. 209; fax: (972) 248-3321; Internet: http://mu-2aircraft.com.

(4) You may view this 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. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-1363.

(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 April 14, 2016. Robert P. Busto, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-09239 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0657; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-058-AD; Amendment 39-18501; AD 2016-09-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000, FALCON 2000EX, MYSTERE-FALCON 900, and FALCON 900EX airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of a co-pilot sliding aft on his seat during take-off at rotation. This AD requires replacement of certain springs installed on the pilot and co-pilot seats. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue wear, which, if not corrected, could cause the seat to slide and the pilot or co-pilot to lose contact with the controls, leading to an inadvertent input on the flight control commands during take-off or climb, possibly resulting in loss of control of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective June 6, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, 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. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0657.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0657; 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 Office (telephone 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:

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 certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000, FALCON 2000EX, MYSTERE-FALCON 900, and FALCON 900EX airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 17, 2014 (79 FR 68392) (“the NPRM”).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0061, dated March 11, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000, FALCON 2000EX, MYSTERE-FALCON 900, and FALCON 900EX airplanes. The MCAI states:

During take-off at rotation, a co-pilot reported to slide aft on his seat.

The results of the investigations concluded that one spring of the seat locking system was broken and the other was weak. The root cause was determined to be fatigue wear. As springs accumulate cycles in service, they become increasingly exposed to the risk of unnoticed degradation or rupture.

This condition, if not corrected, could cause the pilot or the co-pilot to lose contact with the controls, leading to an inadvertent input on the flight control commands during take-off or climb, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.

To address this unsafe condition, it was decided to require replacement of the affected seat springs for older aeroplanes and for newer aeroplanes; this task has been embodied in the aeroplane maintenance manual.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires replacement of the springs installed on the pilot and co-pilot seats with serviceable springs.

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-2014-0657.

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.

Request To Revise the Compliance Times

Travis Reinhardt requested that if paragraph (g) of the proposed AD is revised to include other airplanes that we consider different replacement times. The commenter stated that the NPRM is applicable to certain Dassault Aviation airplanes equipped with SICMA 132-series or 142-series pilot and co-pilot seats. The commenter noted he has Embraer 120 airplanes equipped with SICMA 147-series seats, which include part number (P/N) 132100-19 and/or 147100-19 stop pin springs. The commenter stated the Embraer 120 heavy checks are due at 4,000 flight hours versus the stated 3,750 total flight cycles or 74 months for the listed Falcon airplanes. The commenter stated that he has only changed out one spring, approximately twelve years ago, and that currently, his installed springs, P/N 132100-19, have approximately 34,000 flight hours and 34,600 flight cycles.

While we appreciate the information Mr. Reinhardt has given, we are not revising this final rule to include other airplane models (or different replacement times) because the identified unsafe condition only affects the Dassault Aviation airplanes identified in the Applicability paragraph of this AD that are equipped with SICMA 132-series or 142-series pilot and co-pilot seats. However, if we determine that an unsafe condition exists on other airplane models, we might consider further rulemaking on this issue. We have made no changes to this final rule in this regard.

Request To Add Part Number

Mr. Reinhardt requested that if the NPRM is revised, we consider adding P/N 132100-19 to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD, as stated in EASA AD 2014-0061, dated March 11, 2014.

For the reasons stated by the commenter, we agree to add P/N 132100-19 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 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 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

Dassault Aviation has issued the following service information:

• Dassault Service Bulletin F900-429, Revision 1, dated July 13, 2012.

• Dassault Service Bulletin F900EX-446, Revision 1, dated July 13, 2012.

• Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-401, Revision 1, dated July 13, 2012.

• Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-267, Revision 1, dated July 13, 2012.

The service information describes procedures for replacing certain springs installed on the pilot and co-pilot seats. 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 528 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $83 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $133,584, or $253 per product.

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

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.

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): 2016-09-03 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-18501. Docket No. FAA-2014-0657; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-058-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective June 6, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, equipped with SICMA 132-series or 142-series pilot and co-pilot seats.

(1) Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000 airplanes.

(2) Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes.

(3) Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes.

(4) Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/Furnishings.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by reports of a co-pilot sliding aft on his seat during take-off at rotation. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue wear, which, if not corrected, could cause the seat to slide and the pilot or co-pilot to lose contact with the controls, leading to an inadvertent input on the flight control commands during take-off or climb, possibly resulting in loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replacement

For airplanes that have accumulated more than 3,750 total flight cycles or have exceeded 74 months since the airplane's first flight as of the effective date of this AD: Within 9 months after the effective date of this AD, replace each spring having part number (P/N) 132100-19 and P/N 147100-19 installed on the pilot and co-pilot seats with a spring as specified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information identified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), or (g)(4) of this AD, as applicable. Repeat the replacement thereafter at intervals not to exceed 78 months or 3,750 flight cycles, whichever occurs first.

(1) Dassault Service Bulletin F900-429, Revision 1, dated July 13, 2012.

(2) Dassault Service Bulletin F900EX-446, Revision 1, dated July 13, 2012.

(3) Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-401, Revision 1, dated July 13, 2012.

(4) Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-267, Revision 1, dated July 13, 2012.

(h) Parts Installation Limitation

As of the effective date of this AD, installation of a spring having P/N 147100-19 or P/N 132100-19 on any airplane is allowed, provided that the spring is new.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

(j) Related Information

Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2014-0061, dated March 11, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0657.

(k) 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) Dassault Service Bulletin F900-429, Revision 1, dated July 13, 2012.

(ii) Dassault Service Bulletin F900EX-446, Revision 1, dated July 13, 2012.

(iii) Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-401, Revision 1, dated July 13, 2012.

(iv) Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-267, Revision 1, dated July 13, 2012.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.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 April 20, 2016. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-09800 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-4814; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-105-AD; Amendment 39-18502; AD 2016-09-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 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 the discovery of a number of incorrectly calibrated angle of attack (AOA) transducers installed in the stall protection system. This AD requires replacement of incorrectly calibrated AOA transducers. We are issuing this AD to detect and replace incorrectly calibrated AOA transducers; incorrect calibration of the transducers could result in late activation of the stick pusher.

DATES:

This AD is effective June 6, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

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-2015-4814.

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-2015-4814; 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:

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:

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 November 17, 2015 (80 FR 71749) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by the discovery of a number of incorrectly calibrated AOA transducers installed in the stall protection system. The NPRM proposed to require replacement of incorrectly calibrated AOA transducers. We are issuing this AD to detect and replace incorrectly calibrated AOA transducers; incorrect calibration of the transducers could result in late activation of the stick pusher.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2015-17, effective July 16, 2015 (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:

It was discovered that a number of [angle of attack] AOA transducers installed on Bombardier CL-600-2B19 aeroplanes were incorrectly calibrated due to a quality control problem at both the production and repair facilities. Incorrect calibration of the AOA transducer could result in a late activation of the stick pusher.

This [Canadian] AD mandates the replacement of the incorrectly calibrated AOA transducer.

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-2015-4814.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM 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 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 Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-164, dated March 30, 2015. The service information describes procedures for replacement of incorrectly calibrated AOA transducers. 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 575 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 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 AD on U.S. operators to be $5,945,500, or $10,340 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

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): 2016-09-04 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18502; Docket No. FAA-2015-4814; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-105-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective June 6, 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 through 7067 inclusive, 7069 through 7990 inclusive, and 8000 through 8999 inclusive.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by the discovery of a number of incorrectly calibrated angle of attack (AOA) transducers installed in the stall protection system. We are issuing this AD to detect and replace incorrectly calibrated AOA transducers; incorrect calibration of the transducers could result in late activation of the stick pusher.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replacement

For AOA transducers identified in paragraph 1.A., “Effectivity,” of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-164, dated March 30, 2015: Within 2,500 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, replace the AOA transducers with correctly calibrated AOA transducers, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-164, dated March 30, 2015.

(h) Parts Installation Prohibition

As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, an AOA transducer having a part number or serial number listed in paragraph 1.A., “Effectivity,” of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-164, dated March 30, 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

For more information about this AD, contact Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531.

(k) 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) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-164, dated March 30, 2015.

(ii) Reserved.

(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 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 April 20, 2016. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-09791 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3970; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-006-AD; Amendment 39-18497; AD 2016-08-20] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters (Previously Eurocopter France) AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 2014-12-51 for Airbus Helicopters (previously Eurocopter France) Model EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters. AD 2014-12-51 required repetitively inspecting the tailboom to Fenestron junction frame (junction frame) for a crack. This new AD retains the requirements of AD 2014-12-51, changes the applicability from helicopters with certain hours time-in-service (TIS) to junction frames with certain hours TIS, and adds a compliance time for sling cycles to the junction frame inspection interval. The actions of this AD are intended to detect a crack and to prevent failure of the junction frame, which could result in loss of the Fenestron and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES:

This AD is effective June 6, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of June 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. 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. It is also on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3970.

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-2015-3970; 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 (phone: 800-647-5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Grant, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

On September 25, 2015, at 80 FR 57742, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to remove AD 2014-12-51, Amendment 39-17921 (79 FR 45335, August 5, 2014), and add a new AD. AD 2014-12-51 applied to Airbus Helicopters Model EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters with 690 or more hours TIS and required, within 10 hours TIS, dye-penetrant inspecting certain areas of the junction frame for a crack. AD 2014-12-51 also required, at intervals not exceeding 25 hours TIS, either repeating the dye-penetrant inspection or performing a borescope inspection of certain areas of the junction frame for a crack. If there was a crack, AD 2014-12-51 required replacing the junction frame. AD 2014-12-51 was prompted by two incidents of crack propagation through the junction frame that initiated in the lower right-hand side between the web and the flange where the lower spar of the tailboom is joined. The cracks were significant in length and not visible from the outside of the helicopter.

The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2015-0033-E dated February 24, 2015 (AD 2015-0033-E), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition on Airbus Helicopters EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters. The NPRM proposed to require retaining the dye penetrant and borescope inspections in AD 2014-12-51 but with revised compliance times. The NRPM also proposed to change the applicability to helicopters with 690 hours TIS accumulated on the junction frame instead of on the helicopter, and proposed including an inspection interval defined in sling cycles. These actions were intended to detect a crack and to prevent failure of the junction frame, which could result in loss of the Fenestron and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Comments

After our NPRM (80 FR 57742, September 25, 2015) was published, we received a comment from one commenter.

Request

One commenter requested the addition of a 10-hour or 250-sling cycle visual pilot check for helicopters with Modification 350A087421 or that have complied with Airbus Helicopters Service Bulletin No. EC130-53-029, Revision 0, dated February 20, 2015 (SB EC130-53-029). The commenter stated this pilot check would benefit operators and provide the same level of safety.

We disagree. While the EASA AD allows the check requested by the commenter as an alternative method, because the cause of the fatigue cracking is still under investigation, we cannot determine that this method would correct the unsafe condition.

FAA's Determination

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, 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, reviewed the relevant information, considered the comment received, and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Interim Action

We consider this AD to be an interim action. If final action is later identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

The EASA AD includes alternate compliance instructions for helicopters modified with a cut-out in production by Airbus Helicopters Modification 350A087421 or in service by compliance with SB EC130-53-029. This AD does not.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05A017, Revision 2, dated February 20, 2015 (EASB 05A017), for Model EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters. EASB 05A017 describes alternate procedures for inspecting outside the tailboom for a crack at reduced inspection intervals in combination with the internal inspections at extended intervals. EASB 05A017 also specifies adding sling cycles to the existing flight hour inspection interval for helicopters that perform external load-carrying operations. EASA issued AD No. 2015-0033-E mandating the requirements in EASB 05A017 to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.

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.

Other Related Service Information

Airbus Helicopters also issued SB EC130-53-029, which contains procedures to cut out the skin and splice at the junction frame to facilitate the external inspection specified in EASB 05A017.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 208 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, dye-penetrant inspecting the junction frame will require 1 work-hour, for a cost of $85 per helicopter and a total cost of $17,680 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle. Borescope inspecting the junction frame will require 0.5 work-hour, for a cost of $43 per helicopter and a total cost of $8,944 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.

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 helicopters 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 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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-12-51, Amendment 39-17921 (79 FR 45335, August 5, 2014), and adding the following new AD: 2016-08-20 Airbus Helicopters (Previously Eurocopter France): Amendment 39-18497; Docket No. FAA-2015-3970; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-006-AD. (a) Applicability

This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters with a tailboom to fenestron junction frame (junction frame) that has 690 or more hours time-in-service (TIS), certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in the junction frame. This condition could result in failure of the junction frame, which could result in loss of the Fenestron and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

This AD supersedes AD 2014-12-51, Amendment 39-17921 (79 FR 45335, August 5, 2014).

(d) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective June 6, 2016.

(e) 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.

(f) Required Actions

(1) Before the junction frame reaches 700 hours TIS or within 10 hours TIS, whichever occurs later, remove the horizontal stabilizer, clean the junction frame, and dye-penetrant inspect around the circumference of the junction frame for a crack in the areas shown in Figure 1 of Airbus Helicopters EC130 Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05A017, Revision 2, dated February 20, 2015 (EASB 05A017). Pay particular attention to the area around the 4 spars (item b) of Figure 1 of EASB 05A017. An example of a crack is shown in Figure 3 of EASB 05A017.

(2) Within 25 hours TIS or 390 sling cycles, whichever occurs first after the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 25 hours TIS or 390 sling cycles, whichever occurs first, either perform the actions of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD or, if the area is clean, using a borescope, inspect around the circumference of the junction frame for a crack in the areas shown in Figure 2 of EASB 05A017. Pay particular attention to the area around the 4 spars (item b) of Figure 2 of EASB 05A017. An example of a crack is shown in Figure 3 of EASB 05A017. For purposes of this AD, a sling cycle is defined as one landing with or without stopping the rotor or one external load-carrying operation; an external load-carrying operation occurs each time a helicopter picks up an external load and drops it off.

(3) If there is a crack, before further flight, replace the junction frame.

(g) Special Flight Permits

Special flight permits are prohibited.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Robert Grant, 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.

(i) Additional Information

(1) Airbus Helicopters Service Bulletin No. EC130-53-029, Revision 0, dated February 20, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this final rule. For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review a copy of the service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2015-0033-E, dated February 24, 2015. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2015-3970.

(j) Subject

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 5302: Rotorcraft Tailboom.

(k) 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) Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05A017, Revision 2, dated February 20, 2015.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For Airbus Helicopters service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub.

(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 April 15, 2016. Scott A. Horn, Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-09235 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0338; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-010-AD; Amendment 39-18495; AD 2016-08-18] 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-31-350 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of an engine fire caused by a leak in the fuel pump inlet hose. This AD requires inspecting the fuel hose assembly and the turbocharger support assembly for proper clearance between them, inspecting each assembly for any sign of damage, and making any necessary repairs or replacements. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective June 6, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (772) 567-4361; fax: (772) 978-6573; Internet: www.piper.com/home/pages/Publications.cfm. 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 and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0338.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0338; 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 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:

Gary Wechsler, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone: (404) 474-5575; fax: (404) 474-5606; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. Model PA-31-350 airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on January 26, 2016 (81 FR 4214). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on June 3, 2014 (79 FR 31888). The NPRM proposed to require inspecting the fuel hose assembly and the turbocharger support assembly for proper clearance between them, inspecting each assembly for any sign of damage, and making any necessary repairs or replacements. The NPRM was prompted by a report of an engine fire on a Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) Model PA-31-350 airplane. Investigation revealed that the fire was caused by a leak in the fuel pump inlet hose that resulted from repeated contact with an adjacent turbocharger support assembly caused by inadequate clearance between the two assemblies. The SNPRM proposed to require the same actions as proposed in the NPRM using revised service information issued by the manufacturer to clarify which engines are part of the airplane applicability and to revise the instructions for accomplishing the proposed actions.

This condition, if not corrected, could result in damage to the fuel inlet hose assembly, which could cause the fuel pump inlet hose to fail and leak fuel in the engine compartment. This condition could also cause damage to the turbocharger support assembly, which could require the turbocharger support assembly to be repaired or replaced.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the SNPRM (81 FR 4214, January 26, 2016) 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 SNPRM (81 FR 4214, January 26, 2016) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM (81 FR 4214, January 26, 2016).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1257A, dated August 4, 2015. The service information describes procedures for the following. 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.

—Inspecting for a minimum 3/16-inch clearance between the fuel hose assembly and the turbocharger support assembly and making any necessary adjustments. —Inspecting the fuel hose assembly for any signs of damage and, if necessary, replacing with a serviceable part. —Inspecting the turbocharger support assembly for any signs of damage and, if necessary, repairing or replacing with a serviceable part. —Performing an engine run-up to check for any leaks. Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

There are differences between the compliance times for the corrective actions in this AD and those in the related service information.

We based the compliance times in this AD on risk analysis and cost impact to operators. There has only been one event of the reported incident in the operational history of Piper Model PA-31-350 airplanes. Cost was also a strong consideration due to the age of the fleet and the number of airplanes still in service.

The one-time inspection required in this AD is very inexpensive and requires minimal time to accomplish. It is expected that almost all airplanes in service can be cleared with a single inspection, and no additional actions or costs would be incurred by the vast majority of the fleet.

We determined that a single inspection with any necessary corrective actions is an adequate terminating action for the unsafe condition. The risk related to future maintenance on the fuel line would be mitigated by the related service information and awareness from this AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 773 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
  • Inspect for proper clearance between the fuel hose assembly and the turbocharger support assembly .5 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 N/A $42.50 $32,852.50 Inspect the fuel hose assembly for evidence of leaking, cracking, chafing, and any other sign of damage .5 work-hour × $85 per hour = $42.50 N/A 42.50 32,852.50 Inspect the turbocharger support assembly for evidence of chafing and any other sign of damage .5 work-hour × $85 per hour = $42.50 N/A 42.50 32,852.50 Engine run-up/leak check 1 work-hour × $85 = $85 (.5 work hour per engine) N/A 85 65,705

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

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Adjust routing of fuel hose assembly for proper clearance between the fuel hose assembly and the turbocharger support assembly 5.5 work-hours × $85 per hour = $467.50 N/A $467.50 Replace Piper fuel pump inlet hose assembly, part number 39995-34 (2 per airplane) 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 1,068 1,153 Replace Lycoming turbocharger support assembly, part number LW-18302 (2 per airplane) 24 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,040 12,874 14,914
    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): 2016-08-18 Piper Aircraft, Inc.: Amendment 39-18495; Docket No. FAA-2014-0338; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-010-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 6, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Piper Aircraft, Inc. Model PA-31-350 airplanes, serial numbers 31-5001 through 31-5004, 31-7305005 through 31-8452024, and 31-8253001 through 31-8553002, certificated in any category, that are equipped with the following engines and fuel pump hose assemblies:

    Table 1 to Paragraph (c) of This AD—Applicable Engines and Fuel Pump Hose Assemblies Engine Manufacturer's hose name Manufacturer's part number (P/N) Hose description TIO-540-J2B (right wing) Hose Assembly—Fuel Piper 39995-034 Inlet fuel hose to engine fuel pump. LTIO-540-J2B (left wing) Hose, Fuel pump to Injector Lycoming LW-12877-6S142 Exit fuel hose from engine fuel pump. TIO540-J2BD (right wing) Hose, Fuel pump to Injector Lycoming LW-12877-6S142 Exit fuel hose from engine fuel pump. LTIO-540-J2BD (left wing) Hose Assembly—Fuel Piper 39995-034 Inlet fuel hose to engine fuel pump. (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 73: Engine Fuel and Control.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of an engine fire caused by a leak in the fuel pump inlet hose. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (j)(2) of this AD, unless already done.

    (g) Ensure Proper Clearance Between the Fuel Hose Assembly and the Turbocharger Support Assembly

    (1) Within the next 60 hours time-in-service (TIS) after June 6, 2016 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 6 months after June 6, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, inspect to determine the clearance between the inlet and exit fuel hose assemblies listed in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD, and each turbocharger support assembly, Lycoming P/N LW-18302. There should be a minimum 3/16-inch clearance. Do the inspection following the INSTRUCTIONS section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1257A, dated August 4, 2015.

    (2) Before further flight after the inspection required in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, if the measured clearance is less than 3/16-inch, make all necessary adjustments to make the clearance a minimum of 3/16-inch between the inlet and exit fuel hose assemblies listed in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD and each turbocharger support assembly, Lycoming P/N LW-18302, following the INSTRUCTIONS section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1257A, dated August 4, 2015.

    (h) Visually Inspect the Fuel Hose Assembly and Replace if Necessary

    (1) Within the next 60 hours TIS after June 6, 2016 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 6 months after June 6, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, visually inspect the inlet and exit fuel hose assemblies listed in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD for evidence of leaking, cracking, chafing, and any other sign of damage. Do the inspection following the INSTRUCTIONS section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1257A, dated August 4, 2015.

    (2) Before further flight after the inspection required in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, if any evidence of leaking, cracking, chafing, or any other sign of damage is found in any inlet or exit fuel host assembly listed in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD, replace the fuel hose assembly with a serviceable part. Do the replacement following the INSTRUCTIONS section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1257A, dated August 4, 2015.

    (i) Visually Inspect the Turbocharger Support Assembly and Replace if Necessary

    (1) Within the next 60 hours TIS after June 6, 2016 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 6 months after June 6, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, visually inspect each turbocharger support assembly, Lycoming P/N LW-18302, for evidence of chafing and any other signs of damage. Do the inspection following the INSTRUCTIONS section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1257A, dated August 4, 2015.

    (2) Before further flight after the inspection required in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, if any evidence of chafing or any other sign of damage is found on any turbocharger support assembly, replace Lycoming P/N LW-18302 with a serviceable part. Do the replacement following the INSTRUCTIONS section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1257A, dated August 4, 2015.

    (j) Engine Run-Up

    (1) If any fuel line component was adjusted or replaced during any actions required in paragraphs (g)(1) through (i)(2) of this AD, before further flight, perform an engine run-up on the ground to check for leaks. Do the engine run-up following the INSTRUCTIONS section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1257A, dated August 4, 2015.

    (2) If any leaks found during the engine run-up required in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD emanate from any fuel line component adjusted, repaired, or replaced during any actions required in paragraphs (g)(1) through (i)(2) of this AD, before further flight, take all necessary corrective actions following the INSTRUCTIONS section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1257A, dated August 4, 2015.

    (k) 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 the Related Information section 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.

    (l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Gary Wechsler, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone: (404) 474-5575; fax: (404) 474-5606; 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) Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1257A, dated August 4, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For Piper Aircraft, Inc. service information identified in this AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., 926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (772) 567-4361; fax: (772) 978-6573; Internet: www.piper.com/home/pages/Publications.cfm.

    (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.

    (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 April 14, 2016. Robert P. Busto, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09238 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1428; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-026-AD; Amendment 39-18499; AD 2016-09-01] 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 777-200 and -300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking of a certain chord of the pivot bulkhead. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the left side and right side forward outer chords of the pivot bulkhead, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also provides a modification of the pivot bulkhead, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the outer flanges of the left and right side forward outer chords of the pivot bulkhead, which could result in a severed forward outer chord and consequent loss of horizontal stabilizer control.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective June 6, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, 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-2015-1428.

    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-2015-1428; 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:

    Narinder Luthra, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6513; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 15, 2015 (80 FR 34103) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking of a certain chord of the pivot bulkhead. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking of the left side and right side forward outer chords of the pivot bulkhead, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to provide a modification of the pivot bulkhead, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the outer flanges of the left and right side forward outer chords of the pivot bulkhead, which could result in a severed forward outer chord and consequent loss of horizontal stabilizer control.

    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.

    Request To Exclude Certain Requirements From the NPRM

    American Airlines (AA) requested that we revise the NPRM to exclude doing the work in accordance with paragraph 3.B.4., of the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, dated January 14, 2015, which specifies “Put the airplane back into a serviceable condition.” AA stated that doing this action does not affect the condition that the AD seeks to address. AA added that most operators will accomplish these modifications as part of a maintenance visit, and returning the airplane to a serviceable condition will not be possible in the context of the statement, but rather will occur at a point in time well after the work is completed.

    We agree that putting the airplane back into a serviceable condition is not directly related to addressing the unsafe condition identified in this AD. However, we do not agree to specifically exclude paragraph 3.B.4., of the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, dated January 14, 2015, from this final rule because it is not required for compliance with the AD actions.

    The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directives Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (AD ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement is a new process for annotating which steps in the service information are “required for compliance” (RC) with an AD. Differentiating these steps from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's understanding of AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance.

    In response to the AD Implementation ARC, the FAA released AC 20-176A, dated June 16, 2014 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/979ddd1479e1ec6f86257cfc0052d4e9/$FILE/AC%2020-176A.pdf); and Order 8110.117A, dated June 18, 2014 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/d715cdfc08ac0ddc86257cfc00528297/$FILE/110.117A.pdf), which include the concept of RC. The FAA has begun implementing this concept in ADs when we receive service information containing RC steps.

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, dated January 14, 2015, includes the concept of RC. In paragraph 3.B. of the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, dated January 14, 2015, certain steps are marked RC. The step that specifies “Put the airplane back into a serviceable condition” is not marked RC. Therefore, no change to this final rule is necessary in this regard.

    Request To Change Certain Language in the NPRM

    Boeing and United Airlines (UA) asked that the language in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD be reworded for clarity. Boeing asked that we account for the small crack repair being performed on one side only. UA stated that as written, inspecting the left side and right side forward outer chords is incorrect since the small crack repair is performed on one side only. UA noted that the small crack repair may be accomplished on one side of the airplane only, depending on inspection findings. UA asked that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD be changed to specify “. . . do a surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection, an open-hole HFEC inspection, and a detailed inspection for cracking of the repaired side (left, right, or both) forward outer chords of the STA 2370 pivot bulkhead.” Boeing recommended that the language be reworded to specify an “. . . inspection for cracking of the repaired forward outer chords . . .”

    We agree with the commenters' requests for the reasons provided. We have changed the language in paragraph (h) of this AD to specify “. . . do a surface HFEC inspection, an open-hole HFEC inspection, and a detailed inspection for cracking of the repaired side forward outer chords of the STA 2370 pivot bulkhead.”

    Boeing and UA asked that the language in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD be reworded for clarity. Boeing asked that we account for the scenario where the small crack repair is performed on one side only. Boeing stated that the terminating actions for each side of the bulkhead are independent of each other. UA stated that using “and” is incorrect because the modification can only be accomplished on one side, not both the left and right sides, depending on inspection findings.

    We agree with the commenters for the reasons provided. We have changed the language in paragraph (i) of this AD accordingly.

    Request To Include Revised Service Information

    All Nippon Airways (ANA) stated that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, dated January 14, 2015; and Boeing Service Bulletin 777-53-0076, dated January 14, 2015; contain many inconsistencies. We infer that ANA is requesting that we include revised service information because there are errors in the original issues.

    We agree with the commenter. Boeing has issued Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2015; and Boeing Service Bulletin 777-53-0076, Revision 1, dated December 21, 2015; which include changes found during validation and clarify and correct issues identified by operators. We have included the revised service information as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the actions required by this AD and we have referred to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2015, in the applicability in paragraph (c) of this AD. We have also added a new credit paragraph (k) to this AD for using the original issues of the service information and reidentified subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

    Request To Add a New Paragraph for Clarification

    Boeing asked that we add a new paragraph (j)(3) to the proposed AD to specify the following:

    If conducting the Part 2 Small Crack Repair of the Service Bulletin 777-53A0075 dated January 14, 2015, verify the fastener heads and nuts will not interfere with the fillet radius of the parts in the repair installation. If interference will occur, repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD. . .

    Boeing also asked that we add a reference to paragraph (j)(3) in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD by including it in the exception sentence. Boeing stated that during a recent validation it was discovered that, in some cases, radius fillers are required to prevent fasteners from riding the fillet radius of the extended splice chord used in the small crack repair specified in Part 2 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, dated January 14, 2015.

    We agree with the commenter that interference between the fastener and fillet case should be minimized; however, we do not agree to add a new paragraph (j)(3) to this AD. Boeing has issued Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2015, which includes instructions for accomplishing the small crack repair. As stated previously, we have revised this AD to refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2015, for accomplishing certain actions required by this AD.

    Request To Correct Minor Error

    Boeing asked that we change the service information number identified in paragraph (j)(2) of the proposed AD from “777-530076” to “777-53-0076.”

    We agree that the hyphen is missing from the service information number. We have included the hyphen in the service information number identified in paragraph (j)(2) 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 for correcting the unsafe condition; and

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following Boeing service information.

    • Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2015. This service information describes procedures for repetitive detailed and HFEC inspections for cracking of the outer flanges of the left and right side forward outer chords of the STA 2370 pivot bulkhead, repetitive post-repair inspections for certain airplanes, and related investigative and corrective actions.

    • Boeing Service Bulletin 777-53-0076, Revision 1, dated December 21, 2015. This service information describes procedures for a modification of the STA 2370 pivot bulkhead by replacing the left and right side forward outer chords and upper splice angles, and related investigative and corrective actions.

    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 60 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
  • Inspections of left and right side pivot bulkhead forward chord Up to 15 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,275 per inspection cycle $0 Up to $1,275 per inspection cycle Up to $76,500 per inspection cycle. Post-repair Inspections Up to 11 work-hours × $85 per hour = $935 per inspection cycle 0 Up to $935 per inspection cycle Up to $56,100 per inspection cycle.

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs and modifications that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these actions.

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Small crack repair Up to 45 work-hours × $85 per hour = $3,825 per side 1 Up to $7,650. Modification of the STA 2370 Pivot Bulkhead (forward outer chord replacement) Up to 137 work-hours × $85 per hour = $11,645 $34,086 Up to $45,731. 1 We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide parts cost estimates for the on-condition repair specified in this AD.

    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): 2016-09-01 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18499; Docket No. FAA-2015-1428; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-026-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 6, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2015.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking of the forward outer chord of the station (STA) 2370 pivot bulkhead. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the outer flanges of the left and right side forward outer chords of the STA 2370 pivot bulkhead, which could result in a severed forward outer chord and consequent loss of horizontal stabilizer control.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspections and Corrective Actions

    At the times specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2015, except as provided in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection and high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking of the left and right side forward outer chords of the STA 2370 pivot bulkhead, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2015, except as provided in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2015, until the modification specified in paragraph (i) of this AD is done.

    (h) Post-Repair Inspections

    For airplanes on which any repair specified in Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075 has been done: At the times specified in table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2015, do a surface HFEC inspection, an open-hole HFEC inspection, and a detailed inspection for cracking of the repaired side forward outer chords of the STA 2370 pivot bulkhead, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2015, except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable times specified in table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2015, until the modification specified in paragraph (i) of this AD is done.

    (i) Terminating Action

    Modifying the STA 2370 pivot bulkhead by replacing the left or right side forward outer chords and upper splice angles, and doing all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, for the modified location only. The modification must be done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-53-0076, Revision 1, dated December 21, 2015, except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD.

    (j) Exceptions to Service Bulletin Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2015, specifies a compliance time “after the Original Issue date of this Service Bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2015; and Boeing Service Bulletin 777-53-0076, Revision 1, dated December 21, 2015; specify to contact Boeing for appropriate action, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2015, specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (k) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, dated January 14, 2015.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 777-53-0076, dated January 14, 2015.

    (l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, 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) Except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (l)(4)(i) and (l)(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.

    (m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Narinder Luthra, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6513; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

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

    (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 the AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2015.

    (ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 777-53-0076, Revision 1, dated December 21, 2015.

    (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 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 April 14, 2016. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09650 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-6539; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-036-AD; Amendment 39-18504; AD 2016-09-06] 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 all Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, and -214 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes. This AD was prompted by the results of an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH). During a residual fatigue test, the forward engine mount failed prior to reaching the threshold/interval for the detailed inspections of the forward engine mounts specified in the airworthiness limitations. This AD requires repetitive detailed inspections of the right and left forward engine mounts, and corrective action if necessary. These inspections are required by AD 2015-05-02. This AD reduces the compliance times for those inspections. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the forward engine mounts. Such cracking could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane and could lead to in-flight loss of an engine, possibly resulting in reduced controllability of the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective June 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    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-2015-6539; 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 Office (telephone 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:

    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 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, and -214 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 30, 2015 (80 FR 74723) (“the NPRM”).

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0038, dated March 4, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, and -214 airplanes; and Model A321- 111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During a A320 Extended Service Goal (ESG) residual fatigue test, in which new loads were used, taking into account the results of the 2006 fleet survey, the CFM56-5A/5B forward engine mount experienced a failure before reaching the threshold/interval for the detailed inspection of that forward engine mount, as identified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 2 (hereafter referred to in this [EASA] AD as `the ALS') task 712111-01. In case of total loss of the primary load path, the current maintenance requirements do not ensure the design integrity of the remaining structure.

    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to in-flight loss of an engine, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane and injury to persons on the ground.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires implementation of a reduced threshold and interval for the detailed inspections (DET) of the forward engine mount on both right hand (RH) and left hand (LH) sides, as specified in the ALS, task 712111-01.

    Once further investigations and test are completed, the threshold and interval of the ALS task 712111-01 will likely be modified accordingly.

    Required actions include repair of discrepancies (cracks) found during the inspection. 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-2015-6539. Comments

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

    Request To Clarify That This Final Rule Was Not Prompted by Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD)

    Airbus requested that all references to WFD be removed from the NPRM. Airbus stated that the root cause of the unsafe condition was not associated with WFD. The unsafe condition was revealed during a residual fatigue test of the CFM56-5A/5B forward engine mount. The forward engine mount failed prior to reaching the threshold/interval for the detailed inspections specified in the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section Part 2—Damage-Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items.

    Based on the information provided by the commenter we agree to remove all references to WFD from the preamble and regulatory text and include an explanation that this final rule was prompted by the results of an evaluation by the DAH.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment 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 for correcting the unsafe condition; and

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

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 940 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour 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 $79,900, or $85 per product.

    We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition parts cost 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.

    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): 2016-09-06 Airbus: Amendment 39-18504. Docket No. FAA-2015-6539; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-036-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 6, 2016.

    (b) Affected AD

    This AD affects AD 2015-05-02, Amendment 39-18112 (80 FR 15152, March 23, 2015) (“AD 2015-05-02”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD.

    (1) Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes.

    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes.

    (3) Model A320-211, -212, and -214 airplanes.

    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Periodic Inspections.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the results of an evaluation by the design approval holder. During a residual fatigue test the forward engine mount failed prior to reaching the threshold/interval for the detailed inspections of the forward engine mounts specified in the airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the forward engine mounts. Such cracking could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane and could lead to in-flight loss of an engine, possibly resulting in reduced controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive Inspections

    At the latest of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection of the left and right forward engine mounts for discrepancies (cracking), using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 800 flight cycles.

    Note 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD:

    Guidance for the inspection and engine mount replacement can be found in Task 712111-210-040 of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Maintenance Manual.

    (1) Within 800 flight cycles since the first flight of the airplane.

    (2) Within 800 flight cycles since the most recent detailed inspection specified in Airbus Airworthiness Limitation Tasks 712111-01-1, 712111-01-2, 712111-01-3, or 712111-01-4, “Detailed Inspection of Forward Engine Mount Installation,” as applicable.

    (3) Within 800 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.

    (h) Corrective Action

    If any discrepancy (cracking) is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, replace the affected forward engine mount with a 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).

    (i) No Terminating Action

    Replacement of a forward engine mount does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (j) Termination of Certain Tasks Required by AD 2015-05-02

    Accomplishment of the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the initial and repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (n)(2) of AD 2015-05-02, for Airbus Airworthiness Limitation Tasks 712111-01-1, 712111-01-2, 712111-01-3, and 712111-01-4, “Detailed Inspection of Forward Engine Mount Installation.”

    (k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-116-[email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (l) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed.

    (m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0038, dated March 4, 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-2015-6539.

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

    (n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 20, 2016. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10117 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-2458; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-122-AD; Amendment 39-18468; AD 2016-07-23] 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 all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of in-flight loss of fixed and hinged main landing gear (MLG) fairings, and reports of post-modification MLG fixed fairing assemblies that have wear and corrosion. This AD requires, for certain airplanes, repetitive replacements of the fixed fairing upper and lower attachment studs of both left-hand (LH) and the right-hand (RH) MLG; and repetitive inspections for corrosion, wear, fatigue cracking, and loose studs of each forward stud assembly of the fixed fairing door upper and lower forward attachment of both LH and RH MLG; and replacement if necessary. This AD also provides an optional terminating modification for the repetitive replacements of the fixed fairing upper and lower attachment studs. We are issuing this AD to prevent in-flight detachment of an MLG fixed fairing and consequent damage to the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective June 6, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-2458; 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—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-2458.

    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 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 8, 2015 (80 FR 38992) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of in-flight loss of fixed and hinged MLG fairings, and reports of post-modification MLG fixed fairing assemblies that have wear and corrosion. The NPRM proposed to require, for certain airplanes, repetitive replacements of the fixed fairing upper and lower attachment studs of both the LH and RH MLG; and repetitive inspections for corrosion, wear, fatigue cracking, and loose studs of each forward stud assembly of the fixed fairing door upper and lower forward attachment of both LH and RH MLG; and replacement if necessary. The NPRM also proposed an optional terminating modification for the repetitive replacements of the fixed fairing upper and lower attachment studs. We are issuing this AD to prevent in-flight detachment of an MLG fixed fairing and consequent damage to the airplane.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0001R1, dated January 15, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Several occurrences of in-flight loss of main landing gear (MLG) fixed and hinged fairings were reported. The majority of reported events occurred following scheduled maintenance activities. One result of the investigation was that a discrepancy between the drawing and the maintenance manuals was discovered. The maintenance documents were corrected to prevent mis-rigging of the MLG fixed and hinged fairings, which could induce fatigue cracking.

    Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-52-1083, providing instructions for a one-time inspection of the MLG fixed fairing composite insert and the surrounding area, replacement of the adjustment studs at the lower forward position and adjustment to the new clearance tolerances. That SB was replaced by Airbus SB A320-52-1100 (mod 27716) introducing a re-designed location stud, rod end and location plate at the forward upper and lower leg fixed-fairing positions. Subsequently, reports were received of post-mod 27716/post-SB A320-52-1100 MLG fixed fairing assemblies with corrosion, which could also induce cracking.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to further cases of in-flight detachment of a MLG fixed fairing, possibly resulting in injury to persons on the ground and/or damage to the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2014-0096 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2014_0096_superseded.pdf/AD_2014-0096_1] to require [for certain airplanes] repetitive detailed inspections (DET) of the MLG fixed fairings, and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective actions. That [EASA] AD also prohibited installation of certain MLG fixed fairing rod end assemblies and studs as replacement parts on aeroplanes incorporating Airbus mod 27716 in production, or modified in accordance with Airbus SB A320-52-1100 (any revision) in service.

    Since EASA AD 2014-0096 was issued, Airbus developed an alternative inspection programme to meet the AD requirements. In addition, a terminating action (mod 155648) was developed, which is to be made available for in service aeroplanes through Airbus SB A320-52-1165.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0096, which is superseded, and adds an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. For post-mod aeroplanes, i.e., incorporating Airbus mod 155648 in production, or modified by Airbus SB A320-52-1165 in service, the only remaining requirement is to ensure that pre-mod components are no longer installed.

    Prompted by these developments, EASA issued AD * * *, retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0096, which was superseded, and adding an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. For post-mod aeroplanes, i.e., incorporating Airbus mod 155648 in production, or modified by Airbus SB A320-52-1165 in service, the only remaining requirement is to ensure that pre-mod components are no longer installed.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it was discovered that a certain plate support, Part Number (P/N) D5285600620000 as listed in Table 3 of the [EASA] AD, remains part of the post SB A320-52-1165 configuration and is therefore not affected by any prohibition of installation—paragraph (11) of the [EASA] AD. In addition, an error was detected in Table 1 of the [EASA] AD (missing P/N plate support) and paragraph (9) was found to be incorrectly worded.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD is revised to introduce the necessary corrections.

    Required actions also include, for airplanes in Airbus pre-Airbus Modification 27716 and pre-Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1100 configuration on which certain components have been installed, repetitive replacements of the fixed fairing upper and lower attachment studs of both the LH and RH MLG. An optional terminating modification also is provided for the repetitive replacements of the fixed fairing upper and lower attachment studs.

    The optional terminating modification includes a resonance frequency inspection for debonding of the composite insert and delamination of the honeycomb area around the insert, and applicable corrective actions if necessary; and installation of new studs, rod ends, and location plates at the forward upper and lower leg fixed-fairing positions.

    An additional optional terminating modification, for airplanes in pre-Airbus Modification 27716 and pre-Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1100 configuration, includes installation of a locking device, new studs, rod ends, and location plates at the forward upper and lower leg fixed-fairing positions.

    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-2015-2458.

    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.

    Request To Revise Applicability in SUMMARY Section of the NPRM

    United Airlines (UAL) requested that we revise the SUMMARY section of the NPRM to include Model A320 series airplanes.

    We agree with the commenter's request. The published version of the NPRM SUMMARY inadvertently did not include Model A320 series airplanes. We have revised the SUMMARY section of this final rule accordingly.

    Request To Revise Inspection Findings

    UAL requested that we revise paragraphs (i), (k), and (m) of the proposed AD, by replacing the term “fatigue” with “deformation.” UAL stated that the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1163, dated February 4, 2014, do not provide any specific method for doing a detailed inspection for indications of fatigue.

    We disagree with the commenter's Request to replace the term “fatigue” with “deformation.” The intent of the Airbus service information and the FAA AD is to inspect for “fatigue cracking.” For clarity, we have revised the SUMMARY and Discussion sections of this final rule, and paragraphs (i), (k), and (m) of this AD, by changing “fatigue” to “fatigue cracking.”

    Request To Use Revised Service Information

    American Airlines (AAL) requested that we revise the proposed AD to reference Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1163, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated June 22, 2015.

    We agree with the commenter's request. No additional work is required by this revision of the service information. We have revised paragraphs (g), (i), (k), (l), and (m) of this AD to reference Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1163, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated June 22, 2015. We have added credit for the actions required by paragraphs (g), (i), (k), (l), and (m) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1163, dated February 4, 2014.

    Request To Revise Re-Identification of Fairing Part Number

    AAL requested that we revise paragraphs (k), (l), (m), and (n) of the proposed AD to remove the re-identification of the fairing part number specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1165, including Appendix 01, dated November 3, 2014, on airplanes that are pre-Airbus Modification 27716 and post-modification Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1100. AAL stated that a discrepancy in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1165, including Appendix 01, dated November 3, 2014, makes it impossible to re-identify the fairing part number.

    We agree with AAL that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1165, including Appendix 01, dated November 3, 2014, has a discrepancy in the re-identification of the fairing part number. Airbus has revised the instructions for re-identification of the fairing part number for pre-Airbus Modification 27716 and post-modification Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1100 configuration airplanes in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1165, Revision 01, dated October 23, 2015, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 3, 2014, and including Appendix 02, dated October 23, 2015. We have revised paragraphs (k), (l)(1), (m), and (n)(3) of this AD to reference Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1165, Revision 01, dated October 23, 2015, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 3, 2014, and including Appendix 02, dated October 23, 2015, as the appropriate source of service information for the applicable actions in those paragraphs.

    Request To Specify Allowable Corrosion Limits

    AAL requested that we specify the allowable corrosion limits that would allow release of the airplane into service with corroded stud assemblies. AAL stated that paragraph (l)(2) of the proposed AD allows an operator to release an airplane into service with corrosion on the stud assembly, without accomplishing any corrective action at the time of the corrosion findings, provided that the stud assembly is not loose.

    We disagree with the commenter's request to specify corrosion limits in the AD. The corrosion level(s) and subsequent action(s) in general are defined in the AAL corrosion prevention and corrosion control maintenance program (CPCP). For this AD, operators have an option to either replace the affected stud assemblies (that have corrosion but the corroded stud is not loose) before further flight as specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD or perform repetitive inspections as specified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD until corrective actions are done as specified in paragraph (m) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request to Add Paragraph To Specify No Reporting Is Required

    UAL requested that we add a paragraph in the proposed AD, to remove the Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1163, dated February 4, 2014, requirement to report all inspection findings to Airbus.

    We agree with the commenter's request. We have added new paragraph (q) to this AD, which states that although Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1163, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated June 22, 2015, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD does not include that requirement. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly. Although not required to do so by this AD, we recommend that operators submit such information based on the Airbus service information request. This information may be beneficial to Airbus for product improvements.

    Request To Clarify Repetitive Inspection Interval

    AAL requested clarification of the repetitive inspection interval in paragraph (l)(2) of the proposed AD. AAL stated that, if Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1163, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated June 22, 2015, was referenced in this AD, this service information includes an option for a repetitive inspection interval of 750 flight cycles.

    We agree to clarify the repetitive inspection interval in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. The 4-month repetitive inspection interval specified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD has precedence over the 750-flight-cycle interval specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1163, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated June 22, 2015. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request To Revise Corrective Actions

    Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that we revise paragraph (k) of the proposed AD to require the replacement of only the affected assembly and not the upper and lower fixed fairing forward attachment assemblies of the LH and RH MLG because of one finding on an affected assembly. DAL stated that paragraph (k) of the proposed AD places an undue burden on operators by having to replace airworthy parts because one of the affected parts was found with a finding of corrosion, wear, fatigue cracking, or loose studs.

    We agree with the commenter's request. We agree with DAL that only parts with indication of corrosion, wear, fatigue cracking, or loose studs should be replaced. We have revised paragraph (k) of this AD to require replacing discrepant upper and lower fixed fairing forward attachment stud assemblies of the LH and RH MLG.

    Request To Revise Exceptions to AD Actions

    DAL requested that we revise paragraph (o) of the proposed AD to indicate that paragraphs (g) through (n) of the proposed AD are not applicable to post-Airbus Modification 155648 configuration airplanes. DAL stated that paragraph (o) of the proposed AD provides relief from the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (i) of the proposed AD, but related paragraphs (h), (j), (k), (l), and (n) of the proposed AD are not included in the relief.

    We agree with the commenter that the intent of this AD is to not require paragraphs (g) through (n) of this AD if conditions stated in paragraph (o) of this AD are met. The requirements of paragraphs (k), (l), and (m) of this AD are conditional and will not apply to operators that are not required to do paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD. Paragraph (n) of this AD is an explanation of terminating actions. We have clarified paragraphs (h) and (j) of this AD to refer to the exempt airplanes.

    Request To Delete Paragraph (p)(1) of the Proposed AD, and Change Wording in Paragraphs (p)(1) Through (p)(4) of the Proposed AD

    DAL requested that we delete paragraph (p)(1) of the proposed AD. DAL stated that paragraph (p)(1) of the proposed AD applies to pre-Airbus Modification 27716 and pre-Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1100 configuration airplanes, but provides a requirement for post-Airbus Modification 27716 or post-Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1100 configuration airplanes, which is redundant with the requirements of paragraph (p)(2) of the proposed AD. Delta also requested that we replace the word “and” in paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) of the proposed AD with “or” to clarify the requirement and be consistent with the wording used in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD.

    We partially agree with the commenter's requests. We agree with DAL to revise paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) of this AD to replace “and” with “or.” We do not agree with deleting paragraph (p)(1) of this AD. Paragraph (p)(1) of this AD is applicable for airplanes in pre-Airbus Modification 27716 or pre-Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1100 configuration, and the parts prohibition is effective after doing the actions provided in paragraph (n)(2) of this AD. Paragraph (p)(2) of this AD is applicable for airplanes in post-Airbus Modification 27716 or post-Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1100 configuration, and the parts prohibition is effective as of the effective date of this AD. Therefore, paragraphs (p)(1) and (p)(2) of this AD are not redundant. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request To Delete Paragraph (p)(3) of the Proposed AD

    DAL requested that we delete paragraph (p)(3) of the proposed AD. DAL stated that paragraph (p)(3) of the proposed AD applies to pre-Airbus Modification 155648 and pre-Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1165 configuration airplanes, but provides a requirement for post-Airbus Modification 155648 or post-Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1165, which is redundant with the requirements of paragraph (p)(4) of the proposed AD.

    We do not agree with the commenter's request. Paragraph (p)(3) of this AD is applicable for airplanes which have not been modified to post-Airbus Modification 155648 or post-Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1165 configuration. Paragraph (p)(4) of this AD is applicable for airplanes that are in post-Airbus Modification 155648 or post-Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1165 configuration. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following service information:

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1100, Revision 01, dated March 12, 1999. This service information describes procedures for modification of the airplane to post-Airbus Modification 27716 configuration (by replacing the location stud, rod end, and location plate at the forward upper and lower leg fixed-fairing positions of the MLG door assemblies). The modification includes a resonance frequency inspection for debonding of the composite insert and delamination of the honeycomb area around the insert, and applicable corrective actions. Corrective actions include repairing the insert. The actions in this service information are an optional terminating modification.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1163, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated June 22, 2015. This service information describes procedures for inspection of the fixed fairing forward attachments of the MLG door assemblies, and replacement of the fixed fairing upper and lower attachment studs of the LH and RH MLG door assemblies.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1165, Revision 01, dated October 23, 2015, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 3, 2014, and including Appendix 02, dated October 23, 2015. This service information describes procedures for replacing the fairing attachment stud assemblies of the MLG door assembly with new assemblies. The actions in this service information are an optional terminating modification.

    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.

    Explanation of “RC” (Required for Compliance) (RC) Procedures and Tests in Service Information

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

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

    Costs of Compliance

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

    We also estimate that it will take about 18 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 $4,110 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $4,799,640, or $5,640 per product.

    We estimate that the optional terminating modification would take about 18 work-hours and require parts costing $4,110, for a cost of $5,640 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 18 work-hours and require parts costing $4,110, for a cost of $5,640 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD might 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 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-2015-2458; 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): 2016-07-23 Airbus: Amendment 39-18468. Docket No. FAA-2015-2458; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-122-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective June 6, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (1) Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.

    (3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.

    (4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of in-flight loss of fixed and hinged main landing gear (MLG) fairings, and reports of post-modification MLG fixed fairing assemblies that have wear and corrosion. We are issuing this AD to prevent in-flight detachment of an MLG fixed fairing and consequent damage to the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive Replacements

    For airplanes in pre-Airbus Modification 27716 and pre-Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1100 configuration, with any of the components installed that are identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD: At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, replace fixed fairing upper and lower attachment studs of both left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) MLG, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1163, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated June 22, 2015. Repeat the replacements thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,500 flight cycles.

    (1) Plate—support having part number (P/N) D5284024820000.

    (2) Plate—support P/N D5284024820200.

    (3) Stud—adjustment having P/N D5284024420000.

    (4) Rod end assembly (lower) having P/N D5284000500000.

    (5) Rod end assembly (upper) having P/N D5284000600000.

    (h) Compliance Times for the Requirements of Paragraph (g) of This AD

    For airplanes identified in paragraph (g) of this AD, except as provided by paragraph (o) of this AD: Do the initial replacement required by paragraph (g) of this AD at the latest of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(4) of this AD.

    (1) Before the accumulation of 6,500 total flight cycles since the airplane's first flight.

    (2) Within 6,500 flight cycles since the last installation of a pre-Airbus Modification 27716 stud on the airplane.

    (3) Within 1,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.

    (4) Within 8 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) Repetitive Inspections

    For airplanes in post-Airbus Modification 27716 or post-Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1100 configuration, with any of the components installed that are identified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD: At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (j) of this AD, do a detailed inspection of the LH and RH MLG forward stud assemblies of the fixed fairing door upper and lower forward attachments of both LH and RH MLG for indications of corrosion, wear, fatigue cracking, and loose studs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1163, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated June 22, 2015. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months. Replacement of both LH and RH MLG forward stud assemblies on an airplane, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1163, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated June 22, 2015, extends the interval for the next detailed inspection to 72 months; and the inspection must be repeated thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months.

    (1) Stud—adjustment having P/N D5285600720000.

    (2) Rod end assembly (lower) having P/N D5285600400000.

    (3) Rod end assembly (upper) having P/N D5285600500000.

    (j) Compliance Times for the Requirements of Paragraph (i) of This AD

    For airplanes identified in paragraph (i) of this AD, except as provided by paragraph (o) of this AD: Do the initial inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD at the latest of the times specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(4) of this AD.

    (1) Before the accumulation of 72 months since the airplane's first flight.

    (2) Within 72 months since the last installation of a post-Airbus Modification 27716 assembly or since accomplishment of the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1100.

    (3) Within 1,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.

    (4) Within 8 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (k) Corrective Action

    If any discrepancy (including any indication of corrosion, wear, fatigue cracking, or loose studs) of any MLG forward stud assembly is found during any inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD, except as specified in paragraph (l) of this AD: Before further flight, replace the discrepant upper and lower fixed fairing forward stud assemblies of the LH and RH MLG, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1163, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated June 22, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1165, Revision 01, dated October 23, 2015, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 3, 2014, and including Appendix 02, dated October 23, 2015.

    (l) Corrective Action or Repetitive Inspections for Certain Corrosion Findings

    If any corrosion is found during any inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD on any MLG fixed fairing forward stud assembly (upper, lower, LH or RH), but the corroded stud is not loose: Do the action specified in paragraph (l)(1) or (l)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Before further flight, replace the affected assembly, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1163, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated June 22, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1165, Revision 01, dated October 23, 2015, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 3, 2014, and including Appendix 02, dated October 23, 2015.

    (2) Within 4 months after finding corrosion, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4 months, do a detailed inspection for indications of corrosion, wear, fatigue cracking, and loose studs of the forward stud assembly of the affected (LH or RH) MLG, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1163, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated June 22, 2015.

    (m) Corrective Action for Inspections Specified in Paragraph (l)(2) of This AD

    If any indication of wear, fatigue cracking, or loose studs of any forward stud assembly is found during any inspection required by paragraph (l)(2) of this AD: Before further flight, replace the affected (LH or RH) MLG fixed fairing forward stud assembly, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1163, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated June 22, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1165, Revision 01, dated October 23, 2015, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 3, 2014, and including Appendix 02, dated October 23, 2015.

