Federal Register Vol. 81, No.119,

The Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (“SAFE Act”) requires the interagency establishment of a single portal system, known as the International Trade Data System (ITDS), to be operated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). ITDS is an electronic information exchange capability, or “single-window,” through which individuals and businesses will transmit data required by participating agencies for the importation or exportation of cargo. The goal of ITDS is to eliminate redundant data reporting and replace multiple filings, many of which are on paper. ITDS provides individuals and companies involved in international trade with an electronic format to secure necessary certifications, complete required forms, and provide information about the requirements and regulations relevant to the commodity of interest. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has actively participated in the development of ITDS in cooperation with CBP and other Federal agencies.

As part of the ITDS initiative, CBP developed the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), a single, centralized, online access point that connects the trade community and partner government agencies. ACE will allow trade participants access to and management of their trade information via reports; expedite legitimate trade by providing CBP with tools to efficiently process imports/exports and move goods quickly across the border; improve communication, collaboration and compliance efforts between CBP and the trade community; facilitate efficient collection, processing and analysis of commercial import and export data; and provide an information-sharing platform for trade data throughout government agencies.

For its part, APHIS is working to enhance trade facilitation in several ways. In some cases, APHIS programs will work within ACE to take required actions. In other cases, legacy systems will be updated to allow for more efficient processing of the information. For example, a new permitting system, E-file, is currently being developed to replace the legacy E-permits system. E-file will be used across APHIS programs, will include advanced functionality, and will provide permitting data directly to ACE to allow for speedier review and admissibility determinations at the ports of arrival. Other APHIS system enhancements will allow for better communication with our CBP Agriculture colleagues concerning pest identification and allow for expansion of e-certification opportunities with our trading partners. APHIS recognizes the advantages provided by the “single-window” concept and will continue to incorporate those strategies into future planning.

On February 19, 2014, President Obama issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13659, Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America's Businesses, in order to reduce unnecessary procedural requirements to commerce while continuing to protect our national security, public health and safety, the environment, and natural resources. Pursuant to E.O. 13659, participating Federal agencies are to have capabilities, agreements, and other requirements in place to utilize ITDS and supporting systems such as ACE as the primary means of receiving from users the standard set of data and other relevant documentation required for the release of imported cargo and clearance of cargo for export no later than by December 31, 2016.

Pursuant to E.O. 13659, APHIS has reviewed its regulations in 7 CFR chapter III and 9 CFR chapter I to identify any provisions that may present an obstacle to the use of ACE/ITDS or similar systems by persons importing plants/plant products or animals/animal products that are subject to APHIS' regulations.

In particular, we looked for instances where the regulations required the use of a hard-copy form or specified that a particular document had to be submitted in writing. Where those limiting sorts of requirements were found, this final rule amends the regulations to provide the flexibility needed for persons to take advantage of electronic systems. The amendments we are making in this final rule do not mandate the use of electronic systems or preclude the use of paper documents; rather, the rule simply addresses those instances where our regulations specify a submission method to the exclusion of other methods.

In many cases, however, we found our regulations require importers or shippers to provide documents such as import permits or certificates upon arrival in the United States without specifying the medium in which those documents must be provided. We do not believe that provisions written in that manner require any changes since the language used already allows for the use of electronic systems.

This final rule amends the regulations regarding the importation or exportation of animals and animal products and plants and plant products to address instances where the regulations require the use of a hard-copy form or specify that a particular document must be submitted in writing. Where those limiting sorts of requirements exist, this final rule amends the regulations to provide the flexibility needed for persons to take advantage of electronic systems without precluding the use of other methods already in place. Accordingly, the Administrator of APHIS has determined that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553 to publish this final rule without prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

Since prior notice and other public procedures with respect to this final rule are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this final rule effective upon publication.

Finally, since a notice of proposed rulemaking is not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, APHIS is not required to prepare and make available for public comment an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).

This rule is subject to Executive Order 12866. However, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.

This rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 319, 322, 352, and 353 and 9 CFR parts 93 and 94 are amended as follows:

I. Legal Background II. Calculation of Adjustments III. Regulatory Procedures I. Legal Background A. Statutory Requirements and Overview of Changes Enacted in 2015

The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 1 (DCIA) amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 2 (FCPIA Act) to require every federal agency to enact regulations that adjust each CMP provided by law under its jurisdiction by the rate of inflation at least once every four years. The Board most recently adjusted CMPs within its jurisdiction in September 2015.3

In November 2015, Congress further amended the CMP inflation requirements in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015,4 which contains the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 amendments).5 This legislation provides for an initial “catch-up” adjustment of CMPs in 2016, followed by annual adjustments. The catch-up adjustment will generally re-set CMP maximum amounts by setting aside the inflation adjustments that agencies made in prior years and instead calculating inflation with reference to the year when each CMP was enacted or last modified by Congress.

The 2015 amendments made several procedural changes including: (1) Starting in 2016, each agency must adjust its CMPs for inflation annually by the date set forth in the 2015 amendments; (2) the rounding ranges and procedure that applied before the 2015 amendments no longer apply, and agencies instead must round increases to the nearest dollar; (3) the ten percent cap on the first adjustment of any CMP has been eliminated; (4) the amount of the 2016 adjustment is limited to 150 percent of the amount of each CMP on the date that the 2015 amendments were enacted; and (5) October, rather than June, will be the relevant month for determining the percentage increase in inflation between relevant years.6

The legislation also modified the process by making the following additional changes: (1) In 2016, agencies will make the required adjustments through an interim final rule by July 1, 2016, to be effective by August 1, 2016; (2) in 2017 and subsequent years, agencies will make the required adjustments through direct final rules published and effective by January 15 of each year; (3) the adjusted maximum amounts will apply to CMPs issued after the adjustment takes effect, including cases in which the associated violation predates the adjustment; (4) the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will publish annual guidance for agencies; (5) agencies must publish information regarding CMPs in their annual financial reports; and (6) the Government Accountability Office will report to Congress annually on agencies' compliance with the statute.7

The basic framework for the inflation calculation process remains the same in that agencies must calculate the increase in inflation according to a cost-of-living index and apply this percentage to each CMP to establish a new maximum amount. The resulting adjustment permits but does not require assessment at the new maximum level. Agencies must publish the adjusted maximum amounts in the Federal Register, as they did prior to the 2015 amendments.

However, the 2015 amendments do make a significant change to the calculations for the first year by requiring an initial catch-up adjustment to re-set penalty levels.8 In 2016, agencies must measure inflation by comparing the cost-of-living index for the year in which each CMP was established or last adjusted under a provision other than the FCPIA Act with the index for 2015.9 That is, agencies must disregard the inflation adjustments that they have made under the FCPIA Act since 1996, determine when Congress initially established or last modified each CMP, and adjust for inflation between that year and 2015. This calculation is based on the amount of the CMP as Congress set it, not the adjustments that agencies have made since 1996 under the FCPIA Act. The amount of the catch-up adjustment is separately limited to 150 percent of the CMP maximum in effect as of November 2, 2015, when the 2015 amendments became effective.10

The next section provides more detail on the revised inflation procedures.

This section provides a detailed explanation of the inflation adjustment procedures under the 2015 amendments, including the 150 percent cap on the 2016 adjustment, the discretionary exception that agencies may invoke to limit the required increases based on negative economic impact or social costs, and an exception that agencies may apply when a CMP has been increased by a greater amount than the current calculation within the preceding 12 months. The 150 percent cap applies to one CMP within NCUA's jurisdiction, namely the CMP for violating NCUA security requirements.11 The Board does not seek to invoke the discretionary exception based on negative economic impact or social costs or the exception for greater increases in the preceding 12 months.

In the FCPIA Act, the term “this Act” is used throughout to refer to the entire FCPIA Act as amended, not merely the 2015 amendments or prior amendments. In 2016, agencies must determine the percentage increase in inflation by comparing the October 2015 CPI-U with the CPI-U for October in the year “during which the amount of such civil monetary penalty was established or adjusted pursuant to a provision of law other than this Act.” 12 Also, the 2015 amendments provide that the percentage increase in inflation must be applied to the CMP “as it was most recently established or adjusted under a provision of law other than this Act.” 13 The increase must be rounded to the nearest dollar.14 The new maximum CMP is calculated by dividing the October 2015 CPI-U by the CPI-U for October of the year when Congress established or last modified the CMP. The resulting multiplier is applied to the original or modified maximum amount set by Congress to find the new maximum amount.