    (n) Terminating Action

    (1) Replacement of parts on an airplane, as required by paragraph (g), (k), (l)(1), or (m) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (i) of this AD, except as specified in paragraph (n)(3) of this AD.

    (2) The repetitive replacements required by paragraph (g) of this AD may be terminated by modification of the airplane to post-Airbus Modification 27716 configuration, including a resonance frequency inspection for debonding of the composite insert and delamination of the honeycomb area around the insert, and all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1100, Revision 01, dated March 12, 1999, provided all applicable corrective actions are done before further flight. Thereafter, refer to paragraph (i) of this AD to determine the compliance time for the next detailed inspection required by this AD.

    (3) Modification of an airplane, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1165, Revision 01, dated October 23, 2015, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 3, 2014, and including Appendix 02, dated October 23, 2015, constitutes terminating action for actions required by paragraphs (g) through (m) of this AD for the airplane on which the modification is done.

    (o) Exceptions to Certain AD Actions

    An airplane on which Airbus Modification 155648 has been embodied in production is not affected by the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD, provided that no affected component, identified by part number as listed paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) and (i)(1) through (i)(3) of this AD, has been installed on that airplane since first flight of the airplane.

    (p) Parts Installation Prohibition

    (1) For airplanes in pre-Airbus Modification 27716 or pre-Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1100 configuration: No person may install a component identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD on any airplane after doing the actions provided in paragraph (n)(2) of this AD.

    (2) For airplanes in post-Airbus Modification 27716 or post Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1100 configuration: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a component identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD on any airplane.

    (3) For airplanes in pre-Airbus Modification 155648 or pre-Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1165 configuration: No person may install a component identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) and (i)(1) through (i)(3) of this AD on any airplane after doing the actions provided in paragraph (n)(3) of this AD.

    (4) For airplanes in post-Airbus Modification 155648 or post-Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1165 configuration: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a component identified in (g)(1) through (g)(5) and (i)(1) through (i)(3) of this AD on any airplane.

    (q) No Reporting Requirement

    Although Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1163, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated June 22, 2015, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD does not include that requirement.

    (r) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for optional actions provided by paragraph (n)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1100, dated December 7, 1998, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (g), (i), (k), (l), and (m) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1163, dated February 4, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (s) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as specified in paragraph (q) of this AD, if any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (t) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0001R1, dated January 15, 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-2015-2458.

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

    (u) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1100, Revision 01, dated March 12, 1999.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1163, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated June 22, 2015.

    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1165, Revision 01, dated October 23, 2015, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 3, 2014, and including Appendix 02, dated October 23, 2015.

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

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 13, 2016. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09119 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3988; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-005-AD; Amendment 39-18491; AD 2016-08-15] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-17-51 for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes. AD 2014-17-51 required inspecting the inboard flap fasteners of the hinge-box forward fitting at Wing Station (WS) 76.50 and WS 127.25 to determine the orientation and condition of the fasteners, as applicable, and replacement or repetitive inspections of the fasteners if necessary. AD 2014-17-51 also provided for optional terminating action for the requirements of that AD. This new AD requires accomplishment of the previously optional terminating action. This AD was prompted by a determination that that additional action is necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct incorrectly oriented or fractured fasteners, that could result in premature failure of the fasteners attaching the inboard flap hinge-box forward fitting; failure of the fasteners could lead to the detachment of the flap hinge box and the flap surface, and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective June 6, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 6, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of November 12, 2014 (79 FR 64088, October 28, 2014).

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of March 6, 2014 (79 FR 9389, February 19, 2014).

    ADDRESSES:

    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-2015-3988.

    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-2015-3988; 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 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:

    Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion and Services Branch, ANE-173, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7329; fax 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2014-17-51, Amendment 39-17999 (79 FR 64088, October 28, 2014) (“AD 2014-17-51”). AD 2014-17-51 applied to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 19, 2015 (80 FR 63141) (“the NPRM”).

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-27R1, dated August 29, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    There have been three in-service reports on 604 Variant aeroplanes of a fractured fastener head on the inboard flap hinge-box forward fitting at Wing Station (WS) 76.50, found during a routine maintenance inspection. Investigation revealed that the installation of these fasteners on the inboard flap hinge-box forward fittings at WS 76.50 and WS 127.25, on both wings, does not conform to the engineering drawings. Incorrect installation may result in premature failure of the fasteners attaching the inboard flap hinge-box forward fitting. Failure of the fasteners could lead to the detachment of the flap hinge box and consequently the detachment of the flap surface. The loss of a flap surface could adversely affect the continued safe operation of the aeroplane.

    The original issue of [Canadian] AD CF-2013-39 [http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0054-0002] [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-03-17, Amendment 39-17754 (79 FR 9389, February 19, 2014)] mandated a detailed visual inspection (DVI) of each inboard flap hinge-box forward fitting, on both wings, and rectification as required. Incorrectly oriented fasteners require repetitive inspections until the terminating action is accomplished.

    After the issuance of [Canadian] AD CF-2013-39, there has been one reported incident on a 604 Variant aeroplane where four fasteners were found fractured on the same flap hinge-box forward fitting. The investigation determined that the fasteners were incorrectly installed.

    The original issue of this [Canadian] AD was issued to reduce the initial and repetitive inspection intervals previously mandated in [Canadian] AD CF-2013-39, and to impose replacement of the incorrectly oriented fasteners within 24 months. The CL-600-1A11, -2A12 and -2B16 (601-3A/-3R Variant) aeroplanes are addressed through [Canadian] AD CF-2013-39R1.

    Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD is issued to clarify the requirements for the initial and repetitive inspections.

    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-2015-3988.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

    Change to Paragraph (k) of This AD

    Paragraph (k) of the NPRM specified to do the replacement on “both” wings. However, the replacement only needs to be done on the affected wing on which incorrectly oriented fasteners were found but none were found to be fractured. We have revised paragraph (k) of this AD to specify accomplishing the replacement on the affected wings. We have coordinated this change with TCCA.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data 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 for correcting the unsafe condition; and

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

    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 Alert Service Bulletins:

    • A604-57-006, Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013; and

    • A605-57-004, Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013.

    The service information describes repetitive detailed visual inspections of each inboard flap fastener of the hinge-box forward fitting at WS 76.50 and WS 127.25, on both wings, and, if necessary, replacement of the fasteners. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 285 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions required by AD 2014-17-51, and retained in this AD take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2014-17-51 is $85 per product.

    We also estimate that it will take about 58 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $753 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $1,619,655, or $5,683 per product.

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

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this 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 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.

    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) 2014-17-51, Amendment 39-17999 (79 FR 64088, October 28, 2014), and adding the following new AD: 2016-08-15 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18491. Docket No. FAA-2015-3988; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-005-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 6, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    (1) This AD replaces AD 2014-17-51, Amendment 39-17999 (79 FR 64088, October 28, 2014) (“AD 2014-17-51”).

    (2) This AD affects AD 2014-03-17, Amendment 39-17754 (79 FR 9389, February 19, 2014) (“AD 2014-03-17”), only for the airplanes identified in paragraph (c) of this AD.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 5301 through 5665 inclusive, and 5701 through 5920 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of fractured fastener heads on the inboard flap hinge-box forward fitting at Wing Station (WS) 76.50 due to incorrect installation. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct incorrectly oriented or fractured fasteners, that could result in premature failure of the fasteners attaching the inboard flap hinge-box forward fitting; failure of the fasteners could lead to the detachment of the flap hinge box and the flap surface, and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Inspection, With New Service Information: Airplanes Not Previously Inspected

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-17-51, with new service information. For airplanes on which the actions required by AD 2014-03-17 have not been done as of November 12, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-17-51): Within 10 flight cycles after November 12, 2014, or within 100 flight cycles after March 6, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-03-17), whichever occurs first, do a detailed visual inspection of each inboard flap fastener of the hinge-box forward fitting at WS 76.50 and WS 127.25, on both wings, to determine if the fasteners are correctly oriented and intact (non-fractured, with intact fastener head). Do the inspection in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-57-006, Revision 01, dated September 26, 2013, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013, Revision 02, dated January 22, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013, or Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013 (for serial numbers 5301 through 5665 inclusive); or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-57-004, Revision 01, dated September 26, 2013, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013, Revision 02, dated January 22, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013, or Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013 (for serial numbers 5701 through 5920 inclusive). As of the effective date of this AD, only use Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-57-006, Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013; or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-57-004, Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013; as applicable; for the actions required by this paragraph.

    (1) If all fasteners are found intact and correctly oriented, no further action is required by this AD.

    (2) If any fastener is found fractured: Before further flight, remove and replace all forward and aft fasteners at WS 76.50 and WS 127.25, regardless of condition or orientation, on both wings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (g) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only use Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-57-006, Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013; or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-57-004, Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013; as applicable; for the actions required by this paragraph. After replacement of all fasteners as required by this paragraph of this AD, no further action is required by this AD.

    (3) If any incorrectly oriented but intact fastener is found, and no fractured fastener is found, repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10 flight cycles, until the requirements of paragraph (i)(1) or (k) of this AD have been done.

    (h) Retained Actions, With New Service Information: Airplanes Previously Inspected, Having Incorrectly Oriented Fastener(s)

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2014-17-51, with new service information. For airplanes on which an inspection required by paragraph (g) or (j) of AD 2014-03-17 has been done as of November 12, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-17-51), and on which any incorrectly oriented fastener, but no fractured fastener, was found: Except as provided by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD, do a detailed visual inspection of all inboard flap fasteners of the hinge-box forward fitting at WS 76.50 and WS 127.25, on both wings, to determine if the fasteners are intact (non-fractured, with intact fastener head). Inspect within 10 flight cycles after November 12, 2014, or within 100 flight cycles after the most recent inspection done as required by AD 2014-03-17, whichever occurs first. Inspect in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (g) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only use Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-57-006, Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013; or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-57-004, Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013; as applicable; for the actions required by this paragraph.

    (1) If all fasteners are found intact, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10 flight cycles, until the requirements of paragraph (i)(1) or (k) of this AD have been done.

    (2) If any fastener is found fractured: Before further flight, remove and replace all forward and aft fasteners at WS 76.50 and WS 127.25, regardless of condition or orientation, on both wings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (g) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only use Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-57-006, Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013; or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-57-004, Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013; as applicable; for the actions required by this paragraph. After replacement of all fasteners as required by this paragraph, no further action is required by this AD.

    (i) Retained Terminating Action, With New Service Information

    This paragraph restates the terminating action specified in paragraph (i) of AD 2014-17-51), with new service information.

    (1) Replacement of all forward and aft fasteners at WS 76.50 and WS 127.25, on both wings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (g) of this AD, terminates the requirements of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only use Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-57-006, Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013; or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-57-004, Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013; as applicable; for the actions specified in this paragraph.

    (2) Accomplishment of the applicable requirements of this AD constitutes terminating action for the requirements of AD 2014-03-17 for that airplane only.

    (3) Replacement of all fractured and incorrectly oriented fasteners before November 12, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-17-51), as provided by paragraph (i) or (k) of AD 2014-03-17, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD.

    (j) Retained Special Flight Permit Prohibition

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2014-17-51. Special flight permits to operate the airplane to a location where the airplane can be repaired in accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199 are not allowed.

    (k) New Requirement of This AD: Post-Inspection Fastener Replacement

    For airplanes on which incorrectly oriented fasteners were found during any inspection required by paragraph (g), (g)(3), (h), or (h)(1) of this AD, but none were found to be fractured: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, remove and replace all forward and aft fasteners at WS 76.50 and WS 127.25, regardless of condition or orientation, on affected wings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-57-006, Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013 (for serial numbers 5301 through 5665 inclusive); or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-57-004, Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013 (for serial numbers 5701 through 5920 inclusive). Accomplishing the requirements of this paragraph terminates the requirements of this AD.

    (l) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), and (i)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) and (l)(1)(ii) of this AD, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (i) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-57-006, Revision 03, dated August 19, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013.

    (ii) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-57-004, Revision 03, dated August 19, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (k) of this AD, if those actions were done before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i) through (l)(2)(iv) of this AD.

    (i) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-57-006, Revision 01, dated September 26, 2013, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in AD 2014-03-17.

    (ii) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-57-006, Revision 02, dated January 22, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2014-17-51.

    (iii) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-57-004, Revision 01, dated September 26, 2013, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in AD 2014-03-17.

    (iv) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-57-004, Revision 02, dated January 22, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2014-17-51.

    (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.

    (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 previously approved for AD 2014-17-51 are acceptable for the corresponding requirements 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, 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 Emergency Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-27R1, dated August 29, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3988.

    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (o)(6) and (o)(7) 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 June 6, 2016.

    (i) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-57-006, Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013.

    (ii) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-57-004, Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013.

    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on November 12, 2014 (79 FR 64088, October 28, 2014).

    (i) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-57-006, Revision 02, dated January 22, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013.

    (ii) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-57-004, Revision 02, dated January 22, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013.

    (5) The following service information was approved for IBR on March 6, 2014 (79 FR 9389, February 19, 2014).

    (i) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-57-006, Revision 01, dated September 26, 2013, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013.

    (ii) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-57-004, Revision 01, dated September 26, 2013, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013.

    (6) 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.

    (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.

    (8) 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 April 8, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08959 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1130; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-008-AD; Amendment 39-18492; AD 2015-09-04 R1] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Gliders AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are revising Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-09-04 for DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-1000T gliders equipped with a Solo Kleinmotoren Model 2350 C engine. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as engine shaft failure and consequent propeller detachment. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective June 6, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of June 6, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of May 26, 2015 (80 FR 25591, May 5, 2015).

    ADDRESSES:

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1130; 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 20590.

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH, Postfach 600152, 71050 Sindelfingen, Germany; telephone: +49 7031 301-0; fax: +49 7031 301-136; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://aircraft.solo-online.com and DG Flugzeugbau GmbH, Otto Lilienthal Weg 2/Am Flugplatz, 76646 Bruchsal, Germany; telephone: +49 7251 3020-0; fax: +49 7251 3020-200; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/ index.php?id=1329. 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 Docket No. FAA-2015-1130.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; 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 DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-1000T gliders equipped with a Solo Kleinmotoren Model 2350 C engine. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 4, 2016 (81 FR 5944), and proposed to revise AD 2015-09-04, Amendment 39-18150 (80 FR 25591, May 5, 2015).

    Since we issued AD 2015-09-04, Amendment 39-18150 (80 FR 25591, May 5, 2015), new service information has been issued that includes procedures for replacement of the excenter axle-pulley assembly and installation of an elastomeric damper element between the propeller and upper pulley. This optional modification will allow resuming engine operation.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No.: 2015-0052R1, dated November 19, 2015 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct the above-referenced unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    An occurrence of engine shaft failure and consequent propeller detachment was reported on a Solo 2350 C engine.

    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to additional cases of release of the propeller from the engine, possibly resulting in damage to the sailplane, or injury to persons on the ground.

    To address this unsafe condition, EASA issued Emergency AD 2013-0217-E to prohibit operation of the engine. That AD was later revised to introduce an optional modification, through Solo Kleinmotoren Service Bulletin (SB) 4603-14, to install a modified excenter axle-pulley assembly, allowing to resume operation of the engine.

    Since EASA AD 2013-0217R1 was issued, another occurrence of engine shaft failure and propeller detachment was reported on a Solo 2350 C engine which had been modified in accordance with Solo Kleinmotoren SB 4603-14.

    Consequently, EASA issued Emergency AD 2015-0052-E, which superseded AD 2013-0217R1, to prohibit operation of all Solo 2350 C engines, including those engines which had been modified in accordance with Solo Kleinmotoren SB 4603-14. That AD also required a one-time inspection of the propeller shaft to detect cracks and the reporting of findings.

    Since that AD was issued, Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH developed modification drawing nb. 2031211-V2 available for in service application through Solo SB 4603-17 and DG Flugzeugbau GmbH developed modifications drawing nb. 10 M 067, available for in service application through DG Flugzeugbau Technical Note (TN) 1000/26 which include replacement of excenter axle-pulley assembly and installation of an elastomeric damper element between the propeller and upper pulley.

    This AD is revised to introduce optional modifications to allow resuming operation of an engine.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-1130-0002.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (81 FR 5944, February 4, 2016) 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 the 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 (81 FR 5944, February 4, 2016) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 5944, February 4, 2016).

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR 51

    We reviewed Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Anleitung zur Inspektion (English translation: Inspection Instruction), Nr. 4603-1, Ausgabe (English translation: Dated) March 26, 2015; Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Technische Mitteilung (English translation: Service Bulletin) Nr. 4603-17, Ausgabe (English translation: Dated) July 15, 2015; and DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical note No. 1000/26, dated September 23, 2015, with 10M072 titled Propellermontage nach TM 1000-26 (English translation: Propeller assembly TN 1000-26), dated July 14, 2015. Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Anleitung zur Inspektion (English translation: Inspection Instruction), Nr. 4603-1, Ausgabe (English translation: Dated) March 26, 2015, describes procedures for inspecting the propeller shaft for cracking and reporting the results to the manufacturer. Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Techniseche Mitteilung (English translation: Service Bulletin) Nr. 4603-17, Ausgabe (English translation: Dated) July 15, 2015, describes procedures for replacement of the excenter axle-pulley assembly. DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical note No. 1000/26, dated September 23, 2015, describes procedures for removing the excenter axle-pulley assembly and sending it to Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH for modification with a new rear bearing, axle, and elastomeric damper element. 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 will affect 2 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about .5 work-hour per product to comply with the basic operational limitation requirement of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this portion of this AD on U.S. operators to be $85, or $42.50 per product.

    We also estimate that it will take about 1.5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic axle inspection (remove, inspect, and reinstall) requirement of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this portion of this AD on U.S. operators to be $255, or $127.50 per product.

    We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the optional axle with drive belt pulley unit replacement and engine test run of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $100 per product.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this optional AD action on U.S. operators to be $540, or $270 per product.

    We also estimate that it will take about .5 work-hour per product to comply with the removal of the operational limitation requirement after doing the optional replacement of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD action on U.S. operators to be $85, or $42.50 per product.

    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 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 by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1130; 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 the NPRM, 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.

    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 Amendment 39-18150 (80 FR 25591, May 5, 2015) and adding the following new AD: 2015-09-04 R1 DG Flugzeugbau GmbH: Amendment 39-18492; Docket No. FAA-2015-1130; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-008-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 6, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-09-04, Amendment 39-18150 (80 FR 25591, May 5, 2015) (“AD 2015-09-04”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-1000T gliders, all serial numbers, that are:

    (1) Equipped with a Solo Kleinmotoren Model 2350 C engine; and

    (2) Certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 72: Engine.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as engine shaft failure with consequent propeller detachment. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the engine shaft with consequent propeller detachment, which could result in damage to the glider or injury of persons on the ground.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions:

    (1) As of November 25, 2013 (the effective date retained from AD 2013-22-14, Amendment 39-17646 (78 FR 65869, November 4, 2013)), do not operate the engine unless the engine is modified following instructions that are FAA-approved specifically for this AD.

    (2) Modification of an engine following the instructions in Solo Kleinmotoren Service Bulletin 4603-14, dated April 28, 2014, is not an acceptable modification to comply with paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

    (3) As of May 26, 2015 (the effective date retained from AD 2015-09-04), place a copy of this AD into the Limitations section of the aircraft flight manual (AFM).

    (4) Within the next 30 days after May 26, 2015 (the effective date retained from AD 2015-09-04), do a one-time inspection (magnetic particle or dye penetrant) of the propeller shaft following Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Anleitung zur Inspektion (English translation: Inspection Instruction), Nr. 4603-1, Ausgabe (English translation: dated) March 26, 2015.

    Note 1 to paragraph (f)(4) of this AD:

    This service information contains German to English translation. The EASA used the English translation in referencing the document. For enforceability purposes, we will refer to the Solo Kleinmotoren service information as it appears on the document.

    (5) Within the next 30 days after May 26, 2015 (the effective date retained from AD 2015-09-04), report the results of the inspection required in paragraph (f)(4) of this AD to Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH. Include the serial number of the engine and the operational time since change of the axle in your report. You may find contact information for Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH in paragraph (i)(5) of this AD.

    (6) At any time after June 6, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), you may modify the engine following Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Techniseche Mitteilung (English translation: Service Bulletin) Nr. 4603-17, Ausgabe (English translation: Dated) July 15, 2015; and DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical note No. 1000/26, dated September 23, 2015, with 10M072 titled Propellermontage nach TM 1000-26 (English translation: Propeller assembly TN 1000-26), dated July 14, 2015. This modification allows engine operation.

    Note 2 to paragraph (f)(6) of this AD:

    This service information contains German to English translation. The EASA used the English translation in referencing the document. For enforceability purposes, we will refer to the Solo Kleinmotoren service information and the DG Flugzeugbau GmbH as it appears on the document.

    (7) Before further flight after doing the modification allowed in (f)(6) of this AD, remove the AD placed into the Limitations section of the AFM as required in paragraph (f)(3) of this AD.

    (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to 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.

    (h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2015-0052R1, dated November 19, 2015, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-1130-0002.

    (i) 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.

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on June 6, 2016.

    (i) Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Techniseche Mitteilung (English translation: Service Bulletin) Nr. 4603-17, Ausgabe (English translation: Dated) July 15, 2015.

    Note 3 to paragraphs (i)(3)(i) and (i)(3)(ii) of this AD:

    This service information contains German to English translation. The EASA used the English translation in referencing the document. For enforceability purposes, we will refer to the Solo Kleinmotoren service information and the DG Flugzeugbau GmbH as it appears on the document.

    (ii) DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical note No. 1000/26, dated September 23, 2015, with 10M072 titled Propellermontage nach TM 1000-26 (English translation: Propeller assembly TN 1000-26), dated July 14, 2015.

    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on May 26, 2015 (80 FR 25591, May 5, 2015).

    (i) Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Anleitung zur Inspektion (English translation: Inspection Instruction), Nr. 4603-1, Ausgabe (English translation: Dated) March 26, 2015.

    Note 4 to paragraph (i)(4)(i) of this AD:

    This service information contains German to English translation. The EASA used the English translation in referencing the document. For enforceability purposes, we will refer to the Solo Kleinmotoren service information as it appears on the document.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH, Postfach 600152, 71050 Sindelfingen, Germany; telephone: +49 7031 301-0; fax: +49 7031 301-136; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://aircraft.solo-online.com/com.

    (6) 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. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1130.

    (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 Kansas City, Missouri, on April 11, 2016. Melvin Johnson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08961 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD 20 CFR Part 356 RIN 3220-AB68 Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment AGENCY:

    Railroad Retirement Board.

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by Section 701 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, entitled the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, the Railroad Retirement Board (Board) hereby amends its regulations to provide for adjustments in the minimum and maximum amounts of civil monetary penalties under the Board's jurisdiction. The amendment will increase the amount of penalties to adjust for inflation since the Board last adjusted its penalty amounts, and will provide the formula to be used for required annual adjustments in the penalty amounts.

    DATES:

    Effective August 1, 2016. Comments must be received on or before July 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3220-AB68, by any of the following methods:

    1. Internet—Send comments via email to [email protected]

    2. Fax—(312) 751-3336.

    3. Mail—Secretary to the Board, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 N. Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092.

    Do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method. Regardless of which method you choose, please state that your comments refer to RIN 3220-AB68.

    Caution: You should be careful to include in your comments only information that you wish to make publicly available as comments are posted without change, with any personal information provided. The Board strongly urges you not to include in your comments any personal information, such as Social Security numbers or medical information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marguerite P. Dadabo, Assistant General Counsel, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, IL 60611-2092, (312) 751-4945, TTD (312) 751-4701.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 701 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, Public Law 114-74 (Nov. 2, 2015), entitled the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Act), amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note) (Inflation Adjustment Act) to require agencies to publish regulations adjusting the amount of civil monetary penalties provided by law within the jurisdiction of the agency not later than July 1, 2016. The penalties authorized by the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq. (PFCRA), and the False Claims Act provisions at 31 U.S.C. 3729(a), are within the Board's jurisdiction, and the Board accordingly publishes this interim final rule in compliance with the 2015 Act.

    This interim final rule is being issued without prior public notice or opportunity for public comments. The 2015 Act's amendments to the Inflation Adjustment Act require the agency to adjust penalties initially through an interim final rulemaking, which does not require the agency to complete a notice and comment process prior to promulgating the interim final rule. The amendments also explicitly require the agency to make subsequent annual adjustments notwithstanding 5 U.S.C. 553 (the section of the Administrative Procedure Act that normally requires agencies to engage in notice and comment). Additionally, the formula used for adjusting the amount of civil penalties is given by statute, with no discretion provided to the Board regarding the substance of the adjustments. The Board is charged only with performing ministerial computations to determine the amount of adjustment to the civil penalties due to increases in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U).

    Prior Adjustment History

    The Board last adjusted the civil penalties under its jurisdiction effective October 23, 1996, pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act, when the maximum penalty under the PFCRA was adjusted from $5,000 to $5,500 and the minimum and maximum penalties under 31 U.S.C. 3729 were adjusted from $5,000 to $5,500 and from $10,000 to $11,000, respectively. While the formula used to calculate these adjustments initially yielded higher final penalty amounts, the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-134, limited the amount of these previous adjustments to no more than 10 percent of the penalty amount or range, as appropriate. Therefore, the penalties were increased by the statutory maximum of 10 percent. Prior to the October 23, 1996 adjustment, the Board last set or adjusted these penalty levels in 1986.

    Initial Adjustment Under the 2015 Act

    For the first adjustment made in accordance with the 2015 Act, the amount of the adjustment is calculated based on the percent change between the CPI-U for October of the last year in which penalties were previously adjusted (not including any adjustment made pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act before November 2, 2015), and the CPI-U for October 2015. The 10 percent cap on adjustments imposed by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 has been eliminated by the 2015 Act. Instead, the 2015 Act imposes a cap on the amount of this initial adjustment, such that the amount of the increase may not exceed 150 percent of the pre-adjustment penalty amount or range. As a result, the total penalty amount or range after the initial adjustment under the 2015 Act may not exceed 250 percent of the pre-adjustment penalty amount or range.

    For purposes of the initial adjustment under the 2015 Act, the Board last set or adjusted the amount of civil penalties in 1986. The 1996 adjustment must be disregarded for these calculations because that adjustment was made pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act and subject to the 10 percent cap imposed by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996. Between October 1986 and October 2015, the CPI-U has increased by 215.628 percent. The post-adjustment penalty amount or range is obtained by multiplying the pre-adjustment penalty amount or range by the percent change in the CPI-U over the relevant time period, and rounding to the nearest dollar. Therefore, the new, post-adjustment maximum penalty under the PFCRA is $5,000 × 2.15628 = $10,781.40, which rounds to $10,781. The new, post-adjustment minimum penalty under 31 U.S.C. 3729 is $5,000 × 2.15628 = $10,781.40, which rounds to $10,781. The new, post-adjustment maximum penalty under 31 U.S.C. 3729 is $10,000 × 2.15628 = $21,562.80, which rounds to $21,563. The new, post-adjustment penalties are less than 250 percent of the pre-adjustment penalties, so the limitation on the amount of the adjustment is not implicated. Therefore, the maximum penalty under the PFRCA for claims or statements made after August 1, 2016 will be $10,781, and the minimum and maximum penalties for false claims under 31 U.S.C. 3729 will be $10,781 and $21,563 respectively.

    Subsequent Annual Adjustments

    The 2015 Act also requires agencies to make annual adjustments to civil penalty amounts no later than January 15 of each year following the initial adjustment described above. The 2015 Act requires that these subsequent annual adjustments shall be made “notwithstanding section 553 of title 5, United States Code.” As noted earlier, this provision in the 2015 Act eliminates the requirement for public notice or opportunity for public comment prior to the publication of the final adjustment.

    For subsequent adjustments made in accordance with the 2015 Act, the amount of the adjustment is based on the percent increase between the CPI-U for the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment and the CPI-U for the October one year prior to the October immediately preceding the date of the adjustment. If there is no increase, there is no adjustment of civil penalties. Therefore, if the Board adjusts penalties in January 2017, the adjustment will be calculated based on the percent change between the CPI-U for October 2016 (the October immediately preceding the date of adjustment) and October 2015 (the October one year prior to October 2016). The Board will publish the amount of these annual inflation adjustments in the Federal Register no later than January 15 of each year, starting in 2017.

    Regulatory Procedures Executive Order 12866, as Supplemented by Executive Order 13563

    The Board, with the concurrence of the Office of Management and Budget, has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, no regulatory impact analysis is required.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Board certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects individuals only. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This interim final rule imposes no reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to OMB clearance.

    List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 356

    Claims, Penalties.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Railroad Retirement Board revises title 20, chapter II, subchapter E, part 356 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:

    PART 356—CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY INFLATION ADJUSTMENT Sec. 356.1 Introduction. 356.2 Penalties under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986. 356.3 False claims. Authority:

    28 U.S.C. 2461; 31 U.S.C. 3729, 3809.

    § 356.1 Introduction.

    (a) The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note), requires that civil monetary penalties be adjusted on an annual basis by the percentage by which the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October preceding the adjustment exceeds the CPI-U for the month of October of the calendar year prior to the October preceding the adjustment, with final amounts rounded to the nearest dollar. That Act also requires a one-time catch up adjustment in the amount of the percentage by which the CPI-U for October 2015 exceeds the CPI-U for the month of October of the calendar year during which the amount of civil monetary penalty was established or adjusted under a provision of law other than the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act.

    (b) Other than adjustments under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act, the Board last established or adjusted civil monetary penalties in 1986. The CPI-U increased by 215.628 percent between October 1986 and October 2015.

    (c) Imposition of the increased civil monetary penalties are limited to actions occurring after the effective date of the increases.

    (d) The amount of the one-time catch up adjustment may not exceed 150 percent of the penalty amount or range as of November 2, 2015. The ten percent cap on increases imposed by the Debt Collection Improvements Act of 1996 was eliminated in the 2015 amendments to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act, and is no longer applicable.

    § 356.2 Penalties under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986.

    (a) For claims or statements made on or before October 23, 1996, the maximum penalty which may be assessed under part 355 of this chapter is $5,000.

    (b) For claims or statements made after October 23, 1996, but before August 1, 2016, the maximum penalty which may be assessed under part 355 of this chapter is $5,500.

    (c) For claims or statements made on or after August 1, 2016, but before January 1, 2017, the maximum penalty which may be assessed under part 355 of this chapter is $10,781.

    (d) For claims or statements made on or after January 1, 2017, the maximum penalty which may be assessed under part 355 of this chapter is the larger of:

    (1) The amount for the previous calendar year; or

    (2) An amount adjusted for inflation, calculated by multiplying the amount for the previous calendar year by the percentage by which the CPI-U for the month of October preceding the current calendar year exceeds the CPI-U for the month of October of the calendar year two years prior to the current calendar year, adding that amount to the amount for the previous calendar year, and rounding the total to the nearest dollar.

    (e) Notice of the maximum penalty which may be assessed under part 355 of this chapter for calendar years after 2016 will be published by the Board in the Federal Register on an annual basis on or before January 15 of each calendar year.

    § 356.3 False claims.

    (a) For claims or statements made on or before October 23, 1996, the minimum penalty which may be assessed under 31 U.S.C. 3729 is $5,000 and the maximum penalty is $10,000.

    (b) For claims or statements made after October 23, 1996, but before August 1, 2016, the minimum penalty which may be assessed under 31 U.S.C. 3729 is $5,500 and the maximum penalty is $11,000.

    (c) For claims or statements made on or after August 1, 2016, but before January 1, 2017, the minimum penalty which may be assessed under 31 U.S.C. 3729 is $10,781 and the maximum penalty is $21,563.

    (d) For claims or statements made on or after January 1, 2017, the minimum and maximum penalty amounts which may be assessed under 31 U.S.C. 3729 is the larger of:

    (1) The amount for the previous calendar year; or

    (2) An amount adjusted for inflation, calculated by multiplying the amount for the previous calendar year by the percentage by which the CPI-U for the month of October preceding the current calendar year exceeds the CPI-U for the month of October of the calendar year two years prior to the current calendar year, adding that amount to the amount for the previous calendar year, and rounding the total to the nearest dollar.

    (e) Notice of the minimum and maximum penalty which may be assessed under 31 U.S.C. 3729 for calendar years after 2016 will be published by the Board in the Federal Register on an annual basis on or before January 15 of each calendar year.

    By Authority of the Board.

    Martha P. Rico, Secretary to the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09959 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0139] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Long Creek & Sloop Channel, Hempstead, NY AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation; modification.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has modified a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Loop Parkway Bridge, mile 0.7, across Long Creek, and the Meadowbrook State Parkway Bridge, mile 12.8, across Sloop Channel, both at Hempstead, New York. This modified deviation is necessary to facilitate the Dee Snider's Motorcycle Ride to Fight Hunger on Long Island.

    DATES:

    This modified deviation is effective from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. on October 2, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this modified deviation, [USCG-2016-0139] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Judy K. Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514-4330, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On February 29, 2016, the Coast Guard published a temporary deviation entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Long Creek & Sloop Channel, Hempstead, NY” in the Federal Register (81 FR 10086). The sponsor, Long Island Cares, Inc., has rescheduled the event from its original date of September 18, 2016 to October 2, 2016.

    Long Island Cares, Inc. requested and the bridge owner for both bridges, the State of New York Department of Transportation, concurred with this modified temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate a public event, the Dee Snider's Motorcycle Ride to Fight Hunger.

    The Loop Parkway Bridge, mile 0.7, across Long Creek has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 21 feet at mean high water and 25 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.799(f).

    The Meadowbrook State Parkway Bridge, mile 12.8, across Sloop Channel has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 22 feet at mean high water and 25 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.799(h).

    Long Creek and Sloop Channel are transited by commercial fishing and recreational vessel traffic.

    Under this modified temporary deviation, the Loop Parkway and the Meadowbrook State Parkway Bridges may remain in the closed position between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. on October 2, 2016.

    Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridges will not be able to open for emergencies and there are no immediate alternate routes for vessels to pass.

    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: April 27, 2016. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10204 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 21 RIN 2900-AP65 Technical Corrections—VA Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Nomenclature Change for Position Title AGENCY:

    Department of Veterans Affairs.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Veterans Affairs is amending its regulations by making nonsubstantive changes to ensure consistency within its regulations regarding a nomenclature change in the title of a Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment position.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: This final rule is effective May 2, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    C.J. Riley, Policy Analyst, Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Service (28), Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-9600. (This is not a toll-free telephone number.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In January 2000, the name of VA's program, Vocational Rehabilitation and Counseling (VR&C), responsible for assisting veterans with service-connected disabilities to obtain and maintain suitable employment and achieve maximum independence in daily living was changed to Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E). This change reflects the major goal of the program by focusing on employment. As outlined by VA's Office of Field Operations (OFO) in OFO Letter 20F-11-09, a National Journey-Level Counseling Psychologist (CP)/Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC) Performance Plan was implemented on December 16, 2003. The performance plan described how the job duties and qualifications for a CP and VRC were the same. As a result, the position description for CP was amended to include the synonymous title of VRC. Since this change, VA has updated several regulations to include this synonymous title. To ensure consistency within the regulations, this final rule amends VA regulations to reflect this nomenclature change in the title for this VR&E position.

    VA is also correcting two spelling mistakes. In 38 CFR 21.94(b), VA corrects the spelling of the word “statement.” The current text misspells “statement” as “staement.” In § 21.4232(a)(2)(i), VA corrects the spelling of “Rehabilation” to read “Rehabilitation”. No substantive changes are intended by these amendments.

    Administrative Procedure Act

    This final rule concerns only agency organization, procedure, or practice and, therefore, is not subject to the notice and comment provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(b). See 38 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). This final rule consists of only nonsubstantive changes that will make the regulations more accurate and less confusing to readers. For this reason, VA has also determined that there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay effective date requirement under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    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” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”

    The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this 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 Fiscal Year to Date.”

    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 directly affect only individuals and will not directly affect small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the 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 one 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 number and title for the program affected by this final rule is 64.116, Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans.

    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 D. Snyder, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on April 21, 2016, for publication.

    List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 21

    Administrative practice and procedure, Armed forces, Civil rights, Claims, Colleges and universities, Conflict of interests, Education, Employment, Grant programs—education, Grant programs—veterans, Health care, Loan programs—education, Loan programs—veterans, Manpower training programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans, Vocational education, Vocational rehabilitation.

    Dated: April 26, 2016. William F. Russo, Director, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 21 as follows:

    PART 21—VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION Subpart A—Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 31 1. The authority citation for part 21, subpart A, continues to read as follows: Authority:

    38 U.S.C. 501(a), chs. 18, 31, and as noted in specific sections.

    § 21.53 [Amended]
    2. Amend § 21.53 by: a. In the first sentence of paragraph (f), removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologist (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC)”. b. In the last sentence of paragraph (f), removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “CP or VRC”. c. In paragraph (g) introductory text, removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “CP or VRC”.
    § 21.57 [Amended]
    3. Amend § 21.57(d) by removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologist (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC)”.
    § 21.60 [Amended]
    4. Amend § 21.60 by: a. In paragraph (b)(1), removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologist (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC)”. b. In paragraph (e)(1), removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “CP or VRC”.
    § 21.72 [Amended]
    5. Amend § 21.72 by: a. In the first sentence of paragraph (c)(1), removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologist (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC)”. b. In the second sentence of paragraph (c)(2), removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “CP or VRC”. c. In paragraph (d)(2), removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “CP or VRC”.
    § 21.74 [Amended]
    6. Amend § 21.74 by: a. In paragraph (c)(1), removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologist (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC)”. b. In paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3), removing all references to “counseling psychologist” and adding, in each place, “CP or VRC”.
    § 21.76 [Amended]
    7. Amend the first sentence of § 21.76(b) by removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologist (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC)”.
    § 21.78 [Amended]
    8. Amend the first sentence of § 21.78(d) by removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologist (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC)”.
    § 21.92 [Amended]
    9. Amend § 21.92 by: a. In paragraph (b), removing “counseling psychologist,” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologist (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC)”. b. In paragraph (c), removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “CP or VRC”. c. In paragraph (d), removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “CP or VRC”.
    § 21.94 [Amended]
    10. Amend § 21.94 by: a. In paragraph (a), removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologist (CP), Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC),”. b. In the first sentence of paragraph (b) introductory text, removing “staement” and adding, in its place, “statement”, and removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “CP or VRC”.
    § 21.98 [Amended]
    11. Amend § 21.98(b) introductory text by removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologist (CP), the Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC),”.
    § 21.100 [Amended]
    12. Amend § 21.100 by: a. In paragraph (d)(1), removing “counseling psychologists” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologists (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors (VRC)”. b. In paragraph (d)(3)(ii), removing “counseling psychologists” and adding, in its place, “a CP or VRC”. c. In paragraph (d)(4), removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “CP or VRC”.
    § 21.180 [Amended]
    13. Amend the second sentence of § 21.180(c) by removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologist (CP), Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC),”.
    § 21.274 [Amended]
    14. Amend § 21.274(e)(1) by removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologist (CP), Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC),”.
    § 21.299 [Amended]
    15. Amend the second sentence of § 21.299(a) by removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologist (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC)”.
    § 21.364 [Amended]
    16. Amend the second sentence of § 21.364(a) introductory text by removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologist (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC)”.
    § 21.380 [Amended]
    17. Amend § 21.380(a)(1) by removing “Counseling psychologists” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologists (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors (VRC)”.
    Subpart C—Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance Under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 35 18. The authority citation for part 21, subpart C, continues to read as follows: Authority:

    38 U.S.C. 501(a), 512, 3500-3566, and as noted in specific sections.

    § 21.3102 [Amended]
    19. Amend § 21.3102(a) by removing “VA counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologist (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC)”.
    § 21.3301 [Amended]
    20. Amend § 21.3301(e) by removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologist (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC)”.
    Subpart D—Administration of Educational Assistance Programs 21. The authority citation for part 21, subpart D, continues to read as follows: Authority:

    10 U.S.C. 2141 note, ch. 1606; 38 U.S.C. 501(a), chs. 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and as noted in specific sections.

    § 21.4232 [Amended]
    22. Amend § 21.4232 by: a. In paragraph (a)(2) introductory text, removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologist (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC)”. b. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), removing “Rehabilation” and adding, in its place, “Rehabilitation”. c. In paragraphs (a)(3) and (d), removing all references to “counseling psychologist” and adding, in each place, “CP or VRC”.
    Subpart I—Temporary Program of Vocational Training for Certain New Pension Recipients 23. The authority citation for part 21, subpart I, continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Pub. L. 98-543, 38 U.S.C. 501 and chapter 15, sections specifically cited, unless otherwise noted.

    24. Amend § 21.6005 by adding a paragraph (j)(10) to read as follows:
    § 21.6005 Definitions.

    (j) * * *

    (10) Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor.

    § 21.6052 [Amended]
    25. Amend § 21.6052 by: a. In paragraph (b)(1), removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologist (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC)”. b. In paragraph (c), removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “CP or VRC”.
    § 21.6056 [Amended]
    26. Amend § 21.6056 by: a. In the last sentence of paragraph (a), removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologist (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC)”. b. In the first sentence in paragraph (b), removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “CP or VRC”. c. In the first sentence in paragraph (c), removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “CP or VRC”.
    § 21.6059 [Amended]
    27. Amend § 21.6059 by: a. In paragraph (b)(1), removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologist (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC)”. b. In paragraph (b)(2), removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “CP or VRC”.
    § 21.6070 [Amended]
    28. Amend § 21.6070 by: a. In the first sentence in paragraph (b), removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologist (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC)”. b. In paragraph (e) introductory text, removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “CP or VRC”.
    § 21.6072 [Amended]
    29. Amend § 21.6072(d)(2) by removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologist (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC)”.
    § 21.6080 [Amended]
    30. Amend § 21.6080(d) introductory text by removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologist (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC)”.
    Subpart J—Temporary Program of Vocational Training and Rehabilitation 31. The authority citation for part 21, subpart J, continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Pub. L. 98-543, sec. 111; 38 U.S.C. 1163; Pub. L. 100-687, sec. 1301, unless otherwise noted.

    § 21.6509 [Amended]
    32. Amend § 21.6509(d) by removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologist (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC)”.
    § 21.6515 [Amended]
    33. Amend the first sentence of § 21.6515(a) by removing “counseling psychologist” and adding, in its place, “Counseling Psychologist (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC)”.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10112 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0127; FRL-9945-44-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; State Board Requirements AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision removes the current SIP approved state board requirements and replaces them with an updated version of the requirements. The new provisions continue to address state board requirements for all the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The revision is being done because the Maryland legislature revised Maryland's statutory requirements related to state boards and the State wants the most recent version in its SIP. EPA is approving these revisions to state board requirements in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on July 1, 2016 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by June 1, 2016. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0127 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ruth Knapp, (215) 814-2191, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Section 128 of the CAA requires SIPs to comply with requirements for state boards. Section 128(a) requires SIPs to contain provisions that: (1) Any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA shall have at least a majority of its members represent the public interest and not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders under the CAA; and (2) any potential conflict of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed. The requirements of section 128(a)(1) are not applicable to Maryland because it does not have any board or body which approves air quality permits or enforcement orders. The requirements of section 128(a)(2), however, are applicable because the heads of the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) and the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) or their designees approve permits or enforcement orders.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On February 17, 2016, the State of Maryland submitted a formal revision (#16-03) to its SIP. The SIP revision submittal requests EPA to remove the currently approved state board statutory provisions and replace them in the Maryland SIP with the updated statutory provisions so that the SIP includes the most recent state statutes that are applicable to the section 128 CAA requirements pertaining to state boards.

    On December 6, 2013 (78 FR 73442), EPA approved a Maryland SIP revision which addressed the requirements of section 128 of the CAA. The 2013 revision incorporated portions of the Annotated Code of Maryland Title 15 (Public Ethics) into the Maryland SIP. Subsequently, Maryland made revisions to its Annotated Code which included relocating the ethics provisions from Title 15 to Title 5, as well as minor wording changes. Maryland is requesting that EPA remove the previously approved portions of Title 15 from its SIP and replace those provisions with the most recent portions of the Annotated Code of Maryland Title 5 (Maryland Public Ethics Laws) which address CAA section 128 requirements. The Secretary of MDE and the state employees subordinate to that position, as well as state employees at the PSC are subject to the requirements of Title 5.

    EPA is removing the previously approved portions of Title 15, including these portions of: Subtitle 1, sections 15-102 and 15-103; and subtitle 6, sections 15-601, 15-602, 15-607, and 15-608. In order to continue to meet the requirements of CAA section 128, EPA is incorporating as requested by Maryland the relevant ethics provisions of Title 5 (Maryland Public Ethics Laws) including portions of: Subtitle 1, sections 5-101, 5-103; Subtitle 2, section 5-208; Subtitle 5, section 5-501; and Subtitle 6, sections 5-601, 5-602, 5-606, 5-607, and 5-608. The State effective date for all these provisions in Title 5 of the Maryland Annotated Code subsections is October 1, 2014.

    III. EPA's Analysis of Maryland's SIP Revision

    Section 128(a)(2) requires that each state SIP demonstrate that the head of all boards, bodies or heads of executive agencies which approve CAA permits or enforcement orders disclose any potential conflicts of interest. The Secretary of MDE or his/her designee approves all CAA permits or enforcement orders in Maryland with the exception of pre-construction permits for electric generating stations that receive a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) from the PSC. MDE is an executive agency that acts through its Secretary or a delegated subordinate employee. The PSC also acts through its Commissioners or delegated subordinates to approve permits. In the February 17, 2016 SIP revision submittal, Maryland requested removal of outdated provisions of Title 15 of the Annotated Code which address disclosure of conflicts of interest as required by section 128 of the CAA and submitted recently revised provisions of Title 5 of the Annotated Code of Maryland for inclusion into the SIP as required to continue to address requirements in section 128 of the CAA. Title 5 of the Annotated Code of Maryland applies to state employees including the head of the Maryland executive agencies or their delegatees who approve CAA permits or enforcement orders and requires the disclosure of relevant financial information including the disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest. The February 17, 2016 SIP revision submittal reflects existing Maryland law and demonstrates that Maryland complies with the requirements of section 128 of the CAA through the Maryland Title 5 requirements for adequate disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. The revisions made only minor wording changes to the Maryland disclosure of conflict of interest provisions and moved these disclosure provisions from Title 15 to Title 5 of the Annotated Code.

    IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving Maryland's SIP revision that removes outdated state board provisions addressing disclosure of conflicts of interest by persons or entities within Maryland who approve permits and enforcement orders with recently revised and currently effective similar statutory provisions also addressing state board requirements for section 128 of the CAA including disclosure of conflicts of interest. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on July 1, 2016 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 1, 2016. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rulemaking action, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the relevant portions of Title 5 of the Annotated Code of Maryland as described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or may be viewed at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 1, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking action. This action updating the Maryland SIP provisions to address state board requirements in section 128 of the CAA for all the NAAQS may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: April 8, 2016, Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart V—Maryland 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by: a. Removing the entries under heading “State Government Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland” for Sections 15-102, 15-103, 15-601, 15-602, 15-607, 15-608; and b. Adding entries under heading “State Government Article Annotated Code of Maryland” for Sections 5-101, 5-103, 5-208, 5-501, 5-601, 5-602, 5-606, 5-607, and 5-608.

    The additions read as follows:

    § 52.1070 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Regulations, Technical Memoranda, and Statutes in the Maryland SIP Annotated Code of Maryland Citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation/citation at 40 CFR 52.1100 *         *         *         *         *         *         * State Government Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland Section 5-101 (a),(e),(f), (g)(1)and (2), (h), (i), (j), (m), (n), (p), (s),(t),(bb), (ff),(gg), (ll) Definitions 10/01/14 05/02/16 [Insert Federal Register citation] Added; addresses CAA section 128. Section 5-103(a) through (c) Designation of Individuals as Public Officials 10/01/14 05/02/16 [Insert Federal Register citation] Added; addresses CAA section 128. Section 5-208(a) Determination of public official in executive agency 10/01/14 05/02/16 [Insert Federal Register citation] Added; addresses CAA section 128. Section 5-501(a) and (c) Restrictions on participation 10/01/14 05/02/16 [Insert Federal Register citation] Added; addresses CAA section 128. Section 5-601(a) Individuals required to file statement 10/01/14 05/02/16 [Insert Federal Register citation] Added; addresses CAA section 128. Section 5-602(a) Financial Disclosure Statement—Filing Requirements 10/01/14 05/02/16 [Insert Federal Register citation] Added; addresses CAA section 128. Section 5-606(a) Public Records 10/01/14 05/02/16 [Insert Federal Register citation] Added; addresses CAA section 128. Section 5-607(a) through (j) Content of statements 10/01/14 05/02/16 [Insert Federal Register citation] Added; addresses CAA section 128. Section 5-608(a) through (c) Interests attributable to individual filing statement 10/01/14 05/02/16 [Insert Federal Register citation] Added; addresses CAA section 128.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09438 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0030; FRL-9942-47] Carfentrazone-ethyl; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of Carfentrazone-ethyl in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective May 2, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before July 1, 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-2015-0030, 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.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0030 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 July 1, 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-2015-0030, 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 May 20, 2015 (80 FR 28925) (FRL-9927-39), 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 4E8337) by Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide carfentrazone-ethyl, (ethyl-alpha-2-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-,2,4-triazol-1-yl]-4-fluorobenzenepropanoate) and the metabolite carfentrazone-ethyl chloropropionic acid (a, 2-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl]-4-fluorobenzenepropanoic acid), in or on the raw agricultural commodity artichoke at 0.10 parts per million (ppm); asparagus at 0.25 ppm; peppermint, tops at 0.25 ppm; spearmint, tops at 0.25 ppm; teff, grain at 0.25 ppm; teff, forage at 1.00 ppm; teff, hay at 0.30 ppm; teff, straw at 0.10 ppm; vegetable, bulb, group 3-07 at 0.10 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.10 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.10 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.10 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.10 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 0.10 ppm; bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 0.10 ppm; fruit, small vine climbing, subgroup 13-07F, except fuzzy kiwi fruit at 0.10 ppm; berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G at 0.10 ppm; nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.10 ppm; oilseed group 20 at 0.20 ppm; grain, cereal forage group 16 at 1.0 ppm; grain, cereal, hay, group 16 at 0.30 ppm; grain cereal, stover, group 16 at 0.80 ppm; and grain, cereal, straw, group 16 at 3.0 ppm.

    The petitioner also proposed to amend the tolerance for banana from 0.20 ppm to 0.10 ppm and to remove the following established tolerances: Vegetable, bulb group 3 at 0.10 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 0.10 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.10 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.10 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.10 ppm; berry group 13 at 0.10 ppm; borage at 0.10 ppm; grape at 0.10 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13A at 0.10 ppm; nut, tree group 14 at 0.10 ppm; pistachio at 0.10 ppm; pummelo at 0.10 ppm; kiwi fruit at 0.10 ppm; canola at 0.10 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.20 ppm; crambe, seed at 0.10 ppm; flax, seed at 0.10 ppm; rapeseed, seed at 0.10 ppm; okra at 0.10 ppm; safflower seed at 0.10 ppm; salal at 0.10 ppm; sunflower seed at 0.10 ppm; strawberry at 0.10 ppm; juneberry at 0.10 ppm; lingonberry at 0.10 ppm; mustard, seed at 0.10 ppm; barley bran at 0.80 ppm; barley, flour at 0.80 ppm; corn, field, forage at 0.20 ppm; corn, sweet, forage at 0.20 ppm, corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husk removed at 0.10 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw group 16, except corn and sorghum; forage at 1.0 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16, hay at 0.30 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16, stover at 0.30 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16, except rice; straw at 0.10 ppm; grain, cereal, group 15 at 0.10 ppm; grain, cereal, stover at 0.80 ppm; grain, cereal, straw at 3.0 ppm; millet, flour at 0.80 ppm; oat, flour at 0.80 ppm; rice, straw at 1.0 ppm; rye, bran at 0.80 ppm; rye, flour at 0.80 ppm; sorghum, forage at 0.20 ppm; sorghum, sweet at 0.10 ppm; wheat, bran at 0.80 ppm; wheat, flour at 0.80 ppm; wheat, germ at 0.80 ppm; wheat, middlings at 0.80 ppm; and wheat, shorts at 0.80 ppm.

    In the Federal Register of October 21, 2015 (80 FR 63731) (FRL-9935-29), EPA amended the initial notice of filing for pesticide petition (PP 4E8337) to include a proposal to also establish a tolerance in or on the raw agricultural commodity quinoa, grain at 0.10 ppm and psyllium, seed at 0.10 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by FMC Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. EPA received two comments on the notice of filing that supported the establishment of these tolerances.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has changed some of the levels proposed. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

    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 carfentrazone-ethyl including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with carfentrazone-ethyl 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.

    In mammals, protoporphyrinogen oxidase, (PPO) is an important enzyme in heme biosynthesis and its inhibition can lead to toxic effects where heme is utilized (e.g., red blood cells). The mammalian toxicity database for carfentrazone-ethyl indicates that effects observed following repeated oral exposures are consistent with those expected from PPO inhibition, toxicity of the hematopoietic system and liver.

    Subchronic oral toxicity studies in rats, mice, and dogs demonstrated that the primary effects were on hematopoietic system (decreased mean corpuscular hemoglobin and mean corpuscular volume). There was also increased urinary porphyrin excretion, increased liver weights, and alterations in liver histopathology consisting of: Hepatic pigment deposition, hepatocytomegaly, single cell necrosis, and cell mitosis. Similarly, chronic toxicity studies in rats and dogs demonstrated increased urinary porphyrin excretion. Chronic studies in rats and mice found liver histopathology (pigment deposits) and fluorescence microscopy of liver sections revealed red fluorescent granules consistent with porphyrin deposits. There were no indicators of targeted effects on the immune system. The results of the acute neurotoxicity study indicated clinical signs (i.e., salivation) and mild decreases in motor activity but only at the limit dose and only on the treatment day. However, there were no other signs of neurotoxicity in the rest of the database.

    There was no evidence of increased susceptibility in prenatal developmental toxicity studies (rats and rabbits) or the multigenerational reproductive toxicity study in rats. Fetal effects in the rat developmental study (increase in litter incidence of wavy and thickened ribs) and offspring effects in the rat reproduction toxicity study (decreased pup body weights) were seen at or above doses eliciting blood and liver effects in maternal/parental animals, effects that are consistent with those observed in the hazard database. No developmental effects were seen in the rabbits.

    Carfentrazone-ethyl has been classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic” based on the lack of evidence for carcinogenicity in mice and rats; therefore, a quantitative cancer risk assessment was not conducted.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by carfentrazone-ethyl 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 “Carfentrazone-ethyl. Human Health Risk Assessment in Support of Application to Globe Artichoke, Asparagus, Mint, Psyllium, Quinoa, and Teff and Updates to Several Crop Group (CG) or Subgroup (CSG) Designations” on pages 31-35 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0030.

    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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for carfentrazone-ethyl used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B., of the final rule published in the Federal Register of May 4, 2012 (77 FR 26456) (FRL-9346-5).

    All of the toxicological endpoints remain the same except the acute dietary endpoint has been removed. The Agency reevaluated the points of departure and available data. Previously, the acute neurotoxicity study in rats was used to evaluate acute dietary exposures; however, effects (salivation and decreased motor activity) were only seen at the LOAEL of 1000 mg/kg/day which is not considered relevant for human health risk assessment. There were no other effects seen in the database attributable to a single dose. Therefore, the previous acute dietary endpoint is no longer considered valid.

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to carfentrazone-ethyl, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing carfentrazone-ethyl tolerances in 40 CFR 180.515. EPA assessed dietary exposures from carfentrazone-ethyl 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. No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for carfentrazone-ethyl; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment was not conducted.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID). This software incorporates 2003-2008 food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues or, if necessary, tolerance-level residues adjusted to account for the residues of concern for risk assessment and 100 percent crop treated (PCT). Since adequate processing studies have been submitted which indicate that tolerances in/on apple juice, citrus juice, grape juice, grape raisin, dried potato, dried prune, prune juice, tomato paste, and tomato puree are unnecessary, the DEEMTM (ver 7.81) default processing factors for these commodities were reduced to 1. The DEEMTM (ver 7.81) default processing factors were retained for the remaining relevant commodities.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that carfentrazone-ethyl does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk was not conducted.

    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for carfentrazone-ethyl. Tolerance level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for carfentrazone-ethyl in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of carfentrazone-ethyl. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

    Based on the Tier 1 Rice Model and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of carfentrazone-ethyl for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 86 ppb for surface water and 43.9 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 86 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).

    Carfentrazone-ethyl is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Golf courses, residential lawns, and aquatic areas. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: That homeowner handlers wear shorts, short-sleeved shirts, socks, and shoes, and that they complete all tasks associated with the use of a pesticide product including mixing/loading, if needed, as well as the application. Residential handler exposure scenarios for residential lawn applications are considered to be short-term only, due to the infrequent use patterns associated with homeowner products. Therefore, short-term inhalation risk was assessed for residential handlers; however, since no hazard was identified via the dermal route of exposure, a dermal risk assessment was not conducted for residential handlers. Aquatic applications by homeowners are not permitted by the label directions for use, therefore no residential handler exposure from the aquatic application scenario is anticipated.

    EPA uses the term “post-application” to describe exposure to individuals that occur as a result of being in an environment that has been previously treated with a pesticide. Carfentrazone- ethyl can be used in many areas that can be frequented by the general population including home lawns, golf courses and aquatic recreational areas such as ponds and lakes that have been treated for removal of aquatic vegetation. As a result, individuals can be exposed by entering these areas if they have been previously treated. Therefore, short-term post-application exposure and risk are also assessed for carfentrazone-ethyl.

    The Agency assessed residential handler (adult) exposure for the turf application scenario and adult post-application exposure for the aquatic exposure scenario. The most conservative exposure scenario for adults, the aquatic exposure scenario-swimmer exposure assessment (combined incidental oral and inhalation), was used to estimate post-application risk. Dermal risks assessments were not conducted because no hazard was identified via the dermal route of exposure. For children, the aquatic exposure scenario-swimmer exposure assessment was used. Since the incidental oral and inhalation PODs are based on the same study, the exposures from these routes were combined. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.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 carfentrazone-ethyl to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and carfentrazone-ethyl does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that carfentrazone-ethyl 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 athttp://www2.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 is no evidence of increased pre- and/or postnatal susceptibility following carfentrazone-ethyl exposure.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for carfentrazone-ethyl is complete. Since the last risk assessment, an immunotoxicity study has been submitted and the results of the study incorporated into the current assessment.

    ii. Although effects were seen in the acute neurotoxicity study (clinical signs and mild decreases in motor activity), concern is low since: (a) The effects are minimal; (b) the effects were seen at the highest doses tested (≥1000 mg/kg); and (c) there is no evidence of neurotoxicity in the rest of the carfentrazone-ethyl database, including the subchronic neurotoxicity study.

    iii. There is no evidence that carfentrazone-ethyl results in increased susceptibility in rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-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 carfentrazone-ethyl in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by carfentrazone-ethyl.

    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. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, carfentrazone-ethyl is not expected to pose an acute risk.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to carfentrazone-ethyl from food and water will utilize 78% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of carfentrazone-ethyl 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 a background exposure level).

    Carfentrazone-ethyl 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 to carfentrazone-ethyl.

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 7,500 for adults (residential handlers) and 2,100 for children (1-2 years old) (hand-to-mouth exposures). Because EPA's level of concern for carfentrazone-ethyl is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are 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 a background exposure level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however carfentrazone-ethyl is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risks for carfentrazone-ethyl.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, carfentrazone-ethyl is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

    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 carfentrazone-ethyl residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology is available to enforce the tolerance expression. This analytical enforcement method involves separate analyses for parent and the metabolite. The parent is analyzed by evaporation and reconstitution of the sample prior to analysis by liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry/gas chromatography/electron capture detection (LC/MS/MS GC/ECD). The metabolite is refluxed in the presence of acid and cleaned up with solid phase extraction prior to analysis by LC/MS/MS.

    The method 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 a MRL for carfentrazone-ethyl for these crops.

    C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The Agency is revising the petitioned-for tolerance requests for asparagus, peppermint, and spearmint from the proposed 0.25 ppm to 0.10 ppm. The residue field trials for these commodities resulted in residues that are less than 0.05 ppm, the limit of quantitation (LOQ). Using the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) tolerance-calculation procedures, the Agency modified the requested tolerance levels from 0.25 ppm to 0.10 ppm. In an effort to not create a potential trade irritant, the Agency also determined that the requested tolerance amendment in or on oilseed subgroup 20 at 0.20 ppm should be established on the separate subgroups for rapeseed subgroup 20A and sunflower subgroup 20B at 0.10 ppm to align with the MRLs for rapeseed and sunflower at 0.10 ppm in Canada and establish a cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.20 ppm. Coconut will be removed and superseded by nut, tree, group 14-12. EPA also determined that the tolerance for teff straw should be 3.0 ppm based on available residue data.

    Further, on November 20, 2015, the Federal Register published a final rule (80 FR 72599) that removed the entries in paragraph (a) in 180.515, for caneberry subgroup 13A; cotton, hulls; cotton, meal; cotton, refined oil and rice, straw, effective on May 18, 2016. Therefore, these commodities will not be removed under this action.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of carfentrazone-ethyl, (ethyl-alpha-2-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl]-4-fluorobenzenepropanoate) and the metabolite carfentrazone-ethyl chloropropionic acid (a, 2-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2 ,4-triazol-1-yl]-4-fluorobenzenepropanoic acid), in or on the raw agricultural commodity artichoke, globe 0.10 ppm; asparagus at 0.10 ppm; banana at 0.10 ppm; berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G at 0.10 ppm; bushberry, subgroup 13-07B at 0.10 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 0.10 ppm; cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.20 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.10 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.10 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing, subgroup 13-07F, except Fuzzy kiwifruit at 0.10 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.10 ppm; grain, cereal, group 16, forage at 1.0 ppm; grain, cereal, group 16, hay at 0.30 ppm; grain, cereal, group 16, stover at 0.80 ppm; grain, cereal, group 16, straw at 3.0 ppm; nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.10 ppm; peppermint, tops at 0.10 ppm; psyllium, seed at 0.10 ppm; quinoa, grain at 0.10 ppm; rapeseed subgroup 20A at 0.10 ppm; spearmint, tops at 0.10 ppm; sunflower subgroup 20B at 0.10 ppm; teff, forage at 1.0 ppm; teff, grain at 0.25 ppm; teff, hay at 0.30 ppm; teff, straw at 3.0 ppm; vegetable, bulb, group 3-07 at 0.10 ppm; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.10 ppm.

    Additionally, tolerances are removed, for barley, bran at .80 ppm; barley, flour at 0.80 ppm; berry group 13 at 0.10 ppm; borage at 0.10 ppm; canola at 0.10 ppm; coconut at 0.10 ppm; corn, field, forage at 0.20 ppm; corn, sweet, forage at 0.20 ppm; corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husk removed at 0.10 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.20 ppm; crambe, seed at 0.10 ppm; flax, seed at 0.10 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.10 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.10 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.10 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw group 16, except corn and sorghum, forage at 1.0 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw group 16, hay at 0.30 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw group 16, stover at 0.30 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16 except rice, straw at 0.10 ppm; grain, cereal, group 15 at 0.10 ppm; grain, cereal, stover at 0.80 ppm; grain, cereal, straw at 3.0 ppm; grape at 0.10 ppm; juneberry at 0.10 ppm; lingonberry at 0.10 ppm; millet, flour at .80 ppm; mustard, seed at 0.10 ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at 0.10 ppm; oat, flour at 0.80 ppm; okra at 0.10; pistachio at 0.10 ppm; pummelo at 0.10 ppm; rapeseed, seed at 0.10 ppm; rice, hulls at 3.5 ppm; rye, bran at 0.80 ppm; rye, flour at 0.80 ppm; safflower, seed at 0.10 ppm; salal at 0.10 ppm; sorghum, forage at 0.20 ppm; sorghum, sweet at 0.10 ppm; strawberry at 0.10 ppm; sunflower, seed at 0.10 ppm; vegetable, bulb, group 3 at 0.10 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 0.10 ppm; wheat, bran at 0.80 ppm; wheat, flour at 0.80 ppm; wheat, germ at 0.80 ppm; wheat middlings at 0.80 ppm; and wheat, shorts at 0.80 ppm.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances 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: April 25, 2016. 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 § 180.515, the table in paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
    § 180.515 Carfentrazone-ethyl; tolerance for residues.

    (a) * * *

    Commodity Parts per million Acerola 0.10 Almond, hulls 0.20 Animal feed, nongrass, crop group 18, forage 2.0 Animal feed, nongrass, crop group 18, hay 5.0 Animal feed, nongrass, crop group 18, seed 15.0 Artichoke, globe 0.10 Asparagus 0.10 Atemoya 0.10 Avocado 0.10 Banana 0.10 Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G 0.10 Birida 0.10 Bushberry subgroup 13-07B 0.10 Cacao bean, bean 0.10 Cactus 0.10 Caneberry subgroup 13A 1 0.1 Caneberry subgroup 13-07A 0.10 Canistel 0.10 Cattle, fat 0.10 Cattle, meat 0.10 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.10 Cherimoya 0.10 Coffee, bean, green 0.10 Cotton, gin byproducts 10 Cotton, hulls 1 0.60 Cotton, meal 1 0.35 Cotton, refined oil 1 1.0 Cottonseed subgroup 20C 0.20 Custard apple 0.10 Date, dried fruit 0.10 Feijoa 0.10 Fig 0.10 Fish 0.30 Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 0.10 Fruit, pome, group 11-10 0.10 Fruit, small vine climbing, subgroup 13-07F, except Fuzzy kiwifruit 0.10 Fruit, stone, group 12-12 0.10 Goat, fat 0.10 Goat, meat 0.10 Goat, meat byproducts 0.10 Grain, aspirated grain fractions 1.8 Grain, cereal, group 15 (except rice grain and sorghum grain) 0.10 Grain, cereal, group 16, forage 1.0 Grain, cereal, group 16, hay 0.30 Grain, cereal, group 16, stover 0.80 Grain, cereal, group 16, straw 3.0 Grass, forage 5.0 Grass, hay 8.0 Guava 0.10 Herbs and spices group 19 2.0 Hog, fat 0.10 Hog, meat 0.10 Hog, meat byproducts 0.10 Hop, dried cones 0.10 Horse, fat 0.10 Horse, meat 0.10 Horse, meat byproducts 0.10 Horseradish 0.10 Ilama 0.10 Jaboticaba 0.10 Kava, roots 0.10 Kiwifruit 0.10 Longan 0.10 Lychee 0.10 Mango 0.10 Milk 0.05 Noni 0.10 Nut, tree, group 14-12 0.10 Olive 0.10 Palm heart 0.10 Palm heart, leaves 0.10 Papaya 0.10 Passionfruit 0.10 Pawpaw 0.10 Peanut 0.10 Peanut, hay 0.10 Peppermint, tops 0.10 Persimmon 0.10 Pomegranate 0.10 Poultry, meat byproducts 0.10 Psyllium, seed 0.10 Pulasan 0.10 Quinoa, grain 0.10 Rambutan 0.10 Rapeseed, forage 0.10 Rapeseed subgroup 20A 0.10 Rice, grain 1.3 Rice, straw 1 1.0 Sapodilla 0.10 Sapote, black 0.10 Sapote, mamey 0.10 Sheep, fat 0.10 Sheep, meat 0.10 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.10 Shellfish 0.30 Sorghum, grain 0.25 Soursop 0.10 Soybean, seed 0.10 Spanish lime 0.10 Spearmint, tops 0.10 Star apple 0.10 Starfruit 0.10 Stevia 0.10 Strawberrypear 0.10 Sugar apple 0.10 Sugarcane 0.15 Sunflower, subgroup 20B 0.10 Tea, dried 0.10 Teff, forage 1.0 Teff, grain 0.25 Teff, hay 0.30 Teff, straw 3.0 Ti, leaves 0.10 Ti, roots 0.10 Vanilla 0.10 Vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5 0.10 Vegetable, bulb, group 3-07 0.10 Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 0.10 Vegetable, foliage of legume, except soybean, subgroup 7A 0.10 Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 0.10 Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 0.10 Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2 0.10 Vegetable, legume, group 6 0.10 Vegetable, root and tuber, group 1 0.10 Wasaba, roots 0.10 Wax jambu 0.10 1 Effective Date to be removed: May 18, 2016.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10235 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0524; FRL-9944-10] Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- ; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- (CAS Reg. No. 35123-06-9) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent/co-solvent) in pesticides applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest under 40 CFR 180.910 or in pesticides applied to animals under 40 CFR 180.930 limited to maximum concentration of 20% by weight in the pesticide formulation. Spring Trading Company, LLC on behalf of BASF Corporation submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl-.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective May 2, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before July 1, 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-2015-0524, 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. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0524 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 July 1, 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-2015-0524, 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. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of September 9, 2015 (80 FR 54257) (FRL-9933-26), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-10782) by Spring Trading Company, LLC (10805 W. Timberwagon Circle Spring, TX 77380) on behalf of BASF Corporation (100 Campus Drive, Florham Park, NJ 07932). The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910 and 40 CFR 180.930 be amended by establishing exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- (CAS Reg. No. 35123-06-9) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent/co-solvent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest or in pesticides applied to animals, respectively. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Spring Trading Company, LLC on behalf of BASF Corporation, the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has limited the maximum concentration of propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl to 20% by weight in pesticide formulations. The reasons for this change are explained in Unit V.B. below.

    III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.

    IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    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 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. . . .”

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated 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(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), 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 propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- follows.

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their 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. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.

    Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- is of low acute oral, dermal and inhalation toxicity in rats; all lethal dose (LD)50s are greater than 1,000 mg/kg. Dermal irritation is not observed in rabbits. It is mildly irritating to the eyes of rabbits. It is not a dermal sensitizer in mice in the lymph node assay.

    The toxicity studies summarized below were all conducted with propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- except the chronic toxicity study. That study was conducted with N, N-dimethylacetamide, a structurally similar chemical. The only difference between the two chemicals is that N, N-dimethylacetamide is missing a hydroxyl group on a carbon atom. Both compounds are expected to undergo similar metabolism (in this case, N-oxidation) by cytochrome P450 enzymes and have similar toxicological profiles; therefore, the Agency has determined the data to be suitable for evaluating propanamide.

    In rats, 90 days of oral exposure to propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- results in increased cholesterol and triglyceride levels, increased liver weights and centrilobular hypertrophy at 1,000 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day), the limit dose. The NOAEL is 500 mg/kg/day. Reproduction parameters, estrus cyclicity and sperm parameters were also evaluated in this study and were found to be unaffected at 1,000 mg/kg/day.

    A developmental toxicity study in rats showed no maternal toxicity at 500 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested. Quantitative fetal susceptibility was observed as reduced body weight in pups at 500 mg/kg/day. The developmental NOAEL was 200 mg/kg/day.

    Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- was not mutagenic in the Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells HGPRT locus gene mutation assay or the micronucleus test.

    Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- is not expected to be carcinogenic based on the absence of structural alerts using Deductive Estimation of Risk from Existing Knowledge (Derek) Nexus program and the lack of mutagenicity. It is not expected to be neurotoxic based on the functional observation battery or on motor activity in the 90-day oral toxicity study in rats.

    Immunotoxicity studies for propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- were not available for review. However, evidence of immunotoxicity was not observed in the submitted studies.

    Chronic studies with propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- are not available for review. However, a chronic study conducted for 12 months in rats treated with N, N-dimethylacetamide, a structurally similar chemical, was used as surrogate data. In this study toxicity manifested as reduced bodyweight was observed at 300 mg/kg/day. The NOAEL is 100 mg/kg/day.

    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/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

    An acute effect was not found in the database therefore an acute dietary assessment is not necessary. The chronic reference dose (cRfD) as well as the toxicity endpoint applicable to all exposure scenarios was based on the 12-month chronic toxicity study in rats. In this study, the NOAEL was 100 mg/kg/day based on reduced bodyweights at 300 mg/kg/day, the LOAEL. This represents the lowest NOAEL in the most sensitive species in the toxicity database. The standard uncertainty factors were applied to account for interspecies (10x) and intraspecies (10x) variations. The Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF) was reduced to 1x. Default values of 100% absorption were used in dermal and inhalation toxicity endpoint selection.

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl-, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures from propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- in food as follows:

    Dietary exposure (food and drinking water) to propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- can occur following ingestion of foods with residues from treated crops and animals. Because no adverse effects attributable to a single exposure of propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- are seen in the toxicity databases, an acute dietary risk assessment is not necessary. For the chronic dietary risk assessment, EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCIDTM, Version 3.16, and food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, no residue data were submitted for propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl-. In the absence of specific residue data, EPA has developed an approach which uses surrogate information to derive upper bound exposure estimates for the subject inert ingredient. Upper bound exposure estimates are based on the highest tolerance for a given commodity from a list of high use insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. One hundred percent crop treated (PCT) was assumed, default processing factors, and tolerance-level residues for all foods and use limitations of not more than 20% by weight in pesticide formulations. A complete description of the general approach taken to assess inert ingredient risks in the absence of residue data is contained in the memorandum entitled “Alkyl Amines Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food and Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Inerts,” (D361707, S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0738.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. For the purpose of the screening-level dietary risk assessment to support this request for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl-, a conservative drinking water concentration value of 100 parts per billion (ppb) based on screening level modeling was used to assess the contribution to drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessments for parent compound. These values were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).

    Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- may be used in inert ingredients in products that are registered for specific uses that may result in residential exposure, such as pesticides used in and round the home. The Agency conducted an assessment to represent worst-case residential exposure by assessing propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- in pesticide formulations (outdoor scenarios) and in disinfectant-type uses (indoor scenarios).

    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 propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- 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.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    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 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.

    The toxicity database for propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- contains a subchronic, developmental, chronic and mutagenicity studies. There is no indication of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity in the available studies; therefore, there is no need to require neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity studies. Quantitative fetal susceptibility was observed in the developmental study in rats. Fetal toxicity (reduced bodyweight) was observed at 500 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested, while toxicity was not observed in maternal animals. The developmental NOAEL was 200 mg/kg/day. However, fetal effects are not of concern since the cRfD (1mg/kg/day) will be protective of effects seen at 500 mg/kg/day. In addition, the Agency used conservative exposure estimates, with 100 PCT, tolerance-level residues, conservative drinking water modeling numbers, and a worst-case assessment of potential residential exposure for infants and children. Based on the adequacy of the toxicity and exposure databases and the lack of concern for prenatal and postnatal sensitivity, the Agency has concluded that there is reliable data to determine that infants and children will be safe if the FQPA SF of 10x is reduced to 1x.

    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. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- from food and water will utilize 28.4% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    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 a background exposure level).

    Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- may be used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products 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 to propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl-. Using the exposure assumptions described above, EPA has concluded that the combined short-term aggregated food, water, and residential exposures result in MOEs of 115 for both adult males and females. Adult residential exposure combines high-end dermal and inhalation handler exposure from liquids/trigger sprayer/home garden with a high-end post- application dermal exposure from contact with treated lawns. Adult residential exposure combines high-end dermal and inhalation handler exposure from liquids/trigger sprayer/home garden with a high-end post- application dermal exposure from contact with treated lawns. EPA has concluded the combined short-term aggregated food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 154 for children. Children's residential exposure includes total exposures associated with contact with treated lawns (dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures). As the level of concern is for MOEs that are lower than 100, these MOEs are 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 a background exposure level).

    Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- may be used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products that could result in intermediate-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with intermediate-term residential exposures to propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl-. Using the exposure assumptions described above, EPA has concluded that the combined intermediate-term aggregated food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 591 for adult males and females. Adult residential exposure combines indoor hard surface, wiping with a high-end post-application dermal exposure from contact with treated lawns. As the level of concern is for MOEs that are lower than 100, this MOE is not of concern. EPA has concluded the combined intermediate-term aggregated food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 214 for children. Children's residential exposure includes total exposures associated with contact with treated surfaces (dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures). As the level of concern is for MOEs that are lower than 100, this MOE is not of concern.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on a DEREK structural alert analysis, the lack of mutagenicity and the lack of specific organ toxicity in the chronic toxicity study, propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

    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 propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl-.

    V. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- in or on any food commodities. EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- that may be used in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops. That limitation will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA will not register any pesticide formulation for use on growing crops for sale or distribution that exceeds 20% by weight of propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl-.

    B. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerance Exemptions

    Based upon an evaluation of the data included in the petition, EPA is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl when used in pesticide formulations as an inert ingredient (solvent/co-solvent), not to exceed 20% by weight of the formulation, instead of the unlimited use requested. When considering unlimited use resulted in aggregate risks of concern, the petitioner revised their request to seek a 20% limitation by weight of formulation. The basis for this revision can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document “Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl-; Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Effects Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance When Used as an Inert Ingredient in Pesticide Formulations” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0524.

    VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180.910 for residues of propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- (Reg. No. 35123-06-9) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent/co-solvent) at a maximum concentration of 20% by weight in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or raw agricultural commodities after harvest and under 40 CFR 180.930 when used in pesticide formulations applied to animals.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes exemptions to the requirement for 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 exemptions 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).

    VIII. 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: April 21, 2016. Daniel J. Rosenblatt, 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 § 180.910, add alphabetically the inert ingredient to the table to read as follows:
    § 180.910 Inert ingredients used pre- and post-harvest; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Inert ingredients Limits Uses *         *         *         *         *         *         * Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- (CAS Reg. No. 35123-06-9) Not to exceed 20% by weight in pesticide formulation Solvent/co-solvent. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    3. In § 180.930, add alphabetically the inert ingredient to the table to read as follows:
    § 180.930 Inert ingredients applied to animals; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Inert ingredients Limits Uses *         *         *         *         *         *         * Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- (CAS Reg. No. 35123-06-9) Not to exceed 20% by weight in pesticide formulation Solvent/co-solvent *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-10227 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0428; FRL-9945-29] Abamectin; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of abamectin in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), Syngenta Crop Protection, and Y-TEX Corporation requested these tolerances in four separate petitions under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective May 2, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before July 1, 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-2013-0428, 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.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0428 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 July 1, 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-2013-0428, 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 Tolerances

    In the Federal Register of September 12, 2013 (78 FR 56185) (FRL-9399-7), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3) announcing the filing of pesticide petitions by Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 08540 (PP 3E8175) and Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419 (PP 3F8184). The petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.449 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide avermectin (abamectin) determined by measuring only avermectin B1, a mixture of avermectins containing greater than or equal to 80% avermectin B1a (5-O-demethyl avermectin A1) and less than or equal to 20% avermectin B1b (5-O-demethyl-25-de(1-methylpropyl)-25-(1-methylethyl) avermectin A1), and its delta-8,9-isomer in or on caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 0.20 parts per million (ppm) (PP 3E8175), and corn, field, sweet, and pop at 0.01 ppm; corn, field and pop, forage at 0.2 ppm; corn, field and pop, grain at 0.01 ppm; corn, field and pop, stover at 0.6 ppm; corn, sweet, forage at 0.2 ppm; corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husk removed at 0.01 ppm; corn, sweet, stover at 0.5 ppm; soybean at 0.01 ppm; soybean, forage at 0.3 ppm; soybean, hay at 1 ppm; and soybean, seed at 0.01 ppm (PP 3F8184). That document referenced summaries of the petitions prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notices of filing.

    In the Federal Register of February 25, 2014 (79 FR 10458) (FRL-9906-77), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3) announcing the filing of pesticide petition by Y-TEX Corporation, 1825 Big Horn Avenue, P.O. Box 1450, Cody, WY 82414 (PP 3F8200). The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.449 be amended by increasing an established tolerance for the combined residues of the insecticide avermectin B1 (a mixture of avermectins containing greater than or equal to 80% avermectin B1a (5-O-demethyl avermectin A1) and less than or equal to 20% avermectin B1b (5-O-demethyl-25-de(1-methylpropyl)-25-(1-methylethyl) avermectin A1)) and its delta-8,9-isomer, in or on milk from 0.005 ppm to 0.01 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Y-TEX Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the docket for docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0264, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no FFDCA-related comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    In the Federal Register of February 11, 2015 (80 FR 7559) (FRL-9921-94), 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 by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 08540 (PP 4E8309). The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.449 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide avermectin (abamectin) determined by measuring only avermectin B1, a mixture of avermectins containing greater than or equal to 80% avermectin B1a (5-O-demethyl avermectin A1) and less than or equal to 20% avermectin B1b (5-O-demethyl-25-de(1-methylpropyl)-25-(1-methylethyl) avermectin A1), and its delta-8,9-isomer in or on fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.09 ppm, fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 0.02 ppm, nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.01 ppm, vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.07 ppm, fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.02 ppm, berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G at 0.05 ppm, fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.02 ppm, papaya at 0.40 ppm, star apple at 0.40 ppm, black sapote at 0.40 ppm, sapodilla at 0.40 ppm, canistel at 0.40 ppm, mamey sapote at 0.40 ppm, guava at 0.015 ppm, feijoa at 0.015 ppm, jaboticaba at 0.015 ppm, wax jambu at 0.015 ppm, starfruit at 0.015 ppm, passionfruit at 0.015 ppm, acerola at 0.015 ppm, lychee 0.01 ppm, longan at 0.01 ppm, Spanish lime at 0.01 ppm, rambutan at 0.01 ppm, pulasan at 0.01 ppm, pineapple at 0.015 ppm, bean at 0.015 ppm, and onion, green, subgroup 3-07B at 0.08 ppm. Upon the approval of the aforementioned tolerances, IR-4 requested removal of established tolerances of abamectin, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the following commodities: Bean, dry, seed at 0.01 ppm, citrus at 0.02 ppm, apple at 0.02 ppm, pear at 0.02 ppm, fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.09 ppm, nut, tree, group 14 at 0.01 ppm, pistachio at 0.01 ppm, grape at 0.02 ppm, strawberry at 0.05 ppm and vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 0.02 ppm. That document referenced summaries of the petitions prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petitions, EPA has modified the level at which tolerances are being established for some commodities. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

    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 abamectin including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with abamectin 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.

    Abamectin is a mixture of avermectin B1 [a mixture of avermectins containing greater than or equal to 80% avermectin B1a (5-O-demethyl avermectin A1) and less than or equal to 20% avermectin B1b (5-O-demethyl-25-de(1-methylpropyl)-25-(1-methylethyl) avermectin A1)] and its delta-8,9-isomer. Avermectins are macrocyclic lactones produced as natural fermentation products of the soil bacterium Streptomyces avermitilis. Currently, abamectin and emamectin are the only members of this group with active pesticide registrations. The two components of abamectin, B1a and B1b, have very similar biological and toxicological properties. Emamectin, which is a derivative of abamectin, is a structurally and toxicologically related chemical. The only difference between abamectin and emamectin is that abamectin has a hydroxyl moiety at the 4″ position of the tetrahydropyrane ring, whereas in emamectin the hydroxyl group is replaced by a methylamine.

    Since the last time the EPA assessed abamectin (Federal Register of March 27, 2013 (78 FR 18519) (FRL-9379-1)), the Agency has re-evaluated the entire abamectin and emamectin toxicological database along with currently available literature information on the toxicity of the abamectin and emamectin to ensure consistent hazard evaluation for these structurally related pesticides. This hazard characterization and dose-response assessment represents a more refined analysis than previous assessments, using the literature data to enhance the characterization of the studies submitted to the Agency.

    Available toxicity data show that, with single dose or repeated dose administration, the primary target organ of abamectin is the nervous system, and that decreased body weight is also one of the most frequent findings. Neurotoxicity (including tremors, mydriasis, ataxia, and death) was seen in mice, dogs, and rats. Developmental effects such as cleft palate were reported in rabbits. Abamectin was shown to bind to the gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors, and this interaction was believed to result in neurotoxicity. The GABA receptor interaction also plays a role in development; cleft palate findings may reflect the interaction of abamectin on the GABA receptor. Generally the finding of cleft palate was seen at higher dose levels than those for neurotoxicity.

    Integral to the dose response assessment in mammals for this class of compounds is P-glycoprotein (P-gp). P-gp is a member of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) binding cassette transporter proteins, which reside in the plasma membrane and function as a transmembrane efflux pump, moving xenobiotics from the intracellular to the extracellular domain. P-gp is found in the canallicular surface of hepatocytes, the apical surface of proximal tubular cells in the kidneys, the brush border surface of enterocytes, and the luminal surface of blood capillaries of the brain (blood brain barrier), placenta, ovaries, and the testes. As an efflux transporter, P-gp acts as a protective barrier to keep xenobiotics out of the body by excreting them into bile, urine, and intestinal lumen and prevents accumulation of these compounds in the brain and gonads, as well as in the fetus. Therefore, test animals with genetic polymorphisms that compromise P-gp expression, are particularly susceptible to abamectin-induced neurotoxicity (Lankas et al., 1997). An example is the rat. P-gp is undetectable in the neonatal rat brain; the first detection of P-gp is on post-natal day (PND) 7 and does not reach adult levels until approximately PND 28 (Matsuoka, 1999). As shown in the reproductive and developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) studies, neonatal rats are sensitive to the effects of abamectin-induced pup body weight reductions and death. In contrast, in the developing human fetus, P-gp was found as early as 22 weeks of gestation (Daood, MJ, 2008; van Kalken, et al., 1991). Based on the difference in the ontogeny of P-gp in neonatal rat and human newborn, the Agency, at this time, does not believe that the early post-natal findings in the rat to be relevant to human newborns or young children.

    Similarly, the CF-1 mouse is also uniquely sensitive to the neurotoxic effects of abamectin and its derivative, emamectin. Some CF-1 mice have a polymorphism for the gene encoding P-gp and are either devoid (homozygous) or have diminished (heterozygous) level of P-gp. The Agency does not consider the results of studies with CF-1 mice to be relevant for human health risk assessment because there is a lack of convincing evidence from the literature on human polymorphism of human multidrug resistance (MDR-1) gene resulting in diminished P-gp function. Although many studies on human multidrug resistance (MDR-1) gene encoding P-gp and polymorphism of MDR-1 gene are available, the data are inconclusive with respect to the functional significance of the genetic variance in P-gp in human. At the present, the reported cases of polymorphism of the MDR-1 gene in human populations have not been shown to result in a loss of P-gp function similar to that found in CF-1 mice (Macdonald & Gledhill, 2007). As a result, the Agency does not consider the toxic effects observed in CF-1 mouse studies to be representative of abamectin (and emamectin) effects in humans.

    Therefore, the Agency is using results from toxicological studies conducted in the species (rats, CD-1 mice, rabbits, and dogs) that do not have diminished P-gp function for selecting toxicity endpoints and points of departure for risk assessment. Among the test animals with fully functional P-gp, the beagle dog is the most sensitive species.

    For various durations of treatment (subchronic (12- and 18-weeks) and chronic oral toxicity studies in dogs), clinical signs [tremors and mydriasis (decreased pupillary light response)] of neurotoxicity were observed in the at the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of 0.5 milligram/kilogram (mg/kg); the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) was 0.25 mg/kg. Tremors and mydriasis were observed as early as the first week of exposure. The Agency assumes that these clinical signs could result from a single dose for the following reasons:

    1. Kinetic data demonstrates rapid absorption/excretion. With oral dosing in rats and mice, abamectin was absorbed rapidly, and maximum concentration in blood was achieved within 4-8 hours after administration. It was rapidly eliminated from the body, almost exclusively in the feces, and did not accumulate in the body after repeated exposure.

    2. In an acute neurotoxicity study (ACN) in rat (range finding and main studies), clinical signs of neurotoxicity such as reduced foot splay reflex, ataxia, tremors, and mydriasis (decreased pupillary light response) were observed from a single dose. Most of the effects observed in the rat ACN were consistent with those seen in the subchronic and chronic dog studies.

    3. The neurotoxic effects produced by abamectin in beagle dogs did not progress with time. The effects seen in the subchronic (gavage) and chronic dog studies were similar despite the varied durations of treatment, suggesting the response could be due to each individual exposure rather than to accumulation of abamectin in tissues. Clinical signs such as ataxia and or whole body tremors were reported within 3 hours of the first dose at higher dose levels.

    Based on these considerations, 0.25 mg/kg/day was selected as a point of departure for risk assessment for all the exposure scenarios, and the toxicity endpoints were clinical signs of neurotoxicity.

    Carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice (CD-1) and mutagenicity studies provide no indication that abamectin is carcinogenic or mutagenic.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by abamectin 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 the document titled “Abamectin. Human Health Risk Assessment for Uses on Caneberry Subgroup 13-07A; Soybean; Sweet Corn; Ear Tags for Lactating Dairy Cattle; Golf Course Turf; Bean; Onion, Green, Subgroup 3-07B; Fruit, Pome, Group 11-10; Fruit, Small Vine Climbing, Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit, Subgroup 13-07F; Berry, Low Growing, Subgroup 13-07G; Vegetable, Fruiting, Group 8-10; Greenhouse Tomato; Fruit, Citrus, Group 10-10; Fruit, Stone, Group 12-12; and Nut, Tree, Group 14-12; and Various Tropical Fruits” on page 53 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0428.

    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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for abamectin used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

    Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Abamectin 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 and Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 0.25 mg/kg/day.
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Acute RfD = 0.0025 mg/kg/day.
  • aPAD = 0.0025 mg/kg/day
  • Chronic RfD = 0.0025 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 0.0025 mg/kg/day
  • Subchronic & chronic oral toxicity studies in dogs.
  • Chronic LOAEL = 0.50 mg/kg/day based on body tremors, one death, liver pathology, decreased body weight. Mydriasis was seen during week one in one dog.
  • Subchronic LOAEL = 0.5 mg/kg/day based on mydriasis during week one, death at 1.0 mg/kg/day.
  • Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days) Oral study NOAEL = 0.25 mg/kg/day (dermal absorption rate = 1%.
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • LOC for MOE = 100 Subchronic & chronic oral toxicity studies in dogs.
  • Chronic LOAEL = 0.50 mg/kg/day based on body tremors, one death, liver pathology, decreased body weight. Mydriasis was seen during week one in one dog.
  • Subchronic LOAEL = 0.5 mg/kg/day based on mydriasis during week one, death at 1.0 mg/kg/day.
  • Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 days) Oral study NOAEL = 0.25 mg/kg/day (Toxicity via the inhalation route assumed to be equivalent) to oral route.
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • LOC for MOE = 100 Subchronic & chronic oral toxicity studies in dogs.
  • Chronic LOAEL = 0.50 mg/kg/day based on body tremors, one death, liver pathology, decreased body weight. Mydriasis was seen during week one in one dog.
  • Subchronic LOAEL = 0.5 mg/kg/day based on mydriasis during week one, death at 1.0 mg/kg/day.
  • Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) Classification: “Not likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” based on the absence of significant tumor increases in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies. 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).
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to abamectin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing abamectin tolerances in 40 CFR 180.449. EPA assessed dietary exposures from abamectin 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 abamectin. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the 2003-2008 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, a refined acute dietary exposure assessment was conducted for all proposed and established food uses of abamectin. Anticipated residues derived from field trial data for most plant commodities were used in the acute dietary exposure assessment. Tolerance-level residues were used for poultry and swine livestock commodities. Because cattle may be exposed to residues of abamectin through diet and ear tag, upper-bound anticipated residues were estimated from the maximum values found in cattle feeding studies and dermal magnitude of residue studies. For all other livestock commodities, upper-bound anticipated residues were estimated from secondary residues from consuming treated feed. Empirical and default processing factors and maximum percent crop treated (PCT) estimates were used, as available.

    ii. Chronic exposure. The Agency selected a point of departure for chronic effects that is the same as the point of departure for acute effects and so is relying on the acute assessment to be protective of chronic effects. So, the Agency assessed chronic exposure for purposes of providing background dietary exposure for use in the residential short-term assessments. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the 2003-2008 USDA NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, a refined chronic dietary exposure assessment was conducted for all proposed and established food uses of abamectin. Average residues for plant commodities from field trials were used. Residue levels based on maximum reasonable dietary burden for secondary residues in livestock (beef and dairy cattle) and the highest residues found in the magnitude of residue studies for cattle ear tags were used in the chronic assessment for livestock commodities. Tolerance values were used for poultry and swine to account for poultry and swine consuming treated feed. Residues from use in food handling establishments were included. Empirical and default processing factors and average PCT estimates were used, as available.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that abamectin does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.

    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:

    • Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain the pesticide residue.

    • Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group.

    • Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area.

    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.

    The following maximum PCT estimates were used in the acute dietary risk assessment for the following crops that are currently registered for abamectin: Almond: 80%; apple: 30%; apricot: 30%; avocado: 60%; bean, dry: 2.5%; cantaloupe: 45%; celery: 70%; cherry: 20%; cotton: 30%; cucumber: 10%; grape: 35%; grapefruit: 90%; hazelnut: 2.5%; honeydew: 35%; lemon: 55%; lettuce: 45%; nectarine: 20%; onion, bulb: 10%; orange: 70%; peach: 25%; pear: 85%; pecan: 2.5%; pepper: 30%; pistachio: 2.5%; plum/prune: 35%; potato: 20%; pumpkin: 10%; spinach: 45%; squash: 15%; strawberry: 45%; tangerine: 55%; tomato: 25%; walnut: 55%; and watermelon: 15%.

    The PCT values that were used to refine the livestock commodities for the acute assessment were based on: Sweet corn (44%) for beef, goat, horse, and sheep commodities; and the food handling establishment uses (5%) for hog and poultry meat and meat byproducts.

    The following average PCT estimates were used in the chronic dietary risk assessment for the following crops that are currently registered for abamectin: Almond: 70%; apple: 10%; apricot: 15%; avocado: 35%; bean, dry: 2.5%; cantaloupe: 25%; celery: 45%; cherry: 5%; cotton: 20%; cucumber: 5%; grape: 15%; grapefruit: 70%; hazelnut: 2.5%; honeydew: 20%; lemon: 40%; lettuce: 20%; nectarine: 20%; onion, bulb: 2.5%; orange: 40%; peach: 10%; pear: 70%; pecan: 1%; pepper: 15%; pistachio: 2.5%; plum/prune: 10%; potato: 5%; pumpkin: 5%; spinach: 25%; squash: 5%; strawberry: 30%; tangerine: 35%; tomato: 10%; walnuts: 25%; and watermelons: 5%.

    The PCT values that were used to refine the livestock commodities (cattle, goats, horses, and sheep) for the chronic assessment were based on: Cotton (30%), soybean (8%), and sweet corn (38%). The PCT for poultry and hog commodities is based on the food handling establishment PCT since the tolerances for food handling establishment uses result in residues considerably higher than secondary residues from hogs and poultry consuming treated feed. All commodities included for food handling residues were assigned the value of 5%.

    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.

    The following maximum PCT estimates were used in the acute dietary risk assessment for the following new uses of abamectin:

    Blackberries: 68%; boysenberry: 68%; corn, sweet 57%; loganberry: 68%; raspberries: 68%; soybeans: 11%.

    The following average PCT estimates were used in the chronic dietary risk assessment for the following new uses of abamectin:

    Blackberries: 56%; boysenberry: 56%; corn, sweet 45%; loganberry: 68%; raspberries: 56%; soybeans: 8%.

    EPA estimates of the PCTn of abamectin represents the upper bound of use expected during the pesticide's initial five years of registration; that is, PCTn for abamectin is a threshold of use that EPA is reasonably certain will not be exceeded for each registered use site. The PCTn recommended for use in the chronic dietary assessment is calculated as the average PCT of the market leader or leaders, (i.e., the one(s) with the greatest PCT) on that site over the three most recent years of available data. The PCTn recommended for use in the acute dietary assessment is the maximum observed PCT over the same period. Comparisons are only made among pesticides of the same pesticide types (e.g., the market leader for insecticides on the use site is selected for comparison with a new insecticide). The market leader included in the estimation may not be the same for each year since different pesticides may dominate at different times.

    Typically, EPA uses USDA/NASS as the source data because it is publicly available and directly reports values for PCT. When a specific use site is not reported by USDA/NASS, EPA uses proprietary data and calculates the PCT given reported data on acres treated and acres grown. If no data are available, EPA may extrapolate PCTn from other crops, if the production area and pest spectrum are substantially similar.

    A retrospective analysis to validate this approach shows few cases where the PCT for the market leaders were exceeded. Further review of these cases identified factors contributing to the exceptionally high use of a new pesticide. To evaluate whether the PCTn for abamectin could be exceeded, EPA considered whether there may be unusually high pest pressure, as indicated in emergency exemption requests for abamectin; the pest spectrum of the new pesticide in comparison with the market leaders and whether the market leaders are well-established for that use; and whether pest resistance issues with past market leaders provide abamectin with significant market potential. Given currently available information, EPA concludes that it is unlikely that actual PCT for abamectin will exceed the estimated PCT for new uses during the next five years.

    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which abamectin may be applied in a particular area.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for abamectin in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of abamectin. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

    Based on the Tier II surface water concentration calculator (SWCC) computer model and Tier I Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) model and Tier I Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of abamectin for acute exposures are estimated to be 0.76 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.074 ppb for ground water and for chronic exposures are estimated to be 0.30 ppb for surface water and ≤0.0031 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model either via point estimates or using residue distribution files.

    For acute dietary risk assessment, a drinking water residue distribution file was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 0.30 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).

    Abamectin is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Homeowner bait and bait station products that include an outdoor granular bait formulation for use on fire ant mounds, and several indoor ready-to-use baits of both dust and gel formulations. In addition, as part of the current request, the registrant has proposed a use on golf course turf.

    EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: For residential handlers, both dermal and inhalation short-term exposure is expected from the currently registered bait and bait station uses. Quantitative exposure/risk assessment considered the following scenarios: Loading/applying granular bait outdoor via (1) push-type spreaders, (2) belly grinders, (3) spoons, (4) hand, and (5) cup or shaker; and (6) applying granular bait indoor by hand (as a surrogate for a ready-to-use dust bait).

    Post-application residential exposure for adults and children (1 to <2) is unlikely for the currently registered uses of abamectin. For currently registered outdoor treatments, adults and children are not expected to directly contact fire ant mounds. For currently registered indoor pest control, bait placements are intended to be placed in cracks and crevices where direct contact by adults and children (1 to <2) is unlikely.

    However, residential post-application exposure for adults and children (6 to <11 and 11 to <16) is possible for the newly proposed use of abamectin on golf courses. Adults and children (6 to <11 and 11 to <16) performing physical post-application activities on golf course turf may receive dermal exposure to abamectin residues. The scenarios, lifestages, and routes of exposure include: Golfing for adults (dermal), children 11 to <16 years old (dermal), and children 6 to <11 years old (dermal).

    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.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's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) has previously developed guidance documents for establishing common mechanism groups (CMGs) (Guidance for Identifying Pesticide Chemicals and Other Substances that have a Common Mechanism of Toxicity (1999)) and conducting cumulative risk assessments (CRAs) (Guidance on Cumulative Risk Assessment of Pesticide Chemicals that have a Common Mechanism of Toxicity (2002)). In 2016, EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs released another guidance document entitled Pesticide Cumulative Risk Assessment: Framework for Screening Analysis. All three of these documents can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0422.

    The Agency has utilized this 2016 screening framework for abamectin and determined that abamectin along with emamectin form a candidate CMG. This group of pesticides is considered a candidate CMG because they share characteristics to support a testable hypothesis for a common mechanism of action. Following this determination, the Agency conducted a screening-level cumulative risk assessment consistent with the 2016 guidance document. This screening assessment indicates that that cumulative dietary and residential aggregate exposures for abamectin and emamectin are below the Agency's levels of concern. No further cumulative evaluation is necessary for abamectin and emamectin.

    The Agency's screening-level cumulative analysis can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled “Abamectin. Human Health Risk Assessment for Uses on Caneberry Subgroup 13-07A; Soybean; Sweet Corn; Ear Tags for Lactating Dairy Cattle; Golf Course Turf; Bean; Onion, Green, Subgroup 3-07B; Fruit, Pome, Group 11-10; Fruit, Small Vine Climbing, Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit, Subgroup 13-07F; Berry, Low Growing, Subgroup 13-07G; Vegetable, Fruiting, Group 8-10; Greenhouse Tomato; Fruit, Citrus, Group 10-10; Fruit, Stone, Group 12-12; and Nut, Tree, Group 14-12; and Various Tropical Fruits” on page 74 (Appendix H) in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0428.

    Additionally, when the Agency issued the notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the draft framework guidance, the EPA also received comments on the draft human health risk assessment for abamectin, which was included in that docket as an example of how EPA would implement the draft framework guidance. The response to those comments can be found in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0428.

    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 Food Quality Protection Act (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. An increase in qualitative susceptibility was seen in the rabbit developmental toxicity study, where decreases in body weight and food consumption were seen in maternal animals at 2.0 mg/kg/day. In contrast, the fetal effects were much more severe, consisting of cleft palate, clubbed foot, and death at 2.0 mg/kg/day. The point of departure (0.25 mg/kg/day) selected from the dog studies is more than 8x lower than the dose where rabbit fetal effects were seen. Therefore, it is protective of fetal effects seen in the rabbit developmental toxicity study.

    The rat reproduction toxicity and developmental neurotoxicity studies demonstrated both qualitative and quantitative susceptibility in the pups to the effects of abamectin (decrease pup weights and increased postnatal pup mortality). This observation is consistent with the finding that P-gp is not fully developed in rat pups until postnatal day 28. Therefore, during the period from birth to postnatal day 28, the rat pups are substantially more susceptible to the effects of abamectin than adult rats. However, in humans, P-gp has been detected in the fetus at 22 weeks of pregnancy, and the human newborns have functioning P-gp. Therefore, human infants and children are not expected to have enhanced sensitivity as seen in rat pups.

    3. Conclusion. Currently, the toxicity endpoints and points of departure for all exposure scenarios are selected from the subchronic and chronic oral toxicity studies in the dogs. The points of departure selected from the dog studies are based on clear NOAELs and protective of all the adverse effects seen in the studies conducted in human relevant studies with rats, CD-1 mice, and rabbits. Therefore, EPA has determined that the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1x. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for abamectin is complete.

    ii. The proposed mode of action (MOA) is interaction with GABA receptors leading to neurotoxicity. The findings of neurotoxic signs observed in the abamectin database are consistent with the proposed MOA. Signs of neurotoxicity ranging from decreases in foot splay reflex, mydriasis (i.e., excessive dilation of the pupil), curvature of the spine, decreased fore- and hind-limb grip strength, tip-toe gate, tremors, ataxia, or spastic movements of the limbs are reported in various studies with different durations of abamectin exposure. In dogs, mydriasis was the most common finding at doses as low as 0.5 mg/kg/day at one week of treatment. No neuropathology was observed. Because the PODs used for assessing aggregate exposure to abamectin and the PODs for assessing cumulative exposure for abamectin and emamectin are protective of these neurotoxic effects in the U.S. population, as well as infants and children, no additional data concerning neurotoxicity is needed at this time to be protective of potential neurotoxic effects.

    iii. As explained in Unit III.D.2 “Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity”, the enhanced susceptibility seen in the rabbit developmental toxicity, the rat reproduction, and the rat developmental neurotoxicity studies do not present a risk concern.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The chronic and acute dietary food exposure assessment are refined including use of anticipated residues, default processing factors, and percent crop treated; however, these refinements are considered protective because field trials are conducted to represent use conditions leading to the maximum residues in food when the product is used in accordance with the label and do not underestimate exposures. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to abamectin in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by abamectin.

    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 abamectin will occupy 88% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for chronic exposure, the chronic dietary exposure from food and water to abamectin will occupy 11% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of abamectin 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 a background exposure level).

    Abamectin 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 to abamectin.

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 4,400 for adults, 3,600 for children 11 to <16 years old, and 2,100 for children 6 to <11 years old. Because EPA's level of concern for abamectin is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are 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 a background exposure level).

    An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, abamectin is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and the acute dietary risk assessment is protective of all exposure durations (since the point of departure is the same for all exposure durations), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, abamectin is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

    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 abamectin residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methods for abamectin in plant and livestock commodities are available in the Pesticide Analytical Manual, Volume II (PAM II).

    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 MRLs for abamectin on sweet corn, soybean, papaya, star apple, black sapote, sapodilla, canistel, mamey sapote, guava, feijoa, jaboticaba, wax jambu, starfruit, passionfruit, acerola, lychee, longan, Spanish lime, rambutan, pulasan, pineapple, bean or green onion commodities. Additionally, there are no Codex MRLs for abamectin on the commodities in the caneberry subgroup 13-07A; fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F; or fruit, stone, group 12-12.

    The following U.S. tolerances are harmonized with established, related Codex MRLs: Fruit, pome, group 11-10; and nut, tree, group 14-12.

    The Codex MRL on citrus is not harmonized with the U.S. tolerance on fruit, citrus, group 10-10, and the Codex MRL on strawberry is not harmonized with the recommended U.S. tolerance on berry, low-growing, subgroup 13-07G. Residue data underlying these U.S. tolerances supports tolerances that are higher than the established Codex MRLs on these related commodities.

    Codex MRLs for abamectin on fruiting vegetable commodities are not harmonized with the U.S. tolerance on vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10. The residue data underlying the U.S. fruiting vegetable tolerance resulted in a tolerance that is higher than the established Codex MRL on sweet peppers. Codex has also established a separate tolerance on dried chili pepper that is higher than the U.S. fruiting vegetable tolerance.

    There are some Codex MRLs on livestock commodities, but none of the Codex MRLs are set at the same level as the tolerance levels EPA is establishing today; however, the U.S. cannot harmonize with the Codex MRLs on livestock commodities since the Codex MRLs reflect different uses (i.e., different dietary burdens) as compared to the uses in the United States, which also reflect the direct treatment of cattle via ear tags. Setting U.S. tolerances at Codex MRL levels would result in tolerance violations for some livestock commodities.

    C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Although not requested, EPA is establishing a tolerance of 0.40 ppm for “grain, aspirated grain fractions” since aspirated grain fractions are associated with soybeans. The recommended tolerance of 0.40 ppm for “grain, aspirated grain fractions” is based on residues of <0.006 ppm in soybean seed and a concentration factor of 59X in aspirated grain fractions.

    EPA is also increasing some of the established livestock tolerances based on a new dietary burden calculation that includes the proposed uses on soybeans and sweet corn as well as a proposed use for ear tags for lactating dairy cattle. Because of these calculations, EPA is increasing the established tolerances on cattle fat from 0.03 to 0.05 ppm; cattle meat byproducts from 0.06 to 0.09 ppm; fat of goat, horse and sheep from 0.01 to 0.03 ppm; meat byproducts of goat, horse, and sheep from 0.02 to 0.04 ppm; and milk from 0.005 to 0.015 ppm.

    Finally, EPA is not establishing tolerances for “corn, field, sweet, and pop; corn, field and pop, forage; corn, field and pop, grain; corn, field and pop, stover” because the petitioner withdrew those tolerance requests.