In making the calculations, the Board refers to the year in which the statute establishing the CMP was enacted, even if the statute provided that the CMP would not go into effect until a later year. In 2015, the Board referred to the year in which the statutes establishing the CMPs became effective.15 The Board has determined that disregarding delayed effective dates is more consistent with the FCPIA Act's language, as well as OMB's guidance.16

After completing this calculation for each CMP, agencies must also consider the 150 percent cap, the exception based on a greater increase within the preceding 12 months of the required adjustment, and the exception based on negative economic impact or social costs. These considerations are described in detail below.

First, “the amount of the increase in a civil monetary penalty . . . shall not exceed 150 percent of the amount of that civil monetary penalty on the date of enactment” of the 2015 amendments.17 This mandatory cap applies only to the 2016 initial catch-up adjustment. The 150 percent cap applies to the amount of the increase in the CMP. Accordingly, the final maximum amount for each CMP is capped at 250 percent of its current level.18 Based on the Board's calculations, this cap applies only to NCUA's security requirements CMP.19

Second, if a CMP “is, during the 12 months preceding a required cost-of-living adjustment, increased by an amount greater than the amount of the adjustment required . . ., the head of the agency is not required” to make the adjustment.20 The Board has compared the projected increases with the increases that it made in 2015.21 The only CMP that was increased by a greater amount in 2015 than it would be under the current adjustments is the appraisal independence standards CMP.22 The Board will not invoke the exception in this case because: (1) The difference between the existing maximum and the new maximum under the current adjustments is immaterial; and (2) setting the new maximum without invoking this exception will place NCUA's CMP at the same level as the federal banking regulators and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which will be adjusting this CMP for the first time this year.

Third, only for the 2016 adjustment, an agency may seek to limit the amount of an adjustment if it determines that the otherwise-required adjustment would have a “negative economic impact” or that “the social costs” of the increase “outweigh the benefits.” 23 To invoke this discretionary exception in 2016, an agency must first publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with an opportunity to comment on the proposed invocation of the exception, and the Director of OMB must concur with the agency's determination.24 OMB's guidance states that agencies should consult with OMB before proposing to invoke this limitation and must submit the proposal to OMB by May 2, 2016.25 The memorandum also states that OMB expects “determination concurrences” to be rare.26

The statute does not define “negative economic impact” or “social costs.” Given these statutory criteria and historical trends in NCUA's CMP assessments, the Board will not seek to invoke this exception for any of its CMP authorities.

In addition to the statute, the Board has reviewed OMB's guidance. On February 24, 2016, as required by the 2015 amendments, OMB published guidance for agencies to implement the new procedures, including the 2016 catch-up adjustment.27 OMB's guidance covers the following issues: (1) Identifying CMPs to which the law applies; (2) completing the 2016 catch-up adjustment; (3) making future inflation adjustments; and (4) performing agency oversight of inflation adjustments. The Board has reviewed the guidance and finds that the Board's calculations of the increases and the 150 percent cap are wholly consistent with the guidance. Further, the Board finds that it has appropriately identified CMPs subject to adjustment under the FCPIA Act. All of the adjusted CMPs are set by federal law at specific maximums, are assessed by NCUA under the Federal Credit Union Act or other federal statutes, and are assessed or enforced through agency proceedings or civil actions in the federal courts.28 The Board will also review OMB's guidance in connection with future adjustments and its annual financial reporting requirement.

In sum, under the statute, the Board must determine: (1) When Congress established or most recently modified each CMP; (2) the amount of each CMP as set by Congress at that time; (3) the increase in each CMP based on the CPI-U; (4) whether the increase must be limited by the 150 percent cap; (5) whether the Board will invoke the exception based on a greater increase in a CMP maximum amount in the preceding 12 months; and (6) whether the Board will seek to invoke the exception to limit the increases based on negative economic impact or social costs.