    D. Literature References Daood., MJ, Tsai, C., Ahdab-Barmada, M., and Watchko, JF (2008). ABC transporter (P-gp/ABCB1, MRP1/ABCC1, BCRP/ABCG2) expression in the developing Human CNS. Neuropediatrics. 2008 August; 39(4): 211. Lankas, GR, Cartwright, ME, and Umbenhauer, D. (1997) P-Glycoprotein deficiency in a subpopulation of CF-1 mice enhances avermectin-induced neurotoxicity. Toxicol. and Appl. Pharmacol. 143: 357-365. Macdonald, N. and Gledhill, A. (2007). Potential impact of ABCB1 (p-glycoprotein) polymorphisms on avermectin toxicity in human. Arch Toxicol (2007) 81:553-563. Matsukoa, Y., Okazaki, M., Kitamura, Y., and Taniguchi, T. (1999). Developmental expression of P-glycoprotein (multidrug resistance gene product) in the rat brain. Journal of Neurobiology, 39(3), 383-392. van Kalken, CK, Giaccone, G., van der Valk, P., Kuiper, CM, Hadisaputro, MMN, Bosma, SAA, Scheper, RJ, Meijer, CJLM, and Pinedo, HM (1992). Multidrug resistance gene (P-glycoprotein) expression in the human fetus. American Journal of Pathology, vol 141 No.5, November 1992. V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of abamectin in or on acerola at 0.015 ppm; bean at 0.015 ppm; berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G at 0.05 ppm; black sapote at 0.40 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 0.20 ppm; canistel at 0.40 ppm; corn, sweet, forage at 0.20 ppm; corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husk removed at 0.01 ppm; corn, sweet, stover at 0.50 ppm; feijoa at 0.015 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.02 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.02 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F 0.02 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.09 ppm; grain, aspirated grain fractions at 0.40 ppm; guava at 0.015 ppm; jaboticaba at 0.015 ppm; longan at 0.01 ppm; lychee at 0.01 ppm; mamey sapote at 0.40 ppm; nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.01 ppm; onion, green, subgroup 3-07B at 0.08 ppm; papaya at 0.40 ppm; passionfruit at 0.015 ppm; pineapple at 0.015 ppm; pulasan at 0.01 ppm; rambutan at 0.01 ppm; sapodilla at 0.40 ppm; soybean, forage at 0.30 ppm; soybean, hay at 1.0 ppm; soybean, seed at 0.01 ppm; Spanish lime at 0.01 ppm; star apple at 0.40 ppm; starfruit at 0.015 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.07 ppm; and wax jambu at 0.015 ppm.

    In addition, EPA is increasing the established tolerances on cattle, fat from 0.03 to 0.05 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts from 0.06 to 0.09 ppm; fat of goat, horse, and sheep from 0.01 to 0.03 ppm; meat byproducts of goat, horse, and sheep from 0.02 to 0.04 ppm; and milk from 0.005 to 0.015 ppm.

    And lastly EPA is removing the following tolerances as unnecessary due to the establishment of the aforementioned tolerances: Apple at 0.02 ppm; bean, dry, seed at 0.01 ppm; citrus at 0.02 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.09 ppm; grape at 0.02 ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at 0.01 ppm; pear at 0.02 ppm; pistachio at 0.01 ppm; strawberry at 0.05 ppm; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 0.020 ppm.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances 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 tolerances 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: April 22, 2016. 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 § 180.449, the table in paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
    § 180.449 Avermectin B1 and its delta-8,9-isomer; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • Acerola 0.015 Almond, hulls 0.10 Apple, wet pomace 0.10 Avocado 0.020 Bean 0.015 Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G 0.05 Black sapote 0.40 Caneberry subgroup 13-07A 0.20 Canistel 0.40 Cattle, fat 0.05 Cattle, meat 0.02 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.09 Celeriac, roots 0.05 Celeriac, tops 0.05 Chive, dried leaves 0.02 Chive, fresh leaves 0.01 Citrus, dried pulp 0.10 Citrus, oil 0.10 Corn, sweet, forage 0.20 Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husk removed 0.01 Corn, sweet, stover 0.50 Cotton, gin byproducts 1.0 Cotton, undelinted seed 0.02 Feijoa 0.015 Food products in food handling establishments (other than those already covered by higher tolerances as a result of use on growing crops, and other than those already covered by tolerances on milk, meat, and meat byproducts) 0.01 Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 0.02 Fruit, pome, group 11-10 0.02 Fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F 0.02 Fruit, stone, group 12-12 0.09 Goat, fat 0.03 Goat, meat 0.02 Goat, meat byproducts 0.04 Grain, aspirated grain fractions 0.40 Guava 0.015 Herb subgroup 19A, except chive 0.030 Hog, fat 0.01 Hog, meat 0.02 Hog, meat byproducts 0.02 Hop, dried cones 0.20 Horse, fat 0.03 Horse, meat 0.02 Horse, meat byproducts 0.04 Jaboticaba 0.015 Longan 0.01 Lychee 0.01 Mamey sapote 0.40 Milk 0.015 Nut, tree, group 14-12 0.01 Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A 0.01 Onion, green, subgroup 3-07B 0.08 Papaya 0.40 Passionfruit 0.015 Peppermint, tops 0.010 Pineapple 0.015 Plum, prune, dried 0.025 Poultry, meat 0.02 Poultry, meat byproducts 0.02 Pulasan 0.01 Rambutan 0.01 Sapodilla 0.40 Sheep, fat 0.03 Sheep, meat 0.02 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.04 Soybean, forage 0.30 Soybean, hay 1.0 Soybean, seed 0.01 Spanish lime 0.01 Spearmint, tops 0.010 Star apple 0.40 Starfruit 0.015 Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 0.005 Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 0.07 Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 0.10 Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 01C 0.01 Wax jambu 0.015
    [FR Doc. 2016-10230 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 151117999-6370-01] RIN 0648-BF56 Fisheries Off West Coast States; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; 2016 Management Measures and a Temporary Rule AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule; and a temporary rule for emergency action.

    SUMMARY:

    Through this final rule, NMFS establishes fishery management measures for the 2016 ocean salmon fisheries off Washington, Oregon, and California and the 2017 salmon seasons opening earlier than May 1, 2017. The temporary rule for emergency action (emergency rule), under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), implements the 2016 annual management measures for the West Coast ocean salmon fisheries for the area from the U.S./Canada border to Cape Falcon, OR from May 1, 2016, through October 28, 2016. The emergency rule is required because preseason forecast abundance of several stocks of coho from the Washington coast and Puget Sound is below the stock-specific spawning escapement goals (i.e., conservation objective) specified in the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and allocation of coho harvest in the recreational fishery will not be distributed consistent with the FMP in order to limit fishery impacts on these weak coho stocks. The fishery management measures for the area from Cape Falcon, OR, to the U.S./Mexico border are consistent with the FMP and are implemented through a final rule. Specific fishery management measures vary by fishery and by area. The measures establish fishing areas, seasons, quotas, legal gear, recreational fishing days and catch limits, possession and landing restrictions, and minimum lengths for salmon taken in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (3-200 NM) off Washington, Oregon, and California. The management measures are intended to prevent overfishing and to apportion the ocean harvest equitably among treaty Indian, non-treaty commercial, and recreational fisheries. The measures are also intended to allow a portion of the salmon runs to escape the ocean fisheries in order to provide for spawning escapement and inside fisheries (fisheries occurring in state internal waters).

    DATES:

    Final rule covering fisheries south of Cape Falcon, Oregon, is effective from 0001 hours Pacific Daylight Time, May 1, 2016, until the effective date of the 2017 management measures, which will be published in the Federal Register. Temporary rule covering fisheries north of Cape Falcon, Oregon, is effective from 0001 hours Pacific Daylight Time, May 1, 2016, through 2400 hours Pacific Daylight Time, October 28, 2016, or the attainment of the specific quotas listed below in section two of this rule.

    ADDRESSES:

    The documents cited in this document are available on the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council's) Web site (www.pcouncil.org).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peggy Mundy at 206-526-4323.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The ocean salmon fisheries in the EEZ off Washington, Oregon, and California are managed under a “framework” FMP. Regulations at 50 CFR part 660, subpart H, provide the mechanism for making preseason and inseason adjustments to the management measures, within limits set by the FMP, by notification in the Federal Register.

    The management measures for the 2016 and pre-May 2017 ocean salmon fisheries that are implemented in this final rule were recommended by the Council at its April 9 to 14, 2016, meeting.

    Process Used To Establish 2016 Management Measures

    The Council announced its annual preseason management process for the 2016 ocean salmon fisheries in the Federal Register on December 31, 2015 (80 FR 81806), and on the Council's Web site at (www.pcouncil.org). NMFS published an additional notice of opportunities to submit public comments on the 2016 ocean salmon fisheries in the Federal Register on February 1, 2016 (81 FR 5101). These notices announced the availability of Council documents, the dates and locations of Council meetings and public hearings comprising the Council's complete schedule of events for determining the annual proposed and final modifications to ocean salmon fishery management measures, and instructions on how to comment on the development of the 2016 ocean salmon fisheries. The agendas for the March and April Council meetings were published in the Federal Register (81 FR 8047, February 17, 2016, and 81 FR 15045, March 21, 2016, respectively) and posted on the Council's Web site prior to the actual meetings.

    In accordance with the FMP, the Council's Salmon Technical Team (STT) and staff economist prepared four reports for the Council, its advisors, and the public. All four reports were made available on the Council's Web site upon their completion. The first of the reports, “Review of 2015 Ocean Salmon Fisheries,” was prepared in February when the scientific information necessary for crafting management measures for the 2016 and pre-May 2017 ocean salmon fisheries first became available. The first report summarizes biological and socio-economic data for the 2015 ocean salmon fisheries and assesses how well the Council's 2015 management objectives were met. The second report, “Preseason Report I Stock Abundance Analysis and Environmental Assessment Part 1 for 2016 Ocean Salmon Fishery Regulations” (PRE I), provides the 2016 salmon stock abundance projections and analyzes the impacts on the stocks and Council management goals if the 2015 regulations and regulatory procedures were applied to the projected 2016 stock abundances. The completion of PRE I is the initial step in developing and evaluating the full suite of preseason alternatives.

    Following completion of the first two reports, the Council met in Sacramento, CA, from March 9 to 14, 2016, to develop 2016 management alternatives for proposal to the public. The Council proposed three alternatives for commercial and recreational fisheries management for analysis and public comment. These alternatives consisted of various combinations of management measures designed to protect weak stocks of coho and Chinook salmon, and to provide for ocean harvests of more abundant stocks. After the March Council meeting, the Council's STT and staff economist prepared a third report, “Preseason Report II Proposed Alternatives and Environmental Assessment Part 2 for 2016 Ocean Salmon Fishery Regulations” (PRE II), which analyzes the effects of the proposed 2016 management alternatives.

    Public hearings, sponsored by the Council, to receive testimony on the proposed alternatives were held on March 28, 2016, in Westport, WA, and Coos Bay, OR; and on March 29, 2016, in Fort Bragg, CA. The States of Washington, Oregon, and California sponsored meetings in various forums that also collected public testimony, which was then presented to the Council by each state's Council representative. The Council also received public testimony at both the March and April meetings and received written comments at the Council office.

    The Council met from April 9 to 14, 2016, in Vancouver, WA, to adopt its final 2016 salmon management recommendations. Following the April Council meeting, the Council's STT and staff economist prepared a fourth report, “Preseason Report III Analysis of Council-Adopted Management Measures for 2016 Ocean Salmon Fisheries” (PRE III), which analyzes the environmental and socio-economic effects of the Council's final recommendations. After the Council took final action on the annual ocean salmon specifications in April, it transmitted the recommended management measures to NMFS, published them in its newsletter, and also posted them on the Council Web site (www.pcouncil.org).

    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    The EA for this action comprises the Council's documents described above (PRE I, PRE II, and PRE III), providing analysis of environmental and socioeconomic effects under NEPA. The EA and its related Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) are posted on the NMFS West Coast Region Web site (www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov).

    Resource Status Stocks of Concern

    The need to meet Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation requirements and obligations of the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST) between the U.S. and Canada for several stocks, as well as conservation objectives detailed in the FMP, will shape salmon fisheries in 2016, and several stocks will constrain fishing in 2016.

    Fisheries south of Cape Falcon, OR, are limited in 2016 primarily by the low abundance forecast of Klamath River fall Chinook salmon (KRFC) and concern for the status of ESA-listed Sacramento River winter Chinook salmon (SRWC). Fisheries north of Cape Falcon are limited primarily by the extremely low abundance forecasts for several stocks of coho salmon, primarily from the Washington coast and Puget Sound. At the start of the preseason planning process for the 2016 management season, NMFS provided a letter to the Council, dated March 7, 2016, summarizing limits to impacts on ESA-listed species for 2016, based on existing biological opinions and 2016 abundance information, as required by the Salmon FMP. The limitations imposed in order to protect these stocks are described below. The alternatives and the Council's recommended management measures for 2015 were designed to avoid exceeding these limitations.

    Sacramento River winter Chinook salmon (SRWC): In 2010, NMFS consulted under ESA section 7 and provided guidance to the Council regarding the effects of Council area fisheries on SRWC, ESA-listed as endangered. NMFS completed a biological opinion that includes a reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of this evolutionarily significant unit (ESU). The RPA included management-area-specific fishing season openings and closures, and minimum size limits for both commercial and recreational fisheries. It also directed NMFS to develop a second component to the RPA—an abundance-based management (ABM) framework. In 2012, NMFS implemented this ABM framework which supplements the above management restrictions with maximum allowable impact rates that apply when abundance is low, based on the three-year geometric mean spawning escapement of SRWC. Using the methodology specified in the ABM framework, the age-3 impact rate on SRWC in 2016 fisheries south of Point Arena recommended by NMFS would be limited to a maximum of 19.9 percent. However, as in 2015, the Council expressed concern that the methodology used to recommend that impact rate is retrospective in nature and may not be responsive to the affects of recent environmental events on salmon survival and productivity, including the perilously high mortality rates of out-migrating SRWC smolts in recent years due to warm water conditions caused by drought in California. The Council has formed a workgroup to develop new scientific methodology to incorporate information about future SRWC abundance into fishery management; however, that new methodology is not yet available. For 2016, the Council recommended precautionary management measures including time and area restrictions based on data presented by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regarding SRWC encounters in the fishery resulting in an impact rate for SRWC of 12.8 percent. Conservation measures for SRWC will constrain 2016 salmon fisheries south of Cape Falcon.

    California Coastal Chinook salmon (CCC): NMFS last consulted under ESA section 7 regarding the effects of Council area fisheries on CCC in 2005. Klamath River fall Chinook (KRFC) are used as a surrogate to set limits on ocean harvest impacts on CCC. The biological opinion requires that management measures result in a KRFC age-4 ocean harvest rate of no greater than 16 percent. Conservation measures for CCC will not constrain 2016 salmon fisheries south of Cape Falcon.

    Klamath River fall Chinook salmon (KRFC): KRFC is not an ESA-listed stock; however, forecast abundance for this stock in 2016 is one-third of the 2015 forecast. To comply with the FMP's harvest control rule for this stock, fisheries south of Cape Falcon will be constrained in 2016 to meet the de minimis exploitation rate of 0.25 on KRFC.

    Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon (LCR Chinook): In 2012, NMFS consulted under ESA section 7 and issued a biological opinion that applies to fisheries beginning in 2012, concluding that the proposed fisheries, if managed consistent with the terms of the biological opinion, are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of LCR Chinook salmon. The LCR Chinook salmon ESU is comprised of a spring component, a “far-north” migrating bright component, and a component of north migrating tules. The bright and tule components both have fall run timing. There are twenty-one separate populations within the tule component of this ESU. Unlike the spring or bright populations of the ESU, LCR tule populations are caught in large numbers in Council fisheries, as well as fisheries to the north and in the Columbia River. Therefore, this component of the ESU is the one most likely to constrain Council fisheries in the area north of Cape Falcon, Oregon. Under the 2012 biological opinion, NMFS uses an ABM framework to set annual exploitation rates for LCR tule Chinook salmon below Bonneville Dam. Applying the ABM framework to the 2016 preseason abundance forecast, the LCR tule exploitation rate is limited to a maximum of 41 percent. In 2016, LCR Chinook will not constrain salmon fisheries.

    Lower Columbia River natural coho (LCR coho): In 2015, NMFS conducted an ESA section 7 consultation and issued a biological opinion regarding the effects of Council fisheries and fisheries in the Columbia River on LCR coho. The opinion analyzed the use of a harvest matrix to manage impacts to LCR coho. Under the matrix the allowable harvest in a given year depends on indicators of marine survival and parental escapement to spawning. In 2016, the marine survival indicator is in the “medium” category, while parental escapement is in the “normal” category. Under these circumstances, ocean salmon fisheries under the Council's jurisdiction in 2016, and commercial and recreational salmon fisheries in the mainstem Columbia River below Bonneville Dam, including select area fisheries (e.g., Youngs Bay), must be managed subject to a total exploitation rate limit on LCR coho not to exceed 18 percent. In 2016, LCR coho will somewhat constrain salmon fisheries.

    Thompson River coho: Interior Fraser (Thompson River) coho, a Canadian stock, continues to be depressed, remaining in the “low” status category under the PST; under these circumstances, the PST and Salmon FMP require a maximum 10.0 percent total U.S. exploitation rate on this stock. Meeting PST and Salmon FMP conservation requirements for Thompson River coho will not constrain 2016 salmon fisheries north of Cape Falcon.

    Puget Sound Chinook salmon: Impacts on threatened Puget Sound Chinook from Council-managed fisheries are addressed through a 2004 biological opinion. Generally, these impacts are quite low and well within the range contemplated in the 2004 opinion. However, because Puget Sound Chinook are also impacted by fisheries in Puget Sound and associated freshwater fisheries (collectively referred to as “inside” fisheries), the Council and NMFS usually consider the impacts of Council-area and inside fisheries on Puget Sound Chinook together, and they base their analysis of the combined impacts on a package of Puget Sound fisheries to which the State of Washington and Indian tribes with treaty rights to fish in Puget Sound have agreed through a negotiation process that runs concurrent with the Council's salmon season planning process. In 2016, the state and tribes with treaty rights to fish for salmon in Puget Sound have been unable to agree to a package of Puget Sound fisheries. However, the State and tribes did agree to conservation objectives for each stock of salmon included in the Puget Sound Chinook ESU. These conservation objectives are very similar to those for past years; and NMFS has determined in biological opinions covering Puget Sound fisheries in recent years that fisheries with impacts that do not exceed those past conservation objectives are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the ESU. The state and tribes provided a commitment to the Council during its deliberation on the final ocean package that they would manage Puget Sound fisheries in combination with ocean fishery impacts to stay within these conservation objectives. Given this commitment, and the relatively minor impacts of Council-area fisheries on Puget Sound Chinook stocks consistent with the 2004 opinion, it is highly likely that the combined fishery impacts will be within NMFS' ESA guidance as described in NMFS' March 7, 2016, letter to the Council outlining the ESA requirements for 2016.

    Queets River coho: Queets River coho are not ESA-listed. However, the 2016 abundance forecast for this stock is below the FMP conservation objective for escapement (projected abundance of 3,500, conservation objective is escapement of 5,800). Queets River coho, and in combination with other Washington coastal coho stocks, will severely constrain all salmon fisheries north of Cape Falcon, Oregon.

    Grays Harbor natural coho: Grays Harbor coho are not ESA-listed. However, the 2016 abundance forecast for this stock is very close to the FMP conservation objective for escapement (projected abundance of 35,694, conservation objective is escapement of 35,400); therefore, it is likely that this stock will not meet the FMP conservation objective for escapement in 2016. Grays Harbor coho, in combination with other Washington coastal coho stocks, will severely constrain all salmon fisheries north of Cape Falcon, Oregon.

    Hoh coho: Hoh coho are not ESA-listed. However, projected abundance of this stock is extremely close to the FMP conservation objective for escapement in 2016 (projected abundance of 2,100, conservation objective is escapement of 2,000). Hoh coho, in combination with other Washington coastal coho stocks, will severely constrain all salmon fisheries north of Cape Falcon, Oregon.

    Quillayute fall coho: Quillayute fall coho are not ESA-listed. However, the 2016 abundance forecast for this stock is below the FMP conservation objective for escapement (projected abundance of 4,500, conservation objective is escapement of 6,300). Quillayute fall coho, in combination with other Washington coastal coho stocks, will severely constrain all salmon fisheries north of Cape Falcon, Oregon.

    Puget Sound coho: Coho stocks from Puget Sound are impacted by fisheries in marine and inland waters including British Columbia, Washington coast, Salish Sea (including the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound), and rivers that connect to Puget Sound. These fisheries are managed by multiple entities including the Pacific Salmon Commission, the Council, and the State of Washington and Treaty Tribes through the North of Falcon process. The Council considers the impacts of all fisheries on these stocks to avoid exceeding the exploitation rates allowed under the Salmon FMP. Abundance forecasts for four stocks of coho from Puget Sound in 2016 place these stocks in the Critical abundance-based status category, which results in an exploitation rate ceiling for southern U.S. fisheries of 10 percent under both the salmon FMP and the provisions of the PST. Therefore, the Council adopted management measures that would limit impacts from U.S. ocean and inside fisheries to 10 percent exploitation rate for the following Puget Sound coho stocks in 2016: Skagit, Stillaguamish, Snohomish, and Strait of Juan de Fuca. The state and tribes provided a commitment to the Council during its deliberation on the final ocean package that they would manage Puget Sound fisheries in combination with ocean fishery impacts to stay within the 10 percent exploitation rate in 2016. These stocks are not ESA-listed, and fisheries north of Cape Falcon, OR, will not be constrained to meet conservation objectives for Puget Sound coho stocks due to the low impact of Council-area fisheries on these stocks.

    Annual Catch Limits and Status Determination Criteria

    Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) are set for two Chinook salmon stocks, Sacramento River fall Chinook (SRFC) and KRFC, and one coho stock, Willapa Bay natural coho. The Chinook salmon stocks are indicator stocks for the Central Valley Fall Chinook complex and the Southern Oregon/Northern California Chinook complex, respectively. The Far North Migrating Coastal Chinook complex includes a group of Chinook salmon stocks that are caught primarily in fisheries north of Cape Falcon, Oregon, and other fisheries that occur north of the U.S./Canada border. No ACL is set for these stocks because they are managed according to the PST with Canada. Other Chinook salmon stocks caught in fisheries north of Cape Falcon are ESA-listed or hatchery produced, and are managed consistent with ESA consultations or hatchery goals. Willapa Bay natural coho is the only coho stock for which an ACL is set, as the other coho stocks in the FMP are either ESA-listed, hatchery produced, or managed under the PST.

    ACLs for salmon stocks are escapement-based, which means they establish a number of adults that must escape the fisheries to return to the spawning grounds. ACLs are set based on the annual abundance projection and a fishing rate reduced to account for scientific uncertainty. The abundance forecasts for 2016 are described in more detail below in the “Management Measures for 2016 Fisheries” section of this final rule. For SRFC in 2016, the overfishing limit (OFL) is SOFL = 299,609 (projected abundance) multiplied by 1 − FMSY (1 − 0.78) or 65,914 returning spawners (FMSY is the fishing mortality rate that would result in maximum sustainable yield−MSY). SABC is 299,609 multiplied by 1−FABC (1−0.70) (FMSY reduced for scientific uncertainty = 0.70) or 89,883. The SACL is set equal to SABC, i.e, 89,883 spawners. For KRFC in 2016, SOFL is 41,211 (abundance projection) multiplied by 1−FMSY (1−0.71), or 11,951 returning spawners. SABC is 41,211 multiplied by 1 − FABC (1−0.68) (FMSY reduced for scientific uncertainty = 0.68) or 13,188 returning spawners. SACL is set equal to SABC, i.e., 13,188 spawners. For Willapa Bay natural coho in 2016, the overfishing limit (OFL) is SOFL = 39,516 (projected abundance) multiplied by 1−FMSY (1−0.74) or 10,274 returning spawners. SABC is 39,516 multiplied by 1 − FABC (1−0.70) (FMSY reduced for scientific uncertainty = 0.70) or 11,854. SACL is set equal to SABC, i.e., 11,854 spawners.

    As explained in more detail above under “Stocks of Concern,” fisheries north and south of Cape Falcon, are constrained by impact limits necessary to protect ESA-listed salmon stocks including SRWC and Puget Sound Chinook, as well as KRFC, Queets, Grays Harbor, Hoh, Quillayute fall, Skagit, Stillaguamish, Snohomish and Strait of Juan de Fuca coho which are not ESA-listed. For 2016, projected abundance of the three stocks with ACLs (SRFC, KRFC, and Willapa Bay natural coho), in combination with the constraints for ESA-listed and non-ESA-listed stocks, are expected to result in escapements greater than required to meet the ACLs for all three stocks with defined ACLs.

    Emergency Rule

    The Council's final recommendation for the ocean salmon fishing seasons that commence May 1, 2016, deviate from the FMP specifically with regard to not meeting FMP escapement goals for several stocks of coho and in setting the recreational fishery allocations north and south of Leadbetter Point, Oregon. As discussed above, two coastal coho stocks have abundance projections that do not meet FMP conservation objectives for escapement, even without fishing. Two additional coastal coho stocks have abundance forecasts that are extremely close to the FMP conservation objective for escapement. To respond to this circumstance, the Council has recommended fisheries that would prohibit coho retention north of Leadbetter Point, Washington (about 10 miles north of the Columbia River) and would allow only limited fisheries targeting Chinook in that area, well below what might be allowed if coho stocks were healthy. The following stocks will not meet their FMP conservation objectives for escapement, even without fishing impacts:

    Queets: FMP conservation objective: 5,800 − 14,500 escapement (SMSY = 5,800) Preseason abundance estimate: 3,500 Quillayute fall: FMP conservation objective: 6,300 − 15,800 escapement (SMSY = 6,300) Preseason abundance estimate: 4,500

    The preseason forecasts for these stocks are at unprecedented low levels. The Council's Salmon Technical Team (STT) expressed concern that unusually warm ocean temperatures are affecting ocean productivity, leading to adverse impacts to coho stocks. Coastal and Puget Sound Chinook stocks and Columbia River coho stocks do not appear to be affected to the same extent, and are projected to return in harvestable numbers.

    The Council considered three alternative fishery management schemes for the fisheries north of Cape Falcon. One alternative would have allowed coho retention north of Leadbetter Point, one alternative would have allowed Chinook fishing only north of Leadbetter Point, with incidental impacts to coho, and one alternative would have closed fisheries north of Leadbetter Point completely. The Council's state and tribal representatives, and industry advisory committee, supported consideration of these three alternatives. The Council's final recommended management measures fall between the second and third alternatives in terms of impacts to coho. These management measures reflect agreement between the State of Washington and coastal treaty tribes on temporary escapement goals for combined ocean fisheries and fisheries landward of the EEZ; the projected impacts of the combined fisheries are managed such that the affected stocks meet these escapement goals. The Council's recommended management measures would allow very limited Chinook fishing north of Leadbetter Point—approximately 50 percent of the Chinook quota for 2015 despite projected Chinook abundance similar to 2015. Retention of coho would be prohibited, thus impacts to coho would be incidental to fishing for Chinook. The Council voted unanimously to adopt these measures, and members spoke at length about the need to conserve coho stocks while mitigating to the extent possible the otherwise severe impacts on coastal communities.

    The proposed fisheries have minimal impacts on the affected coho stocks and are not expected to jeopardize the capacity of the fishery to produce maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis. The FMP defines overfishing and overfished status for these stocks. None would be subject to overfishing under the proposed management measures, in fact the overfishing limits in the FMP are much higher than the expected impact rates (50-60 percent MFMTs as opposed to 1-10 percent projected fishery impacts). All but one of the stocks are expected to avoid “overfished” or “approaching overfished” status with the proposed fisheries. The FMP defines “overfished” status in terms of a three year geometric mean escapement level and whether it is above the minimum stock sized threshold (MSST). Queets, Hoh, and Grays Harbor coho are all expected to have three year geometric mean escapement levels above MSST, when the projected impacts of the Council's recommended fisheries and fisheries landward of the EEZ are taken into account. One stock, Quillayute fall coho, is likely to meet the definition of “overfished” in 2017, but this is the case whether or not there are any fishery impacts. The marginal decreases in the abundance of all four stocks expected from the proposed fisheries (e.g., for Quillayute fall, approximately 66 fish out of the forecasted abundance of 4,500 fish may be taken by the proposed fisheries) are not expected to affect the ability of the fisheries to produce MSY on a continuing basis.

    The temporary rule for emergency action implements the 2016 annual management measures for the West Coast ocean salmon fisheries for the area from the U.S./Canada border to Cape Falcon, OR, for 180 days, from May 1, 2016, through October 28, 2016 (16 U.S.C. 1855(c)).

    Public Comments

    The Council invited written comments on developing 2016 salmon management measures in their notice announcing public meetings and hearings (80 FR 81806, December 31, 2015). At its March meeting, the Council adopted three alternatives for 2016 salmon management measures having a range of quotas, season structure, and impacts, from the least restrictive in Alternative I to the most restrictive in Alternative III. These alternatives are described in detail in PRE II. Subsequently, comments were taken at three public hearings held in March, staffed by representatives of the Council and NMFS. The Council received several written comments directly. The three public hearings were attended by a total of 119 people; 37 people provided oral comments. Comments came from individual fishers, fishing associations, fish buyers, and processors. Written and oral comments addressed the 2016 management alternatives described in PRE II, and generally expressed preferences for a specific alternative or for particular season structures. All comments were included in the Council's briefing book for their April 2016 meeting and were considered by the Council, which includes a representative from NMFS, in developing the recommended management measures transmitted to NMFS on April 22, 2016. In addition to comments collected at the public hearings and those submitted directly to the Council, several people provided oral comments at the April 2016 Council meeting; two further comments were received via email to the Council and to NMFS during and following the April 2016 Council meeting. NMFS also invited comments to be submitted directly to the Council or to NMFS, via the Federal Rulemaking Portal (www.regulations.gov) in a notice (81 FR 5101, February 1, 2016). Eight comments were submitted via www.regulations.gov; one of which did not address salmon management.

    Comments on alternatives for fisheries north of Cape Falcon. For fisheries north of Cape Falcon, Alternative I quota levels were favored by commercial and recreational fishery commenters at the public hearing in Westport, WA. Comments on both commercial and recreational fisheries support consistent openings. The economic impacts and opportunities associated with salmon fisheries were stressed by several commenters. Alternative III, which would have closed all fisheries north of Cape Falcon received no support.

    Comments on alternatives for fisheries south of Cape Falcon. Most comments that expressed support for a specific alternative supported Alternative I, for both commercial and recreational fisheries. A couple of groups presented new alternatives, each receiving a share of support from those attending the public hearings. The seven relevant comments submitted via the Federal Rulemaking Portal all opposed Alternative III for the recreational fishery in the Monterey area. Public testimony at the April Council meeting was largely opposed to additional conservation restrictions over what were implemented in 2015 to limit fishery impacts on SRWC.

    Comments on incidental halibut retention in the commercial salmon fisheries. At its March meeting, the Council identified three alternatives for landing limits for incidentally caught halibut that are retained in the salmon troll fishery. Alternatives I and II each received a single testimony of support at the public hearings.

    Comments on NEPA. The Council and NMFS received two emailed comments, one near the end of the April Council meeting and the other after the Council meeting had ended that suggested the action of adopting the 2016 ocean salmon management measures might require analysis in an environmental impact statement. NMFS took these comments into consideration in our NEPA analysis and when finalizing the EA and FONSI. In summary, NMFS disagrees with the commenter's assertions that the impacts of the proposed fisheries are “significant” and require an EIS, because these impacts are very low relative to stock abundance and are not expected to jeopardize the ability of the fisheries to produce maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis. Further, future fisheries will be shaped to respond to new information about the impacts of environmental conditions and human activities on the stocks in the FMP.

    The Council, including the NMFS representative, took all of these comments into consideration. The Council's final recommendation generally includes aspects of all three alternatives, while taking into account the best available scientific information and ensuring that fisheries are consistent with ESA consultation standards, ACLs, PST obligations, and tribal fishing rights. These management tools assist the Council in meeting impact limits on weak stocks. The Council adopted alternative III for incidental halibut retention, this alternative provides for more liberal landing limits for halibut than were adopted for 2015 salmon fisheries and April 2016 salmon fisheries (80 FR 25611, May 5, 2015).

    Management Measures for 2016 Fisheries

    The Council's recommended ocean harvest levels and management measures for the 2016 fisheries are designed to apportion the burden of protecting the weak stocks identified and discussed in PRE I equitably among ocean fisheries and to allow maximum harvest of natural and hatchery runs surplus to inside fishery and spawning needs. NMFS finds the Council's recommendations responsive to the goals of the FMP, the requirements of the resource, and the socioeconomic factors affecting resource users. The recommendations are consistent with the requirements of the MSA, U.S. obligations to Indian tribes with federally recognized fishing rights, and U.S. international obligations regarding Pacific salmon. The Council's recommended management measures also comply with NMFS ESA consultation standards and guidance, for those ESA-listed salmon species that may be affected by Council fisheries. Accordingly, NMFS, through this final rule and temporary rule, approves and implements the Council's recommendations.

    North of Cape Falcon, 2016 management measures for non-Indian commercial troll and recreational fisheries have greatly reduced quotas for Chinook and coho salmon compared to 2015. This is due to the fact that Washington coast and Puget Sound coho are forecast to have extremely low abundance and conservation measures are being implemented in all salmon fishing sectors north of Cape Falcon to limit impacts on these stocks. North of Cape Falcon in 2016, commercial fisheries will have no retention of coho salmon and recreational fisheries will have no retention of coho salmon north of Leadbetter Point, WA. Chinook harvest north of Cape Falcon will be approximately one half of the 2015 level for both commercial and recreational fisheries. Chinook impacts in Alaskan and Canadian fisheries on salmon stocks originating north of Cape Falcon are expected to increase slightly for Chinook in 2016 compared with 2015; coho impacts are essentially the same. As noted previously, ESA-listed Puget Sound Chinook will not be constraining to this year's fisheries. Impacts to Thompson River coho from Canada and Puget Sound coho will also not be constraining, due to conservation measures in place to limit fishery impacts to Washington coast coho. The Council recommended a provision prohibiting retention of chum salmon in the ocean salmon fisheries north of Cape Alava, WA, during August and September to protect ESA-listed Hood Canal summer chum. The Council has recommended such a prohibition since 2002 (67 FR 30616, May 7, 2002). The projected abundance of Willapa Bay natural coho in 2016 is similar to the 2015 projection. Under the management measures in this final rule, and including anticipated in-river impacts, spawning escapement for Willapa Bay natural coho is projected at 37,400, well above the SACL for this stock.

    Recreational fisheries south of Cape Falcon will be directed primarily at Chinook salmon, with opportunity for coho limited to the area between Cape Falcon and the Oregon/California border. Commercial fisheries south of Cape Falcon will be directed at Chinook and have no coho retention. The projected abundance of SRFC in 2016 is about half of the 2015 projection. Under the management measures in this final rule, and including anticipated in-river impacts, spawning escapement for SRFC is projected at 151,100, well above the SACL for this stock. Projected abundance for KRFC in 2016 is about one-third of 2015, and harvest will be constrained to a de minimis level of 25 percent by the harvest control rule. Under the management measures in this final rule, and including anticipated in-river fishery impacts, spawning escapement for KRFC is projected at 30,909, well above the SACL for this stock.

    As discussed above in “Stocks of Concern,” NMFS' 2012 RPA for SRWC, together with projected abundance for 2016, limits Council-area fishery impacts to SRWC to 19.9 percent. In deciding on the recommended management measures, the Council additionally considered information on the impacts of ongoing drought on California salmon stocks, particularly SRWC, including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) estimate of greater than 95 percent mortality of juvenile SRWC from brood years 2014 and 2015 prior to downstream emigration, information developed by CDFW on time and area vulnerability of SRWC to commercial and recreational fisheries, and public testimony on proposed season structure. In response to the information presented by CDFW on the time and area vulnerability of SRWC, the final management measures include specific limits on the fishing seasons south of Pigeon Point, CA, and result in an age-3 ocean impact rate of 12.8 percent in 2016, compared with 17.5 percent in 2015.

    The treaty-Indian commercial troll fishery quotas for 2016 are 40,000 Chinook salmon and no coho in ocean management areas and Washington State Statistical Area 4B combined. These quotas are lower than the 60,000 Chinook and 42,500 coho quotas in 2015, for the same reasons discussed above for the non-tribal fishery. The treaty-Indian fishery commercial fisheries include a May and June fishery and a July and August fishery, with a quota of 20,000 Chinook in each fishery.

    Management Measures for 2017 Fisheries

    The timing of the March and April Council meetings makes it impracticable for the Council to recommend fishing seasons that begin before May 1 of the same year. Therefore, this action also establishes the 2017 fishing seasons that open earlier than May 1. The Council recommended, and NMFS concurs, that the commercial season off Oregon from Cape Falcon to the Oregon/California border, the commercial season off California from Horse Mountain to Point Arena, the recreational season off Oregon from Cape Falcon to Humbug Mountain, and the recreational season off California from Horse Mountain to the U.S./Mexico border will open in 2017 as indicated in the “Season Description” section of this document. At the March 2017 meeting, the Council may consider inseason recommendations to adjust the commercial and recreational seasons prior to May 1 in the areas off Oregon and California.

    The following sections set out the management regime for the ocean salmon fishery. Open seasons and days are described in Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the 2016 management measures. Inseason closures in the commercial and recreational fisheries are announced on the NMFS hotline and through the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Notice to Mariners as described in Section 6. Other inseason adjustments to management measures are also announced on the hotline and through the Notice to Mariners. Inseason actions will also be published in the Federal Register as soon as practicable.

    The following are the management measures recommended by the Council and approved and implemented here for 2016 and, as specified, for 2017.

    Section 1. Commercial Management Measures for 2016 Ocean Salmon Fisheries

    Parts A, B, and C of this section contain restrictions that must be followed for lawful participation in the fishery. Part A identifies each fishing area and provides the geographic boundaries from north to south, the open seasons for the area, the salmon species allowed to be caught during the seasons, and any other special restrictions effective in the area. Part B specifies minimum size limits. Part C specifies special requirements, definitions, restrictions, and exceptions.

    A. Season Description North of Cape Falcon, OR —U.S./Canada Border to Cape Falcon

    May 1-3, May 6-31, June 3-5, June 10-16, and June 24-30 or 14,000 Chinook, no more than 4,600 of which may be caught in the area between the U.S./Canada border and the Queets River and no more than 4,600 of which may be caught in the area between Leadbetter Pt. and Cape Falcon (C.8). May 1 through May 3 with a landing and possession limit of 40 Chinook per vessel for the open period. Then May 6 through May 31, five days per week, Friday through Tuesday with a landing and possession limit of 40 Chinook per vessel per open period. Then June 3-5, June 10-16, and June 24-30, with a landing and possession limit of 40 Chinook per vessel per open period (C.1, C.6). All salmon except coho (C.4, C.7). Chinook minimum size limit of 28 inches total length (B). Vessels in possession of salmon north of the Queets River may not cross the Queets River line without first notifying Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) at 360-249-1215 with area fished, total Chinook and halibut catch aboard, and destination. Vessels in possession of salmon south of the Queets River may not cross the Queets River line without first notifying WDFW at 360-249-1215 with area fished, total Chinook and halibut catch aboard, and destination. When it is projected that approximately 75 percent of the overall Chinook guideline has been landed, or approximately 75 percent of the Chinook subarea guideline has been landed in the area between the U.S./Canada border and the Queets River, or approximately 75 percent of the Chinook subarea guideline has been landed in the area between Leadbetter Point and Cape Falcon, inseason action will be considered to ensure the guideline is not exceeded. See compliance requirements (C.1) and gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3). Cape Flattery, Mandatory Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area (YRCA), and Columbia Control Zones closed (C.5). Vessels must land and deliver their fish within 24 hours of any closure of this fishery. Under state law, vessels must report their catch on a state fish receiving ticket. Vessels fishing or in possession of salmon while fishing north of Leadbetter Point must land and deliver their fish within the area and north of Leadbetter Point. Vessels fishing or in possession of salmon while fishing south of Leadbetter Point must land and deliver their fish within the area and south of Leadbetter Point, except that Oregon permitted vessels may also land their fish in Garibaldi, Oregon. Oregon State regulations require all fishers landing salmon into Oregon from any fishery between Leadbetter Point, Washington and Cape Falcon, Oregon must notify Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) within one hour of delivery or prior to transport away from the port of landing by either calling 541-867-0300 ext. 271 or sending notification via email to [email protected] Notification shall include vessel name and number, number of salmon by species, port of landing and location of delivery, and estimated time of delivery. Inseason actions may modify harvest guidelines in later fisheries to achieve or prevent exceeding the overall allowable troll harvest impacts (C.8).

    July 8-14, July 22-28, August 1-7, and August 15-23 or 21,000 Chinook, no more than 8,300 of which may be caught in the area between the U.S./Canada border and the Queets River (C.8). Landing and possession limit of 50 Chinook per vessel per open period (C.1). Vessels in possession of salmon north of the Queets River may not cross the Queets River line (see Section 5. Geographical Landmarks) without first notifying WDFW at 360-249-1215 with area fished, total Chinook and halibut catch aboard, and destination. Vessels in possession of salmon south of the Queets River may not cross the Queets River line (see Section 5. Geographical Landmarks) without first notifying WDFW at 360-249-1215 with area fished, total Chinook and halibut catch aboard, and destination. When it is projected that approximately 75 percent of the overall Chinook guideline has been landed, or approximately 75 percent of the Chinook subarea guideline has been landed in the area between the U.S./Canada border to the Queets River, inseason action will be considered to ensure the guideline is not exceeded. All salmon except coho; no chum retention north of Cape Alava, Washington in August and September (C.4, C.7). Chinook minimum size limit of 28 inches total length (B, C.1). See compliance requirements (C.1) and gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3). Mandatory Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area, Cape Flattery and Columbia Control Zones, and beginning August 8, Grays Harbor Control Zone closed (C.5, C.6). Vessels must land and deliver their fish within 24 hours of any closure of this fishery. Vessels fishing or in possession of salmon while fishing north of Leadbetter Point must land and deliver their fish within the area and north of Leadbetter Point. Vessels fishing or in possession of salmon while fishing south of Leadbetter Point must land and deliver their fish within the area and south of Leadbetter Point, except that Oregon permitted vessels may also land their fish in Garibaldi, Oregon. Under state law, vessels must report their catch on a state fish receiving ticket. Oregon State regulations require all fishers landing salmon into Oregon from any fishery between Leadbetter Point, Washington and Cape Falcon, Oregon must notify ODFW within one hour of delivery or prior to transport away from the port of landing by either calling 541-867-0300 ext. 271 or sending notification via email to [email protected] Notification shall include vessel name and number, number of salmon by species, port of landing and location of delivery, and estimated time of delivery. Inseason actions may modify harvest guidelines in later fisheries to achieve or prevent exceeding the overall allowable troll harvest impacts (C.8).

    South of Cape Falcon, OR —Cape Falcon to Humbug Mountain

    April 8-30;

    May 1-31;

    June 5-10, 15-30;

    July 8-31;

    August 8-12, 18-24;

    September 1-7, 15-30;

    October 1-31 (C.9.a).

    Seven days per week. All salmon except coho (C.4, C.6, C.7). Chinook minimum size limit of 28 inches total length (B, C.1). All vessels fishing in the area must land their fish in the State of Oregon. See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3) and Oregon State regulations for a description of special regulations at the mouth of Tillamook Bay. Beginning September 1, no more than 40 Chinook per vessel per landing week (Thursday through Wednesday). Beginning October 1, open shoreward of the 40 fathom regulatory line (C.5.f).

    In 2017, the season will open March 15 for all salmon except coho. Chinook minimum size limit of 28 inches total length. Gear restrictions same as in 2016. This opening could be modified following Council review at its March 2017 meeting.

    —Humbug Mountain to Oregon/California Border (Oregon Klamath Management Zone (KMZ))

    April 8-30;

    May 1-31;

    June 5-10 and 15-30 or a 720 Chinook quota;

    July 8 through the earlier of July 31 or a 200 Chinook quota (C.9.a).

    Seven days per week. All salmon except coho (C.4, C.7). Chinook minimum size limit of 28 inches total length (B, C.1). Prior to June 1, all fish caught in this area must be landed and delivered in the state of Oregon. See compliance requirements (C.1, C.6) and gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).

    June 5 through July 31 single daily landing and possession limit of 15 Chinook per vessel per day (C.8.f). Any remaining portion of the June Chinook quota may be transferred inseason on an impact neutral basis to the July quota period (C.8.b). All vessels fishing in this area must land and deliver all fish within this area or Port Orford within 24 hours of any closure of this fishery, and prior to fishing outside of this area (C.6). State regulations require fishers landing from any quota managed season in this area to notify ODFW within one hour of delivery or prior to transporting their catch to other locations by calling 541-867-0300 ext. 252 or sending notification via email to [email protected], notification shall include vessel name and number, number of salmon by species, location of delivery, and estimated time of delivery.

    In 2017, the season will open March 15 for all salmon except coho, with a 28 inch Chinook minimum size limit. This opening could be modified following Council review at its March 2017 meeting.

    —Oregon/California Border to Humboldt South Jetty (California KMZ)

    September 9 through the earlier of September 27 or a 1,000 Chinook quota (C.9.b).

    Five days per week, Friday through Tuesday. All salmon except coho (C.4, C.7). Chinook minimum size limit of 28 inches total length (B, C.1). Landing and possession limit of 20 Chinook per vessel per day (C.8.f). All fish caught in this area must be landed within the area and within 24 hours of any closure of the fishery and prior to fishing outside the area (C.10). See compliance requirements (C.1) and gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3). Klamath Control Zone closed (C.5.e). See California State regulations for additional closures adjacent to the Smith and Klamath Rivers. When the fishery is closed between the Oregon/California border and Humbug Mountain and open to the south, vessels with fish on board caught in the open area off California may seek temporary mooring in Brookings, Oregon, prior to landing in California only if such vessels first notify the Chetco River Coast Guard Station via VHF channel 22A between the hours of 0500 and 2200 and provide the vessel name, number of fish on board, and estimated time of arrival (C.6).

    —Humboldt South Jetty to Horse Mt.

    Closed.

    —Horse Mt. to Point Arena (Fort Bragg)

    June 13-30;

    August 3-27;

    September 1-30 (C.9.b).

    Seven days per week. All salmon except coho (C.4, C.7). Chinook minimum size limit of 27 inches total length (B, C.1). All fish must be landed in California. All salmon caught in California prior to September 1 must be landed and offloaded no later than 11:59 p.m., August 30 (C.6). When the California KMZ fishery is open, all fish caught in the area must be landed south of Horse Mountain (C.6). During September, all fish must be landed north of Point Arena (C.6). See compliance requirements (C.1) and gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).

    In 2017, the season will open April 16-30 for all salmon except coho, with a 27-inch Chinook minimum size limit and the same gear restrictions as in 2016. All fish caught in the area must be landed in the area. This opening could be modified following Council review at its March 2017 meeting.

    —Point Arena to Pigeon Point (San Francisco)

    May 6-31;

    June 13-30;

    August 3-28;

    September 1-30 (C.9.b).

    Seven days per week. All salmon except coho (C.4, C.7). Chinook minimum size limit of 27 inches total length prior to September 1, 26 inches thereafter (B, C.1). All fish must be landed in California. All salmon caught in California prior to September 1 must be landed and offloaded no later than 11:59 p.m., August 30 (C.6). During September, all fish must be landed south of Point Arena (C.6). See compliance requirements (C.1) and gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).

    —Point Reyes to Point San Pedro (Fall Area Target Zone) October 3-7 and 10-14.

    Five days per week, Monday through Friday. All salmon except coho (C.4, C.7). Chinook minimum size limit of 26 inches total length (B, C.1). All fish caught in this area must be landed between Point Arena and Pigeon Point (C.6). See compliance requirements (C.1) and gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).

    —Pigeon Point to Point Sur (Monterey North)

    May 1-31;

    June 1-30 (C.9.b).

    Seven days per week. All salmon except coho (C.4, C.7). Chinook minimum size limit of 27 inches total length (B, C.1). All fish must be landed in California. All salmon caught in California prior to September 1 must be landed and offloaded no later than 11:59 p.m., August 30 (C.6). See compliance requirements (C.1) and gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).

    —Point Sur to U.S./Mexico Border (Monterey South)

    May 1-31;

    June 1-30 (C.9.b).

    Seven days per week. All salmon except coho (C.4, C.7). Chinook minimum size limit of 27 inches total length (B, C.1). All fish must be landed in California. All salmon caught in California prior to September 1 must be landed and offloaded no later than 11:59 p.m., August 30 (C.6). See compliance requirements (C.1) and gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).

    California State regulations require all salmon be made available to a CDFW representative for sampling immediately at port of landing. Any person in possession of a salmon with a missing adipose fin, upon request by an authorized agent or employee of the CDFW, shall immediately relinquish the head of the salmon to the state (California Fish and Game Code § 8226).

    B. Minimum Size (Inches) (See C.1) Area (when open) Chinook Total length Head-off Coho Total length Head-off Pink North of Cape Falcon, OR 28.0 21.5 None. Cape Falcon to OR/CA border 28.0 21.5 None. OR/CA border to Humboldt South Jetty 28.0 21.5 None. Horse Mountain to Point Arena 27.0 20.5 None. Point Arena to Pigeon Point: Prior to September 1 27.0 20.5 None. After September 1 26.0 19.5 None. Pigeon Point to U.S./Mexico Border 27.0 20.5 None. Metric equivalents: 28.0 in = 71.1 cm, 27.0 in = 68.6 cm, 26.0 in = 66.0 cm, 21.5 in = 54.6 cm, 20.5 in = 52.1 cm, 19.5 in = 49.5 cm, 16.0 in = 40.6 cm, and 12.0 in = 30.5 cm. C. Requirements, Definitions, Restrictions, or Exceptions C.1. Compliance With Minimum Size or Other Special Restrictions

    All salmon on board a vessel must meet the minimum size, landing/possession limit, or other special requirements for the area being fished and the area in which they are landed if the area is open or has been closed less than 48 hours for that species of salmon. Salmon may be landed in an area that has been closed for a species of salmon more than 48 hours only if they meet the minimum size, landing/possession limit, or other special requirements for the area in which they were caught. Salmon may not be filleted prior to landing.

    Any person who is required to report a salmon landing by applicable state law must include on the state landing receipt for that landing both the number and weight of salmon landed by species. States may require fish landing/receiving tickets be kept on board the vessel for 90 days or more after landing to account for all previous salmon landings.

    C.2. Gear Restrictions

    a. Salmon may be taken only by hook and line using single point, single shank, barbless hooks.

    b. Cape Falcon, Oregon, to the Oregon/California border: No more than 4 spreads are allowed per line.

    c. Oregon/California border to U.S./Mexico border: No more than 6 lines are allowed per vessel, and barbless circle hooks are required when fishing with bait by any means other than trolling.

    C.3. Gear Definitions

    Trolling defined: Fishing from a boat or floating device that is making way by means of a source of power, other than drifting by means of the prevailing water current or weather conditions.

    Troll fishing gear defined: One or more lines that drag hooks behind a moving fishing vessel. In that portion of the fishery management area off Oregon and Washington, the line or lines must be affixed to the vessel and must not be intentionally disengaged from the vessel at any time during the fishing operation.

    Spread defined: A single leader connected to an individual lure and/or bait.

    Circle hook defined: A hook with a generally circular shape and a point which turns inward, pointing directly to the shank at a 90° angle.

    C.4. Vessel Operation in Closed Areas With Salmon on Board

    a. Except as provided under C.4.b below, it is unlawful for a vessel to have troll or recreational gear in the water while in any area closed to fishing for a certain species of salmon, while possessing that species of salmon; however, fishing for species other than salmon is not prohibited if the area is open for such species, and no salmon are in possession.

    b. When Genetic Stock Identification (GSI) samples will be collected in an area closed to commercial salmon fishing, the scientific research permit holder shall notify NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, USCG, CDFW, WDFW, and Oregon State Police at least 24 hours prior to sampling and provide the following information: The vessel name, date, location and time collection activities will be done. Any vessel collecting GSI samples in a closed area shall not possess any salmon other than those from which GSI samples are being collected. Salmon caught for collection of GSI samples must be immediately released in good condition after collection of samples.

    C.5. Control Zone Definitions

    a. Cape Flattery Control Zone—The area from Cape Flattery (48°23′00″ N. lat.) to the northern boundary of the U.S. EEZ; and the area from Cape Flattery south to Cape Alava (48°10′00″ N. lat.) and east of 125°05′00″ W. long.

    b. Mandatory Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area—The area in Washington Marine Catch Area 3 from 48°00.00′ N. lat.; 125°14.00′ W. long. to 48°02.00′ N. lat.; 125°14.00′ W. long. to 48°02.00′ N. lat.; 125°16.50′ W. long. to 48°00.00′ N. lat.; 125°16.50′ W. long. and connecting back to 48°00.00′ N. lat.; 125°14.00′ W. long.

    c. Grays Harbor Control Zone—The area defined by a line drawn from the Westport Lighthouse (46°53′18″ N. lat., 124°07′01″ W. long.) to Buoy #2 (46°52′42″ N. lat., 124°12′42″ W. long.) to Buoy #3 (46°55′00″ N. lat., 124°14′48″ W. long.) to the Grays Harbor north jetty (46°55′36″ N. lat., 124°10′51″ W. long.).

    d. Columbia Control Zone—An area at the Columbia River mouth, bounded on the west by a line running northeast/southwest between the red lighted Buoy #4 (46°13′35″ N. lat., 124°06′50″ W. long.) and the green lighted Buoy #7 (46°15′09″ N. lat., 124°06′16″ W. long.); on the east, by the Buoy #10 line which bears north/south at 357° true from the south jetty at 46°14′00″ N. lat., 124°03′07″ W. long. to its intersection with the north jetty; on the north, by a line running northeast/southwest between the green lighted Buoy #7 to the tip of the north jetty (46°15′48″ N. lat., 124°05′20″ W. long.), and then along the north jetty to the point of intersection with the Buoy #10 line; and, on the south, by a line running northeast/southwest between the red lighted Buoy #4 and tip of the south jetty (46°14′03″ N. lat., 124°04′05″ W. long.), and then along the south jetty to the point of intersection with the Buoy #10 line.

    e. Klamath Control Zone—The ocean area at the Klamath River mouth bounded on the north by 41°38′48″ N. lat. (approximately 6 nautical miles north of the Klamath River mouth); on the west by 124°23′00″ W. long. (approximately 12 nautical miles off shore); and on the south by 41°26′48″ N. lat. (approximately 6 nautical miles south of the Klamath River mouth).

    f. Waypoints for the 40 fathom regulatory line from Cape Falcon to Humbug Mountain (50 CFR 660.71(k)).

    (12) 45°46.00′ N. lat., 124°04.49′ W. long.; (13) 45°44.34′ N. lat., 124°05.09′ W. long.; (14) 45°40.64′ N. lat., 124°04.90′ W. long.; (15) 45°33.00′ N. lat., 124°04.46′ W. long.; (16) 45°32.27′ N. lat., 124°04.74′ W. long.; (17) 45°29.26′ N. lat., 124°04.22′ W. long.; (18) 45°20.25′ N. lat., 124°04.67′ W. long.; (19) 45°19.99′ N. lat., 124°04.62′ W. long.; (20) 45°17.50′ N. lat., 124°04.91′ W. long.; (21) 45°11.29′ N. lat., 124°05.20′ W. long.; (22) 45°05.80′ N. lat., 124°05.40′ W. long.; (23) 45°05.08′ N. lat., 124°05.93′ W. long.; (24) 45°03.83′ N. lat., 124°06.47′ W. long.; (25) 45°01.70′ N. lat., 124°06.53′ W. long.; (26) 44°58.75′ N. lat., 124°07.14′ W. long.; (27) 44°51.28′ N. lat., 124°10.21′ W. long.; (28) 44°49.49′ N. lat., 124°10.90′ W. long.; (29) 44°44.96′ N. lat., 124°14.39′ W. long.; (30) 44°43.44′ N. lat., 124°14.78′ W. long.; (31) 44°42.26′ N. lat., 124°13.81′ W. long.; (32) 44°41.68′ N. lat., 124°15.38′ W. long.; (33) 44°34.87′ N. lat., 124°15.80′ W. long.; (34) 44°33.74′ N. lat., 124°14.44′ W. long.; (35) 44°27.66′ N. lat., 124°16.99′ W. long.; (36) 44°19.13′ N. lat., 124°19.22′ W. long.; (37) 44°15.35′ N. lat., 124°17.38′ W. long.; (38) 44°14.38′ N. lat., 124°17.78′ W. long.; (39) 44°12.80′ N. lat., 124°17.18′ W. long.; (40) 44°09.23′ N. lat., 124°15.96′ W. long.; (41) 44°08.38′ N. lat., 124°16.79′ W. long.; (42) 44°08.30′ N. lat., 124°16.75′ W. long.; (43) 44°01.18′ N. lat., 124°15.42′ W. long.; (44) 43°51.61′ N. lat., 124°14.68′ W. long.; (45) 43°42.66′ N. lat., 124°15.46′ W. long.; (46) 43°40.49′ N. lat., 124°15.74′ W. long.; (47) 43°38.77′ N. lat., 124°15.64′ W. long.; (48) 43°34.52′ N. lat., 124°16.73′ W. long.; (49) 43°28.82′ N. lat., 124°19.52′ W. long.; (50) 43°23.91′ N. lat., 124°24.28′ W. long.; (51) 43°20.83′ N. lat., 124°26.63′ W. long.; (52) 43°17.96′ N. lat., 124°28.81′ W. long.; (53) 43°16.75′ N. lat., 124°28.42′ W. long.; (54) 43°13.97′ N. lat., 124°31.99′ W. long.; (55) 43°13.72′ N. lat., 124°33.25′ W. long.; (56) 43°12.26′ N. lat., 124°34.16′ W. long.; (57) 43°10.96′ N. lat., 124°32.33′ W. long.; (58) 43°05.65′ N. lat., 124°31.52′ W. long.; (59) 42°59.66′ N. lat., 124°32.58′ W. long.; (60) 42°54.97′ N. lat., 124°36.99′ W. long.; (61) 42°53.81′ N. lat., 124°38.57′ W. long.; (62) 42°50.00′ N. lat., 124°39.68′ W. long.; (63) 42°49.13′ N. lat., 124°39.70′ W. long.; (64) 42°46.47′ N. lat., 124°38.89′ W. long.; (65) 42°45.74′ N. lat., 124°38.86′ W. long.; (66) 42°44.79′ N. lat., 124°37.96′ W. long.; (67) 42°45.01′ N. lat., 124°36.39′ W. long.; (68) 42°44.14′ N. lat., 124°35.17′ W. long.; (69) 42°42.14′ N. lat., 124°32.82′ W. long.; (70) 42°40.50′ N. lat., 124°31.98′ W. long.; C.6. Notification When Unsafe Conditions Prevent Compliance With Regulations

    If prevented by unsafe weather conditions or mechanical problems from meeting special management area landing restrictions, vessels must notify the U.S. Coast Guard and receive acknowledgment of such notification prior to leaving the area. This notification shall include the name of the vessel, port where delivery will be made, approximate amount of salmon (by species) on board, the estimated time of arrival, and the specific reason the vessel is not able to meet special management area landing restrictions.

    In addition to contacting the U.S. Coast Guard, vessels fishing south of the Oregon/California border must notify CDFW within one hour of leaving the management area by calling 800-889-8346 and providing the same information as reported to the U.S. Coast Guard. All salmon must be offloaded within 24 hours of reaching port.

    C.7. Incidental Halibut Harvest

    During authorized periods, the operator of a vessel that has been issued an incidental halibut harvest license by the International Pacific Halibut Commission may retain Pacific halibut caught incidentally in Area 2A while trolling for salmon. Halibut retained must be no less than 32 inches in total length, measured from the tip of the lower jaw with the mouth closed to the extreme end of the middle of the tail, and must be landed with the head on. When halibut are caught and landed incidental to commercial salmon fishing by an IPHC license holder, any person who is required to report the salmon landing by applicable state law must include on the state landing receipt for that landing both the number of halibut landed, and the total dressed, head-on weight of halibut landed, in pounds, as well as the number and species of salmon landed.

    License applications for incidental harvest must be obtained from the IPHC (phone: 206-634-1838). Applicants must apply prior to mid-March 2017 for 2017 permits (exact date to be set by the IPHC in early 2017). Incidental harvest is authorized only during April, May, and June of the 2016 troll seasons and after June 30 in 2016 if quota remains and if announced on the NMFS hotline (phone: 800-662-9825 or 206-526-6667). WDFW, ODFW, and CDFW will monitor landings. If the landings are projected to exceed the IPHC's 34,123 pound preseason allocation or the total Area 2A non-Indian commercial halibut allocation, NMFS will take inseason action to prohibit retention of halibut in the non-Indian salmon troll fishery.

    May 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, and April 1-30, 2017, license holders may land or possess no more than one Pacific halibut per each three Chinook, except one Pacific halibut may be possessed or landed without meeting the ratio requirement, and no more than 20 halibut may be possessed or landed per trip. Pacific halibut retained must be no less than 32 inches in total length (with head on). IPHC license holders must comply with all applicable IPHC regulations.

    Incidental Pacific halibut catch regulations in the commercial salmon troll fishery adopted for 2016, prior to any 2016 inseason action, will be in effect when incidental Pacific halibut retention opens on April 1, 2017 unless otherwise modified by inseason action at the March 2017 Council meeting.

    a. “C-shaped” yelloweye rockfish conservation area is an area to be voluntarily avoided for salmon trolling. NMFS and the Council request salmon trollers voluntarily avoid this area in order to protect yelloweye rockfish. The area is defined in the Pacific Council Halibut Catch Sharing Plan in the North Coast subarea (Washington marine area 3), with the following coordinates in the order listed:

    48°18′ N. lat.; 125°18′ W. long.; 48°18′ N. lat.; 124°59′ W. long.; 48°11′ N. lat.; 124°59′ W. long.; 48°11′ N. lat.; 125°11′ W. long.; 48°04′ N. lat.; 125°11′ W. long.; 48°04′ N. lat.; 124°59′ W. long.; 48°00′ N. lat.; 124°59′ W. long.; 48°00′ N. lat.; 125°18′ W. long.; and connecting back to 48°18′ N. lat.; 125°18′ W. long. C.8. Inseason Management

    In addition to standard inseason actions or modifications already noted under the season description, the following inseason guidance applies:

    a. Chinook remaining from the May through June non-Indian commercial troll harvest guideline north of Cape Falcon may be transferred to the July through September harvest guideline if the transfer would not result in exceeding preseason impact expectations on any stocks.

    b. Chinook remaining from the June non-Indian commercial troll quotas in the Oregon KMZ may be transferred to the Chinook quota for the July open period if the transfer would not result in exceeding preseason impact expectations on any stocks.

    c. NMFS may transfer fish between the recreational and commercial fisheries north of Cape Falcon if there is agreement among the areas' representatives on the Salmon Advisory Subpanel (SAS), and if the transfer would not result in exceeding preseason impact expectations on any stocks.

    d. At the March 2017 meeting, the Council will consider inseason recommendations for special regulations for any experimental fisheries (proposals must meet Council protocol and be received in November 2016).

    e. If retention of unmarked coho is permitted by inseason action, the allowable coho quota will be adjusted to ensure preseason projected impacts on all stocks is not exceeded.

    f. Landing limits may be modified inseason to sustain season length and keep harvest within overall quotas.

    C.9. State Waters Fisheries

    Consistent with Council management objectives:

    a. The State of Oregon may establish additional late-season fisheries in state waters.

    b. The State of California may establish limited fisheries in selected state waters. Check state regulations for details.

    C.10. For the purposes of California Fish and Game Code, Section 8232.5, the definition of the Klamath Management Zone (KMZ) for the ocean salmon season shall be that area from Humbug Mountain, Oregon, to Horse Mountain, California.

    Section 2. Recreational Management Measures for 2016 Ocean Salmon Fisheries

    Parts A, B, and C of this section contain restrictions that must be followed for lawful participation in the fishery. Part A identifies each fishing area and provides the geographic boundaries from north to south, the open seasons for the area, the salmon species allowed to be caught during the seasons, and any other special restrictions effective in the area. Part B specifies minimum size limits. Part C specifies special requirements, definitions, restrictions and exceptions.

    A. Season Description North of Cape Falcon, OR —U.S./Canada Border to Cape Alava (Neah Bay Subarea)

    July 1 through earlier of August 21 or a subarea guideline of 6,200 Chinook (C.6).

    Seven days per week. All salmon except coho; no chum beginning August 1; two fish per day (C.1). Beginning August 1, Chinook non-retention east of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line (C.4.a) during Council managed ocean fishery. Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3). Inseason management may be used to sustain season length and keep harvest within the overall Chinook and coho recreational TACs for north of Cape Falcon (C.5).

    —Cape Alava to Queets River (La Push Subarea)

    July 1 through earlier of August 21 or a subarea guideline of 2,000 Chinook (C.6).

    Seven days per week. All salmon except coho; two fish per day. Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3). Inseason management may be used to sustain season length and keep harvest within the overall Chinook and coho recreational TACs for north of Cape Falcon (C.5).

    —Queets River to Leadbetter Point (Westport Subarea)

    July 1 through earlier of August 21 or a subarea guideline of 16,600 Chinook (C.6).

    Seven days per week. All salmon except coho; one fish per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3). Grays Harbor Control Zone closed beginning August 8 (C.4.b). Inseason management may be used to sustain season length and keep harvest within the overall Chinook and coho recreational TACs for north of Cape Falcon (C.5).

    —Leadbetter Point to Cape Falcon (Columbia River Subarea)

    July 1 through earlier of August 31 or 18,900 marked coho subarea quota with a subarea guideline of 10,200 Chinook (C.6).

    Seven days per week. All salmon; two fish per day, no more than one of which can be a Chinook (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3). Columbia Control Zone closed (C.4.c). Inseason management may be used to sustain season length and keep harvest within the overall Chinook and coho recreational TACs for north of Cape Falcon (C.5).

    South of Cape Falcon, OR —Cape Falcon to Humbug Mt.

    March 15 through October 31 (C.6), except as provided below during the all-salmon mark-selective and September non-mark-selective coho fisheries.

    Seven days per week. All salmon except coho; two fish per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).

    • Non-mark-selective coho fishery: September 3 through the earlier of September 30 or a landed catch of 7,500 coho (C.5).

    Seven days per week. All salmon, two fish per day (C.1). See minimum size limits (B) and gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).

    The all salmon except coho season reopens the earlier of October 1 or attainment of the coho quota (C.5).

    In 2017, the season between Cape Falcon and Humbug Mountain will open March 15 for all salmon except coho; two fish per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length (B); and the same gear restrictions as in 2016 (C.2, C.3).

    Fishing in the Stonewall Bank yelloweye rockfish conservation area restricted to trolling only on days the all depth recreational halibut fishery is open (call the halibut fishing hotline 1-800-662-9825 for specific dates) (C.3.b, C.4.d).

    —Cape Falcon to Oregon/California Border

    All-salmon mark-selective coho fishery: June 25 through the earlier of August 7 or a landed catch of 26,000 marked coho (C.5).

    Seven days per week. All salmon, two fish per day. All retained coho must be marked with a healed adipose fin clip (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3). The all salmon except coho season reopens the earlier of August 8 or attainment of the coho quota.

    Fishing in the Stonewall Bank Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area restricted to trolling only on days the all depth recreational halibut fishery is open (call the halibut fishing hotline 1-800-662-9825 for specific dates) (C.3.b, C.4.d).

    —Humbug Mt. to Oregon/California Border (Oregon KMZ)

    May 28 through August 7 and September 3 through September 5; except as provided above during the all-salmon mark-selective coho fishery (C.6).

    Seven days per week. All salmon except coho, except as noted above in the all-salmon mark-selective coho fishery; two fish per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).

    —Oregon/California Border to Horse Mountain (California KMZ)

    May 16 through May 31, June 16 through June 30, July 16 through August 16, and September 1 through September 5 (C.6).

    Seven days per week. All salmon except coho; two fish per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 20 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3). Klamath Control Zone closed in August (C.4.e). See California State regulations for additional closures adjacent to the Smith, Eel, and Klamath Rivers.

    —Horse Mountain to Point Arena (Fort Bragg)

    April 2 through November 13 (C.6).

    Seven days per week. All salmon except coho; two fish per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 20 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).

    In 2017, season opens April 1 for all salmon except coho; two fish per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 20 inches total length (B); and the same gear restrictions as in 2016 (C.2, C.3).

    —Point Arena to Pigeon Point (San Francisco)

    April 2 through October 31 (C.6).

    Seven days per week. All salmon except coho; two fish per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length through April 30, 20 inches thereafter (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).

    In 2017, season opens April 1 for all salmon except coho; two fish per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length (B); and the same gear restrictions as in 2016 (C.2, C.3).

    —Pigeon Point to Point Sur (Monterey North)

    April 2 through July 15 (C.6).

    Seven days per week. All salmon except coho; two fish per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).

    In 2017, season opens April 1 for all salmon except coho; two fish per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length (B); and the same gear restrictions as in 2016 (C.2, C.3).

    —Point Sur to U.S./Mexico Border (Monterey South)

    April 2 through May 31 (C.6).

    Seven days per week. All salmon except coho; two fish per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).

    In 2017, season opens April 1 for all salmon except coho; two fish per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length (B); and the same gear restrictions as in 2016 (C.2, C.3).

    California State regulations require all salmon be made available to a CDFW representative for sampling immediately at port of landing. Any person in possession of a salmon with a missing adipose fin, upon request by an authorized agent or employee of the CDFW, shall immediately relinquish the head of the salmon to the state (California Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 1.73).

    B. Minimum Size (Total Length in Inches) (See C.1) Area (when open) Chinook Coho Pink North of Cape Falcon 24.0 16.0 None. Cape Falcon to Humbug Mountain 24.0 16.0 None. Humbug Mt. to OR/CA border 24.0 16.0 None. OR/CA border to Horse Mountain 20.0 20.0. Horse Mountain to Point Arena 20.0 20.0. Point Arena to Pigeon Point Through April 30 24.0 24.0. After April 30 20.0 20.0. Pigeon Point to U.S./Mexico border 24.0 24.0. Metric equivalents: 24.0 in = 61.0 cm, 20.0 in = 50.8 cm, and 16.0 in = 40.6 cm. C. Requirements, Definitions, Restrictions, or Exceptions C.1. Compliance With Minimum Size and Other Special Restrictions

    All salmon on board a vessel must meet the minimum size or other special requirements for the area being fished and the area in which they are landed if that area is open. Salmon may be landed in an area that is closed only if they meet the minimum size or other special requirements for the area in which they were caught. Salmon may not be filleted prior to landing.

    Ocean Boat Limits: Off the coast of Washington, Oregon, and California, each fisher aboard a vessel may continue to use angling gear until the combined daily limits of Chinook and coho salmon for all licensed and juvenile anglers aboard have been attained (additional state restrictions may apply).

    C.2. Gear Restrictions

    Salmon may be taken only by hook and line using barbless hooks. All persons fishing for salmon, and all persons fishing from a boat with salmon on board, must meet the gear restrictions listed below for specific areas or seasons.

    a. U.S./Canada border to Point Conception, California: No more than one rod may be used per angler; and no more than two single point, single shank barbless hooks are required for all fishing gear. [Note: ODFW regulations in the state-water fishery off Tillamook Bay may allow the use of barbed hooks to be consistent with inside regulations.]

    b. Horse Mountain, California, to Point Conception, California: Single point, single shank, barbless circle hooks (see gear definitions below) are required when fishing with bait by any means other than trolling, and no more than two such hooks shall be used. When angling with two hooks, the distance between the hooks must not exceed five inches when measured from the top of the eye of the top hook to the inner base of the curve of the lower hook, and both hooks must be permanently tied in place (hard tied). Circle hooks are not required when artificial lures are used without bait.

    C.3. Gear Definitions

    a. Recreational fishing gear defined: Off Oregon and Washington, angling tackle consists of a single line that must be attached to a rod and reel held by hand or closely attended; the rod and reel must be held by hand while playing a hooked fish. No person may use more than one rod and line while fishing off Oregon or Washington. Off California, the line must be attached to a rod and reel held by hand or closely attended; weights directly attached to a line may not exceed four pounds (1.8 kg). While fishing off California north of Point Conception, no person fishing for salmon, and no person fishing from a boat with salmon on board, may use more than one rod and line. Fishing includes any activity which can reasonably be expected to result in the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish.

    b. Trolling defined: Angling from a boat or floating device that is making way by means of a source of power, other than drifting by means of the prevailing water current or weather conditions.

    c. Circle hook defined: A hook with a generally circular shape and a point which turns inward, pointing directly to the shank at a 90° angle.

    C.4. Control Zone Definitions

    a. The Bonilla-Tatoosh Line: A line running from the western end of Cape Flattery to Tatoosh Island Lighthouse (48°23′30″ N. lat., 124°44′12″ W. long.) to the buoy adjacent to Duntze Rock (48°24′37″ N. lat., 124°44′37″ W. long.), then in a straight line to Bonilla Point (48°35′39″ N. lat., 124°42′58″ W. long.) on Vancouver Island, British Columbia.

    b. Grays Harbor Control Zone—The area defined by a line drawn from the Westport Lighthouse (46°53′18″ N. lat., 124° 07′01″ W. long.) to Buoy #2 (46°52′42″ N. lat., 124°12′42″ W. long.) to Buoy #3 (46°55′00″ N. lat., 124°14′48″ W. long.) to the Grays Harbor north jetty (46°55′36″ N. lat., 124°10′51″ W. long.).

    c. Columbia Control Zone: An area at the Columbia River mouth, bounded on the west by a line running northeast/southwest between the red lighted Buoy #4 (46°13′35″ N. lat., 124°06′50″ W. long.) and the green lighted Buoy #7 (46°15′09′ N. lat., 124°06′16″ W. long.); on the east, by the Buoy #10 line which bears north/south at 357° true from the south jetty at 46°14′00″ N. lat., 124°03′07″ W. long. to its intersection with the north jetty; on the north, by a line running northeast/southwest between the green lighted Buoy #7 to the tip of the north jetty (46°15′48″ N. lat., 124°05′20″ W. long. and then along the north jetty to the point of intersection with the Buoy #10 line; and on the south, by a line running northeast/southwest between the red lighted Buoy #4 and tip of the south jetty (46°14′03″ N. lat., 124°04′05″ W. long.), and then along the south jetty to the point of intersection with the Buoy #10 line.

    d. Stonewall Bank Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area: The area defined by the following coordinates in the order listed:

    44°37.46′ N. lat.; 124°24.92′ W. long. 44°37.46′ N. lat.; 124°23.63′ W. long. 44°28.71′ N. lat.; 124°21.80′ W. long. 44°28.71′ N. lat.; 124°24.10′ W. long. 44°31.42′ N. lat.; 124°25.47′ W. long. and connecting back to 44°37.46′ N. lat.; 124°24.92′ W. long.

    e. Klamath Control Zone: The ocean area at the Klamath River mouth bounded on the north by 41°38′48″ N. lat. (approximately 6 nautical miles north of the Klamath River mouth); on the west by 124°23′00″ W. long. (approximately 12 nautical miles off shore); and, on the south by 41°26′48″ N. lat. (approximately 6 nautical miles south of the Klamath River mouth).

    C.5. Inseason Management

    Regulatory modifications may become necessary inseason to meet preseason management objectives such as quotas, harvest guidelines, and season duration. In addition to standard inseason actions or modifications already noted under the season description, the following inseason guidance applies:

    a. Actions could include modifications to bag limits, or days open to fishing, and extensions or reductions in areas open to fishing.

    b. Coho may be transferred inseason among recreational subareas north of Cape Falcon to help meet the recreational season duration objectives (for each subarea) after conferring with representatives of the affected ports and the Council's SAS recreational representatives north of Cape Falcon, and if the transfer would not result in exceeding preseason impact expectations on any stocks.

    c. Chinook and coho may be transferred between the recreational and commercial fisheries north of Cape Falcon if there is agreement among the representatives of the SAS, and if the transfer would not result in exceeding preseason impact expectations on any stocks.

    d. Fishery managers may consider inseason action modifying regulations restricting retention of unmarked coho. To remain consistent with preseason expectations, any inseason action shall consider, if significant, the difference between observed and preseason forecasted mark rates. Such a consideration may also include a change in bag limit of two salmon, no more than one of which may be a coho.

    C.6. Additional Seasons in State Territorial Waters

    Consistent with Council management objectives, the States of Washington, Oregon, and California may establish limited seasons in state waters. Check state regulations for details.

    Section 3. Treaty Indian Management Measures for 2016 Ocean Salmon Fisheries

    Parts A, B, and C of this section contain requirements that must be followed for lawful participation in the fishery.

    A. Season Descriptions

    May 1 through the earlier of June 30 or 20,000 Chinook quota.

    All salmon except coho. If the Chinook quota is exceeded, the excess will be deducted from the later all-salmon season (C.5). See size limit (B) and other restrictions (C).

    July 1 through the earlier of August 31, or 20,000 preseason Chinook quota (C.5). All salmon except coho. See size limit (B) and other restrictions (C).

    B. Minimum Size (Inches) Area (when open) Chinook Total Head-off Coho Total Head-off Pink North of Cape Falcon 24.0 18.0 None. Metric equivalents: 24.0 in = 61.0 cm, 18.0 in = 45.7 cm. C. Requirements, Restrictions, and Exceptions C.1. Tribe and Area Boundaries

    All boundaries may be changed to include such other areas as may hereafter be authorized by a Federal court for that tribe's treaty fishery.

    S'KLALLAM—Washington State Statistical Area 4B (All).

    MAKAH—Washington State Statistical Area 4B and that portion of the FMA north of 48°02′15″ N. lat. (Norwegian Memorial) and east of 125°44′00″ W. long.

    QUILEUTE—That portion of the FMA between 48°10′00″ N. lat. (Cape Alava.) and 47°3′70″ N. lat. (Queets River) and east of 125°44′00″ W. long.

    HOH—That portion of the FMA between 47°54′18″ N. lat. (Quillayute River) and 47°21′00″ N. lat. (Quinault River) and east of 125°44′00″ W. long.

    QUINAULT—That portion of the FMA between 47°40′06″ N. lat. (Destruction Island) and 46°53′18″ N. lat. (Point Chehalis) and east of 125°08′30″ W. long.

    C.2. Gear Restrictions

    a. Single point, single shank, barbless hooks are required in all fisheries.

    b. No more than eight fixed lines per boat.

    c. No more than four hand held lines per person in the Makah area fishery (Washington State Statistical Area 4B and that portion of the FMA north of 48°02′15″ N. lat. (Norwegian Memorial) and east of 125°44′00″ W. long.).

    C.3. Quotas

    a. The quotas include troll catches by the S'Klallam and Makah tribes in Washington State Statistical Area 4B from May 1 through August 31.

    b. The Quileute Tribe will continue a ceremonial and subsistence fishery during the time frame of October 1 through October 15 in the same manner as in 2004-2015. Fish taken during this fishery are to be counted against treaty troll quotas established for the 2016 season (estimated harvest during the October ceremonial and subsistence fishery: 20 Chinook; 0 coho).

    C.4. Area Closures

    a. The area within a six nautical mile radius of the mouths of the Queets River (47°31′42″ N. lat.) and the Hoh River (47°45′12″ N. lat.) will be closed to commercial fishing.

    b. A closure within two nautical miles of the mouth of the Quinault River (47°21′00″ N. lat.) may be enacted by the Quinault Nation and/or the State of Washington and will not adversely affect the Secretary of Commerce's management regime.

    C.5. Inseason Management

    In addition to standard inseason actions or modifications already noted under the season description, the following inseason guidance applies:

    a. Chinook remaining from the May through June treaty—Indian ocean troll harvest guideline north of Cape Falcon may be transferred to the July through August harvest guideline on a fishery impact equivalent basis.

    Section 4. Halibut Retention

    Under the authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act, NMFS promulgated regulations governing the Pacific halibut fishery, which appear at 50 CFR part 300, subpart E. On April 1, 2016, NMFS published a final rule (81 FR 18789) to implement the IPHC's recommendations, to announce fishery regulations for U.S. waters off Alaska and fishery regulations for treaty commercial and ceremonial and subsistence fisheries, some regulations for non-treaty commercial fisheries for U.S. waters off the West Coast, and approval of and implementation of the Area 2A Pacific halibut Catch Sharing Plan and the Area 2A management measures for 2016. The regulations and management measures provide that vessels participating in the salmon troll fishery in Area 2A (all waters off the States of Washington, Oregon, and California), which have obtained the appropriate IPHC license, may retain halibut caught incidentally during authorized periods in conformance with provisions published with the annual salmon management measures. A salmon troller may participate in the halibut incidental catch fishery during the salmon troll season or in the directed commercial fishery targeting halibut, but not both.

    The following measures have been approved by the IPHC, and implemented by NMFS. During authorized periods, the operator of a vessel that has been issued an incidental halibut harvest license may retain Pacific halibut caught incidentally in Area 2A while trolling for salmon. Halibut retained must be no less than 32 inches (81.28 cm) in total length, measured from the tip of the lower jaw with the mouth closed to the extreme end of the middle of the tail, and must be landed with the head on.

    License applications for incidental harvest must be obtained from the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) (phone: 206-634-1838). Applicants must apply prior to mid-March 2017 for 2017 permits (exact date to be set by the IPHC in early 2017). Incidental harvest is authorized only during April, May, and June of the 2016 troll seasons and after June 30 in 2016 if quota remains and if announced on the NMFS hotline (phone: 1-800-662-9825 or 206-526-6667). WDFW, ODFW, and CDFW will monitor landings. If the landings are projected to exceed the 34,123 pound preseason allocation or the total Area 2A non-Indian commercial halibut allocation, NMFS will take inseason action to prohibit retention of halibut in the non-Indian salmon troll fishery.

    May 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, and April 1-30, 2017, license holders may land or possess no more than one Pacific halibut per each three Chinook, except one Pacific halibut may be possessed or landed without meeting the ratio requirement, and no more than 20 halibut may be possessed or landed per trip. Pacific halibut retained must be no less than 32 inches in total length (with head on). IPHC license holders must comply with all applicable IPHC regulations.

    Incidental Pacific halibut catch regulations in the commercial salmon troll fishery adopted for 2016, prior to any 2016 inseason action, will be in effect when incidental Pacific halibut retention opens on April 1, 2017, unless otherwise modified by inseason action at the March 2017 Council meeting.

    NMFS and the Council request that salmon trollers voluntarily avoid a “C-shaped” YRCA (also known as the Salmon Troll YRCA) in order to protect yelloweye rockfish. Coordinates for the Salmon Troll YRCA are defined at 50 CFR 660.70(a) in the North Coast subarea (Washington marine area 3). See Section 1.C.7. in this document for the coordinates.

    Section 5. Geographical Landmarks

    Wherever the words “nautical miles off shore” are used in this document, the distance is measured from the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured.

    Geographical landmarks referenced in this document are at the following locations:

    Cape Flattery, WA 48°23′00″ N. lat. Cape Alava, WA 48°10′00″ N. lat. Queets River, WA 47°31′42″ N. lat. Leadbetter Point, WA 46°38′10″ N. lat. Cape Falcon, OR 45°46′00″ N. lat. Florence South Jetty, OR 44°00′54″ N. lat. Humbug Mountain, OR 42°40′30″ N. lat. Oregon-California border 42°00′00″ N. lat. Humboldt South Jetty, CA 40°45′53″ N. lat. Horse Mountain, CA 40°05′00″ N. lat. Point Arena, CA 38°57′30″ N. lat. Point Reyes, CA 37°59′44″ N. lat. Point San Pedro, CA 37°35′40″ N. lat. Pigeon Point, CA 37°11′00″ N. lat. Point Sur, CA 36°18′00″ N. lat. Point Conception, CA 34°27′00″ N. lat. Section 6. Inseason Notice Procedures

    Notice of inseason management actions will be provided by a telephone hotline administered by the West Coast Region, NMFS, 1-800-662-9825 or 206-526-6667, and by USCG Notice to Mariners broadcasts. These broadcasts are announced on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 KHz at frequent intervals. The announcements designate the channel or frequency over which the Notice to Mariners will be immediately broadcast. Inseason actions will also be published in the Federal Register as soon as practicable. Since provisions of these management measures may be altered by inseason actions, fishermen should monitor either the telephone hotline or Coast Guard broadcasts for current information for the area in which they are fishing.

    Classification

    This final rule is necessary for conservation and management of Pacific coast salmon stocks and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. These regulations are being promulgated under the authority of 16 U.S.C. 1855(d) and 16 U.S.C. 773(c).

    This final rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), to waive the requirement for prior notice and opportunity for public comment, as such procedures are impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

    The annual salmon management cycle begins May 1 and continues through April 30 of the following year. May 1 was chosen because the pre-May harvests constitute a relatively small portion of the annual catch. The time frame of the preseason process for determining the annual modifications to ocean salmon fishery management measures depends on when the pertinent biological data are available. Salmon stocks are managed to meet annual spawning escapement goals or specific exploitation rates. Achieving either of these objectives requires designing management measures that are appropriate for the ocean abundance predicted for that year. These pre-season abundance forecasts, which are derived from previous years' observed spawning escapement, vary substantially from year to year, and are not available until January or February because spawning escapement continues through the fall.

    The preseason planning and public review process associated with developing Council recommendations is initiated in February as soon as the forecast information becomes available. The public planning process requires coordination of management actions of four states, numerous Indian tribes, and the Federal Government, all of which have management authority over the stocks. This complex process includes the affected user groups, as well as the general public. The process is compressed into a two-month period culminating with the April Council meeting at which the Council adopts a recommendation that is forwarded to NMFS for review, approval, and implementation of fishing regulations effective on May 1.

    Providing opportunity for prior notice and public comments on the Council's recommended measures through a proposed and final rulemaking process would require 30 to 60 days in addition to the two-month period required for development of the regulations. Delaying implementation of annual fishing regulations, which are based on the current stock abundance projections, for an additional 60 days would require that fishing regulations for May and June be set in the previous year, without the benefit of information regarding current stock status. For the 2016 fishing regulations, the current stock status was not available to the Council until February. Because a substantial amount of fishing occurs during May and June, managing the fishery with measures developed using the prior year's data could have significant adverse effects on the managed stocks, including ESA-listed stocks. Although salmon fisheries that open prior to May are managed under the prior year's measures, as modified by the Council at its March meeting, relatively little harvest occurs during that period (e.g., on average, less than 5 percent of commercial and recreational harvest occurred prior to May 1 during the years 2001 through 2015). Allowing the much more substantial harvest levels normally associated with the May and June salmon seasons to be promulgated under the prior year's regulations would impair NMFS' ability to protect weak and ESA-listed salmon stocks, and to provide harvest opportunity where appropriate. The choice of May 1 as the beginning of the regulatory season balances the need to gather and analyze the data needed to meet the management objectives of the Salmon FMP and the need to manage the fishery using the best available scientific information.

    If these measures are not in place on May 1, salmon fisheries will not open as scheduled. This would result in lost fishing opportunity, negative economic impacts, and confusion for the public as the state fisheries adopt concurrent regulations that conform to the Federal management measures.

    Overall, the annual population dynamics of the various salmon stocks require managers to adjust the season structure of the West Coast salmon fisheries to both protect weaker stocks and give fishers access to stronger salmon stocks, particularly hatchery produced fish. Failure to implement these measures immediately could compromise the status of certain stocks, or result in foregone opportunity to harvest stocks whose abundance has increased relative to the previous year thereby undermining the purpose of this agency action.

    In addition, public comment is received and considered by the Council and NMFS throughout the process of developing these management measures. As described above, the Council takes comment at its March and April meetings, and hears summaries of comments received at public meetings held between the March and April meetings in each of the coastal states. NMFS also invited comments in a notice published prior to the March Council meeting, and considered comments received by the Council through its representative on the Council. Thus, these measures were developed with significant public input.

    Based upon the above-described need to have these measures effective on May 1 and the fact that there is limited time available to implement these new measures after the final Council meeting in April and before the commencement of the ocean salmon fishing year on May 1, NMFS has concluded it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide an opportunity for prior notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries also finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness of this final rule. As previously discussed, data are not available until February and management measures are not finalized until mid-April. These measures are essential to conserve threatened and endangered ocean salmon stocks, and to provide for harvest of more abundant stocks. Delaying the effectiveness of these measures by 30 days could compromise the ability of some stocks to attain their conservation objectives, preclude harvest opportunity, and negatively impact anticipated international, state, and tribal salmon fisheries, thereby undermining the purposes of this agency action and the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

    To enhance the fishing industry's notification of these new measures, and to minimize the burden on the regulated community required to comply with the new regulations, NMFS is announcing the new measures over the telephone hotline used for inseason management actions and is posting the regulations on its West Coast Region Web site (http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov). NMFS is also advising the states of Washington, Oregon, and California on the new management measures. These states announce the seasons for applicable state and Federal fisheries through their own public notification systems.

    Because prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be provided for these portions of this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is required for this portion of the rule and none has been prepared.

    This action contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), and which have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under control number 0648-0433. The public reporting burden for providing notifications if landing area restrictions cannot be met is estimated to average 15 minutes per response. This estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    NMFS has current ESA biological opinions that cover fishing under these regulations on all listed salmon species. NMFS reiterated their consultation standards for all ESA listed salmon and steelhead species in their annual Guidance letter to the Council dated March 7, 2016. Some of NMFS past biological opinions have found no jeopardy, and others have found jeopardy, but provided reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy. The management measures for 2016 are consistent with the biological opinions that found no jeopardy, and with the reasonable and prudent alternatives in the jeopardy biological opinions. The Council's recommended management measures therefore comply with NMFS' consultation standards and guidance for all listed salmon species which may be affected by Council fisheries. In some cases, the recommended measures are more restrictive than NMFS' ESA requirements.

    In 2009, NMFS consulted on the effects of fishing under the Salmon FMP on the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whale Distinct Population Segment (SRKW) and concluded the salmon fisheries were not likely to jeopardize SRKW. The 2016 salmon management measures are consistent with the terms of that biological opinion.

    This final rule was developed after meaningful and collaboration with the affected tribes. The tribal representative on the Council made the motion for the regulations that apply to the tribal fisheries.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 773-773k; 1801 et seq.

    Dated: April 27, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10250 Filed 4-28-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 84 Monday, May 2, 2016 Proposed Rules OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 5 CFR Parts 330 and 731 RIN 3206-AN25 Recruitment, Selection, and Placement (General) and Suitability AGENCY:

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule with request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing to revise its regulations pertaining to when, during the hiring process (unless an exception is granted), a hiring agency can request information typically collected during a background investigation from an applicant for Federal employment. OPM is proposing this change to promote compliance with Merit System Principles as well as the goal of the Federal Interagency Reentry Council and the President's Memorandum of January 31, 2014, “Enhancing Safeguards to Prevent the Undue Denial of Federal Employment Opportunities to the Unemployed and Those Facing Financial Difficulty Through No Fault of Their Own.” The intended effect of this proposal is to better ensure that applicants from all segments of society, including those with prior criminal histories, receive a fair opportunity to compete for Federal employment.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. All submissions received through the Portal must include the agency name and docket number or Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) for this proposed rulemaking. You may also send, deliver, or fax comments to Kimberly A. Holden, Deputy Associate Director for Recruitment and Hiring, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Room 6351D, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415-9700; email at [email protected]; or fax at (202) 606-4430.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Mike Gilmore by telephone on (202) 606-2429, by fax at (202) 606-4430, by TTY at (202) 418-3134, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Current regulations at 5 CFR part 731.103(d) allow agencies to begin to determine an applicant's suitability at any time during the hiring process. Agencies use a variety of methods to determine an applicant's suitability for Federal employment. Criminal conduct is one of several criteria agencies consider in the course of making suitability determinations. Many agencies administer the Optional Form (OF) 306, “Declaration for Federal Employment,” to applicants in order to collect information about an applicant's history, as an advance screening process prior to the suitability investigation that is required for appointment in a covered position. The OF-306 contains a variety of questions about background information. Among these are several questions about an applicant's criminal history, including past convictions or current arrests that were not yet the subject of a final disposition.

    Currently, there is nothing in OPM's regulations to prevent hiring agencies from requiring an applicant to complete and submit the OF-306 or equivalent information collection as part of the job-seeker's initial application package. The better practice, and one that many agencies already employ, is to wait until the later stages of the hiring process to collect this kind of information.

    Early inquiries into an applicant's background, including his or her criminal or credit history (such as at the point at which an applicant submits his or her application materials) could have the effect of discouraging motivated, well-qualified individuals from applying for a Federal job. In particular, collecting such information from those who have a criminal record, but who have served their time and been rehabilitated, might discourage them from applying for a Federal job and limit their opportunities to obtain the means to secure stable housing, provide support for their families, and contribute to their communities. Early inquiries could also result in the disqualification of an otherwise eligible and qualified applicant solely on the basis of his or her criminal history—regardless of whether an arrest has actually resulted in charges or a conviction, and regardless of whether consideration of the applicant's criminal history is justified by business necessity, i.e., in the suitability context, whether the suitability action will protect the integrity or promote the efficiency of the service. Therefore, OPM is proposing to amend parts 330 and 731 of its regulations to prevent agencies, unless an exception is granted from OPM, from administering the OF-306 to applicants, or otherwise making inquiries into an applicant's background of the sort asked on the OF-306's `Background Information' section or other forms used to conduct suitability investigations for Federal employment, unless the hiring agency has made a conditional offer of employment to the applicant. Though agencies generally defer collecting this information until the end of the process, it is a good practice to take steps to affirmatively prevent misuse of such information earlier in the process—either inadvertent or intentional.

    Under the proposed rule, agencies will not be permitted to make specific inquiries concerning an applicant's background of the sort asked on the OF-306's `Background Information' section or other forms used to conduct suitability investigations for Federal employment unless the hiring agency has made a conditional offer of employment to an applicant. This will preclude agencies, in most cases, from making a referral or initial selection decision on the basis of adverse criminal or credit history or other factors normally developed through the OF-306. The proposed rule will permit the agency to make an objection, pass-over request, or suitability determination on the basis of criminal history record information or other information normally collected on the OF-306 only after the applicant's qualifications for the position being filled have been fairly assessed and the hiring agency has made a conditional offer of employment to the applicant. The proposed rule provides a mechanism for agencies to request exceptions from this prohibition where there are legitimate, specifically job-related reasons why agencies might wish to disqualify candidates based on their criminal history. Nothing in this proposed rule affects the timing of pre-employment medical examinations or inquiries as required by section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act.

    OPM is proposing this change to continue to encourage applicants from all segments of society to seek Federal employment, and to ensure that for most Federal jobs, individuals with prior criminal or other adverse history are given the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge, skills, and ability in a fair and open competition. The proposed rule will strengthen the enforceability of OPM's regulations while preserving necessary processes that ensure the efficiency, integrity and safety of the service.

    The Merit System Principles provide that “Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an endeavor to achieve a workforce from all segments of society, and selection and advancement should be determined solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge, and skills, after fair and open competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity.” 5 U.S.C. 2301(b)(1). The Director of OPM is charged with “executing, administering, and enforcing” the Civil Service laws, including the Merit System Principles, and “securing . . . justice in the functions of the Office.” 5 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1), (a)(5).

    In addition, the Director of OPM is a member of the Federal Interagency Reentry Council chaired by the Attorney General. OPM is committed to the Council's stated goal of “remov[ing] Federal barriers to successful reentry, so that motivated individuals—who have served their time and paid their debts—are able to compete for a job, attain stable housing, support their children and their families, and contribute to their communities . . . to not only reduce recidivism and high correctional costs, but also to improve public health, child welfare, employment, education, housing and other key reintegration outcomes.” See Federal Interagency Reentry Council, https://csgjusticecenter.org/nrrc/projects/firc/ (last visited March 15, 2016).

    Finally, prompted, in part, by the recent Presidential Memorandum, “Enhancing Safeguards to Prevent the Undue Denial of Federal Employment Opportunities to the Unemployed and Those Facing Financial Difficulty Through No Fault of Their Own,” 79 FR 7045 (Feb. 5, 2014), OPM has determined that it would be good policy to require agencies to defer the collection of the types of background information collected on the OF-306 until the hiring agency has made a conditional offer of employment to an applicant, with appropriate exceptions, so that there is less opportunity for this information to be misused at the preliminary screening stage. Below is an explanation of the proposed rule:

    Specifically, OPM is proposing to amend 5 CFR parts 330 and 731 to require that, unless an exception has been requested by the hiring agency and granted by OPM, agencies cannot begin collecting background information unless the hiring agency has made a conditional offer of employment to an applicant. This change would limit the flexibility currently granted to agencies to administer the OF-306, and any other form of inquiry into an applicant's background, at any time during the hiring process.

    The proposed language, in new subpart M of 5 CFR part 330 and 731.103(d), will require agencies to defer the collection of background information required by the OF-306 until the hiring agency has made a conditional offer of employment to an applicant. This change in requirements will further the objective that most applicants would have the opportunity to apply and be fully considered and evaluated before any action can be taken by the hiring official in reliance on that information. This will preclude agencies, in most cases, from making referral or initial selection decisions on the basis of criminal history or other information normally collected on the OF-306's background information section, and will permit the agency to make an objection, pursue a pass-over of, or make a suitability-based decision on a candidate on the basis of such information only after the applicant's qualifications have been fairly assessed and the applicant has received a conditional job offer.

    The proposed rule allows agencies to request from OPM an exception to collect background information earlier in the hiring process. OPM recognizes there are legitimate, job/position-related reasons why a hiring agency may have a need to disqualify candidates with significant issues, including, e.g., criminal history, from particular types of positions they are seeking to fill. These exceptions could include, for example, certain law enforcement or public trust positions where the ability to testify as a witness is an aspect of the work, and thus a clean criminal history record would be essential to the ability to perform one of the duties of the position effectively. In these cases, the agency will need to demonstrate the validity of its conclusion that the presence of certain background information should be disqualifying.

    It could also include positions where the expense of completing the examination makes it appropriate to adjudicate suitability at the outset of the process (e.g., a position that requires that an applicant complete a rigorous training regimen and pass an examination based upon the training before he or she may be selected).

    In any event, the applicant would have notice of the process, an opportunity to rebut any issue(s) that arose, and the ability to appeal any adverse suitability action to the Merit Systems Protection Board.

    OPM is proposing to consider requests for exceptions on a case-by-case basis (rather than prescribe specific criteria for an exception) in order to provide maximum flexibility to hiring agencies and account for the many unique circumstances that agencies face. In determining whether an exception is justified, OPM will consider, among other things: The occupation, and grade level(s) of the position(s) being filled; the basis for any conclusion that certain information is appropriately considered to be disqualifying; for requests based upon expense, at what point in the hiring process the agency has been conducting suitability screening for the position(s) for which an exception is being sought; and the specific need for the exception. OPM is prepared to consult with agencies and to receive requests for exceptions prior to the effective date of the final rule. In appropriate cases, OPM will be prepared to grant exceptions immediately upon effect of the final rule.

    OPM is proposing the new subpart M to part 330 in order to impact all forms of placement in the Competitive service (e.g., hiring under the competitive examining process, reinstatement of a former Federal employee, or the transfer of a current employee from one agency to another). Many agencies administer the OF-306, “Declaration for Federal Employment,” to applicants in order to collect information about an applicant's history, as an advance screening process prior to the suitability investigation that is required for appointment in a covered position. The OF-306 contains a variety of questions about background information. Among these are several questions about an applicant's criminal history, including past convictions or current arrests that were not yet the subject of a final disposition. OPM is proposing to limit the discretion agencies have in collecting this information from Federal job applicants, whether through the OF-306 or through other similar inquiries or investigative inquiries, such as fingerprint records checks, before the hiring agency makes a conditional offer of employment to an applicant.

    Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Review

    The Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this rulemaking in accordance with E.O. 13563 and 12866.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that these proposed regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulations pertain only to Federal agencies and employees.

    E.O. 13132, Federalism

    This proposed regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

    E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed regulation meets the applicable standard set forth in section 3(a) and (b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rulemaking will not result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments of more than $100 million annually. Thus, no written assessment of unfunded mandates is required.

    Congressional Review Act

    This action pertains to agency management, personnel and organization and does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties and, accordingly, is not a “rule” as that term is used by the Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)

    This proposed regulatory action will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    List of Subjects in Title 5 CFR Parts 330 and 731 5 CFR Part 330

    Armed forces reserves, District of Columbia, Government employees.

    5 CFR Part 731

    Administrative practices and procedures, Government employees.

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

    Beth F. Cobert, Acting Director.

    Accordingly, OPM is proposing to revise 5 CFR parts 330 and 731 as follows:

    PART 330—RECRUITMENT, SELECTION, AND PLACEMENT (GENERAL) 1. The authority citation for part 330 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 1104, 1302, 3301, 3302, 3304, and 3330; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954-58 Comp., p. 218; Section 330.103 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3327; Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3315 and 8151; Section 330.401 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3310; Subparts F and G also issued under Presidential Memorandum on Career Transition Assistance for Federal Employees, September 12, 1995; Subpart G also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8337(h) and 8456(b).

    2. Add subpart M, consisting of § 330.1300 to read as follows: Subpart M—Timing of Background Investigations
    § 330.1300 Timing of suitability inquiries in competitive hiring.

    A hiring agency may not make specific inquiries concerning an applicant's background of the sort asked on the OF-306's `Background Information' section or other forms used to conduct suitability investigations for Federal employment unless the hiring agency has made a conditional offer of employment to the applicant. However, in certain situations, agencies may have a business need to obtain information about the background of applicants earlier in the hiring process to determine if they meet the qualifications requirements or are suitable for the position being filled. If so, agencies must request an exception from the Office of Personnel Management in order to determine an applicant's ability to meet qualifications or suitability for Federal employment prior to making a conditional offer of employment to the applicant(s). OPM will grant exceptions only when the agency demonstrates specific job-related reasons the agency wishes to evaluate suitability earlier in the process or consider the disqualification of candidates with criminal backgrounds or other conduct issues from particular types of positions. OPM will consider such factors as, but not limited to, the nature of the position being filled (e.g., a law enforcement position) and whether a clean criminal history record would be essential to the ability to perform one of the duties of the position effectively. OPM may also consider positions for which the expense of completing the examination makes it appropriate to adjudicate suitability at the outset of the process (e.g., a position that requires that an applicant complete a rigorous training regimen and pass an examination based upon the training before he or she may be selected).

    PART 731—SUITABILITY 3. The authority citation continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 1302, 3301, 7301; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218, as amended; E.O. 13467, 3 CFR 2009 Comp., p. 198; E.O. 13488, 3 CFR 2010 Comp., p. 189; 5 CFR parts 1, 2 and 5.

    4. Revise § 731.103(d) to read as follows:
    § 731.103 Delegation to agencies.

    (d)(1) A hiring agency may not make specific inquiries concerning an applicant's background of the sort asked on the OF-306's `Background Information' section or other forms used to conduct suitability investigations for Federal employment unless the hiring agency has made a conditional offer of employment to the applicant. However, in certain situations, agencies may have a business need to obtain information about the suitability or background of applicants earlier in the process. If so, agencies must request an exception from the Office of Personnel Management, in accordance with the provisions of 5 CFR part 330 subpart M.

    (2) OPM reserves the right to undertake a determination of suitability based upon evidence of falsification or fraud relating to an examination or appointment at any point when information giving rise to such a charge is discovered. OPM must be informed in all cases where there is evidence of material, intentional false statements, or deception or fraud in examination or appointment, and OPM will take a suitability action where warranted.

    [FR Doc. 2016-10063 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6148; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-154-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-8-400 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a malfunctioning No. 2 engine intake heater with corrosion on the thermostats and the fuselage skin where the thermostats made contact with the aircraft fuselage skin. This proposed AD would require a general visual inspection for corrosion of the thermostats' mounting surfaces and fuselage skin surface, corrective actions if necessary, and relocating the existing thermostats. We are proposing this AD to prevent corrosion within the thermostats that may cause the switch mechanism to seize in the open position and prevent the activation of the associated engine air intake heater. An inactive engine air intake heater could lead to an engine failure.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 16, 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 NPRM, 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-2016-6148; 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-2016-6148; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-154-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 AD CF-2015-24, dated August 24, 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-8-400 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    A malfunctioning Engine Air Intake Heater has been discovered with corrosion on the thermostats and the aeroplane skin where the thermostats are installed. The two thermostats are installed directly under the flight compartment floor along the aeroplane centre line where moisture accumulation and/or migration may occur, which can cause corrosion of the thermostats. Corrosion within the thermostats may seize the switch mechanism open, preventing the activation of the associated Engine Air Intake Heater. Failure of the Engine Air Intake Heater to activate may pose a safety risk to the aeroplane in icing conditions.

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin (SB) 84-30-10 to inspect, replace if required and relocate the thermostat assembly to rectify this problem. [An inactive engine air intake heater could lead to an engine failure.]

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6148.

    Related Service Information Under1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-30-10, Revision E, dated October 10, 2014. The service information describes procedures for a general visual inspection for corrosion of the thermostats' mounting surfaces and fuselage skin surface, corrective actions if necessary, and relocating the existing thermostats from a lower position on the aircraft skin at X-54.00 between stringers 31P and 32P (next to the centerline) to a higher position at X-54.00 between stringers 26P and 27P. 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 76 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 12 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $77,520, or $1,020 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2016-6148; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-154-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 16, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001 through 4184 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30, Ice and rain protection.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a malfunctioning No. 2 engine intake heater with corrosion on the thermostats and the fuselage skin where the thermostats made contact with the aircraft fuselage skin. We are issuing this AD to prevent corrosion within the thermostats that may cause the switch mechanism to seize in the open position and prevent the activation of the associated engine air intake heater. An inactive engine air intake heater could lead to an engine failure.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection of the Thermostats and Replacement

    Within 2,000 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection of the thermostats' exterior for any signs of corrosion, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-30-10, Revision E, dated October 10, 2014. If any thermostat is corroded, replace the thermostat before further flight in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-30-10, Revision E, dated October 10, 2014.

    (h) Inspection of the Fuselage Skin Surface and Corrective Action

    Within 2,000 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection of the fuselage skin surface for skin corrosion, and modify the engine air intake heater thermostat installation, in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-30-10, Revision E, dated October 10, 2014.

    (1) If the skin corrosion is 0.001 inch deep or less, before further flight remove the corrosion and treat bare metal in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-30-10, Revision E, dated October 10, 2014.

    (2) If the skin corrosion is greater than 0.001 inch deep, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).

    (i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information identified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(5) of this AD. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-30-10, dated September 07, 2007, provided that the thermostat location label is replaced in accordance with the accomplishment instruction of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-30-10, Revision E, dated October 10, 2014, within the compliance times specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-30-10, Revision A, dated April 07, 2008.

    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-30-10, Revision B, dated January 20, 2010.

    (4) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-30-10, Revision C, dated July 14, 2011.

    (5) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-30-10, Revision D, dated December 20, 2011.

    (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Services Branch, ANE 172, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7301; fax: 516-794-5531. 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, 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.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2015-24, dated August 24, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6148.