Accordingly, the Board has reviewed the CMPs within its jurisdiction to determine when Congress established or last modified each CMP and to determine the amount set by Congress. Next, the Board applied the appropriate inflationary multiplier to the maximum amount of each CMP as it was established or last modified by Congress in order to determine the new maximum. Finally, the Board considered the 150 percent cap, the exception based on greater increases in the preceding 12 months, and the exception based on negative economic impact or social costs. The next section presents the calculations and applies the 150 percent cap and the two exceptions in detail to arrive at the new maximum CMP amounts to be published in the Federal Register.

Consistent with the NCUA's September 2015 CMP adjustments, the Board provides the inflation calculations in table format immediately below. The separate table included in the regulatory text section to be published at 12 CFR 747.1001 shows only the adjusted CMPs, not the calculations leading to the adjusted levels. The table below calculates the projected increase by carrying out the steps described above. The multiplier, which is the quotient of the October 2015 CPI-U divided by the CPI-U for October of the year noted in parentheses, is applied to the maximum amount as originally established or last modified by Congress to calculate the new maximum. The final maximum amount is the lesser of the calculated maximum and the 150 percent cap.

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2010-11-10, Amendment 39-16315 (75 FR 30270, June 1, 2010), (“AD 2010-11-10”). AD 2010-11-10 applied to the specified products. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 11, 2016 (81 FR 12843) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM proposed to continue to require inspection of certain third stage turbine wheels and removal of any damaged wheel. The NPRM also proposed to expand the population and frequency of repetitive inspections.

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

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed.

Turbomeca S.A. has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 283 72 0804, Version D, dated July 24, 2015. The MSB describes procedures for inspecting the third stage turbine wheels.

Turbomeca S.A. has issued Service Bulletin (SB) No. 283 72 0805, Version B, dated December 15, 2010. That SB describes optional terminating action for the inspections.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects seven engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5 hours per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $2,975.

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.

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.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

Discussion

On March 26, 2016, we issued AD 2016-07-30, Amendment 39-18475 (81 FR 21722, April 13, 2016) (“AD 2016-07-30”), for all Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and all Airbus Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. AD 2016-07-30 was prompted by a report of blockage of AOA probes during climb, leading to activation of the Alpha Prot while the Mach number increased. This activation could cause a continuous nose-down pitch rate that cannot be stopped with backward sidestick input, even in the full backward position. For certain airplanes, AD 2016-07-30 required replacing certain AOA sensors (probes) with certain new AOA sensors. For certain other airplanes, AD 2016-07-30 also required inspections and functional heat testing of certain AOA sensors for discrepancies, and replacement if necessary. We issued AD 2016-07-30 to prevent erroneous AOA information and Alpha Prot activation due to blocked AOA probes, which could result in a continuous nose-down command and loss of control of the airplane.

Since we issued AD 2016-07-30, we received a report of a typographical error in the regulatory text of AD 2016-07-30. Paragraph (l) of AD 2016-07-30 inadvertently referred to paragraph (g) and should have referred to paragraph (j), “Repetitive Inspections/Tests of Certain Thales AOA Sensors.” The intent of paragraph (l) of AD 2016-07-30 was to give credit for doing the actions required by paragraph (j) of AD 2016-07-30 using earlier revisions of the service information specified in paragraph (j) of AD 2016-07-30. We have changed paragraph (l) of this AD to refer to paragraph (j) of this AD.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0134, dated July 8, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and all Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

Airbus has issued the following service information:

• Service Bulletin A330-34-3215, Revision 03, dated July 23, 2015.

• Service Bulletin A330-34-3228, dated October 7, 2009.

• Service Bulletin A330-34-3315, dated March 26, 2015.

• Service Bulletin A340-34-4215, Revision 03, dated July 27, 2015.

• Service Bulletin A340-34-4234, dated October 7, 2009.

• Service Bulletin A340-34-4294, dated March 26, 2015.

• Service Bulletin A340-34-5062, Revision 02, dated July 24, 2015.

• Service Bulletin A340-34-5070, dated October 9, 2009.

• Service Bulletin A340-34-5105, dated March 26, 2015.

The service information describes procedures for replacing certain pitot probes with certain new pitot probes. The service information also describes procedures for inspections and functional heat testing of certain pitot probes, and replacement if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

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 issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

We are superseding AD 2016-07-30 to correct a typographical error in the regulatory text. No other changes have been made to AD 2016-07-30. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment are unnecessary.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-7263; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-072-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 55 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class D and Class E airspace at the Florida airports listed in this final rule.