    (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 April 20, 2016. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10116 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1649; Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-6] Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Columbus, Ohio State University Airport, OH, and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Columbus, OH AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    This action withdraws the NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 24, 2015, proposing to amend Class D and Class E airspace and remove Class E airspace in the Columbus, OH, area. The FAA has determined that withdrawal of that NPRM is warranted as a second NPRM for the same airspace action was issued in July 2015.

    DATES:

    May 2, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    An NPRM was published in the Federal Register of June 24, 2015 (80 FR 36265), to amend Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71, by amending Class D and Class E airspace and removing Class E airspace in the Columbus, OH area. The proposed action was due to the decommissioning of the Dan Scott non-directional beacon (NDB) and cancellation of the NDB approach at Ohio State University Airport, Columbus, OH. A second NPRM was published in the Federal Register of July 17, 2015 (80 FR 42434), proposing the same airspace actions and followed by a final rule published in the Federal Register of October 20, 2015 (80 FR 63426), acknowledging only the second NPRM. Therefore, the first NPRM issued is being withdrawn.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Withdrawal

    In consideration of the foregoing, the NPRM for FR Doc. FAA-2015-1649, Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-6, as published in the Federal Register of June 24, 2015 (80 FR 36265) (FR Doc. 2015-15461), 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 Fort Worth, TX, on April 19, 2016. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10011 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary 14 CFR Part 382 [Docket No. DOT-OST-2015-0246] RIN 2105-AE12 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Membership and First Meeting AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of negotiated rulemaking (Reg-Neg) committee membership and public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Transportation (“Department” or “DOT”) announces the appointment of members to the Advisory Committee on Accessible Air Transportation (ACCESS Advisory Committee). The ACCESS Advisory Committee was established to negotiate and develop a proposed rule concerning accommodations for air travelers with disabilities addressing inflight entertainment (IFE), accessible lavatory on new single-aisle aircraft, and service animals. Additionally, DOT announces that the first meeting of the ACCESS Advisory Committee will be held on May 17 and 18, 2016. The meeting is open to the public for its entirety.

    DATES:

    The first meeting of the ACCESS Advisory Committee will be held on May 17 and 18, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Omni Shoreham Hotel, 2500 Calvert Street NW., Washington, DC 20001, 202-234-0700, in the Diplomat Room. Attendance is open to the public up to the room's capacity of 150 attendees. Since space is limited, any member of the general public who plans to attend this meeting must notify the registration contact identified below no later than May 10, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To register to attend the meeting, please contact Alyssa Battle ([email protected]; 703-442-4575 extension 127) or Kyle Illgenfritz ([email protected]; 703-442-4575 extension 128). For other information, please contact Livaughn Chapman or Vinh Nguyen, Office of the Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, by email at [email protected] or [email protected] or by telephone at 202-366-9342.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On December 7, 2015, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register announcing its intent to consider a Reg-Neg on six issues—(1) inflight entertainment accessibility; (2) supplemental medical oxygen; (3) service animals; (4) accessible lavatories on single-aisle aircraft; (5) seating accommodations; and (6) carrier reporting of disability service requests.1 DOT also announced that we had hired a neutral convener, Professor Richard Parker, to speak with disability advocacy organizations, airlines, and others about the feasibility of conducting a Reg-Neg on these six issues. Mr. Parker conducted interviews with 46 different stakeholders representing these interests and prepared a convening report to DOT on the feasibility of conducting the negotiated rulemaking under consideration. The convening report is available in the rulemaking docket at DOT-OST-2015-0246.

    1 80 FR 75953 (Dec. 7, 2015).

    Based on the convening report, the comments received on the December notice, and on the statutory factors in the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. 563), DOT decided that it would be in the public interest to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee with a narrower scope. On April 7, 2016, DOT announced that it would establish a Reg-Neg committee to negotiate and develop proposed amendments to the Department's disability regulation on three issues: Whether to require accessible inflight entertainment (IFE) and strengthen accessibility requirements for other in-flight communications; whether to require an accessible lavatory on new single-aisle aircraft over a certain size; and whether to amend the definition of “service animals” that may accompany passengers with a disability on a flight.2

    2 81 FR 20265 (Apr. 7, 2016).

    II. Establishment of the ACCESS Advisory Committee

    The ACCESS Advisory Committee is established by charter in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2. Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx approved the ACCESS Advisory Committee charter on April 6, 2016. In accordance with section 14 of FACA, the charter provides for the ACCESS Advisory Committee to terminate when the stated objectives of the Committee have been accomplished (i.e., the committee submits its recommendations to the Secretary) or upon the expiration of a period not to exceed two years, whichever happens sooner.

    III. ACCESS Advisory Committee Membership

    In its April 7th Federal Register notice, DOT announced that it was soliciting applications and nominations for membership on the ACCESS Advisory Committee. DOT stated that it would choose the Committee members based on four main criteria: (1) Representativeness (does the applicant represent a significant stakeholder group that will be substantially affected by the final rule); (2) expertise (does the applicant bring essential knowledge, expertise and/or experience regarding accessibility and the topic area(s) of interest that will enrich the discussion of the available options and their respective costs and benefits); (3) balance (does the slate of selected applicants comprise a balanced array of representative and expert stakeholders); and (4) willingness to participate fully (is the applicant able and willing to attend the listed meetings and associated working group conference calls, bring in other experts from the applicant's organization as needed and relevant, bargain in good faith, and generally contribute constructively to a rigorous policy development process).

    DOT proposed for public comment the following tentative list of stakeholder categories to be members of the Committee: DOT; airlines; cross-disability advocacy groups; consumer groups; professional associations of flight attendants; advocacy groups for blind and visually impaired individuals; advocacy groups representing service animal users; advocacy groups for representing people with psychiatric disabilities; providers, manufactures, or experts of IFE products, systems, and services; advocacy groups representing deaf and hard of hearing individuals; academic or non-profit institutions having technical expertise in accessibility research and development; aircraft manufacturers; and advocacy groups representing individuals with mobility disabilities. DOT stated that Committee members will be selected to represent not only the interest of that individual's own organization but rather the collective stakeholder interests of organizations in the same stakeholder category. DOT also noted that all individuals or organizations who wished to be selected to serve on the Committee should submit an application regardless of whether their stakeholder category appeared on list.

    After a careful review of all the individuals nominated to be ACCESS Advisory Committee members, the Secretary of Transportation hereby appoints the following members:

    • Michelle Albert, Boeing Commercial Airplanes • Zainab Alkebsi, National Association of the Deaf • Mary Barnicle, United Airlines • Kelly Buckland, National Council on Independent Living • Curtis L. Decker, National Disability Rights Network • Parnell Diggs, National Federation of the Blind • Paul Doell, National Air Carrier Association • Geoff Freed, National Center for Accessible Media at WGBH • Brian Friedman, JetBlue Airways • Laurie A. Gawelko, Service Dog Express, LLC • Lise Hamlin, Hearing Loss Association of America • Dr. Katherine Hunter-Zaworski, Oregon State University • Candace Kolander, Association of Flight Attendants • Doug Lavin, International Air Transport Association • Russ Lemieux, Airline Passenger Experience Association • Lorne Mackenzie, WestJet Airlines • David Martin, Delta Air Lines • Orit H. Michiel, Motion Picture Association of America • Bradley W. Morris, Psychiatric Service Dog Partners • Lawrence Mullins, Lufthansa Group • Lee Page, Paralyzed Veterans of America • Deborah Lynn Price, Frontier Airlines • Roser Roca-Toha, Airbus • Alicia Smith, National Alliance on Mental Illness • Anthony Stevens, American Counsel of the Blind • Jennifer Sunderman, Regional Airline Association • Blane A. Workie, U.S. Department of Transportation (Designated Federal Officer) IV. Meeting Participation

    The meeting will be open to the public. Attendance will necessarily be limited by the size of the meeting room (maximum 150 attendees). Since space is limited, we ask that any member of the general public who plans to attend the first meeting notify the registration contact, contact Alyssa Battle ([email protected]; 703-442-4575 extension 127) or Kyle Illgenfritz ([email protected]; 703-442-4575 extension 128) at Linkvisum, no later than May 10, 2016. At the discretion of the facilitator and the Committee and time permitting, members of the public are invited to contribute to the discussion and provide oral comments.

    The Committee will dedicate a substantial amount of time at the first meeting to establishing the rules, procedures, and process of the Committee, such as outlining the voting rights of the Committee members and defining the meaning of “consensus.”

    V. Submitting Written Comments

    Members of the public may submit written comments on the topics to be considered during the meeting by May 10, 2016, to Federal Docket Management System (FDMC), Docket Number DOT-OST-2015-0246. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. DOT recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that DOT can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, put the docket number, DOT-OST-2015-0246, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” When the new screen appears, click on the “Comment Now!” button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.

    VI. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments and any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Enter the docket number, DOT-OST-2015-0246, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” Next, click the link to “Open Docket Folder” and choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    VII. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

    VIII. Future Committee Meetings

    DOT anticipates that the ACCESS Advisory Committee will have five additional two-day meetings in Washington, DC. The meetings are tentatively scheduled for following dates: Second meeting, June 14-15; third meeting, July 11-12; fourth meeting, August 16-17; fifth meeting, September 22-23, and the sixth and final meeting, October 13-14. Notices of all future meetings will be published in the Federal Register at least 15 calendar days prior to each meeting.

    Notice of this meeting is being provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the General Services Administration regulations covering management of Federal advisory committees.

    (41 CFR part 102-3.)

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.27(n).

    Dated: April 27, 2016. Kristin Amerling, Deputy General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10307 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0861; FRL-9945-95-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to the General Definitions for Texas New Source Review and the Minor NSR Qualified Facilities Program AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve and disapprove portions of revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) pertaining to the Texas New Source Review (NSR) program submitted on March 13, 1996; July 22, 1998; September 11, 2000; September 4, 2002; and October 5, 2010. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to approve the severable portions of the amendments to the General Definitions for the Texas NSR program, and the Minor NSR Qualified Facilities Program. The EPA is proposing to disapprove a severable portion of the General Definition of “modification of existing facility” submitted on October 5, 2010. We are taking these actions under section 110, parts C and D of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0861, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected] Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact Ms. Adina Wiley, (214) 665-2115, [email protected] For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Adina Wiley, (214) 665-2115, [email protected] To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Ms. Adina Wiley or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    I. Background A. The CAA and SIPs

    The Act at Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to develop and submit to the EPA for approval into the SIP, preconstruction review and permitting programs applicable to certain new and modified stationary sources of air pollutants for attainment/unclassifiable and nonattainment areas that cover both major and minor new sources and modifications, collectively referred to as the NSR SIP. The CAA NSR SIP program is composed of three separate programs: Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR), and Minor NSR. PSD is established in part C of title I of the CAA and applies in areas that meet the NAAQS—“attainment areas”—as well as areas where there is insufficient information to determine if the area meets the NAAQS—“unclassifiable areas.” The NNSR SIP program is established in part D of title I of the CAA and applies in areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS—“nonattainment areas.” The Minor NSR SIP program addresses construction or modification activities that do not emit, or have the potential to emit, beyond certain major source/major modification thresholds and thus do not qualify as “major” and applies regardless of the designation of the area in which a source is located. Any submitted SIP revision must meet the applicable requirements for SIP elements in section 110 of the Act, and be consistent with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. The EPA regulations governing the criteria that states must satisfy for EPA approval of the NSR programs as part of the SIP are contained in 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.166. Regulations specific to Minor NSR programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.164. Texas submitted the revisions to the General Definitions as revisions to the Texas SIP applicable to the entirety of the Texas NSR Program. The provisions specific to the Qualified Facilities Program have been submitted for inclusion in the State's Minor NSR program.

    B. Overview of the Revisions to the General Definitions for the Texas NSR Program

    The General Definitions germane to the implementation of the Texas NSR Program are contained in the Texas Administrative Code (TAC) at 30 TAC Section 116.10. The October 5, 2010, submitted revisions include substantive revisions to the definition of “Best Available Control Technology (BACT)”, substantive revisions to the definition of “modification of existing facility”, deletion of definitions specific to the Minor NSR Qualified Facilities Program that have been moved to a new section for Qualified Facilities definitions, non-substantive edits to improve clarity throughout the definitions, and renumbering of the existing SIP-approved definitions to account for the other edits. On March 25, 2011, the TCEQ resubmitted the revisions to the General Definitions at 30 TAC Section 116.10 that were submitted on March 13, 1996; July 22, 1998; September 11, 2000; September 4, 2002. As such, the portions of these prior submittals that have not already been addressed by the EPA are before us for review.

    C. Overview of the Texas Minor NSR Qualified Facilities Program

    The Texas Minor NSR Qualified Facilities Program was authorized under Texas Senate Bill 1126, 74th Texas Legislature, to create a streamlined Minor NSR mechanism to authorize minor changes at existing facilities that are not subject to federal major source requirements under PSD or NNSR. The program authorizes changes at existing permitted facilities by allowing the participating facilities to trade permitted emission allowables. Changes at qualified facilities cannot result in the emission of an air contaminant not previously emitted, the construction of a new facility, a reduction in emission control efficiency, a net increase in allowable emissions, or any increases in actual emissions that exceed applicable major source thresholds.

    D. Overview of the Texas Permit Renewal Requirements

    Requirements for the renewal of air permits issued under 30 TAC Chapter 116 are provided under 30 TAC Chapter 116, Division D. The EPA has SIP-approved the majority of this division; the exception being the provision in 30 TAC Section 116.311 exempting changes authorized as a qualified facility from the requirement to obtain a permit renewal. The revisions remaining before us pertaining to Qualified Facilities were submitted to 30 TAC Section 116.311 on July 22, 1998 and September 4, 2002.

    II. The EPA's Evaluation A. Revisions to the General Definitions for Texas NSR

    The TCEQ revised the General Definitions at 30 TAC Section 116.10 on September 5, 2010 and submitted these revisions for inclusion in the Texas NSR SIP on October 5, 2010. The TCEQ submitted a clarification letter to the EPA on March 25, 2011, that resubmitted prior rulemakings addressing the General Definitions at 30 TAC Section 116.10; specifically the rulemakings and records associated with SIP submittals dated March 13, 1996; July 22, 1998; September 11, 2000; and September 4, 2002. We note that the July 22, 1998 submittal repealed and replaced the March 13, 1996 submittal of 30 TAC Section 116.10. Therefore, the EPA has determined that the March 13, 1996 revisions to 30 TAC Section 116.10 are no longer before us for review. We are only addressing the pieces of the General Definition submittals that have yet to be finally acted upon by the EPA.

    The EPA has taken several actions over the years to approve and disapprove specific components of the General Definitions into the Texas SIP. Our actions are dated August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49198); April 14, 2010 (75 FR 19468); and November 17, 2011 (76 FR 71260). The Technical Support Document (TSD) accompanying this proposal provides a detailed history of our past actions.

    Today's proposal addresses the remaining submitted revisions to the General Definitions from July 22, 1998 through the current version of the General Definitions submitted on October 5, 2010. The following is a summary of the EPA's evaluation of the submitted revisions to the General Definitions.

    • On October 5, 2010, the TCEQ submitted a substantive revision to the definition of “best available control technology (BACT)” at 30 TAC Section 116.10(1). The definition initially submitted on July 22, 1998 at 30 TAC Section 116.10(3) was disapproved by the EPA on September 15, 2010. See 75 FR 56424. On September 15, 2010, the TCEQ substantively revised the definition of “BACT” and submitted this revised definition for SIP approval on October 5, 2010 at 30 TAC Section 116.10(1). The revised definition of BACT at 30 TAC Section 116.10(1) clarifies how the TCEQ defines BACT for NSR permitting. The Texas SIP at 30 TAC Section 116.111(a)(2)(C) requires that BACT must be evaluated and applied to all facilities subject to the Texas Clean Air Act. Section 116.111(a)(2)(C) further clarifies that applications subject to PSD requirements under Title I Part C of the CAA must comply with the provisions of BACT as defined in the Texas SIP at 30 TAC Section 116.160(c)(1)(A). Thus, the Texas SIP has two definitions for BACT—the definition at 30 TAC Section 116.10(1) creates what is generally referred to as “Texas BACT” and will be applied to all Texas NSR permitting actions, major and minor. The “federal BACT” requirements are applied to PSD permits in accordance with the Texas PSD SIP. The EPA finds that the revisions to the definition of “BACT” at 30 TAC Section 116.10(1) are approvable.

    • On October 5, 2010, the TCEQ submitted substantive revisions to the NSR definition of “modification of existing facility” at 30 TAC Section 116.10(9). The EPA has approved portions of this definition into the Texas SIP, but we are proposing to act on the remaining components of this definition as initially adopted on June 17, 1998 and submitted July 22, 1998; as further revised through submittals dated September 11, 2000; September 4, 2002; and October 5, 2010. The EPA proposes to approve the outstanding provisions in the definition of “modification of existing facility” at 30 TAC Section 116.10(9) as submitted on October 5, 2010, as a portion of the Texas NSR program, with the exception of the severable subparagraph (F) as discussed below. Each subparagraph provides a Minor NSR mechanism by which a facility can be changed without a case-by case Minor NSR permit amendment:

    ○ 30 TAC Section 116.10(9)(A) provides for the use of permits by rule (PBRs) to be used for the insignificant increases of already authorized air contaminants. The EPA has SIP-approved the Texas PBR program under 30 TAC Chapter 106 as a component of the Texas Minor NSR program. As such, we find that use of a PBR for insignificant increases for an already authorized air contaminant should not be considered as part of the modification of an existing facility. We are proposing approval of this provision as initially adopted on June 17, 1998 and submitted on July 22, 1998; and further revised on September 15, 2010 and submitted on October 5, 2010.

    ○ The current Texas SIP includes the definition of “modification of existing facilities” at 30 TAC Section 116.10(11)(C) and (D). On October 5, 2010, the TCEQ submitted non-substantive renumbering of these provisions to new 30 TAC Section 116.10(9)(B) and (C) as adopted on September 15, 2010. This non-substantive renumbering is approvable.

    ○ 30 TAC Section 116.10(9)(D) establishes the criteria for a facility to become “qualified.” This definition is necessary for the implementation of the Texas Minor NSR Qualified Facilities Program and is therefore approvable under 40 CFR 51.160 as defining the scope of the Minor NSR program;

    ○ 30 TAC Section 116.10(9)(E) is already SIP-approved with respect to flexible permits. See 79 FR 40666, July 14, 2014.

    ○ 30 TAC Section 116.10(9)(F) provides for modifications to be made at natural gas processing facilities without a case-by case permit.1 On November 17, 2011, the EPA disapproved the subparagraph (G) portion of the “modification of existing facility” definition at 30 TAC Section 116.10(11) as submitted on July 22, 1998 and further revised on September 4, 2002. We previously disapproved subparagraph (G) because it was not clearly limited to Minor NSR and we could not demonstrate whether this exemption met the anti-backsliding requirements of CAA 110(l). See 76 FR 71260. The TCEQ resubmitted this identical provision in the October 5, 2010 submittal, renumbered to be 30 TAC Section 116.10(9)(F), and we are reviewing the resubmitted subparagraph (F) as a new revision to the Texas SIP. The exemption provides that changes at certain natural gas processing, treating, or compression facilities are not modifications if the change does not result in an annual emissions rate of any air contaminant in excess of the volume for grandfathered facilities. The “annual emissions rate” is the same as the “volume emitted at maximum design capacity;” therefore, this would provide an exemption for those sources from permit review for any emission increases at these facilities. The requirements of 40 CFR 51.160(e) allow a state to identify facilities that will be subject to review under its Minor NSR program and require its Minor NSR SIP to discuss the basis for determining which facilities will be subject to review. The submitted definition at 30 TAC Section 116.10(9)(F), however, does not contain an applicability statement or regulatory provision limiting this type of change to Minor NSR. The TCEQ has not submitted any additional evidence to substantiate that this provision is only applicable to the Texas Minor NSR program. Further, the submittal does not include any explanation of the basis for exempting this type of change from the permitting SIP requirements. Without an analysis describing how this exemption does not negate the Major NSR SIP requirements and meets the Minor NSR SIP requirements in 40 CFR 51.160 and the CAA's anti-backsliding requirements in section 110(l), EPA has no basis to approve this exemption. As such, we propose to disapprove subparagraph (F) consistent with our prior final action.

    1 Specifically, it exempts “a change in the method of operation of a natural gas processing, treating, or compression facility connected to or part of a natural gas gathering or transmission pipeline which does not result in an annual emission rate of any air contaminant in excess of the volume emitted at the maximum designed capacity, provided that the facility is one for which: (i) Construction or operation started on or before September 1, 1971, and at which either no modification has occurred after September 1, 1971, or at which modifications have occurred only under Chapter 106 of this title; or (ii) construction started after September 1, 1971, and before March 1, 1972, and which registered in accordance with TCAA, § 382.060, as that section existed prior to September 1, 1991.” 30 TAC section 116.10(9)(F).

    • On October 5, 2010, the TCEQ submitted a new definition of “qualified facility” at 30 TAC Section 116.10(14); this definition is necessary for the implementation of the Texas Minor NSR Qualified Facilities Program and is therefore approvable under 40 CFR 51.160 as defining the scope of the Minor NSR program.

    • On October 5, 2010, the TCEQ also submitted non-substantive edits to the opening paragraph of the General Definitions to clarify an acronym and renumbering throughout the section of the existing SIP-approved definitions: “dockside vessel,” “dockside vessel emissions,” “facility,” “federally enforceable,” “grandfathered facility,” “lead smelting plant,” “maximum allowable emissions rate table (MAERT),” “new facility,” “new source,” “nonattainment area,” “public notice,” and “source”. These non-substantive edits are approvable.

    B. The Texas Minor NSR Qualified Facilities Program

    On April 14, 2010, the EPA disapproved the Texas Qualified Facilities Program as submitted by the TCEQ on March 13, 1996; repealed and re-adopted on June 17, 1998, submitted on July 22, 1998; and revised on September 11, 2000 and September 4, 2002. See 75 FR 19468. In the final disapproval the EPA found that the Qualified Facilities Program was not approvable as a Minor NSR program and was not approvable as a substitute Major NSR program.

    On October 5, 2010, the TCEQ submitted a revised Qualified Facilities Program to address the April 14, 2010, identified deficiencies. Our evaluation demonstrates that the TCEQ has appropriately limited the Qualified Facilities Program to Minor NSR by requiring that each proposed change conduct a separate applicability determination under PSD and NNSR to ensure no federal major source permitting requirements are circumvented. The Texas Qualified Facilities Program enables an existing permitted facility to increase allowable emissions, provided that another permitted facility has a corresponding decrease in permit allowable emissions; resulting in no net increase in permitted emission allowables.2 Each of the facilities in the qualified transaction will have an existing permit authorized under the Texas NSR SIP at 30 TAC Chapter 106 (Permits by Rule (PBR)) or Chapter 116 (PSD, NNSR, Minor NSR, or standard permit). To ensure the changes in emission allowables will be enforceable, the Texas Qualified Facilities Program requires sources to document the transaction through the submittal of a P1-E form and to revise the underlying existing permits under the requirements of 30 TAC Section 116.111 or through a revision to the existing PBR registration at 30 TAC Section 106.6.3 The netting of emission allowables will not result in interference with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, reasonable further progress, increment or any other requirement of the CAA because each of the underlying permits, or PBR, was issued as protective of air quality. A qualified facility change may result in an increase in actual emissions, but this increase is already authorized under the existing permitted allowables. A qualified facility cannot be used to authorize the emission of a new air contaminant or the construction of a new source. Further, a qualified facility cannot be used to lessen the already required level of control technology in the existing permits or reduce the permitted monitoring and recordkeeping requirements. Because the Texas Qualified Facilities Program will not reduce existing permit requirements nor result in a net increase in allowable emissions from the existing permitted facilities, the EPA proposes to find that the program is approvable as a component of the Texas Minor NSR program for authorizing changes at existing facilities without a specific permit modification. We are also proposing to find that the Qualified Facilities Program is an enforceable component of the Texas Minor NSR program because it requires that the existing NSR authorizations for the participating facilities are revised to document the changes in permitted allowable emission rates and sources are required to maintain documentation quantifying the increases and decreases in actual emissions associated with the change and all information necessary to demonstrate no adverse air quality impact.

    2 Relying on permitted allowable emissions is appropriate for a Minor NSR permit program. The EPA has approved the Texas Minor NSR program as consistent with the federal requirements; therefore, the Texas Minor NSR program establishes allowable permit limits that are protective of the NAAQS and increment consistent with 40 CFR 51.160-51.164. The trading of these permitted allowables will not result in a net increase in permitted allowables.

    3 We note that all of the requirements of 30 TAC Chapter 106, Subchapter A (which includes 30 TAC Section 106.6) and any preconstruction requirements under 30 TAC Chapter 116 are applicable requirements under the Texas title V program at 30 TAC Chapter 122. The EPA is not making a change to the approval status of the part 70 program in Texas; rather we are noting that any permit revisions associated with a Qualified Facility transaction would also be part of the permit record for the source's title V permit.

    C. The Texas Permit Renewal Requirements

    The EPA is also reviewing revisions to the Permit Renewal Application procedures at 30 TAC Section 116.311. The TCEQ initially submitted a revision on July 22, 1998, at 30 TAC Section 116.311(a)(1) to specify that changes authorized under a qualified facility are not subject to the permit renewal requirements under 30 TAC Chapter 116. This provision was renumbered in the September 4, 2002 submittal to 30 TAC Section 116.311(a)(2). Changes authorized under the Qualified Facilities Program are made enforceable by revisions to the underlying Chapter 116 permits or Chapter 106 PBR registration. Because there is not a specific permit issued for a Qualified Facility transaction, there is no “Qualified Facility permit” subject to permit renewal requirements. Rather, the underlying permits under Chapter 116 remain subject to the permit renewal requirements. Note that the permit renewal requirements at 30 TAC Section 116.311 do not apply to PBRs authorized under 30 TAC Chapter 106 or any portion of the Qualified Facility transaction authorized under 30 TAC Chapter 106. However, the federal regulations under the CAA do not require a permit renewal process for an approved NSR program. See 40 CFR 51.160-51.166.

    Because a change authorized under the Qualified Facilities Program does not result in a specific permit modification, such a change is not subject to the permit renewal requirements because there is not a permit action to renew. However, the underlying permit terms remain subject to the applicable permit renewal requirements.

    D. Evaluation Under Section 110(l) of the CAA

    Under Section 110(l), the EPA cannot propose to approve a SIP revision that has not been developed with reasonable notice and public hearing. Nor can we propose to approve a revision that will worsen air quality. The October 5, 2010, submitted revisions to the Texas SIP were developed using the Texas SIP-approved process with adequate notice and comment procedures. Our analysis also indicates that the General Definitions, with the exception of the portion of “modification of existing facilities” pertaining to natural gas processing facilities, are necessary to implement the CAA required title I permitting programs in Texas. As such, these General Definitions will support the state's air quality programs and will not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirements of the CAA. Additionally, the Minor NSR Qualified Facilities Program establishes a mechanism to allow modifications at existing, permitted facilities to occur without a permit revision by requiring an increase in permitted emission allowables to be offset by a corresponding decrease in permitted emission allowables at the same facility. Because the facilities participating in the Qualified Facilities Program have been previously authorized under SIP-approved permitted mechanisms, the permitted emission allowables have been developed such that there is no interference with attainment, reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of this chapter. Therefore, the EPA proposes to find that approval and implementation of the Qualified Facilities Program will not result in degradation of air quality.

    III. Proposed Action

    Section 110(k)(3) of the Act states that the EPA may partially approve and partially disapprove a SIP submittal if we find that only a portion of the submittal meets the requirements of the Act. We are proposing to determine that the majority of the October 5, 2010 revision to the Texas SIP is approvable because the submitted rules are adopted and submitted in accordance with the CAA and are consistent with the EPA's regulations regarding NSR and Minor NSR. Therefore, the EPA proposes to approve the following as a revision to the Texas SIP under section 110 and parts C and D of the CAA:

    • Substantive and non-substantive revisions to the General Definitions at 30 TAC Section 116.10, as initially adopted on June 17, 1998 and submitted on July 22, 1998 and revised through the October 5, 2010 submittal, with the exception of 30 TAC Section 116.10(9)(F). Note that 30 TAC Section 116.10(5)(F) has not been submitted or proposed for inclusion in the Texas SIP.

    • New section 30 TAC Section 116.17 establishing the definitions for the Minor NSR Qualified Facilities Program as adopted by the State on September 15, 2010 and submitted on October 5, 2010.

    • Substantive revisions to 30 TAC Section 116.116(e)(1)-(e)(11) creating the Texas Minor NSR Qualified Facilities Program as adopted by the State on September 15, 2010 and submitted on October 5, 2010.

    • New section 30 TAC Section 116.117 establishing the documentation and notification requirements for the Minor NSR Qualified Facilities Program as adopted by the State on September 15, 2010 and submitted on October 5, 2010. Note that 30 TAC Section 116.117(a)(4)(B) has not been submitted or proposed for inclusion in the Texas SIP.

    • The SIP narrative titled “Revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) Concerning the Qualified Facility Program as Authorized by Senate Bill 1126” as submitted on October 5, 2010.

    • Revisions to 30 TAC Section 116.311(a)(2) as adopted by the State on June 17, 1998 and submitted on July 22, 1998; and further revised by the adoption of August 21, 2002 and the submitted on September 4, 2002.

    The EPA's approval, if finalized, would not make federally enforceable any Qualified Facility actions that were authorized by the State before the EPA's final approval of the Qualified Facilities Program is effective. The EPA is also proposing, that upon the final approval of today's action, we will amend 40 CFR 52.2273(b) to reflect that the Texas Minor NSR Qualified Facilities Program is an approved component of the Texas SIP. We also are proposing to delete 40 CFR 52.2273(d)(1) because the EPA is now proposing approval of the general definition of BACT.

    We are also proposing to disapprove the severable portion of the definition of “modification of existing facility” at 30 TAC Section 116.10(9)(F) pertaining to natural gas processing facilities as submitted on October 5, 2010. The EPA previously disapproved this provision on November 17, 2011. The state resubmitted the provision on October 5, 2010, unchanged with the exception of numbering and provided no additional evidence to substantiate inclusion in the Texas Minor NSR program or to address the anti-backsliding requirements under CAA section 110(l). As such, we continue to believe that this provision is not clearly limited to Minor NSR and should be disapproved as inconsistent with the requirements of section 110 of the Act and the EPA's regulations under 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.164 regarding Minor NSR. The provision in subparagraph (F) in the definition of “modification of existing facility” that we are proposing to disapprove was not submitted to meet a mandatory requirement of the CAA. Therefore, if the EPA takes final action to disapprove subparagraph (F), no sanctions or Federal Implementation Plan clocks will be triggered. See CAA section 179(a).

    At this time the EPA is also proposing several unrelated corrections to the Texas SIP to accurately reflect recent federal final actions.

    • We are proposing to correct 40 CFR 52.2270(c) to include 30 TAC Section 116.112 as part of the Texas SIP. On December 7, 2005, the EPA approved 30 TAC Section 116.112—Distance Limitations as adopted by the TCEQ on January 14, 2004. See 70 FR 72720. As a result of this final approval, we included this provision in the table of EPA-Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP at 40 CFR 52.2270(c). 30 TAC Section 116.112 was inadvertently removed from 40 CFR 52.2270(c) due to a typographical error in later final rulemaking. We have taken no action to remove the Distance Limitation provisions at 30 TAC Section 116.112 from the Texas SIP; therefore, we are merely correcting a clerical error.

    • The EPA is also proposing to correct 40 CFR 52.2270(c) to include the date and Federal Register citation for the EPA's final approval of 30 TAC Section 116.760 into the Texas SIP. This section was included in our final approval of the Texas Flexible Permits Program on July 14, 2014; however, the table in 40 CFR 52.2270(c) does not include the date or citation of EPA's approval. We are proposing to correct this inadvertent omission.

    • Additionally, the EPA is proposing to delete 40 CFR 52.2273(d)(4)(viii) because of our March 30, 2015 final approval. See 80 FR 16573. We are also proposing to delete 40 CFR 52.2273(d)(5)(i) because of our February 14, 2014 final approval and 40 CFR 52.2273(d)(5)(ii) because of our April 1, 2014 final approval. See 79 FR 08861 and 79 FR 18183, respectively. As a result of the proposed deletions to 40 CFR 52.2273 described here, we will also consider renumbering this section to improve readability.

    • Finally, we are proposing to clarify the SIP status of 30 TAC Section 116.110(c). This section was returned to the TCEQ on June 29, 2011, as it was inappropriately submitted for inclusion in the Texas SIP. As such, we propose to revise 40 CFR 52.2270(c) to specify that 30 TAC Section 116.110(c) is not in the SIP.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

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

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. There is no burden imposed under the PRA because this action merely proposes to approve state permitting provisions that are consistent with the CAA and disapprove state permitting provisions that are inconsistent with the CAA.

    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 merely proposes to approve state permitting provisions that are consistent with the CAA and disapprove state permitting provisions that are inconsistent with the CAA; therefore this action will not impose any requirements on small entities.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. This action merely proposes to approve state permitting provisions that are consistent with the CAA and disapprove state permitting provisions that are inconsistent with the CAA; and therefore will have no impact on small governments.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action does not apply on any Indian reservation land, any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, or non-reservation areas of Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 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 merely proposes to approve state permitting provisions that are consistent with the CAA and disapprove state permitting provisions that are inconsistent with the CAA.

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    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 merely proposes to approve state permitting provisions that are consistent with the CAA and disapprove state permitting provisions that are inconsistent with the CAA.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April 22, 2016. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10225 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0187; FRL-9945-96-Region 9] Limited Disapproval of Air Plan Revisions; Arizona; New Source Review; PM2.5 AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a limited disapproval of a revision to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). This ADEQ-submitted SIP revision primarily was intended to serve as a replacement of ADEQ's SIP-approved rules for the issuance of New Source Review (NSR) permits for stationary sources, including but not limited to the rules governing the review and permitting of major sources and major modifications under the Act. This action concerns only the major nonattainment NSR provisions in ADEQ's submittal as they pertain to the Nogales and West Central Pinal nonattainment areas for particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). The EPA previously finalized a limited approval for these PM2.5 nonattainment areas related to certain major nonattainment NSR permitting requirements for PM2.5 under the CAA, and is now also proposing a limited disapproval to set the stage for remedying certain deficiencies related to these requirements.

    DATES:

    Comments must arrive by June 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0187 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa Beckham, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3811, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. What did the State submit? B. What is the purpose of this proposed rule? II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the submittal? B. Does the submittal meet the evaluation criteria? C. Proposed Action and Public Comment III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. What did the State submit?

    On July 28, 2011 and October 29, 2012, ADEQ submitted revisions to the ADEQ portion of the Arizona SIP for EPA approval under the CAA. On May 16, 2014, ADEQ supplemented the July 28, 2011 submittal. On September 6, 2013, July 2, 2014, and February 16, 2015, ADEQ supplemented the October 29, 2012 submittal. Collectively, these submittals generally comprise ADEQ's current program for preconstruction review and permitting of new or modified stationary sources under ADEQ's jurisdiction in Arizona. On November 2, 2015, the EPA finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval, and other actions, for these submittals. See our final rule at 80 FR 67319 (Nov. 2, 2015) and proposed rule at 80 FR 14044 (Mar. 18, 2015). The EPA is now taking further action related to these submittals. The specific rules that were reviewed as part of these submittals and our previous action, and which are the subject of this action, can be found in Table 1 of the preamble to our November 2, 2015 final rule (80 FR 67320).

    The SIP submittals that are the subject of this action and our 2015 proposed and final rules, referred to herein as the “NSR SIP submittal,” represent a comprehensive revision to ADEQ's preconstruction review and permitting program and were intended to satisfy the requirements under both part C (prevention of significant deterioration) (PSD) and part D (nonattainment new source review) of title I of the Act for major sources as well as the general preconstruction review requirements under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. The Act's preconstruction review and permitting programs are often collectively referred to as “New Source Review”.

    Please see our previous proposed and final actions for the NSR SIP submittal—Revisions to Air Plan; Arizona; Stationary Sources; New Source Review—for a detailed description of the actions taken to date related to these submittals, including the docket for these actions (Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0187 at www.regulations.gov) where other supplementary materials are available.

    On December 28, 2012, April 29, 2013, and December 2, 2014, ADEQ's July 28, 2011, October 29, 2012, and July 2, 2014 submittals, respectively, were deemed complete by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. Each of these submittals includes evidence of public notice and adoption of the relevant ADEQ regulations.

    B. What is the purpose of this proposed rule?

    The purpose of this EPA rulemaking is solicit comment on whether the major nonattainment NSR portion of ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal fully meets the permitting requirements for PM2.5 precursors under section 189(e) of the CAA. In the EPA's March 2015 proposed action on ADEQ's NSR SIP Submittal, we explained that we were not evaluating at that time whether the NSR SIP submittal would require additional revisions related to PM2.5 to satisfy CAA section 189(e) requirements, and we finalized our action accordingly in November 2015. We are now proposing a limited disapproval of the major nonattainment NSR portion of ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal for PM2.5 as it pertains to the statutory requirements of section 189(e).

    II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the submittal?

    At this time the EPA is evaluating whether ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal meets certain permitting requirements for PM2.5 nonattainment areas under title I, part D, subpart 4 of the CAA (subpart 4). At the time of our 2015 action, we did not determine that the submittal fully addressed section 189(e) in subpart 4, related to NSR permitting requirements for PM2.5 for major stationary sources in PM2.5 nonattainment areas, and instead finalized a limited approval related to subpart 4 based on this issue. For PM2.5 nonattainment areas, section 189(e) requires that the control requirements applicable under plans in effect under part D of the CAA for major stationary sources of PM2.5 also apply to major stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors, except where the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels which exceed the standards in the area.

    B. Does the submittal meet the evaluation criteria?

    As explained further below, in order to meet the evaluation criteria in CAA section 189(e) for PM2.5 as discussed above, ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal would need to (1) require major stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors (nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia) in areas designated nonattainment for the PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to meet the same control requirements as those applicable to major stationary sources of PM2.5, or (2) if not including such requirements for any of these precursors, provide a demonstration that the particular precursor does not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard in the relevant PM2.5 nonattainment area. As explained in our March 2015 proposed action on the ADEQ NSR SIP submittal, the rules in that submittal regulate NOX and SO2 as PM2.5 precursors (see 80 FR 14057). As a result, the only remaining element for evaluation is whether the submittal appropriately addresses VOC and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors.

    1. Background

    On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, issued a decision that remanded the EPA's 2007 and 2008 rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The 2008 EPA implementation rule addressed by the court decision, “Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)” (the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule),1 promulgated NSR requirements for implementation of PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas (under the nonattainment NSR program) and attainment/unclassifiable areas (under the PSD program). The Court of Appeals found that the EPA had erred in implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS in these rules for nonattainment areas solely pursuant to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title I of the CAA, rather than pursuant to the additional implementation provisions specific to particulate matter nonattainment areas in subpart 4 of part D of title I. The Court of Appeals ordered the EPA to “repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.” 706 F.3d at 437. The EPA issued a proposed rule to promulgate new generally applicable implementation regulations for the PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with the requirements of subpart 4 and the Court's remand decision, see 80 FR 15340 (March 23, 2015), but the EPA has not yet issued the final implementation rule. In the interim, however, states and the EPA still need to proceed with implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS in a timely and effective fashion in order to meet statutory obligations under the CAA and to assure the protection of public health intended by those NAAQS.

    1 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008).

    2. ADEQ's NSR SIP Submittal for PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas

    ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal generally includes requirements for the PM2.5 nonattainment NSR program for major sources consistent with the provisions promulgated in the EPA's 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule. Specifically, ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal includes the PM2.5 significant emission rates at R18-2-101(130), regulation of certain PM2.5 precursors (SO2 and NOX) at R18-2-101(130), the regulation of PM10 and PM2.5 condensable emissions at R18-2-101(122)(f), and the emissions offset requirements at R18-2-403(A)(3). The EPA approved these provisions into ADEQ's SIP as part of a limited approval and limited disapproval, and other actions, on November 2, 2015 (80 FR 67319).

    Although ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal does include regulation of major sources of SO2 and NOX as PM2.5 precursors under the major source nonattainment NSR program, it does not include rules regulating VOCs or ammonia in this manner. Nor does the NSR SIP submittal include a demonstration showing that the regulation of VOCs and ammonia is not necessary under section 189(e).

    The evaluation of which precursors need to be controlled to achieve a NAAQS in a particular nonattainment area is typically conducted in the context of the state's preparing and the EPA's reviewing an area's attainment plan SIP. In this case, there are two designated PM2.5 nonattainment areas in Arizona, the Nogales (portion of Santa Cruz County, AZ) and West Central Pinal (portion of Pinal County, AZ) areas. Both are designated nonattainment for the 2006 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. However, on January 7, 2013 and September 4, 2013, the EPA finalized determinations of attainment for these areas, respectively (78 FR 887 and 78 FR 54394), which suspended the requirement for the state to submit, among other things, an attainment plan SIP for the areas.2 Accordingly, PM2.5 attainment plans for SIP approval are not before EPA Region 9 for these areas, nor were they at the time of the EPA's proposed or final 2015 actions on the NSR SIP submittal. In 2015, as the EPA did not have before it the state's analysis as to which precursors needed to be controlled in these areas pursuant to section 189(e) of the Act, we determined that we could not fully approve as complying with the Act a nonattainment NSR SIP that addressed only a subset of the scientific PM2.5 precursors recognized by the EPA. We determined that while ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal may not contain all of the elements necessary to satisfy the CAA requirements when evaluated under subpart 4, the major source nonattainment NSR portion of the submittal represented a considerable strengthening of the previously approved Arizona SIP, which did not previously address NSR permitting for PM2.5 at all. Therefore, in our 2015 action, the EPA granted limited approval to the PM2.5 major nonattainment NSR provisions in ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal for the Nogales and West Central Pinal PM2.5 nonattainment areas based on the subpart 4 requirements, and indicated that we would consider whether a limited disapproval was appropriate pertaining to these requirements when the EPA re-promulgated its PM2.5 regulations with respect to major nonattainment NSR permitting in response to the Court of Appeals' remand decision in the NRDC case.

    2 Prior to the NRDC Court's decision, the EPA would not have reviewed PM2.5 attainment plan submittals for compliance with Section 189.

    Although the EPA has not yet re-promulgated these PM2.5 regulations in response to the remand decision, the EPA is now proposing to determine that ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal does not fully satisfy the major nonattainment NSR requirements for PM2.5 under section 189(e) of the Act for the Nogales and West Central Pinal PM2.5 nonattainment areas, based on our finding that the submittal does not include rules regulating VOCs or ammonia as PM2.5 precursors under the major source nonattainment NSR program, nor does it include a demonstration showing that the regulation of VOCs and ammonia is not necessary under section 189(e). We find it is appropriate to take action now in order to proceed with implementation of the major source nonattainment NSR program for the PM2.5 NAAQS in a timely and effective fashion to address statutory obligations under the CAA and to assure the protection of public health as intended by the Act based on those NAAQS. Therefore, we are proposing a limited disapproval of the major source nonattainment NSR provisions in ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal for the Nogales and West Central Pinal PM2.5 nonattainment areas based on our finding that the submittal does not fully satisfy section 189(e) of the Act as it relates to PM2.5 precursors. To address this limited disapproval, ADEQ must revise its major source nonattainment NSR permitting program to include VOC and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors, or provide a demonstration satisfying the requirement in section 189(e) that a particular precursor does not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard in the Nogales and/or West Central Pinal PM2.5 nonattainment areas.

    C. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    Pursuant to Section 110(k) of the Act, and for the reasons provided above, we are proposing a limited disapproval of the major source nonattainment NSR provisions of ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal for the Nogales and West Central Pinal PM2.5 nonattainment areas under section 189(e) of the Act related to PM2.5 precursors. The EPA is proposing this action because, although we found that the NSR SIP submittal met most of the applicable NSR permitting requirements for PM2.5 nonattainment areas, we have found certain deficiencies that prevent full approval. The intended effect of our limited disapproval action is to set the stage for remedying deficiencies in these regulations in a timely fashion.

    If finalized as proposed, our limited disapproval action will trigger an obligation on the EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan unless Arizona corrects the deficiencies that are the bases for this limited disapproval, and the EPA approves the related plan revisions, within two years of the final action. Additionally, the offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) would apply in the nonattainment areas at issue 18 months after the effective date of a final limited disapproval, and the highway funding sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1) would apply in these areas six months after the offset sanction is imposed. However, neither sanction will be imposed under the CAA if Arizona submits, and we approve, prior to the implementation of the sanctions, SIP revisions that correct the deficiencies that we identify in a final action. The EPA is working with ADEQ to correct the deficiencies identified in this action in a timely manner.

    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed disapproval for the next 30 days.

    III. 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 not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

    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 beyond those imposed by state law.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

    F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 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 does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

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

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: April 21, 2016. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10219 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0788; FRL-9945-80-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Reasonable Further Progress Plan, Contingency Measures, Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Baltimore 1997 8-Hour Ozone Serious Nonattainment Area AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the serious nonattainment area reasonable further progress (RFP) plan for the Baltimore serious nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The SIP revision includes 2011 and 2012 RFP milestones, contingency measures for failure to meet RFP, and updates to the 2002 base year inventory and the 2008 reasonable RFP plan previously approved by EPA. EPA is also proposing to approve the transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) associated with this revision. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0788 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Maria A. Pino, (215) 814-2181, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background A. The Baltimore Area

    In 1997, EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time frame.1 EPA set the 8-hour ozone standard based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower ozone concentrations and over longer periods of time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard was set. EPA determined that the 8-hour standard would be more protective of human health, especially children and adults who are active outdoors, and individuals with a pre-existing respiratory disease, such as asthma.

    1 EPA revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, effective April 6, 2015. See 80 FR 12264 (March 06, 2015). EPA revised the ozone NAAQS in both 2008 and 2015. EPA lowered the level of the 8-hour NAAQS to 0.075 ppm and then 0.070 ppm. See 73 FR 16483 (March 27, 2008) and 80 FR 65291 (October 26, 2015). This SIP revision does not address the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.

    On April 30, 2004, EPA finalized its attainment/nonattainment designations for areas across the country with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 69 FR 23858. These actions became effective on June 15, 2004. Among those nonattainment areas was the Baltimore, Maryland moderate nonattainment area (the Baltimore Area). The Baltimore Area includes Baltimore City and Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, and Howard Counties, which are all in Maryland.

    Pursuant to Phase 1 of the 8-hour ozone implementation rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, an area was classified under Subpart 2 of the CAA based on its 8-hour design value if that area had a 1-hour design value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in Table 1 of Subpart 2). See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004). Based on this criterion, the Baltimore Area was classified under Subpart 2 as a moderate nonattainment area. Moderate areas were required to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS within 6 years of designation, or by June 15, 2010.

    The Baltimore Area did not attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by June 2010. However, the area was eligible for a one-year extension of its attainment date, from June 15, 2010 to June 15, 2011. EPA granted that attainment date extension on March 11, 2011. 76 FR 13289. The extension was based on the air quality data for the 4th highest daily 8-hour monitored value during the 2009 ozone season.

    The Baltimore Area also did not attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by June 2011. The area did not qualify for a second one-year extension of its attainment date, based on air quality data monitored during the 2009 and 2010 ozone seasons. Therefore, on February 1, 2012, EPA made a determination that the Baltimore Area did not attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by its attainment date. 77 FR 4901. As a result of this determination, the Baltimore Area was reclassified by operation of law as a serious 8-hour ozone nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. See 40 CFR 81.321. Consequently, the State of Maryland was required to submit SIP revisions for the Baltimore Area to meet the CAA requirements for serious ozone nonattainment areas. EPA set the due date for the serious area SIP revision as no later than September 30, 2012. The serious area attainment date for the Baltimore Area was as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than June 15, 2013. MDE submitted its July 22, 2013 SIP revision request, the Baltimore 8-hour Serious Area Plan, pursuant to this requirement.

    On May 26, 2015, EPA determined that the Baltimore Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based on monitored ambient air quality data for the 2012-2014 monitoring period. 80 FR 29970. Under the provisions of EPA's ozone implementation rule (40 CFR 51.918), when EPA issues a determination that an area is attaining the relevant standard, that determination suspends the area's obligations to submit an attainment demonstration, reasonably available control measures (RACM), RFP plan, contingency measures and other planning requirements under part D of title I of the CAA related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for as long as the area continues to attain the standard.2 Preliminary (i.e., not yet quality assured or certified) monitoring data for the 2013-2015 monitoring period indicates that the Baltimore Area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.3 Although the requirement to submit these plan elements is suspended, EPA is not precluded from acting upon these elements at any time if a state still submits them to EPA for review and approval. Therefore, the requirement for Maryland to submit certain serious area SIP elements pursuant to sections 172 and 182 of the CAA has been suspended. However, Maryland had already submitted its July 22, 2013 serious area SIP revision, and MDE requested that EPA act on the RFP plan, RFP contingency measures, MVEBs and emission inventories contained in the SIP revision submittal. EPA is proposing to approve these elements as SIP strengthening measures pursuant to section 110 of the CAA. Considering the most recent ambient air quality monitoring data, the Baltimore Area continues to meet the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

    2 Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.918, “[u]pon a determination by EPA that an area designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has attained the standard, the requirements for such area to submit attainment demonstrations and associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further progress plans, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS shall be suspended until such time as: The area is redesignated to attainment, at which time the requirements no longer apply; or EPA determines that the area has violated the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.”

    3 The Preliminary 2013-2015 Baltimore Monitoring Ozone Data Report can be found online at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0788.

    B. Serious Area Requirements

    Section 182 of the CAA and EPA's 1997 8-hour ozone regulations (40 CFR 51.910) require each moderate and above 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to submit an emissions inventory and RFP SIP revision that describes how the area will achieve actual emissions reductions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) from a baseline emissions inventory. An emissions inventory is an estimation of actual emissions of air pollutants in an area. The emissions inventory for an ozone nonattainment area contains VOC and NOX emissions, which are precursors to ozone formation. In this case, a “baseline” emissions inventory is required for the year 2002. See EPA's Phase 2 Final Rule for Implementation of the 8-hour Ozone Standard (Phase 2 Rule), 70 FR 71612, 71615 (November 29, 2005).

    EPA's Phase 1 Final Rule for Implementation of the 8-hour Ozone Standard (Phase 1 Rule), published on April 30, 2004, set out criteria for classifying nonattainment areas under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 69 FR 23951. The Phase 1 Rule also addressed revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS; how anti-backsliding principles will ensure continued progress toward attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS; attainment dates; and the timing of emissions reductions needed for attainment. On November 29, 2005, EPA published the Phase 2 Rule. 70 FR 71612. The Phase 2 Rule addressed the RFP control and planning obligations as they apply to areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Phase 2 Rule was revised on June 8, 2007. 72 FR 31727. Among other things, the Phase 1 and 2 Rules outline the SIP requirements and deadlines for various requirements in areas designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The rules set a due date of June 15, 2007 for the required base year emission inventory, RFP plan, modeling and attainment demonstration, RACM, MVEBs, and contingency measures (40 CFR 51.908(a), (c)).

    C. The Moderate Area Plan

    On June 4, 2007, Maryland submitted a comprehensive SIP revision request to address moderate area ozone requirements for the Baltimore Area. That 2007 “Moderate Area Plan” SIP revision request included the 2002 base year emissions inventory, a 2008 RFP plan, including a 2008 ozone projected emission inventory, a RACM analysis, an attainment demonstration (including modeling and weight of evidence), a 2009 attainment year inventory, contingency measures for RFP and attainment, and 2008 and 2009 MVEBs for the Baltimore Area. On June 4, 2010, EPA approved the 2002 base year inventory, RFP plan up to 2008, RFP contingency measures, RACM demonstration, and 2008 MVEBs associated with the 2007 moderate area SIP revision submittal. 75 FR 31709.

    D. The Serious Area Plan

    On July 22, 2013, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) submitted the SIP revision, “Baltimore Serious Nonattainment Area 0.08 ppm 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Demonstrating Rate of Progress for 2008, 2011 and 2012 Revision to 2002 Base Year Emissions; and Serious Area Attainment Demonstration, SIP Number: 13-07,” (the Serious Area Plan). That SIP revision submittal included updates to the 2002 base year emissions inventory and 2008 RFP plan that EPA previously approved into the Maryland SIP, RFP for 2011 and 2012, an attainment demonstration, including modeling and weight of evidence, RFP and attainment contingency measures, a RACM determination, and 2012 MVEBs. After EPA determined Baltimore had attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, Maryland, by letter dated October 20, 2015, withdrew the attainment demonstration, including modeling and weight of evidence, contingency measures for attainment, and the RACM analysis from consideration as a SIP revision. Therefore, those elements are not addressed in this rulemaking action.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Evaluation

    EPA's analysis and findings are discussed in this proposed rulemaking, and a more detailed discussion is contained in the Technical Support Documents (TSD) for this proposed rulemaking action, which is available online at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0788.

    A. Base Year Emissions Inventory 1. Requirement

    An emissions inventory is a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources. The emissions inventory is required by section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. For ozone nonattainment areas, the emissions inventory needs to contain VOC and NOX emissions because these pollutants are precursors of ozone. EPA recommended 2002 as the base year emissions inventory, which is therefore the starting point for calculating RFP. Maryland submitted its 2002 base year emissions inventory for the Baltimore Area in its 2007 moderate area plan. EPA approved that inventory on June 4, 2010 (75 FR 31709).

    2. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation

    In its Serious Area Plan for the Baltimore area, Maryland updated the 2002 base year inventory. The update was needed to reflect the change to EPA's approved model for onroad mobile sector emissions, from the Mobile Source Emission Factor Model (MOBILE) to the Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model, as well as updates to EPA's NONROAD model. The updated 2002 base year inventory is discussed in Section 3 of Maryland's Serious Area Plan.

    A summary of the approved and updated Baltimore Area 2002 base year VOC and NOX emissions inventories are included in Table 1. EPA notes that the updates to the onroad and nonroad emissions result in a lower total base year emissions inventory for VOCs, and a higher total for NOX.

    Table 1—Comparison of SIP Approved Versus Updated Baltimore Area 2002 Base Year VOC and NOX Emissions [Ozone season tons per day (tpd)] Emission source category VOC SIP
  • approved
  • Updated NOX SIP
  • approved
  • Updated
    Point 13.88 13.88 111.88 111.89 Stationary Area 116.81 116.81 8.18 8.18 Nonroad Mobile 70.22 59.61 40.96 49.18 Onroad Mobile 70.57 72.48 177.06 202.22 Total (excluding Biogenic Emissions) 271.48 * 262.77 338.08 371.47 Biogenic Emissions 223.20 223.20 0 0 * Note: The 2002 updated data is pulled from Table 5-1 in the Serious Area Plan. With that table, MDE states, “Small discrepancies may result due to rounding.”

    EPA reviewed Maryland's updates to its 2002 base year inventory for the Baltimore Area using the appropriate EPA policy and guidance, and found MDE's procedures, methodologies, and results for the Baltimore Area 2002 base year inventory to be reasonable. A detailed evaluation of the emissions inventories contained in the Serious Area Plan is contained in a separate November 9, 2015 technical support document, entitled “Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Baltimore Nonattainment Area 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan: Demonstrating Rate of Progress for 2008, 2011, and 2012; Revision to 2002 Base Year Emissions; and Serious Area Attainment Demonstration,” (the Baltimore Serious Area Emissions Inventory TSD), which is available online at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0788. EPA thus proposes to approve the revised 2002 emissions inventory.

    B. Adjusted Base Year Inventory, 2008 RFP Target Levels, and Determination of 2008 RFP 1. Requirement

    The Baltimore Area was originally classified as moderate for the 19978-hour ozone NAAQS. As such, the CAA requires a 15 percent (%) reduction in ozone precursor emissions over an initial 6-year period. In the Phase 2 Rule, EPA interpreted this requirement for areas that were also designated nonattainment and classified as moderate or higher for the 1-hour ozone standard. In the Phase 2 Rule, EPA provided that an area classified as moderate or higher that has the same boundaries as an area, or is entirely composed of several areas or portions of areas, for which EPA fully approved a 15% plan for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, is considered to have met the requirements of section 182(b)(1) of the CAA for the 8-hour NAAQS for the 15% reduction in ozone precursor emissions. In this situation, a moderate nonattainment area is subject to RFP under section 172(c)(2) of the CAA and shall submit, no later than 3 years after designation for the 8-hour NAAQS, a SIP revision that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.910(b)(2) for RFP. The RFP SIP revision must provide for a 15% emission reduction (either NOX and/or VOC) accounting for any growth that occurs during the 6-year period following the baseline emissions inventory year, that is, 2002-2008.

    The Baltimore Area was classified as severe under the 1-hour ozone standard, and had the same boundary as the Baltimore Area under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. On July 12, 1995, Maryland submitted a 15% Plan SIP revision for the Baltimore Area. On February 2, 2000, EPA approved Maryland's 15% plan for the Baltimore severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. 65 FR 5252. Therefore, according to the Phase 2 Rule, the RFP plan for the Baltimore Area may use either NOX or VOC emissions reductions (or both) to achieve the 15% emission reduction requirement.

    2. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation

    On June 4, 2010, EPA approved Maryland's moderate area RFP that provided for a 15% emissions reduction from 2002 to 2008, contained in the Moderate Area Plan. 75 FR 31709. Maryland, however, needed to update the 2008 target levels for its Serious Area Plan because they are the basis for the new 2011 and 2012 target level calculations for RFP. In the Serious Area Plan, MDE updated its 15% RFP plan to reflect EPA's change from MOBILE to MOVES for onroad emission modeling and updates to EPA's NONROAD model.

    a. Adjusted Base Year Inventory, 2008 RFP Target Levels

    Maryland set out its calculations for the adjusted base year inventory and 2008 RFP target levels in Section 5 of Maryland's Serious Area Plan. EPA previously approved 2008 RFP for the Baltimore Area. See 75 FR 31709 (June 4, 2010). EPA required MDE to update the 2008 target levels for RFP so that they could be used to calculate the 2011 and 2012 target levels in the Serious Area Plan. In the TSD prepared for this rulemaking action, EPA reviewed the revised 2008 target levels calculations in the Serious Area Plan, summarized in Table 2, and determined that they were done correctly and are approvable.

    Table 2—Baltimore Area 2008 RFP Target Level Calculations [Ozone season tpd] Description Formula VOC NOX A. 2002 Adjusted Base Year Inventory Relative To 2008 258.69 369.69 B. RFP Ratio 0.0800 0.0700 C. Emissions Reductions Required Between 2002 & 2008 A * B 20.70 25.88 D. Target Level for 2008 A−C 238.00 343.81 b. Projected 2008 Inventories and Determination of RFP

    Maryland describes its methods used for developing its 2008 projected VOC and NOX inventories in Section 4 and Appendix A of the Serious Area Plan. Projected controlled 2008 emissions for the Baltimore Area are summarized in Tables 4-5 of the Serious Area Plan, and are presented in Table 3. EPA reviewed the procedures Maryland used to develop its projected inventories and found them to be reasonable. For more information on EPA's analysis in proposing to approve the projected inventories, please see the Baltimore Serious Area Emissions Inventory TSD.

    Table 3—Baltimore Area 2008 Projected Controlled VOC and NOX Emissions [Ozone season tpd] Source category VOC
  • emissions
  • NOX
  • emissions
  • Point 15.63 122.64 Area 108.17 8.43 Non-road 44.04 42.85 Mobile 50.12 125.69 Total 217.96 299.62

    To determine if 2008 RFP is met in the Baltimore Area, the total projected controlled emissions must be compared to the 2008 target levels of emissions. As shown in Table 4, the Serious Area Plan demonstrates that sufficient emission reductions occurred between 2002 and 2008 to meet the 2008 RFP target levels. Thus, EPA proposes to approve the Baltimore Area's revised 2008 RFP.

    Table 4—Comparison of the 2008 RFP Measure Target Levels Versus Projected Controlled Emissions in the Baltimore Area [Ozone season tpd] Description VOC
  • emissions
  • NOX
  • emissions
  • A. Total 2008 Projected Controlled Emissions 217.96 299.62. B. Target Level for 2008 238.00 343.81. RFP is met if A < B Yes Yes.
    C. 2011 and 2012 RFP Target Levels and Determination of RFP 1. Requirement

    Serious 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are subject to RFP requirements in section 182(c)(2)(B) of the CAA that require an average of 3% per year of VOC and/or NOX emissions reductions for all remaining 3-year periods after the first 6-year period out to the area's attainment date (2008-2011, and 2011-2012). For a serious area, such as the Baltimore Area, with an approved 15% rate of progress (ROP) plan under the 1-hour standard, states can use reductions from VOC or NOX or a combination of either.

    2011 and 2012 target levels are calculated in the same manner as the 2008 targets, except that the baseline is the previous target level, not the 2002 base year inventory. The 2008 target levels are thus used as the basis for calculating 2011 targets. Similarly, 2011 target levels are used to calculate the 2012 targets.

    2. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation a. Adjusted Base Year Inventories, 2011 and 2012 RFP Target Levels

    2011 and 2012 RFP calculations can be found in Sections 6 and 7 of the Serious Area Plan, respectively. In the TSD prepared for this rulemaking action, EPA reviewed the 2011 and 2012 target levels calculations in the Serious Area Plan, summarized in Table 5, and determined that they were done correctly and are approvable and therefore EPA proposes to approve them.

    Table 5—Baltimore Area 2011 & 2012 RFP Target Level Calculations [Ozone season tpd] Description Formula VOC NOX 2011 Target A. 2008 Adjusted Base Year Inventory Relative To 2011 237.71 343.81 B. RFP Ratio 0.0600 0.0300 C. Emissions Reductions Required Between 2008 & 2011 A * B 14.28 10.31 D. Target Level for 2011 A - C 223.72 333.49 2012 Target A. 2011 Adjusted Base Year Inventory Relative To 2012 223.73 333.32 B. RFP Ratio 0.0150 0.0150 C. Emissions Reductions Required Between 2011 & 2012 A * B 3.36 5.00 D. Target Level for 2012 A - C 220.38 328.49 b. Projected 2011 and 2012 Inventories and Determination of RFP

    Maryland describes its methods used for developing its 2011 and 2012 projected VOC and NOX inventories in Section 4.0 and Appendix A of the Serious Area Plan. Projected 2011 and 2012 VOC and NOX emissions are found in Appendix A of the Baltimore Serious Area Plan. EPA reviewed the procedures Maryland used to develop its projected inventories and found them to be reasonable. For details on EPA's analysis, see the Baltimore Serious Area Emissions Inventory TSD.

    Projected controlled 2011 and 2012 emissions for the Baltimore Area are summarized in the Serious Area Plan, in Tables 4-6 and 4-7, respectively. That data is presented in Table 6.

    Table 6—Baltimore Area 2011 and 2012 Projected Controlled VOC & NOX Emissions [Ozone season tpd] Source category 2011 VOC
  • emissions
  • NOX
  • emissions
  • 2012 VOC
  • emission
  • NOX
  • emissions
  • Point 16.79 95.21 17.19 94.79 Area 106.07 8.54 106.79 8.56 Non-road 38.26 38.12 35.69 36.05 Mobile 44.54 104.62 40.23 93.47 Total 205.65 246.48 199.90 232.88

    To determine if 2011 and 2012 RFP is met in the Baltimore Area, the total projected controlled emissions must be compared to the target levels calculated in the previous section of this rulemaking. As shown in Table 7, the Serious Area Plan demonstrates that sufficient emission reductions occurred between 2008 and 2011 and between 2011 and 2012 to meet the 2011 and 2012 RFP target levels. Therefore, the Serious Area Plan demonstrates 2011 and 2012 RFP in the Baltimore Area, and EPA proposes to approve the 2011 and 2012 RFP in the Serious Area Plan.

    Table 7—Comparison of the 2011 and 2012 RFP Measure Target Levels Versus Projected Controlled Emissions in the Baltimore Area [Ozone season tpd] Description VOC
  • emissions
  • NOX
  • emissions
  • 2011 RFP A. Total 2011 Projected Controlled Emissions 205.65 246.48 B. Target Level for 2011 223.72 333.49 RFP is met if A < B Yes Yes 2012 RFP A. Total 2012 Projected Controlled Emissions 199.90 232.88 B. Target Level for 2012 220.38 328.49 RFP is met if A < B Yes Yes
    D. Control Measures and Emission Reductions for RFP 1. Requirement

    Emission reductions to meet RFP must be from permanent and enforceable emission control measures.

    2. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation

    The control measures for which Maryland took credit in order to meet the RFP requirement in the Baltimore Area are described in Section 8 of the Serious Area Plan. To meet the RFP requirement for the Baltimore Area, Maryland used a combination of point, onroad mobile, nonroad mobile, and area source control measures as described in this section of this rulemaking action.

    a. Onroad Mobile Measures

    The onroad mobile measures Maryland used to meet RFP in the Baltimore Area include enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance (enhanced I/M), Tier I vehicle emission standards and new federal evaporative test procedures (Tier I), reformulated gasoline, the national low emission vehicle (NLEV) program, and the federal heavy-duty diesel engine (HDDE) rule. Maryland calculated the emission reductions for 2008, 2011, and 2012 RFP using the MOVES model for these onroad mobile measures. EPA reviewed the procedures that MDE used to develop its projected inventories, including the use of the MOBILE model, and found them to be reasonable. For details on EPA's analysis, see the Baltimore Serious Area Emissions Inventory TSD.

    b. Area (Nonpoint) Source Measures

    The area source measures Maryland used to meet RFP in the Baltimore Area include four Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) rules, Commercial and Consumer Products (Phases 1 and 2), Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings (AIM), Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) (Phases 1 and 2), and Industrial Adhesives and Sealants. In the TSD for this action, EPA evaluated each of these measures and calculated the emission reductions for each measure, and finds the emission reductions Maryland claimed for these measures to be reasonable.

    c. Non-Road Measures—NONROAD Model

    The non-road mobile measures Maryland used to meet RFP in the Baltimore Area include Non-Road Small Gasoline Engines, Non-Road Diesel Engines (Tier I and Tier II), Marine Engine Standards, Emissions Standards for Large Spark Ignition Engines, and Reformulated Gasoline Use in Non-Road Motor Vehicles and Equipment. Maryland used the EPA NONROAD model to calculate 2008, 2011, and 2012 RFP emission reductions for these measures. As discussed in the Baltimore Serious Area Emissions Inventory TSD, EPA reviewed the procedures that MDE used to develop its projected inventories, including the use of the NONROAD model, and found them to be reasonable.

    d. Point Source Measures

    Maryland took credit for one point source measure in its RFP plan, the Maryland Healthy Air Act (HAA). In the Baltimore Area, the sources covered by the HAA are Brandon Shores and H.A. Wagner in Anne Arundel County andC.P. Crane in Baltimore County. In the TSD for this action, EPA evaluated this measure and verified Maryland's calculated emission reductions from the affected sources covered by the HAA and found the emission reductions reasonable.

    Table 8 summarizes the emission reductions achieved by each measure, as calculated by Maryland in the Serious Area Plan.

    Table 8—Summary of RFP Emission Reductions [tpd] Control measure 2008 VOC NOX 2011 VOC NOX 2012 VOC NOX Mobile Onroad MOVES model 52.86 158.43 62.23 181.35 66.59 192.33 Area OTC-Consumer Products Phase 1 3.70 0.00 3.77 0.00 3.79 0.00 OTC-Consumer Products Phase 2 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.46 0.00 OTC-AIM 6.03 0.00 6.19 0.00 6.19 0.00 OTC-PFC Phase 1 6.71 0.00 8.31 0.00 8.35 0.00 OTC-PFC Phase 2 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.60 0.00 OTC-Industrial Adhesives 0.00 0.00 2.63 0.00 2.64 0.00 Total Area reductions 16.44 0.00 21.96 0.00 22.03 0.00 Nonroad Nonroad Model 17.85 8.12 26.33 14.55 29.83 17.30 Railroads (Tier 2) 0.00 1.18 0.00 1.58 0.00 1.67 Point Healthy Air Act (HAA) 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.86 0.00 37.18 Total 87.14 167.73 110.51 229.35 118.45 248.48

    Projected emissions for both VOC and NOX are well below the RFP target levels, as shown in Table 9. Therefore, EPA finds the Serious Area Plan demonstrated more than sufficient emission reductions to meet RFP for 2008, 2011, and 2012 and thus finds the RFP plan approvable.

    Table 9—Comparison of RFP Targets and Projected Controlled Emissions for the Baltimore Area [tpd] Description 2008 VOC NOX 2011 VOC NOX 2012 VOC NOX A. Projected Controlled Emissions 217.96 299.62 205.65 246.48 199.90 232.88. B. Target Level 238.00 343.81 223.72 333.49 220.38 328.49. RFP is met if A < B Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes.

    EPA notes that Maryland was not required to demonstrate 2008 RFP, because EPA previously approved 2008 RFP for the Baltimore Area. See 75 FR 31709 (June 4, 2010). EPA required MDE only to update the 2008 target levels, so that they could be used to calculate the 2011 and 2012 target levels in the Serious Area Plan.

    E. Contingency Measures for Failure To Meet RFP 1. Requirement

    Section 182(c) of the CAA requires a state with a moderate or above ozone nonattainment area to include in its SIP, among other things, sufficient additional contingency measures in its RFP plan in case the area fails to meet any applicable milestone. See CAA section 182(c)(9). These contingency measures must be fully adopted control measures or rules, so that upon failure to meet a RFP milestone requirement, the state must be able to implement the contingency measures without any further rulemaking activities. If triggered, these contingency measures must achieve additional emission reductions of at least 3% of the adjusted baseline emissions. For more information on contingency measures, see the General Preamble to Title I of the CAA (57 FR 13512 (April 16, 1992)) and the Phase 2 Rule. To meet the requirements for contingency measure emission reductions, EPA allows states to use NOX emission reductions to substitute for VOC emission reductions in their contingency plans. Maryland discusses its contingency measures for failure to meet RFP in Section 12.3 of the Serious Area Plan.

    EPA's May 26, 2015 determination that the Baltimore Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS suspends certain planning requirements, including contingency measures, for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for as long as the area continues to meet that NAAQS. 80 FR 29970. Considering the most recent ambient air quality monitoring data, the Baltimore Area continues to meet the 1997 8-hour NAAQS. Therefore, no contingency measures are required to address requirements in sections 172 or 182 of the CAA. See 40 CFR 51.918. However, as discussed in this section of this rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to approve the RFP contingency measures along with the serious area RFP plan in the Serious Area Plan, as SIP strengthening measures pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, as requested by MDE.

    2. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation

    Maryland's Serious Area Plan contains contingency measures for failure to meet the 2012 RFP milestone. The Serious Area Plan relies on the excess emission reductions from the same measures used to meet the RFP targets in order to meet the contingency measure target. This is acceptable under EPA's early implementation policy, set out in the August 13, 1993 memorandum from G.T. Helms, entitled, “Early Implementation of Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas.” Maryland chose to split the 3% contingency requirement equally between VOC and NOX. For details on the contingency target level calculations, see Tables 10 and 11, and for EPA's detailed analysis and evaluation of the 2012 RFP contingency measure requirement, see EPA's TSD supporting this rulemaking action.

    Table 10—2012 RFP Contingency Measure Target Level Calculations Description Formula VOC NOX A. 2011 Target Level 223.73 333.49 B. FMVCP/RVP Reductions Between 2011 and 2012 0.00 0.18 C. 2011 Adjusted Base Year Inventory Relative to 2012 A - B 223.73 333.32 D. RFP Ratio 0.0150 0.0150 E. Emissions Reductions Required Between 2011 & 2012 C * D 3.36 5.00 F. RFP Target Level for 2012 C - E 220.38 328.49 G. Contingency, 1.5% VOC & NOX 0.015 * C 3.36 5.00 H. 2012 Contingency Target Level F - G 217.02 323.49 Table 11—Comparison of the 2012 RFP Contingency Measure Target Levels Versus Projected Controlled Emissions [tpd] Description VOC NOX A. Projected Controlled Emissions 199.90 232.88. B. Contingency Target Level 217.02 323.49. Contingency Requirement is met if A < B Yes Yes.

    As shown in Table 11, the Serious Area Plan achieved more than enough emission reductions to meet the contingency measure requirement for the 2012 milestone year for the Baltimore Area. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve Maryland's contingency measures from the Serious Area Plan as SIP strengthening measures.

    F. Transportation Conformity Budgets 1. Requirement

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs and projects conform to state air quality implementation plans and establishes the criteria and procedure for determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards. See 69 FR 40004 (July 1, 2004).

    States must establish VOC and NOX MVEBs for each of the milestone years up to the attainment year and submit the mobile budgets to EPA for approval. Upon adequacy determination or approval by EPA, states must conduct transportation conformity analysis for their Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) and long range transportation plans to ensure highway vehicle emissions will not exceed relevant MVEBs. For budgets to be approvable, they must meet, at a minimum, EPA's adequacy criteria set out at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).

    2. State Submittal and EPA's Evaluation

    MDE discusses transportation conformity in Section 10 of the Baltimore Serious Area Plan. MDE, in consultation with the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board (BRTB), established MVEBs for 2012. MDE calculated the 2012 mobile emissions inventory using EPA's MOVES and the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) models. MDE describes its methods in Appendix E of the Baltimore Serious Area Plan.

    The MVEBs are the amount of emissions allowed in the SIP for onroad motor vehicles; it establishes an emissions ceiling for the regional transportation network. The 2012 MVEBs for the Baltimore Area are 93.5 tpd NOX and 40.2 tpd VOC.

    On November 23, 2015, as part of the adequacy process, EPA posted the availability of the 2012 MVEBs on EPA's Web site for the purpose of soliciting public comments.4 The comment period for the Baltimore Area's 2012 MVEBs closed on December 23, 2015, and EPA received no comments. In a February 22, 2016 Federal Register notice, EPA notified the public that EPA found the 2012 RFP MVEBs in the Baltimore Serious Area Plan adequate for transportation conformity purposes. 81 FR 8711.5 As a result of EPA's finding, the State of Maryland must use the 2012 MVEBs from the Serious Area Plan for future transportation conformity determinations.

    4See https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm.

    5 EPA's February 22, 2016 notification included an inadvertent error mentioning that the comment period on the Baltimore Area 2012 MVEBs closed November 23, 2015 instead of December 23, 2015. In fact, the comment period on EPA's Web site for the public to comment on the adequacy of the Baltimore Area's 2012 MVEBs was open for 30 days from November 23, 2015 through December 23, 2015, and EPA's Web site correctly includes the appropriate December 23, 2015 closing date. See https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm, Because the comment period was open for 30 days and because the public therefore had adequate time to comment on the 2012 MVEBs, EPA's incorrect reference in the February 22, 2016 Federal Register publication after the comment period closed was harmless and inadvertent error. Thus, the inadvertent error does not alter EPA's finding that the 2012 RFP MVEBs are adequate.

    The MVEBs which EPA has determined to be adequate are identical to the projected controlled 2012 onroad mobile source emissions for the Baltimore Area in the Serious Area Plan. In addition to the budgets being adequate for transportation conformity purposes, EPA found the procedures Maryland used to develop the MVEBs to be reasonable. For more information on EPA's analysis, see EPA's TSD available in the docket for this rulemaking. Because the 2012 RFP MVEBs are adequate for transportation conformity purposes and the methods MDE used to develop them are correct, the 2012 RFP MVEBs are approvable.

    III. Proposed Action

    EPA has reviewed the RFP plan for the Baltimore Area, submitted in the Serious Area Plan, including updates to the 2008 RFP target levels previously SIP approved by EPA, the 2011 and 2012 RFP targets levels, control measures used to meet RFP, and contingency measures for failure to meet the 2012 RFP target, and found them to be approvable. In addition, EPA determined that MDE used acceptable techniques and methodologies to update the 2002 base year and 2008 projected inventories, and to develop the 2011 and 2012 milestone year projected inventories and found them approvable. Furthermore, EPA has found the Baltimore Area's 2012 MVEBs adequate for transportation conformity purposes and approvable. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the updates to the 2002 base year inventory, updates to the 2008 RFP plan and associated 2008 projected emissions inventory, the 2011 and 2012 RFP plan and associated projected emission inventories, the contingency measures for failure to meet 2012 RFP, and the 2012 MVEBs for the Baltimore Area submitted in MDE's July 22, 2013 Serious Area Plan. The other parts of the Serious Area Plan were withdrawn by Maryland. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April 15, 2016. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10222 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0127; FRL-9945-43-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; State Board Requirements AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland for the purpose of updating their state board requirements. The SIP revision removes the current SIP approved state board requirements and replaces them with an updated version of the requirements. The new provisions continue to address state board requirements for all the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The revision is being done because the Maryland legislature revised Maryland's statutory requirements related to state boards and the state wants the most recent version in their SIP. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received in writing by June 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0127 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ruth Knapp, (215) 814-2191, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    Dated: April 8, 2016. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09448 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    81 84 Monday, May 2, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Doc. No. AMS-FV-16-0040] Notice of Request for Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an extension of a currently approved information collection for the Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under Regulations Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930, as amended.

    DATES:

    Comments received by July 1, 2016 will be considered.

    Additional Information or Comments: You may submit written or electronic comments to: Natalie Worku, PACA Recordkeeping and Reporting Comments, AMS, Specialty Crops Program, PACA Branch, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 1510-S, Stop 0242, Washington DC 20250-0242; fax: 202-690-4413; or Internet: http://www.regulations.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under Regulations (Other than Rules of Practice) Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930.

    OMB Number: 0581-0031.

    Expiration Date of Approval: December 31, 2016.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: The PACA was enacted by Congress in 1930 to establish a code of fair trading practices covering the marketing of fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables in interstate or foreign commerce. It protects growers, shippers, and distributors dealing in those commodities by prohibiting unfair and fraudulent trade practices.

    The law provides a forum for resolving contract disputes, and a mechanism for the collection of damages from anyone who fails to meet contractual obligations. In addition, the PACA provides for prompt payment to fruit and vegetable sellers and for revocation of licenses and sanctions against firms or principals found to have violated the law's standards for fair business practices. The PACA also imposes a statutory trust that attaches to perishable agricultural commodities received by regulated entities, products derived from the commodities, and any receivables or proceeds from the sale of the commodities. The trust exists for the benefit of produce suppliers, sellers, or agents that have not been paid, and continues until they have been paid in full.

    The PACA is enforced through a licensing system. All commission merchants, dealers, and brokers engaged in business subject to the PACA must be licensed. Retailers and grocery wholesalers must renew their licenses every three years. All other licensees renew yearly. Those who engage in practices prohibited by the PACA may have their licenses suspended or revoked.

    The information collected pursuant to OMB Number 0581-0031 is used to administer licensing provisions under the PACA, to adjudicate contract disputes, and to enforce the PACA and the regulations. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public concerning our information collection.

    We estimate the paperwork and time burden of the above referenced information collection to be as follows:

    Form FV-211, Application for License: average of .25 hours per application per response.

    Form FV-231-1 (or 231-1A, or 231-2, or 231-2A), Application for Renewal or Reinstatement of License: Average of .05 hours per application per response.

    Regulations Section 46.13—Letters to Notify USDA of Changes in Business Operations: Average of .05 hours per notice per response.

    Regulations Section 46.4—Limited Liability Company Articles of Organization and Operating Agreement: Average of .083 hours with approximately 2,968 annual responses.

    Regulations Section 46.18—Record of Produce Received: Average of 5 hours with approximately 6,725 recordkeepers.

    Regulations Section 46.20—Records Reflecting Lot Numbers: Average of 8.25 hours with approximately 683 recordkeepers.

    Regulations Section 46.46(c)(2)—Waiver of Rights to Trust Protection: Average of .25 hours per notice with approximately 100 principals.

    Regulations Sections 46.2(aa)(11) and 46.46(e)(1)—Copy of Written Agreement Reflecting Times for Payment: Average of 20 hours with approximately 2,343 recordkeepers.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 hours per response annually.

    Respondents: Commission merchants, dealers, and brokers engaged in the business of buying, selling, or negotiating the purchase or sale of commercial quantities of fresh and/or frozen fruits and vegetables in interstate or foreign commerce are required to be licensed under the PACA (7 U.S.C. 499(c)(a)).

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 13,543.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 28,433.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 2.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 87,406.

    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: April 27, 2016. Elanor Starmer, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10210 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of Opportunity To Apply for Membership on the National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (NACIE) ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (DOC) is currently seeking applications for membership on the National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (NACIE). NACIE advises the Secretary of Commerce (the Secretary) on matters related to accelerating innovation and entrepreneurship.

    Table of Contents
    a. Dates b. Addresses c. For Further Information, Contact d. Supplementary Information DATES:

    Applications must be received by the Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (OIE), Economic Development Administration (EDA) by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on June 1, 2016, to be considered for membership in the formation of this NACIE cohort. Applications received by June 1, 2016, will also be considered to fill vacancies up to one year after this NACIE cohort's formation.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please submit applications electronically to [email protected] and include “[NACIEApplication]” (without quotation marks) in the subject line, or by post or courier to the Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Attn: NACIE Membership Applications, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Suite 78018, Washington, DC 20230. Electronic submissions are preferred.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information, interested parties can contact the Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship via post at 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Suite 78018, Washington, DC 20230; via telephone at +1 (202) 482-8001; or via email at [email protected] NACIE's establishment is authorized by Section 25(c) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, as amended (15 U.S.C. 3720(c)). Additional information regarding NACIE can be found at https://www.eda.gov/oie/nacie/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (OIE) is accepting applications for membership on the National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (NACIE) for a two-year term beginning on the date of appointment. Members will be selected, in accordance with Department of Commerce (DOC) guidelines, based on their ability to advise the Secretary of Commerce (the Secretary) on matters relating to the acceleration of innovation and the support for and expansion of entrepreneurship, including but not limited to the matters set forth in 15 U.S.C. 3720(b) and

    • The development of policy recommendations to support entrepreneurship and innovation across business sectors and geographies; • insights into innovative opportunities to increase the global competitiveness of both the workforce and the economy; • the exploration of opportunities to promote the role of employers in creating and expanding successful talent development partnerships across multiple stakeholders; • policies that encourage the creative use of technology to facilitate employee recruitment, training, career and talent development, and business startups; and • the identification and promotion of best practices that accelerate the commercialization of research and intellectual property.

    NACIE will identify and recommend solutions to issues critical to driving the innovation economy, including enabling entrepreneurs and firms to successfully access and develop a skilled, globally competitive workforce. NACIE will also serve as a vehicle for ongoing dialogue with the innovation, entrepreneurship, and workforce development communities, including but not limited to business and trade associations. The duties of NACIE are solely advisory, and it shall report to the Secretary through the Economic Development Administration (EDA) and the Office of the Secretary.

    NACIE members shall be selected in a manner that ensures that NACIE is balanced in terms of perspectives and expertise with regard to innovation, entrepreneurship, and business-driven talent development that leads to a globally competitive workforce. To that end, the Secretary seeks diversity in the size of organization represented and seeks to appoint members who represent diverse geographies and innovation and entrepreneurship experiences from industry, government, academia, nonprofits, and non-governmental organizations.

    Additional factors which may be considered in the selection of NACIE members include each candidate's proven experience in the design, creation, or improvement of innovation systems; commercialization of research and development; entrepreneurship; business-driven talent development that leads to a globally competitive workforce; and the creation and growth of innovation- and entrepreneurship-focused ecosystems. Members' affiliations may include, but are not limited to, successful executive-level business leaders; entrepreneurs; innovators; investors; post-secondary education leaders; directors of workforce and training organizations; and other experts drawn from industry, government, academia, philanthropic foundations with a demonstrated track record of research or support of innovation and entrepreneurship, and non-governmental organizations. Nominees will be evaluated consistent with factors specified in this notice and their ability to carry out the goals of NACIE.

    Self-nominations will be accepted.

    Appointments will be made without regard to political affiliation.

    Membership. Members shall serve at the discretion of the Secretary. Because members will be appointed as experts, members will be considered special government employees (SGEs). Members participating in NACIE meetings and events will be responsible for their travel, living, and other personal expenses. Meetings will be held regularly and not less than twice annually, usually in Washington, DC. Members are required to attend a majority of NACIE's meetings. The first meeting for this NACIE cohort will take place October 6-7, 2016, in Washington, DC. Members may be required to arrive one day early for onboarding and orientation activities. Attendance is mandatory.

    Eligibility. Eligibility for membership is limited to U.S. citizens who are not full-time employees of the United States government or of a foreign government, are not registered with the Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and are not federally-registered lobbyists.

    Application Procedure. For consideration, a nominee should submit: (1) A résumé; (2) a personal statement of interest including an outline of her or his abilities to advise the Secretary on the matters described above; (3) an affirmative statement that the nominee is not required to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended; and (4) an affirmative statement that the nominee is not a federally-registered lobbyist. It is preferred that applications be submitted electronically to [email protected] with a subject line that includes the text “[NACIEApplication]” (without quotation marks). Applications also may be sent to the Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Attn: NACIE Membership Applications, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Suite 78018, Washington, DC 20230.

    Appointments of members to NACIE will be made by the Secretary.

    Dated: April 26, 2016. Julie Lenzer, Director, Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Economic Development Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10196 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-24-2016] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 22—Chicago, Illinois; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Omron Automotive Electronics, Inc.; (Automotive Electronic Components); St. Charles, Illinois

    Omron Automotive Electronics, Inc. (Omron), an operator of FTZ 22, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility located in St. Charles, Illinois, within FTZ 22. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on April 14, 2016.

    The Omron facility is located within Site 41 of FTZ 22. The facility is used for the production of automotive electronic components. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Omron from customs duty payments on the foreign status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Omron would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to electronic control units (body control, transmission, wiper system), controllers (fuel pump, alarm, tire pressure), electronic modules, assemblies (tire pressure monitoring, transmitters, electrical switches (accessory, power seat, power window), knobs and trim pieces, and actuators (duty rate ranges from free to 6.5%) for the foreign status components noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.

    The materials and components sourced from abroad include: Resistors; actuators; housing subassemblies; adhesives; antennas; armatures; plastic bags; switches; bobbins; steel balls; barrels with ribs; plastic bases/trays/bags/plates/plungers/actuator posts; base covers/substrates/assemblies; bases; knobs; bezels; boxes and related spacers; buttons; brackets; buzzers; ceramic chips; capacitors; cages for batteries; cartons; cases; chipboards and pads; desiccants; clips; connectors; coils; coil leads/terminals/assemblies; contacts (rivet, terminal); core pins; covers; central processing units (CPUs); electronic control units (ECUs); elastomeric pads; plastic emblems; encoders; epoxy resins; electric filters; foam sheets/dividers/pads; foil with adhesive; followers; frets; fuses; crystal oscillators; transformers; integrated circuits; resistors; dampers; double face pads; detents; diodes; door lock packing inserts; garnishes; gimbles; rubber grommets; labels; handles; heat sinks; housing blocks/assemblies; housings; integrated circuits; light emitting diodes; immobilizers/anti-theft systems; inductors; inner cases; inserts; inverters; jewels; transmitter keypads and keyrings; logic chips; lamps; lean containers; levers; lids; light guides; linear integrated circuits; semiconductors; magnet wires and relays; multi-switch units; power supplies; printed circuit boards; padding and pads; paddles (steering wheel); plastic panels/partitions; pins (coil, connector; spring); pipe lights; packaging boxes/lids/inserts/chips/pads; printed wiring boards; resistor chips; resistor glaze metal; relays; retainers; plastic rings/screws/spacers/spools/seals/sliders/seats/clips/bezels/tape; seals (nitrile, rubber); heat shields; shrouds; shunts; silicone fluid compound; surface mount technology resistors; electrical (socket) outlets; springs; striker assemblies; subassemblies (base, case, power breaker, dome, window knob); substrates; supply bezels/brackets/clips/screws/head bolts; varistors; switch assemblies; tapes; terminal/contact assemblies; terminals; thermistors; paint thinners; thumbwheels; screws; transistors; trays; upfitter subassemblies; vacform trays; wire coils; jumper wires; wireless charging units; relay yokes; and, yokes (duty rate ranges from free to 8%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is June 13, 2016.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Pierre Duy at [email protected] (202) 482-1378.

    Dated: April 25, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10242 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-25-2016] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 133—Quad-Cities, Iowa/Illinois; Notification of Proposed Production Activity, Deere & Company, Subzone 133D (Construction and Forestry Equipment), Davenport, Iowa

    Deere & Company (Deere), operator of Subzone 133D, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facilities within Subzone 133D, located in Davenport, Iowa. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on April 15, 2016.

    Deere already has authority to produce motor graders, four wheel drive loaders, log skidders and articulated dump trucks within Subzone 133D. The current request would add construction and forestry equipment and foreign-status materials/components to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials/components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Deere from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials/components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Deere would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to: Wheeled feller bunchers; disc saw felling heads; and, cabs for knuckleboom loaders, backhoes, loaders, motor graders, feller bunchers, log skidders and articulated dump trucks (duty rates: Free or 4%) for the foreign-status materials/components noted below and in the existing scope of authority. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    The materials/components sourced from abroad include: Plastic ribbed conduits/labels/anti-skid pads/floor mat plugs/spacers/ashtrays/rings; nylon domed plugs; rubber hoses/elbows/belts/v-belts/tires/floor mats/O-rings/O-ring kits/PTO (power take-off) housings/gaskets/seals/seal kits/sealing trims/isolators/ring guides/air deflectors/arched covers/insulators/grommets/isolator strips/bellows/bellow boots/spacers/splash guards/step straps/stop bumpers/tray foot bumpers/vibration dampeners; cork gaskets; paper gaskets; glass rear view mirrors; steel push pull cables/wiring harness cables/link chains/alloy clevis plates/clothes hooks/screws/bolts/planetary hub studs/alloy hexagon fittings/nuts/locking collars/pins/plugs/washers/G-rings/seal retainers/washer and spacer kits/pneumatic control valves/rings/alloy disk saw drive rings/pin fasteners/retainers/retainer clips/springs/spring assemblies/spring kits/alloy raw castings/adapter fittings/air conditioning fittings/spacers/clamps/beaded special adaptors/shims/corner brackets/elbow fittings/excavator thumb kits/fittings/fitting plugs/flange fitings/fuel supply banjo fittings/hose clamps/hydraulic clamp kits/lock kits/lower carrier plates/lubrication fittings/mounting adapters/oil line tube assemblies/oil tubes/plates/plugs with O-ring fittings/power link casting assemblies/PTO flanges/pushbeam trunnions/serrated yoke flanges/skid shoes/straps/steering column sleeves/toolboxes/toolbox covers/tubes/tube fittings/clamp halves/upper carrier plates/valve section plug kits/weldment adapters; iron lock plates/mounting adapters; brass washers; copper electrical connector accessories; aluminum washers; tooth kits; tooth inserts; lock-ring tools; cutting blades; cutting edges; bucket tooth locks; bucket weldment hinges; exterior steel hinges; gas-operated cylinders; brackets; latches; engine mount supports; gear case isolators; hood catch assemblies; hood compartment studs; hood springs; interior cab handles; mounting parts; oscillation stops; rear suspension stops; rubber boom stops; sliding window catches; filler caps; diesel engines; air intakes; cylinder covers; cylinder heads; engine cooler clamps; exhaust elbows; gas outlet tubes; high pressure fuel lines; intake manifolds; oil pans; orifices; pistons; piston ring kits; rotate manifolds; seal rings; seal liner rings; short block assemblies; spacer tubes; threaded inserts; timing gear covers; lumber fork cylinders; master brake cylinders; hydraulic cylinders; thumb kit clamps; hydraulic motors; brake cylinders; dust covers; hydraulic cylinder rod guides; steering cylinder rods; cooler bypass manifolds; hydraulic manifolds; pressure manifolds; hydraulic reservoirs; pumps (fuel injection, fuel, oil, water, hydraulic, steering metering); pump repair kits; DEF (diesel exhaust fluid) lines; heat sleeves; drive shafts; hydraulic reservoirs; air conditioner compressors; HVAC (heating, venting and air conditioning) blowers; turbochargers; compressor kits; fan blades; fan drives; piston-liner kits; air conditioners (AC); HVAC equipment; vapor condensers; AC/heater evaporators; refrigerant hoses; Hayden coolers; filters (fuel, hydraulic, oil, air, reservoir breather, pneumatic exhaust, headlight venting); oil filter elements; receiver-dryers; pre-filters; air dryers; filter discs; filter elements; filter heads; oil filter covers; strainers; transmission shafts; catwalk platforms; counterweight weldments; jib booms; main booms; outrigger stabilizers; rotary manifolds for forestry equipment; bucket plates; loader buckets; loader cutting edges; grapple hooks; multi-purpose buckets; backhoe buckets; excavator buckets; skid steer buckets; dura-max cutting edges; backhoe hydraulic clamp kits; axle stop blocks; battery boxes; controller arm supports; cooler tubes; exhaust tubes; front axle limited slip differentials; fuel tank assemblies; grapple teeth; grille frames; grommet plates; heater/AC brackets; lower carrier plates; oil lines; outrigger arms; pedal and bracket assemblies; pilot arm strut supports; rear axles; scarifier booms; seat swivel assemblies; sliding frames; soft start brackets; steering columns; support plates; tie rod assemblies; tie rod ends; upper carrier plates; valve mounting plates; moldboards; air intake plates; air plenums; yoke assemblies; axle drive housings; axle oscillation supports; axles with differentials; baffle structures; baffle supports; battery service doors; boom crossmember tubes; bottom guard supports; brake pistons; brake rotors; brush guards; bucket teeth; bucket tooth adapters; bulkhead assembly plates; bumper brackets; cast mounts; cast steps; clamp rings; controller brackets; counterweights; covers; cover plate kits; cutting edges; decomposition tubes; DEF tank lid covers; differential case covers; differential housings; drive damper covers; end bits; end kits; engine mount supports; engine side shield supports; exhaust aftertreatment brackets; exhaust nozzles; exhaust support brackets; fan guards; filter supports; floor plates; fork tine assemblies; frame kits; front axles; fuel line filters; fuel tank bracket plates; fuel tank guards; generator pump drive supports; guard extensions; hand rails; heat shield mount plates; hood supports; housings with covers; hub kingpins; hydraulic reservoirs; insert support plates; isolators; lift arms; lift lug plates; main drive axles and tandem pivot; mount frames; mounting plates; multifunction cab levers; oil coolers; outlet duct plates; overlay end bits; pilot tower arms; pump spacers; pushbeam trunnions; radiators; rear axle guards; rear tube guards; ripper shanks; ripper teeth; scarifier links; scarifier retainers; side cutter plates; side shield bumpers; sidecutter shrouds; skid plates; slide weldment supports; step assemblies; rubber stop bumpers; steering stop bumpers; supports; threaded stud bumpers; transmission guard shields; transmission mounts; wear plates; rear wheel gauge frames; ripper points; safety trip standards; wheel plates; scraper arms; 180 degree tubes; adaptor plates; arm assemblies; arm kits; boom assembly adapters; disc saw felling head link assemblies; hydraulic system assembly tubes; axle guards; axles with differential; boom adapters; boom tubes; butt plates; cab guards; casting covers; charge air tubes; clean out covers; cooling return tubes; crank bars; disc saw felling head frames; engine mount supports; felling heads; filter box covers; frame guard doors; front shields for forestry equipment; fuel fill covers; fuel tanks; harvesting arm housings; hose guide plate guards; hose straps; hydraulic pump supports; hydraulic reservoirs for forestry equipment; hydraulic system tubes; hydraulic tank covers; hydraulic tubes; inner arm housings; knuckleboom lower frames; lift arm bellcranks; lift arm shims; lift links; link assemblies; log forks; main boom hydraulics tubes; main cylinder tubes; main frames; oil lines; oil line tubes; oil tubes; painted cover plates; pilot lines tubes; power link castings; power management tubes; pressure tubes; radiator hose tubes; radio mount housings; retainer plates; saw motor adapters; saw motor tubes; sawhead cranks; shims for forestry equipment; side hoods; wear rod kits; spring guards; stabilizer feet; stick cylinder tubes; structural tubes; suction tubes; support manifold brackets; surge tank brackets; test manifolds; torque arm brackets; transmission mount brackets; valve mount brackets; wear resistant teeth; wrist bearings; wrist frames; form dies; accelerator pedals; hydraulic accumulators; compressor valve kits; valves (control, electromagnet, fuel line, hand operated, hydraulic/pilot control, manifold, radiator drain, return, spool, unloader, check, pressure relief, drain, solenoid, purge tank, park brake, exhaust); valve seal kits; valve reducer caps; quick couplers; electrohydraulic controllers; temperature switches; thermostats; electrical connector assemblies; rotary manifolds; hydraulic manifolds; articulated dump truck repair kits; return manifolds; valve section plunger kits; directional control coils; thermostat covers; ball bearings; roller bearings; tapered roller bearings; spherical roller bearings; needle bearings; cylindrical roller bearings; bearing cups; camshafts; differential shafts; pinion shafts; planetary assemblies; universal drive shafts; spherilastic bearings; air compressor bushings; cab isolators; clevis kits; connecting rod bearing kits; elastomeric bearings; engine rod bearing kits; loader boom bushings; loader mainframe bushings; main bearing kits; mirror support bushings; pin and bushing kits; pivot bushings; steel bushings; steering cylinder bushings; tapped bosses; wear rings; gear cases; planetary assemblies; half axles; transmissions; flywheels; alternator pulleys; U joint assemblies; universal joints; auxiliary drive gears; bevel gears; bevel gear drives; boom gears; fork tines; idler covers; oil circulation differential lock blocks; pinion shafts; planet pinions; planet pinion carriers; planetary assemblies; planetary gears; pump gears; ring gears; ring gears and pinions; transmission speed sensor covers; universal joint yokes; clutch plates; planet pinion carriers; planetary assemblies; cover kits; cylinder block gaskets; cylinder head gaskets; exhaust gaskets; oscillation seals; return manifolds; ring seals; turbocharger gaskets; hand tools; hydraulic tank gaskets; ring seals; seal kits; sealing rings; turbocharger gaskets; oil seals; ring seals; seal kits; electric motors; sensor resolver kits; magnetic drain plugs; engine shutdown solenoids; solenoid kits; starter motors; 12 teeth pinions; brush sets; strobe lights; travel warning alarms; wiper arms; wiper blades; radar sensors; satellite modules; GSM (global system for mobile communication)/GPS (global positioning system) antennas; iridium satellite antennas; multiband antennas; 12 volt monitors; computer monitors; dot matrix monitors; display tractor information monitors; ground speed sensors; operator display monitors; vehicle monitors; resistor networks; resistor connectors; circuit boards; change over relays; switches (rotary, push, coil spring, instrument panel, motion control); bucket control levers; multi-functional controllers; motor kits; electrical connector terminals; electrical connector assemblies; control kits; electrohydraulic controllers; electronic control units; joystick grips; monitor consoles; transmission controllers; vehicle controllers; vehicle monitors; multifunction canopy levers; 24 volt bulbs; socket outlets; control modules; speed sensors; wiring harnesses; wire cables; step assemblies; cab doors; cab door housings; cab door latch housings; cab roofs; cooler lid covers; e-module covers; engine compartment hoods; front dash panels; grilles; grille housings; grille kits; head light covers; headlight guards; hood latch rods; interior panels; hoods; mini hoods; mirror plates; mudguard extensions; oscillation frames; radio face plates; bumpers; side hood shields; sliding windows; sun visors; transmission cases; wheel curtain covers; brake caliper guards; brake disks; brake caliper pipes; brake lines; brake pads; brake piston kits; brake piston seal kits; brake seals; disk brake caliper assemblies; front brake pipes; park brake assemblies; rear brake pipes; throttle brake housings; transmissions; gear cases; axle housings; ball joint sockets; carrier ring gears; cross and bearing assemblies; differentials; output gears; planet pinion carrier assemblies; retainer plates; steel yokes; stub pivots; sun gears; universal joint crosses; axles with differential; hub housings; rear drive axles; planetary hub spindles; universal joints; bead seat bands; 5 piece wheels; rim and wheel centers; strut cylinder rods; exhaust pipes; clutch housings; PTO flanges; steering columns; steering column kits; steering column supports; steering shafts; ring gears; spline hubs; universal joints with shafts; axle guards; axle guard doors; bellow kits; belly pans; belly pan covers; belt tensioners; coolant lines; decomposition tube assemblies; fan supports; fuel lines; lever kits; lower cylinder guards; oil lines; platform supports; pressure lines; rear shields; shafts; shields; support frames; upper cylinder guards; water tank assemblies; dust cover flanges; input lids; oil tubes; universal joints; accelerator throttles; air cleaner covers; alternator supports; articulation guards; axle guards; axle guard doors; back covers; bin mounting plates; bin pivot bushings; bin pole frames; block clamps; brake adjuster kits; brake pipe guards; brake saddles; breather pipes; cab coat straps; compressor adaptors; control panels; coolant tubes; couplings; cover plates; decal panel shields; decomposition tube assemblies; drag links; eccentric shaft kits; emergency exit hammer holders; engine breather covers; exhaust shields; extension mudguards; fan shrouds; firewall plates; flex swivel adaptors; forged mount supports; front brake pipes; front chassis plates; front frame cross members; front shields; handrails; headlight covers; heat shields; in tank filter lids; indexing rings; lever kits; light cover plates; line pipes; mid-section frames; middle shields; mounting step mudguards; multifunction levers; oil cooler pipes; oil lines; oscillating joint bushings; oscillation tube bushings; pedal sleeves; perforated steps; planet carriers; plate seals; PTO housings; rear brake pipes; rear plates; rear shields; reservoirs; retainer plates; front mudguards; sealing plates; sensor plates; shields; shock absorbers; side shafts; spacer plates; steel supports; steering column covers; suction pipes; support guards; support structures; tank lid covers; timing cases; tube outlets; universal joint crosses; universal joint yokes; upper cylinder guards; valve guards; ventilated disks; walking beam mounting parts; water pump inlet pipes; water tank weldments; window plate guards; wiper housings; wire harness supports; temperature sensors; fuel senders; level sensors; oil pressure senders; engine oil dipsticks; level gauges; transmission oil dipsticks; engine oil pressure senders; pressure sensors; air intake sensors; chemical sensors; engine controllers; seat frames; seat swivels; armrests; backrest plates; seat covers; seat swivel kits; inner arm assemblies; and electrical lighters (duty rates range from free to 9%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is June 13, 2016.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Diane Finver at [email protected] or (202) 482-1367.

    Dated: April 26, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10241 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset Reviews AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    Background

    Every five years, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission automatically initiate and conduct a review to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 of the Act would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury.

    Upcoming Sunset Reviews for June 2016

    The following Sunset Reviews are scheduled for initiation in June 2016 and will appear in that month's Notice of Initiation of Five-Year Sunset Review (“Sunset Review”).

    Department contact Antidumping Duty Proceedings Cased Pencils from China (A-570-827) (4th Review) Matthew Renkey (202) 482-2312. Paper Clips from China (A-570-826) (4th Review) David Goldberger (202) 482-4136. Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy (A-475-703) (4th Review) David Goldberger (202) 482-4136. Countervailing Duty Proceedings

    No Sunset Review of countervailing duty orders is scheduled for initiation in June 2016.

    Suspended Investigations

    No Sunset Review of suspended investigations is scheduled for initiation in June 2016.

    The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. The Notice of Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews provides further information regarding what is required of all parties to participate in Sunset Reviews.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the Department will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact the Department in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.

    Please note that if the Department receives a Notice of Intent to Participate from a member of the domestic industry within 15 days of the date of initiation, the review will continue. Thereafter, any interested party wishing to participate in the Sunset Review must provide substantive comments in response to the notice of initiation no later than 30 days after the date of initiation.

    This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

    Dated: April 26, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10245 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with March anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.

    DATES:

    Effective May 2, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with March anniversary dates.

    All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.

    Notice of No Sales

    If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (“POR”), it must notify the Department within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. All submissions must be filed electronically at http://access.trade.gov in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.1 Such submissions are subject to verification in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(1)(i), a copy must be served on every party on the Department's service list.

    1See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    Respondent Selection

    In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 30 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should be submitted seven days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of this review. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five days after the deadline for the initial comments.

    In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

    In general, the Department has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, the Department will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of this review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this antidumping proceeding (i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to this review, if the Department determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, the Department will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, the Department will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Quantity and Value (“Q&V”) Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where the Department considered collapsing that entity, complete Q&V data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

    Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.

    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). In accordance with the separate rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities.

    All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the certification, please follow the “Instructions for Filing the Certification” in the Separate Rate Certification. Separate Rate Certifications are due to the Department no later than 30 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Certification applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers who purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

    Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding 2 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. In addition, companies that received a separate rate in a completed segment of the proceeding that have subsequently made changes, including, but not limited to, changes to corporate structure, acquisitions of new companies or facilities, or changes to their official company name,3 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. The Separate Rate Status Application will be available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the Separate Rate Status Application, refer to the instructions contained in the application. Separate Rate Status Applications are due to the Department no later than 30 calendar days of publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate Status Application applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers that purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

    2 Such entities include entities that have not participated in the proceeding, entities that were preliminarily granted a separate rate in any currently incomplete segment of the proceeding (e.g., an ongoing administrative review, new shipper review, etc.) and entities that lost their separate rate in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which they participated.

    3 Only changes to the official company name, rather than trade names, need to be addressed via a Separate Rate Application. Information regarding new trade names may be submitted via a Separate Rate Certification.

    For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.

    Initiation of Reviews

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than March 31, 2017.

    Period to be reviewed Antidumping Duty Proceedings Spain: Stainless Steel Bar, A-469-805 3/1/15-2/29/16 Gerdau Aceros Especiales Europa, S.L. Thailand: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes, A-549-502 3/1/15-2/29/16 Pacific Pipe Public Company Limited Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd. The People's Republic of China: Glycine, A-570-836 3/1/15-2/29/16 Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd. Jizhou City Huayang Chemical Co., Ltd. Kumar Industries Rudraa International Countervailing Duty Proceedings Turkey: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes, C-489-502 1/1/15-12/31/15 Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari San ve Tic. Borusan Gemlik Boru Tesisleri A.S. Borusan Ihicat ve Dagitim A.S. Borusan Ihracat Ithalat ve Dagitim A.S. Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. Borusan Mannesnamm Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. Cayirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. Guven Steel Pipe (also known as Guven Celik Born San. Ve Tic. Ltd.) Toscelik Metal Ticaret A.S. Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S. Tubeco Pipe and Steel Corporation Umran Celik Born Sanayii A.S. (also known as Umran Steel Pipe Inc.) Yucel Boru ve Profil Endustrisi A.S. Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve Pazarlama A.S. Suspension Agreements

    None.

    Duty Absorption Reviews

    During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with FAG Italia v. United States, 291 F.3d 806 (Fed Cir. 2002), as appropriate, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.

    Gap Period Liquidation

    For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.

    Administrative Protective Orders and Letters of Appearance

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Those procedures apply to administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in any of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of separate letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    Revised Factual Information Requirements

    On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two regulations related to antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in this segment.

    Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.4 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives. All segments of any antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 5 The Department intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

    4See section 782(b) of the Act.

    5See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (“Final Rule”); see also the frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Revised Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013). The modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning U.S. Customs and Border Protection data; and (5) quantity and value questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.

    These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

    Dated: April 26, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary, for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10244 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.

    All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.

    Respondent Selection

    In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Therefore, we encourage all parties interested in commenting on respondent selection to submit their APO applications on the date of publication of the initiation notice, or as soon thereafter as possible. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record of the review.

    In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

    In general, the Department finds that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, the Department will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of this review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this antidumping proceeding (i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to this review, if the Department determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, the Department will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, the Department will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Quantity and Value Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where the Department considered collapsing that entity, complete quantity and value data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

    Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that requests a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that, with regard to reviews requested on the basis of anniversary months on or after May 2016, the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    The Department is providing this notice on its Web site, as well as in its “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” notices, so that interested parties will be aware of the manner in which the Department intends to exercise its discretion in the future.

    Opportunity to Request a Review: Not later than the last day of May 2016,1 interested parties may request administrative review of the following orders, findings, or suspended investigations, with anniversary dates in May for the following periods:

    1 Or the next business day, if the deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday or any other day when the Department is closed.

    Period of review Antidumping Duty Proceedings Belgium: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils, A-423-808 5/1/15-4/30/16 Brazil: Iron Construction Castings, A-351-503 5/1/15-4/30/16 Canada: Citric Acid and Citrate Salt, A-122-853 5/1/15-4/30/16 India: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes, A-533-502 5/1/15-4/30/16 Silicomanganese, A-533-823 5/1/15-4/30/16 Indonesia: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags, A-560-822 5/1/15-4/30/16 Japan: Diffusion-Annealed Nickel-Plated Flat-Rolled Steel Products, A-588-869 5/1/15-4/30/16 Gray Portland Cement and Cement Clinker, A-588-815 Kazakhstan: Silicomanganese, A-834-807 5/1/15-4/30/16 Republic of Korea: Polyester Staple Fiber, A-580-839 5/1/15-4/30/16 Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags, A-552-806 5/1/15-4/30/16 South Africa: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils, A-791-805 5/1/15-4/30/16 Taiwan: Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes, A-583-008 5/1/15-4/30/16 Polyester Staple Fiber, A-583-833 5/1/15-4/30/16 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags, A-583-843 5/1/15-4/30/16 Stainless Steel Plate in Coils, A-583-830 5/1/15-4/30/16 Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents, A-583-848 5/1/15-4/30/16 The People's Republic of China: Aluminum Extrusions, A-570-967 5/1/15-4/30/16 Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe, A-570-935 5/1/15-4/30/16 Citric Acid and Citrate Salt, A-570-937 5/1/15-4/30/16 Iron Construction Castings, A-570-502 5/1/15-4/30/16 Oil Country Tubular Goods, A-570-943 5/1/15-4/30/16 Pure Magnesium, A-570-832 5/1/15-4/30/16 Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents, A-570-972 5/1/15-4/30/16 Turkey: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes, A-489-501 5/1/15-4/30/16 Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube, A-489-815 5/1/15-4/30/16 United Arab Emirates: Steel Nails, A-520-804 5/1/15-4/30/16 Venezuela: Silicomanganese, A-307-820 5/1/15-4/30/16 Countervailing Duty Proceedings Brazil: Iron Construction Castings, C-351-504 1/1/15—12/31/15 Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags, C-552-805 1/1/15—12/31/15 South Africa: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils, C-791-806 1/1/15—12/31/15 The People's Republic of China: Aluminum Extrusions, C-570-968 1/1/15—12/31/15 Citric Acid and Citrate Salt, C-570-938 1/1/15—12/31/15 Suspension Agreements

    None.

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review. In addition, a domestic interested party or an interested party described in section 771(9)(B) of the Act must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which was produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover.

    Note that, for any party the Department was unable to locate in prior segments, the Department will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).

    As explained in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), and Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) the Department clarified its practice with respect to the collection of final antidumping duties on imports of merchandise where intermediate firms are involved. The public should be aware of this clarification in determining whether to request an administrative review of merchandise subject to antidumping findings and orders.2

    2See also the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at http://trade.gov/enforcement/.

    Further, as explained in Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013), the Department clarified its practice with regard to the conditional review of the non-market economy (NME) entity in administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders. The Department will no longer consider the NME entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews. Accordingly, the NME entity will not be under review unless the Department specifically receives a request for, or self-initiates, a review of the NME entity.3 In administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders on merchandise from NME countries where a review of the NME entity has not been initiated, but where an individual exporter for which a review was initiated does not qualify for a separate rate, the Department will issue a final decision indicating that the company in question is part of the NME entity. However, in that situation, because no review of the NME entity was conducted, the NME entity's entries were not subject to the review and the rate for the NME entity is not subject to change as a result of that review (although the rate for the individual exporter may change as a function of the finding that the exporter is part of the NME entity).

    3 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), parties should specify that they are requesting a review of entries from exporters comprising the entity, and to the extent possible, include the names of such exporters in their request.

    Following initiation of an antidumping administrative review when there is no review requested of the NME entity, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries for all exporters not named in the initiation notice, including those that were suspended at the NME entity rate.

    All requests must be filed electronically in Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”) on Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS Web site at http://access.trade.gov.4 Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(l)(i), a copy of each request must be served on the petitioner and each exporter or producer specified in the request.

    4See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of “Initiation of Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation” for requests received by the last day of May 2016. If the Department does not receive, by the last day of May 2016, a request for review of entries covered by an order, finding, or suspended investigation listed in this notice and for the period identified above, the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping or countervailing duties on those entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or bond for) estimated antidumping or countervailing duties required on those entries at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption and to continue to collect the cash deposit previously ordered.

    For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the period of review.

    This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

    Dated: April 26, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10243 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is automatically initiating the five-year review (“Sunset Review”) of the antidumping and countervailing duty (“AD/CVD”) order(s) listed below. The International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notice of Institution of Five-Year Review which covers the same order(s).

    DATES:

    Effective (May 1, 2016).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Department official identified in the Initiation of Review section below at AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. For information from the Commission contact Mary Messer, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission at (202) 205-3193.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its Procedures for Conducting Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews is set forth in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

    Initiation of Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating Sunset Reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty order(s):

    DOC case No. ITC case No. Country Product Department contact A-821-809 731-TA-808 Russia Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products (3rd Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith (202) 482-5255. Filing Information

    As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Department's regulations, the Department's schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on the Department's Web site at the following address: “http://enforcement.trade.gov/sunset/.” All submissions in these Sunset Reviews must be filed in accordance with the Department's regulations regarding format, translation, and service of documents. These rules, including electronic filing requirements via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”), can be found at 19 CFR 351.303.1

    1See also Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    This notice serves as a reminder that any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.2 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives in these segments.3 The formats for the revised certifications are provided at the end of the Final Rule. The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the revised certification requirements.

    2See section 782(b) of the Act.

    3See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (“Final Rule”) (amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)).

    On April 10, 2013, the Department modified two regulations related to AD/CVD proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301).4 Parties are advised to review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in these segments. To the extent that other regulations govern the submission of factual information in a segment (such as 19 CFR 351.218), these time limits will continue to be applied. Parties are also advised to review the final rule concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in AD/CVD proceedings, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1309frn/2013-22853.txt, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.5

    4See Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013).

    5See Extension of Time Limits, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013).

    Letters of Appearance and Administrative Protective Orders

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the Department will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.

    Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (“APO”) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The Department's regulations on submission of proprietary information and eligibility to receive access to business proprietary information under APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304-306.

    Information Required From Interested Parties

    Domestic interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The required contents of the notice of intent to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with the Department's regulations, if we do not receive a notice of intent to participate from at least one domestic interested party by the 15-day deadline, the Department will automatically revoke the order without further review.6

    6See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii).

    If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, the Department's regulations provide that all parties wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must file complete substantive responses not later than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The required contents of a substantive response, on an order-specific basis, are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note that certain information requirements differ for respondent and domestic parties. Also, note that the Department's information requirements are distinct from the Commission's information requirements. Consult the Department's regulations for information regarding the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews. Consult the Department's regulations at 19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms and for other general information concerning antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings at the Department.

    This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).

    Dated: April 26, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10236 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE602 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Hearings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public hearings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold seven public hearings in May and June 2016 to solicit public input on the Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment. The Council is also soliciting written comments on the amendment through 11:59 p.m. on Friday, June 17, 2016. The goal of this amendment is to prohibit the development of new and expansion of existing directed commercial fisheries on unmanaged forage species in Mid-Atlantic Federal waters until the Council has had an adequate opportunity to both assess the scientific information relating to any new or expanded directed fisheries and consider potential impacts to existing fisheries, fishing communities, and the marine ecosystem.

    DATES:

    The public hearings will be held between May 17, 2016 and June 8, 2016. The dates and times of each hearing are listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    ADDRESSES:

    Addresses for written comments: Written comments may be sent through mail, email, or fax through 11:59 p.m. on Friday, June 17, 2016. Comments may be mailed to: Dr. Chris Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901. Comments may be faxed to: Dr. Chris Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council at fax number (302) 674-5399. Comments may be emailed to Julia Beaty, Fishery Management Specialist, at [email protected] If sending comments through the mail, please write “unmanaged forage public hearing comments” on the outside of the envelope. If sending comments through email or fax, please write “unmanaged forage public hearing comments” in the subject line.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: 302-674-2331; Web site: www.mafmc.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: 302-526-5255. More information, including background materials, will be posted at www.mafmc.org/actions/unmanaged-forage.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Council will hold seven public hearings. The dates, times, and locations are listed below:

    1. Tuesday, May 17, 2016, 6 p.m.-7:30 p.m., North Carolina Department of Marine Fisheries Washington Regional Office Hearing Room, 943 Washington Street, Washington, NC 27889; telephone: (252) 946-6481.

    2. Wednesday, May 18, 2016, 6:30-8 p.m., Hilton Virginia Beach Oceanfront, 3001 Atlantic Avenue, Virginia Beach, VA 23451; telephone: (757) 213-3000.

    3. Thursday, May 19, 2016, 6:30-8 p.m., Stockton Seaview Hotel and Golf Club, 401 South New York Road, Galloway, NJ 08205; telephone: (855) 894-8698.

    4. Monday, May 23, 2016, 6 p.m.-7:30 p.m., University of Rhode Island Bay Campus Corless Auditorium, 215 South Ferry Road, Narragansett, RI 02882; telephone: (401) 874-6222.

    5. Tuesday, May 24, 2016, 6:30 p.m.-8 p.m., New York Department of Environmental Conservation Bureau of Marine Resources Hearing Room, 205 North Bell Mead Road, Suite 1, East Setauket, NY 11733; telephone: (631) 444-0430.

    6. Monday, June 6, 2016, 6:30-8 p.m., Hilton Suites Oceanfront, 3200 North Baltimore Avenue, Ocean City, Maryland 21842; telephone: (410) 289-6444.

    7. Wednesday, June 8, 2016, 6:30 p.m.-8 p.m., Webinar. Information on how to connect to the webinar will be available on the events page of the Council Web site: www.mafmc.org/council-events/.

    The goal of the Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment is to prohibit the development of new and expansion of existing directed commercial fisheries on unmanaged forage species in Mid-Atlantic Federal waters until the Council has had an adequate opportunity to both assess the scientific information relating to any new or expanded directed fisheries and consider potential impacts to existing fisheries, fishing communities, and the marine ecosystem. This action is needed to protect the structure and function of marine ecosystems in the Mid-Atlantic and to advance an ecosystem approach to fisheries management in the Mid-Atlantic. In this context, “unmanaged” refers to species not currently managed by the Mid-Atlantic, New England, or South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, or the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. The Council has proposed a range of management alternatives to meet the goal of the amendment. The Council is seeking public comment on these alternatives. More information on the amendment and the management alternatives can be found in the Public Hearing Document, which will be posted to: http://www.mafmc.org/actions/unmanaged-forage.

    Special Accommodations

    These hearings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the hearing date.

    Dated: April 27, 2016. Jeffrey N. Lonergan, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10237 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE596 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Ad Hoc Ecosystem Workgroup (EWG) will hold a webinar, which is open to the public, to discuss and draft comments on the NOAA Fisheries Climate Science Strategy (NCSS) Western Regional Action Plan (WRAP).

    DATES:

    The webinar will be held from 1:30 to 4:30 p.m., or when business for the day is completed, on May 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To join the webinar visit this link: http://www.gotomeeting.com/online/webinar/join-webinar. Enter the Webinar ID: 140-237-731. Enter your name and email address (required). Once you have joined the webinar, choose either your computer's audio or select “Use Telephone.” If you do not select “Use Telephone” you will be connected to audio using your computer's microphone and speakers (VolP). To use your telephone for the audio portion of the meeting dial this TOLL number +1 (631) 992-3221 (not a toll-free number); then enter the Attendee phone audio access code 621-588-987, then enter your audio phone pin (shown after joining the webinar). Participants are encouraged to use their telephone, as this is the best practice to avoid technical issues and excessive feedback. You may send an email to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt ([email protected]) or contact him at (503) 820-2280, extension 425 for technical assistance. A public listening station will also be provided at the Pacific Council office.

    Council address: Pacific Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Kit Dahl, Pacific Council Staff Officer, phone: (503) 820-2422, email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the webinar is for the EWG to discuss and draft comments on the NCSS WRAP. A March 22, 2016 draft of the WRAP may be downloaded at http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ecosystems/climate/rap/western-regional-action-plan. The WRAP is being developed to increase the production, delivery, and use of climate-related information and will identify priority needs and specific actions to implement the NOAA Fisheries Climate Science Strategy in the region over the next five years. Based on the webinar discussion, the EWG may submit a written report with its comments for the Pacific Council's June 23-28, 2016 meeting in Tacoma, WA. The EWG will also discuss progress on completing the Coordinated Ecosystem Indicator Review Initiative and plan future activities. This initiative is an opportunity for the larger Pacific Council family to discuss the Annual State of the California Current Ecosystem Report's indicator categories, what indicators should be part of the annual report, and how they interface with Council-managed fisheries to better support the Council's ecosystem-based management policies.

    Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2425 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: April 27, 2016. Jeffrey N. Lonergan, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10240 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Availability of Seats for National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Councils AGENCY:

    Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for applications.

    SUMMARY:

    ONMS is seeking applications for vacant seats for six of its 13 national marine sanctuary advisory councils and Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve Advisory Council (advisory councils). Vacant seats, including positions (i.e., primary member and alternate), for each of the advisory councils are listed in this notice under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Applicants are chosen based upon their particular expertise and experience in relation to the seat for which they are applying; community and professional affiliations; views regarding the protection and management of marine or Great Lake resources; and possibly the length of residence in the area affected by the sanctuary. Applicants chosen as members or alternates should expect to serve two or three year terms, pursuant to the charter of the specific national marine sanctuary advisory council or Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve Advisory Council.

    DATES:

    Applications are due before or by Tuesday, May 31, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Application kits are specific to each advisory council. As such, application kits must be obtained from and returned to the council-specific addresses noted below.

    • Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Jessica Morten, Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, 113 Harbor Way, Suite 150, Santa Barbara, CA 93109; 805-893-6433; email [email protected]; or download application from http://channelislands.noaa.gov/sac/council_news.html.

    • Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Carolyn Gibson, Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, 991 Marine Drive, The Presidio, San Francisco, CA 94129; 415-970-5252; email [email protected]; or download application from http://farallones.noaa.gov/manage/sac.html.

    • Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Shannon Ruseborn, NOAA Inouye Regional Center, NOS/HIHWNMS/Shannon Ruseborn, 1845 Wasp Boulevard, Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818; 808-725-5905; email [email protected]; or download application from http://hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov/council/council_app_accepting.html.

    Monitor National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: William Sassorossi, Monitor National Marine Sanctuary, 100 Museum Drive, Newport News, VA 23606; 757-591-7329; email [email protected]; or download application from http://monitor.noaa.gov/advisory/news.html.

    • National Marine Sanctuary of American Samoa Advisory Council: Joseph Paulin, National Marine Sanctuary of American Samoa, Tauese P.F. Sunia Ocean Center, Utulei, American Samoa; 684-633-6500 extension 226; email [email protected]; or download application from http://americansamoa.noaa.gov/.

    • Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve Advisory Council: Allison Ikeda, NOAA Inouye Regional Center, NOS/ONMS/PMNM, 1845 Wasp Boulevard, Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818; 808-725-5818; email [email protected]; or download application from www.papahanaumokuakea.gov/council.

    • Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Elizabeth Stokes, Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, 175 Edward Foster Road, Scituate, MA 02066; 781-545-8026 extension 201; email [email protected]; or download application from http://stellwagen.noaa.gov/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information on a particular national marine sanctuary advisory council, please contact the individual identified in the Addresses section of this notice.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    ONMS serves as the trustee for a network of underwater parks encompassing more than 170,000 square miles of marine and Great Lakes waters from Washington state to the Florida Keys, and from Lake Huron to American Samoa. The network includes a system of 13 national marine sanctuaries and Papahānaumokuākea and Rose Atoll marine national monuments. National marine sanctuaries protect our nation's most vital coastal and marine natural and cultural resources, and through active research, management, and public engagement, sustain healthy environments that are the foundation for thriving communities and stable economies. One of the many ways ONMS ensures public participation in the designation and management of national marine sanctuaries is through the formation of advisory councils. National marine sanctuary advisory councils are community-based advisory groups established to provide advice and recommendations to the superintendents of the national marine sanctuaries and Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument on issues including management, science, service, and stewardship; and to serve as liaisons between their constituents in the community and the sanctuary. Additional information on ONMS and its advisory councils can be found at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov. Materials related to the purpose, policies, and operational requirements for advisory councils can be found in the charter for a particular advisory council (http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/ac/council_charters.html) and the National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council Implementation Handbook (http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/ac/acref.html).

    The following is a list of the vacant seats, including positions (i.e., primary member or alternate), for each of the advisory councils currently seeking applications for primary members and alternates:

    Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Chumash Community (Primary); Chumash Community (Alternate); Conservation (Primary); Education (Primary); Education (Alternate); Public-at-Large (Primary); Public-at-Large (Alternate); Recreational Fishing (Primary); Recreational Fishing (Alternate); Tourism (Primary); Tourism (Alternate).

    Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Mendocino/Sonoma County Community-at-Large (Primary); Mendocino/Sonoma County Community-at-Large (Alternate); Youth (Primary).

    Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Citizen-at-Large (Alternate); Hawa'i County (Primary); Hawa'i County (Alternate); Maui County (Alternate); Moloka' Island (Alternate); Research (Alternate); Tourism (Alternate); Youth (Alternate).

    Monitor National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Citizen-at-Large (Primary); Conservation (Primary); Heritage Tourism (Primary); Maritime Archaeological Research (Primary); Ocean Sports (Primary); Recreational/Commercial Fishing (Primary); Recreational Diving (Primary); Recreational Diving (Primary).

    National Marine Sanctuary of American Samoa Advisory Council: Community-at-Large (West Tutuila) (Primary); Tourism (Primary).

    Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve Advisory Council: Commercial Fishing (Primary); Commercial Fishing (Alternate); Native Hawaiian (Alternate); Native Hawaiian Elder (Primary); Native Hawaiian Elder (Alternate).

    Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Business/Industry (Alternate); Mobile Gear Commercial Fishing (Alternate); Recreational Fishing (Alternate); Research (Alternate); Whale Watch (Alternate); Youth (Alternate).

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.

    (Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program) Dated: April 5, 2016. John Armor, Acting Director, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10197 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to delete services from the Procurement List that were previously provided by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: May 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Deletions

    On 3/25/2016 (81 FR 16145-16146), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to provide services to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the services deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following services are deleted from the Procurement List:

    Services Service(s) Type: Switchboard Service, Library Service Mandatory for: Minot Air Force Base, Minot AFB, ND Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: MVW Services, Inc., Minot, ND Contracting Activities: Dept of the Air Force, FA4528 5 CONS LGCP, Minot AFB, ND, Dept of the Air Force, FA7014 AFDW PK, Andrews AFB, MD Service Type: Mess Attendant Service Mandatory for: 192d FW VA Air National Guard Sandston, VA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Richmond Area Association for Retarded Citizens, Richmond, VA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA7014 AFDW PK, Andrews AFB, MD Service Type: Switchboard Operation Service Mandatory for: Ellsworth Air Force Base, Ellsworth AFB, SD Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: BH Services, Inc., Ellsworth AFB, SD Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA4690 28 CONS LGC, Ellsworth AFB, SD Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10181 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [Docket No. CPSC-2009-0044] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request—Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission” or “CPSC”) announces that the Commission has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of approval of a collection of information from manufacturers and importers of disposable and novelty cigarette lighters under the CPSC's regulations implementing the Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters (16 CFR part 1210). In the Federal Register of February 22, 2016 (81 FR 8696), the CPSC published a notice to announce the agency's intention to seek extension of approval of the collection of information. The Commission received no comments. Therefore, by publication of this notice, the Commission announces that CPSC has submitted to the OMB a request for extension of approval of that collection of information, without change.

    DATES:

    Written comments on this request for extension of approval of information collection requirements should be submitted by June 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments about this request by email: [email protected] or fax: 202-395-6881. Comments by mail should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the CPSC, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. In addition, written comments that are sent to OMB also should be submitted electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, under Docket No. CPSC-2009-0044.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information contact: Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CPSC has submitted the following currently approved collection of information to OMB for extension:

    Title: Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters.

    OMB Number: 3041-0116.

    Type of Review: Renewal of collection.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Affected Public: Manufacturers and importers of cigarette lighters.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: In 2015, 42 firms submitted information to the CPSC on 307 lighter models. There were 4 new models and 303 lighters that were comparable to previously tested models (“comparison lighters”).

    Estimated Time per Response: Recordkeeping is composed of two separate components: Recordkeeping for new models and recordkeeping for comparison lighters. The time burden for recordkeeping for new models is estimated at 20 hours per model. The total time for recordkeeping of new models is estimated to be 80 hours (20 hours × 4 models). For each new model, product testing for each firm would take approximately 90 hours per model, for a total of 360 hours (90 hours × 4 models).

    Firms may also submit comparison lighters to demonstrate compliance with the standard. In 2015, 303 comparison lighters were reported to the CPSC. While firms bear no testing costs for comparison lighters, the burden hours for recordkeeping has been estimated at 3 hours per model. Thus, an estimated 909 hours (303 models × 3 hours) is estimated for recordkeeping for comparison lighters.

    Reporting requirements for submitting forms to CPSC are estimated at one hour per model, for a total annual reporting burden on 307 hours (307 models × 1 hour).

    Total Estimated Annual Burden: The total number of responses is approximately 307 per year (4 new models + 303 comparison lighters). The number of hours estimated for testing and recordkeeping is 1,349 hours per year, including new-product tests (360 hours if done in house), new product recordkeeping (4 new models × 20 hours = 80 hours), and recordkeeping for comparison lighters (303 comparison lighters × 3 hours = 909 hours). In addition, the CPSC estimates that approximately one hour per product will be required for manufacturers to submit forms to CPSC, or 307 total hours for reporting. Accordingly the total burden hours for recordkeeping and reporting are approximately 1656 hours (1349 + 307).

    General Description of Collection: In 1993, the Commission issued the Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters (16 CFR part 1210) under the Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”) (15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq.) to eliminate or reduce risks of death and burn injury from fires accidentally started by children playing with cigarette lighters. The standard requires certain test protocols, as well as recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 16 CFR part 1210, subpart B. In addition, section 14(a) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2063(a)) requires manufacturers, importers, and private labelers of a consumer product subject to a consumer product safety standard to issue a certificate stating that the product complies with all applicable consumer product safety standards. Section 14(a) of the CPSA also requires that the certificate of compliance must be based on a test of each product or upon a reasonable testing program.

    Dated: April 27, 2016. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10212 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [Docket No. CPSC-2012-0019] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request—Standards for Full-Size Baby Cribs and Non-Full Size Baby Cribs; Compliance Form AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission” or “CPSC”) announces that the Commission has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of approval of a collection of information regarding a form that will be used to measure child care centers' compliance with the CPSC safety standards for full-size and non-full-size cribs (16 CFR parts 1219 and 1220). In the Federal Register of February 16, 2016 (81 FR 7766), the CPSC published a notice to announce the agency's intention to seek extension of approval of the collection of information. The Commission received no comments. Therefore, by publication of this notice, the Commission announces that CPSC has submitted to the OMB a request for extension of approval of that collection of information, without change.

    DATES:

    Written comments on this request for extension of approval of information collection requirements should be submitted by June 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments about this request by email: [email protected] or fax: 202-395-6881. Comments by mail should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the CPSC, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. In addition, written comments that are sent to OMB also should be submitted electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, under Docket No. CPSC-2012-0019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information contact: Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CPSC has submitted the following currently approved collection of information to OMB for extension:

    Title: Safety Standards for Full-Size Baby Cribs and Non-Full Size Baby Cribs-Verification of Compliance Form.

    OMB Number: 3041-0161.

    Type of Review: Renewal of collection.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Affected Public: Child care centers.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 74 child care centers.

    Estimated Time per Response: .25 hour for each child care center to provide the information on the form.

    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 18.5 hours (.25 hour × 74 child care centers).

    General Description of Collection: CPSC staff intends to visit child care centers to measure compliance with the crib safety standards. Information from those visits would be recorded on a “Verification of Compliance Form.” CPSC investigators or designated state or local officials will use the form, which will be filled out entirely at the site during the normal course of the visit. The Commission will use the information to measure compliance with the crib safety standards and to develop an enforcement strategy. A pilot program was conducted in 2012, which included visits to approximately 50 child care centers in six states. Results of the pilot program were used to expand the program in 2013, to seven states and 112 inspections. CPSC conducted the program in 2015, in three states, which included 47 inspections. CPSC projects that four states will participate in the program in 2016 and approximately 74 inspections will be conducted.

    Dated: April 27, 2016. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10213 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology AGENCY:

    Office of Science, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of partially-closed meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the schedule and summary agenda for a partially-closed meeting of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), and describes the functions of the Council. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    May 20, 2016, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the National Academy of Sciences, 2101 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC in the Lecture Room.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information regarding the meeting agenda, time, location, and how to register for the meeting is available on the PCAST Web site at: http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast. A live video webcast and an archive of the webcast after the event are expected to be available at http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast. The archived video will be available within one week of the meeting. Questions about the meeting should be directed to Ms. Jennifer Michael at [email protected], (202) 395-2121. Please note that public seating for this meeting is limited and is available on a first-come, first-served basis.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is an advisory group of the nation's leading scientists and engineers, appointed by the President to augment the science and technology advice available to him from inside the White House, cabinet departments, and other Federal agencies. See the Executive Order at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast. PCAST is consulted about and provides analyses and recommendations concerning a wide range of issues where understandings from the domains of science, technology, and innovation may bear on the policy choices before the President. PCAST is co-chaired by Dr. John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, The White House; and Dr. Eric S. Lander, President, Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard.

    Type of Meeting: Open and Closed.

    Proposed Schedule and Agenda: The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is scheduled to meet in open session on May 20, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Open Portion of Meeting: During this open meeting, PCAST is scheduled to discuss its current study on forensics. They will also hear from speakers who will remark on near earth objects and who will talk about cryptocurrencies. They will announce their new study on science and technology for drinking-water safety. Additional information and the agenda, including any changes that arise, will be posted at the PCAST Web site at: http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast.

    Closed Portion of the Meeting: PCAST may hold a closed meeting of approximately one hour with the President on May 20, 2016, which must take place in the White House for the President's scheduling convenience and to maintain Secret Service protection. Both meetings will be closed to the public because such portion of the meeting is likely to disclose matters that are to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1).

    Public Comments: It is the policy of the PCAST to accept written public comments of any length, and to accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. The PCAST expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements.

    The public comment period for this meeting will take place on May 20, 2016 at a time specified in the meeting agenda posted on the PCAST Web site at http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast. This public comment period is designed only for substantive commentary on PCAST's work, not for business marketing purposes.

    Oral Comments: To be considered for the public speaker list at the meeting, interested parties should register to speak at http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast, no later than 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 18, 2016. Phone or email reservations will not be accepted. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per person, with a total public comment period of up to 15 minutes. If more speakers register than there is space available on the agenda, PCAST will randomly select speakers from among those who applied. Those not selected to present oral comments may always file written comments with the committee. Speakers are requested to bring at least 25 copies of their oral comments for distribution to the PCAST members.

    Written Comments: Although written comments are accepted continuously, written comments should be submitted to PCAST no later than 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 18, 2016 so that the comments may be made available to the PCAST members prior to this meeting for their consideration. Information regarding how to submit comments and documents to PCAST is available at http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast in the section entitled “Connect with PCAST.”

    Please note that because PCAST operates under the provisions of FACA, all public comments and/or presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection, including being posted on the PCAST Web site.

    Meeting Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodation to access this public meeting should contact Ms. Jennifer Michael at least ten business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 26, 2016. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10208 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy [Case No. CW-026] Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Decision and Order Granting a Waiver to Whirlpool From the Department of Energy Residential Clothes Washer Test Procedure AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Decision and order.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of a decision and order (Case No. CW-026) that grants to Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool) a waiver from the DOE clothes washer test procedure for determining the energy consumption of clothes washers. Under this decision and order, Whirlpool is required to test and rate its clothes washers with clothes containers greater than 6.0 cubic feet using an alternate test procedure that takes this larger capacity into account when measuring energy consumption.

    DATES:

    This Decision and Order is effective May 2, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mail Stop EE-5B, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email: [email protected]

    Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 586-7796. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 430.27(f)(2)), DOE gives notice of the issuance of its decision and order as set forth below. The decision and order grants Whirlpool a waiver from the applicable clothes washer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J2 for certain basic models of clothes washers with capacities greater than 6.0 cubic feet, provided that Whirlpool tests and rates such products using the alternate test procedure described in this notice. Whirlpool's representations concerning the energy efficiency of these products must be based on testing consistent with the provisions and restrictions in the alternate test procedure set forth in the decision and order below, and the representations must fairly disclose the test results. Distributors, retailers, and private labelers are held to the same standard when making representations regarding the energy efficiency of these products. 42 U.S.C. 6293(c).

    Not later than July 1, 2016, any manufacturer currently distributing in commerce in the United States a residential clothes washer with a capacity larger than 6.0 cubic feet must submit a petition for waiver pursuant to the requirements of this section. Manufacturers not currently distributing such products in commerce in the United States must petition for and be granted a waiver prior to distribution in commerce in the United States. Manufacturers may also submit a request for interim waiver pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 430.27.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 26, 2016. Kathleen Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Decision and Order

    In the Matter of: Whirlpool Corporation (Case No. CW-026)

    I. Background and Authority

    Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program covering most major household appliances, including the residential clothes washers.1 Part B includes definitions, test procedures, labeling provisions, energy conservation standards, and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. Further, Part B authorizes the Secretary of Energy to prescribe test procedures that are reasonably designed to produce results measuring energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated operating costs, and that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The test procedure for residential clothes washers is contained in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J2.

    1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was re-designated Part A.

    The regulations set forth in 10 CFR 430.27 enable a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for covered products. DOE will grant a waiver if DOE determines that the basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that prevents testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures, or if the prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2). DOE may grant the waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2).

    II. Whirlpool's Petition for Waiver: Assertions and Determinations

    On November 9, 2015, Whirlpool submitted a petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure applicable to automatic and semi-automatic clothes washers as set forth in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J2. Whirlpool requested the waiver because the mass of the test load used in the procedure, which is based on the basket volume of the test unit, is currently not defined for basket sizes greater than 6.0 cubic feet. In its petition, Whirlpool sought a waiver for the specified basic models, which have capacities greater than 6.0 cubic feet, as the current DOE test procedure specifies test load sizes only for machines with capacities up to 6.0 cubic feet. (See 77 FR 13888, Mar. 7, 2012; the “March 2012 Final Rule”)

    Table 5.1 of Appendix J2 defines the test load sizes used in the test procedure as linear functions of the basket volume. Whirlpool requested that DOE grant a waiver for testing and rating based on a revised Table 5.1. Whirlpool also requested an interim waiver from the existing DOE test procedure, which DOE granted. See 80 FR at 78208. After reviewing the alternate procedure suggested by Whirlpool, DOE granted the interim waiver because DOE concluded that it would allow for the accurate measurement of the energy use of these products, while alleviating the testing problems associated with testing clothes washers with capacities greater than 6.0 cubic feet.

    Whirlpool's petition was published in the Federal Register on December 16, 2015. 80 FR 78208. DOE received one comment on the Whirlpool petition filed jointly by the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) (hereinafter the “Joint Commenters”). The Joint Commenters did not object to manufacturers being able to test and certify clothes washers with capacities greater than 6.0 cu. ft. They reiterated concerns raised in the rulemaking that culminated in the March 2012 Final Rule, however, regarding a potential bias in the test procedure towards large capacity washers, and asserted that these concerns would be exacerbated with a further extension of Table 5.1 of appendix J2 up to 8.0 cu. ft. (Joint Commenters, No. 2 at p. 1) 2

    2 A notation in the form “Joint Commenters, No. 2 at p. 1” identifies a written comment: (1) Made by the ASAP, ASE, ACEEE, NRDC, and NEEA (hereinafter the “Joint Commenters”); (2) recorded in document number 2 that is filed in the docket of this waiver (Docket No. EERE-2015- BT-WAV-0020) and available for review at www.regulations.gov; and (3) which appears on page 1 of document number 2.

    DOE granted a waiver to Whirlpool for a similar request under Decision and Order (75 FR 69653, Nov. 15, 2010) to allow for the testing of clothes washers with container volumes between 3.8 cubic feet and 6.0 cubic feet. In addition to the previous waiver granted to Whirlpool, DOE granted waivers to LG (CW-016 (76 FR 11233, Mar. 1, 2011), CW-018 (76 FR 21879, Apr. 19, 2011), and CW-021 (76 FR 64330, Oct. 18, 2011); General Electric (75 FR 76968, Dec. 10, 2010), Samsung (76 FR 13169, Mar. 10, 2011); 76 FR 50207, Aug. 12, 2011), and Electrolux (76 FR 11440, Mar. 2, 2011) to allow for the testing of clothes washers with container volumes between 3.8 cubic feet and 6.0 cubic feet.

    For the reasons set forth in DOE's March 2012 Final Rule, DOE concludes that extending the linear relationship between test load size and container capacity to larger capacities represents the best possible approach for determining load size for large capacity washers. DOE will continue to evaluate the possibility of a bias in the test procedure with respect to large capacity washers in the next revision to the DOE test procedure in appendix J2. In addition, DOE determines that testing a basic model with a capacity larger than 6.0 cubic feet using the current procedure at Appendix J2 could evaluate the basic models in a manner so unrepresentative of their true energy consumption as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data.

    III. Consultations With Other Agencies

    DOE consulted with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) staff concerning the Whirlpool petition for waiver. The FTC staff did not have any objections to granting a waiver to Whirlpool.

    IV. Order

    After careful consideration of all the material that was submitted by Whirlpool and the Joint Commenters, the testing and analysis conducted for the March 2012 Final Rule, and consultation with the FTC staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 430.27, it is ORDERED that:

    (1) The petition for waiver submitted by the Whirlpool Corporation (Case No. CW-026) is hereby granted as set forth in the paragraphs below.

    (2) Whirlpool must test and rate the Whirlpool basic models specified in paragraph (3) on the basis of the current test procedure contained in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J2, except that Table 5.1 of appendix J2 is supplemented by the following additional rows:

    Table 5.1—Test Load Sizes—Supplement Container volume cu. ft.
  • ≥ <
  • liter
  • ≥ <
  • Minimum load lb kg Maximum load lb kg Average load lb Kg
    6.00-6.10 169.9-172.7 3.00 1.36 24.80 11.25 13.90 6.30 6.10-6.20 172.7-175.6 3.00 1.36 25.20 11.43 14.10 6.40 6.20-6.30 175.6-178.4 3.00 1.36 25.60 11.61 14.30 6.49 6.30-6.40 178.4-181.2 3.00 1.36 26.00 11.79 14.50 6.58 6.40-6.50 181.2-184.1 3.00 1.36 26.40 11.97 14.70 6.67 6.50-6.60 184.1-186.9 3.00 1.36 26.90 12.20 14.95 6.78 6.60-6.70 186.9-189.7 3.00 1.36 27.30 12.38 15.15 6.87 6.70-6.80 189.7-192.6 3.00 1.36 27.70 12.56 15.35 6.96 6.80-6.90 192.6-195.4 3.00 1.36 28.10 12.75 15.55 7.05 6.90-7.00 195.4-198.2 3.00 1.36 28.50 12.93 15.75 7.14 7.00-7.10 198.2-201.0 3.00 1.36 28.90 13.11 15.95 7.23 7.10-7.20 201.0-203.9 3.00 1.36 29.30 13.29 16.15 7.33 7.20-7.30 203.9-206.7 3.00 1.36 29.70 13.47 16.35 7.42 7.30-7.40 206.7-209.5 3.00 1.36 30.10 13.65 16.55 7.51 7.40-7.50 209.5-212.4 3.00 1.36 30.60 13.88 16.80 7.62 7.50-7.60 212.4-215.2 3.00 1.36 31.00 14.06 17.00 7.71 7.60-7.70 215.2-218.0 3.00 1.36 31.40 14.24 17.20 7.80 7.70-7.80 218.0-220.9 3.00 1.36 31.80 14.42 17.40 7.89 7.80-7.90 220.9-223.7 3.00 1.36 32.20 14.61 17.60 7.98 7.90-8.00 223.7-226.5 3.00 1.36 32.60 14.79 17.80 8.07

    (3) This order applies only to the following three basic models: V15EAg50(3B); V15EBg50(3B); and V15ECg50(3B).

    (5) This waiver shall remain in effect consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 26, 2016. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10209 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Attendance at PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Meetings

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission and Commission staff may attend upcoming PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) Members Committee and Markets and Reliability Committee meetings, as well as other PJM committee, subcommittee or task force meetings.1 The Commission and Commission staff may attend the following meetings:

    1 For example, PJM subcommittees and task forces of the standing committees (Operating, Planning and Market Implementation) and senior standing committees (Members and Markets and Reliability) meet on a variety of different topics; they convene and dissolve on an as-needed basis. Therefore, the Commission and Commission staff may monitor the various meetings posted on the PJM Web site.

    PJM Members Committee • April 28, 2016—(Wilmington, DE) • May 17-19, 2016—(Cambridge, MD) • June 30, 2016—(Wilmington, DE) • July 28, 2016—(TBD) • September 29, 2016—(TBD) • October 27, 2016—(TBD) • November 17, 2016—(TBD) PJM Markets and Reliability Committee • April 28, 2016—(Wilmington, DE) • May 26, 2016—(Wilmington, DE) • June 30, 2016—(Wilmington, DE) • July 28, 2016—(TBD) • August 25, 2016—(TBD) • September 29, 2016—(TBD) • October 27, 2016—(TBD) • November 17, 2016—(TBD) • December 22, 2016—(TBD) PJM Market Implementation Committee • May 11, 2016—(Audubon, PA) • June 8, 2016—(Audubon, PA) • July 13, 2016—(Audubon, PA) • August 10, 2016—(Audubon, PA) • September 14, 2016—(Audubon, PA) • October 5, 2016—(Audubon, PA) • November 2, 2016—(Audubon, PA) • December 14, 2016—(Audubon, PA)

    The discussions at each of the meetings described above may address matters at issue in pending proceedings before the Commission, including the following currently pending proceedings:

    Docket No. EL05-121, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL08-14, Black Oak Energy LLC, et al., v. FERC Docket No. ER11-1844, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. Docket Nos. AD12-1 and ER11-4081, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. Docket No. EL12-54, Viridity Energy, Inc. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL13-88, Northern Indiana Public Service Company v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER13-90, Public Service Electric and Gas Company and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER13-195, Indicated PJM Transmission Owners Docket No. ER13-349, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER13-535, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER13-1654, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER13-1924, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Duquesne Light Company Docket No. ER13-1926, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER13-1942, New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Docket No. ER13-1943, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. Docket No. ER13-1944, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER13-1945, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. Docket No. ER13-1955, Entergy Services, Inc. Docket No. ER13-1956, Cleco Power LLC Docket No. ER13-2108, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL14-20, Independent Market Monitor v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL14-37, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket Nos. EL14-94, EL14-36, FirstEnergy Solutions Corporation and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER14-504, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER14-822, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER14-972, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER14-1144, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER14-1145, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket Nos. ER14-1461, EL14-48, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER14-1485, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER14-2242, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative Docket No. ER14-2940, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket Nos. EL15-15, ER15-696, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL15-18, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL15-38, RTO Energy Trading, LLC Docket No. EL15-41, Essential Power Rock Springs, LLC, et al., v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL15-67, Linden VFT, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL15-79, TranSource, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL15-80, Advanced Energy Management Alliance Coalition v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL15-95, Maryland and Delaware State Commissions v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER15-532, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket Nos. ER15-623, EL15-29, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER15-746, RC Cape May Holdings, LLC Docket No. ER15-834, Illinois Municipal Electric Agency Docket No. ER15-952, New Jersey Energy Associates, A Limited Partnership Docket No. ER15-994, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket Nos. ER15-1344, ER15-1387, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket Nos. ER15-2562, ER15-2563, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER15-2613, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., and Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. Docket Nos. EL16-6, ER16-121, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL16-9, Big Sandy Peaker Plant, LLC et al. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket Nos. EL15-73, ER16-372, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER16-453, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., and Northeast Transmission Development, LLC Docket Nos. ER16-535, ER16-536, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. Docket No. ER16-736, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER16-1004, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER16-1150, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER16-1232, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER16-1335, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER16-1336, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    For additional meeting information, see: http://www.pjm.com/committees-and-groups.aspx and http://www.pjm.com/Calendar.aspx.

    The meetings are open to stakeholders. For more information, contact Valerie Martin, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-6139 or [email protected]

    Dated: April 25, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10095 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-1466-000] Palmco Power NH LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Palmco Power NH LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is May 11, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 21, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10138 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-1411-000] CNR Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of CNR Energy LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is May 11, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 21, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10134 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. EL16-58-000; QF15-793-001; QF15-794-001; QF15-795-001] SunE B9 Holdings, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on April 25, 2016, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure,1 SunE B9 Holdings, LLC (SunE), filed a petition for a declaratory order requesting that the Commission provide a limited waiver of the filing requirements applicable to small power production facilities set forth in Section 292.203(a)(3) of the Commission's regulations (QF Filing Requirements).2 SunE request waiver of QF filing requirements for the time‐period beginning when various qualifying small power production facilities (QFs) owned by SunE, were placed into operation during December 2010 and ending on May 27, 2015, when SunE filed QF self‐certifications with respect to such facilities, all as more fully explained in the petition.

    1 18 CFR 385.207.

    2 18 CFR 292.203(a)(3).

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. eastern time on May 25, 2016.

    Dated: April 25, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10099 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-1464-000] Palmco Power ME, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Palmco Power ME, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is May 11, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 21, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10136 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP15-18-000; CP15-18-001; CP15-498-000] Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed White Oak Mainline Expansion Project and System Reliability Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the White Oak Mainline Expansion (White Oak) Project and System Reliability Project, proposed by Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company (Eastern Shore) in the above-referenced docket. Eastern Shore requests authorization to construct, install, own, operate, and maintain certain facilities located in Chester County, Pennsylvania and New Castle, Kent, and Sussex, Counties, Delaware.

    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the White Oak and System Reliability Projects in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed projects, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

    Specifically, the proposed White Oak Project includes the following facilities:

    • 3.3 miles of 16-inch-diameter looping pipeline (the Daleville Loop) in Chester County, Pennsylvania;

    • 2.1 miles of 16-inch-diameter looping pipeline (Kemblesville Loop) in Chester County, Pennsylvania; and

    • 3,550 horsepower of additional compression at Eastern Shore's existing Delaware City Compressor Station in New Castle County, Delaware.

    Specifically, the proposed System Reliability Project includes the following facilities:

    • 2.5 miles of 16-inch-diameter looping pipeline (Porter Road Loop) in New Castle County, Delaware;

    • 7.6 miles of 16-inch-diameter looping pipeline (Dover Loop) in Kent County, Delaware;

    • installation of associated underground and aboveground facilities (two mainline valves, a meter and regulator station); and

    • an additional 1,775 horsepower of compression at Eastern Shore's existing Bridgeville Compressor Station in Sussex County, Delaware.

    The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; newspapers and libraries in each project area; and parties to this proceeding.

    In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8371.

    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on these projects, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before May 25, 2016.

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments with the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP15-18-001 or CP15-498-000 [as applicable]) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected]

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” You must select the type of filing you are making. If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing”; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).1 Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. The Commission grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.

    1 See the previous discussion on the methods for filing comments.

    Additional information about the projects is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search,” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-18 or CP15-498). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: April 25, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10097 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-1440-000] Roswell Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Roswell Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is May 11, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 21, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10135 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 12496-002] Rugraw, LLC; Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: Major Original License.

    b. Project No.: P-12496-002.

    c. Date filed: April 21, 2014.

    d. Applicant: Rugraw, LLC.

    e. Name of Project: Lassen Lodge Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: On the South Fork Battle Creek near the Town of Mineral in Tehama County, California. The project would be located on private lands. No federal lands or Indian reservations are located within the proposed project boundary.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: Charlie Kuffner, 70 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920; (415) 652-8553

    i. FERC Contact: Kenneth Hogan at (202) 502-8434; or via email at [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-12496-002.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. This application has been accepted and is now ready for environmental analysis.

    l. The proposed Lassen Lodge Project would consist of: (1) A 6-foot-high and 94-foot-long diversion dam; (2) an impoundment of approximately 0.5 acre; (3) a 20-foot by 10-foot enclosed concrete intake structure; (4) a 7,258-foot-long pipeline and a 5,230-foot-long penstock with a net head of 791 feet; (5) a 50-foot by 50-foot powerhouse containing one generating unit with a 5,000-kilowatt capacity; (6) a 50-foot by 50-foot substation area; (7) a 40-foot by 35-foot switchyard; (8) 100-foot by 100-foot multipurpose area; and (9) a new 12-mile-long, 60-kilovolt transmission line. The project is estimated to produce approximately 25,000,000 kilowatt hours annually.

    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.

    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “REPLY COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.

    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    n. Public notice of the filing of the initial development application, which has already been given, established the due date for filing competing applications or notices of intent. Under the Commission's regulations, any competing development application must be filed in response to and in compliance with public notice of the initial development application. No competing applications or notices of intent may be filed in response to this notice.

    o. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according to the following revised Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.

    Milestone Target Notice that application is ready for environmental analysis April 2016. Filing of comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions June 2016. Filing of reply comments July 2016. Notice of the availability of the draft EIS October 2016. Initiate 10(j) process December 2016. Notice of the availability of the final EIS May 2017.

    p. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.

    Dated: April 25, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10096 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 3472-022] Summit Hydropower, Inc.; Aspinook Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    On April 12, 2016, Summit Hydropower, Inc. (transferor) and Aspinook Hydro, LLC (transferee) filed an application for transfer of license of the Wyre Wynd Project No. 3472. The project is located on the Quinebaug River in New London County, Connecticut. The project does not occupy Federal lands.

    The applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for the Wyre Wynd Project from the transferor to the transferee.

    Applicant Contact: For transferor: Mr. Duncan Broatch, Summit Hydropower, Inc., 6 Far Hills Drive, Avon, CT 06001, telephone: 860-255-7744, email: [email protected] and Ms. Katie McGinnes, Day Pitney LLP, 242 Trumbull Street, Hartford, CT 06103-1212. For transferee: Mr. Mark Boumansour, Aspinook Hydro, LLC, c/o Gravity Renewables, Inc., 1401 Walnut Street, Suite 220, Boulder, CO 80302, telephone: 303-440-3378, email: [email protected] and copies to: Mr. Karl F. Kumli, III, Dietze and Davis, P.C., 2060 Broadway, Suite 400, Boulder, CO 80302 and Mr. Robert A. Panasci, Esq., Young/Sommer, LLC Executive Woods, 5 Palisades Drive, Albany, NY 12205.

    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis, (202) 502-8735, [email protected].

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: 30 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-3472-022.

    Dated: April 21, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10141 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-1406-000] Peak View Wind Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Peak View Wind Energy LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is May 11, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 21, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10156 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-1467-000] Palmco Power VA LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Palmco Power VA LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is May 11, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 21, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10139 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 13212-005] Kenai Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: Application for Original License for Major Project—Unconstructed.

    b. Project No.: P-13212-005.

    c. Date filed: April 18, 2016.

    d. Applicant: Kenia Hydro, LLC.

    e. Name of Project: Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: On Grant Creek, near the Town of Moose Pass, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska. The proposed project would occupy 1,741.3 acres of federal land within the Chugach National Forest managed by the U.S. Forest Service.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: Mikel Salzetti, Manager of Fuel Supply & Renewable Energy Development, 280 Airport Way, Kenai, AK 99611. (907) 283-2375.

    i. FERC Contact: Kenneth Hogan, (202) 502-8434; [email protected].

    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ¶ 61,076 (2001).

    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on the applicant.

    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status: June 17, 2016.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-13212-005.

    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.

    n. The proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project would consists of: (1) An intake structure within Grant Lake; (2) a 3,300-foot-long water conveyance; (3) a 72-inch-diameter, 150-feet-long, welded steel penstock; (4) a power house containing two 2.5 megawatt Francis turbine/generator units; (5) a 95-foot-long open channel tailrace; (6) a 3.6-acre tailrace detention pond; (6) a 1.1-mile-long, 115-kilovolt transmission line; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The project is estimated to generate an average of 18,600 megawatt hours (MWh) annually.

    o. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.

    You may also register online athttp://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    q. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate.

    Issue Notice of Acceptance or Deficiency Letter *—June 2016 Request Additional Information (if needed) *—June 2016 Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments—July 2016 Scoping Meeting (if needed)—August 2016 Comments on Scoping Document 1—September 2016 Issue Scoping Document 2—November 2016 Issue notice of ready for environmental analysis—November 2016 Request Additional Information (if needed) *—November 2016 Comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions—January 2017 Reply Comments—March 2017 Notice of the availability of the draft NEPA document—June 2017 Comments on the draft NEPA document—July 2017 Initiate 10(j) process—July 2017 Notice of the availability of the final NEPA document—November 2017

    * A deficiency letter and/or the need for additional information would result in subsequent delays to the processing schedule.

    Dated: April 25, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10098 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-1468-000] Palmco Power RI LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Palmco Power RI LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is May 11, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected]. or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 21, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10140 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0022; FRL-9945-54] Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for March 2016 AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a premanufacture notice (PMN); an application for a test marketing exemption (TME), both pending and/or expired; and a periodic status report on any new chemicals under EPA review and the receipt of notices of commencement (NOC) to manufacture those chemicals. This document covers the period from March 1, 2016 to March 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    Comments identified by the specific case number provided in this document, must be received on or before June 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0022, and the specific PMN number or TME number for the chemical related to your comment, 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 Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Jim Rahai, IMD 7407M, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8593; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitters of the actions addressed in this document.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. What action is the Agency taking?

    This document provides receipt and status reports, which cover the period from March 1, 2016 to March 31, 2016, and consists of the PMNs both pending and/or expired, and the NOCs to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

    III. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., EPA classifies a chemical substance as either an “existing” chemical or a “new” chemical. Any chemical substance that is not on EPA's TSCA Inventory is classified as a “new chemical,” while those that are on the TSCA Inventory are classified as an “existing chemical.” For more information about the TSCA Inventory go to: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/inventory.htm.

    Anyone who plans to manufacture or import a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, before initiating the activity. Section 5(h)(1) of TSCA authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application, to manufacture (includes import) or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a), for “test marketing” purposes, which is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems.

    Under TSCA sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3), EPA is required to publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish in the Federal Register periodic reports on the status of new chemicals under review and the receipt of NOCs to manufacture those chemicals.

    IV. Receipt and Status Reports

    As used in each of the tables in this unit, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G) indicates that the information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI.

    For the 58 PMNs received by EPA during this period, Table 1 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA case number assigned to the PMN; The date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer/importer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer/importer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.

    Table 1—PMNs Received From March 1, 2016 to March 31, 2016 Case No. Received date Projected
  • notice end date
  • Manufacturer
  • importer
  • Use Chemical
    P-16-0086 3/24/2016 6/22/2016 CBI (G) Coating component (G) Mixed metal oxide-halide complex. P-16-0130 3/18/2016 6/16/2016 CBI (G) Polymeric dye carrier (G) Amide ester polymer. P-16-0130 3/18/2016 6/16/2016 CBI (G) Intermediate for a polymeric dye carrier (G) Amide ester polymer. P-16-0137 3/16/2016 6/14/2016 H.B.Fuller Company (G) Industrial adhesive (S) Dicarboxylic acid polymers with alkane diols and desmodur e23. P-16-0138 3/16/2016 6/14/2016 H.B.Fuller Company (G) Industrial adhesive (S) Dicarboxylic acid polymers with alkane diols and e23. P-16-0186 3/16/2016 6/14/2016 CBI (G) Surfactant (G) Sodium branched chain alkyl hydroxyl and branched chain alkenyl sulfonates. P-16-0193 3/10/2016 6/8/2016 CBI (S) Intermediate (G) Branched alkenes. P-16-0204 3/4/2016 6/2/2016 Gaco Western (G) Reactant spray foam insulation (G) Per acetoacetylated sucrose. P-16-0218 3/4/2016 6/2/2016 Gaco Western (G) Reactant spray foam insulation (G) Acetoacetylated glycerin. P-16-0218 3/4/2016 6/2/2016 Gaco Western (G) Reactant architectural coating (G) Acetoacetylated glycerin. P-16-0219 3/4/2016 6/2/2016 Gaco Western (G) Reactant architectural coating (G) Per acetoacetylated sorbitol. P-16-0219 3/4/2016 6/2/2016 Gaco Western (G) Reactan