In a review of the airspace, the FAA found the airspace description for Gainesville Regional Airport, Gainesville, FL, and Orlando Executive Airport, Orlando, FL, as published in FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, does not match the FAA's charting information. This is an administrative change to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, and 6004, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by eliminating the NOTAM information that reads “This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and time established in advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory” from the regulatory text of the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D, at Gainesville Regional Airport, Gainesville, FL; and Orlando Executive Airport, Orlando, FL.

This is an administrative change amending the description for the above Florida airports, to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database, and does not affect the boundaries, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary. The geographic coordinates of Orlando Executive Airport are adjusted under Class D and Class E airspace, to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class D airspace at Destin Executive Airport, Destin, FL, and Duke Field Eglin AFB, FL; and removes Class D airspace at Eglin AF Aux No 3 Duke Field; and amends Class D and Class E airspace at Eglin Air Force Base, FL.

On March 3, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class D airspace at Destin Executive Airport, Destin, FL, and Duke Field Eglin AFB, FL; and remove Class D airspace at Eglin AF Aux No 3 Duke Field; and amend Class D and Class E airspace at Eglin Air Force Base, FL (81 FR 11136). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class D airspace up to and including 1,600 feet within a 4.4 mile radius of Destin Executive Airport, Destin, FL, providing the controlled airspace required to support the Air Traffic Control Tower. Additionally, this action removes the Class D designator for Eglin AF Aux No 3 Duke Field, FL, and replaces it with Duke Field, Eglin AFB, FL. This action also adjusts the geographic coordinates in Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Eglin Air Force Base, FL, Destin Executive Airport, Duke Field, and Hurlburt Field, to stay in concert with the FAA's database. Also, Destin-Fort Walton Beach Airport is changed to Destin Executive Airport.

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

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

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

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

You may obtain an electronic copy using the Internet by:

(1) Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

(2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or

(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.

You also may obtain a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking.

From 1968, the FAA limited the number of arrivals and departures at JFK during the peak afternoon demand period (corresponding to transatlantic arrival and departure banks) through the implementation of the High Density Rule (HDR).1 By statute enacted in April 2000, the HDR's applicability to JFK operations terminated as of January 1, 2007.2 Using AIR-21 exemptions and the HDR phase-out, U.S. air carriers serving JFK significantly increased their domestic scheduled operations throughout the day. This increase in operations resulted in significant congestion and delays that negatively impacted the National Airspace System (NAS). In January 2008, the FAA placed temporary limits on scheduled operations at JFK to mitigate persistent congestion and delays at the airport.3 With a temporary schedule limit order in place, the FAA proposed a long-term rule that would limit the number of scheduled and unscheduled operations at JFK.4 On October 10, 2008, the FAA published the Congestion Management Rule for John F. Kennedy International Airport and Newark Liberty International Airport, which would have become effective on December 9, 2008.5 That rule was stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and subsequently rescinded by the FAA.6 The FAA extended the January 18, 2008, Order placing temporary limits on scheduled operations at JFK on October 7, 2009,7 April 4, 2011,8 May 14, 2013,9 March 26, 2014,10 and May 24, 2016.11

Under the Order, as amended, the FAA (1) maintains the current hourly limits on 81 scheduled operations at JFK during the peak period; (2) imposes an 80 percent minimum usage requirement for Operating Authorizations (OAs) with defined exceptions; (3) provides a mechanism for withdrawal of OAs for FAA operational reasons; (4) establishes procedures to allocate withdrawn, surrendered, or unallocated OAs; and (5) allows for trades and leases of OAs for consideration for the duration of the Order.

The reasons for issuing the Order have not changed appreciably since it was implemented. Demand for access to JFK remains high and the average weekday hourly flights in the busiest morning, afternoon, and evening hours are generally consistent with the limits under this Order. The FAA has reviewed the on-time and other performance metrics in the peak May to August 2014 and 2015 months and found continuing improvements relative to the same period in 2007, even with runway construction at JFK in 2015.12 Without the operational limitations imposed by this Order, the FAA expects severe congestion-related delays would occur at JFK and at other airports throughout the NAS. The FAA will continue to monitor performance and runway capacity at JFK to determine if changes are warranted.

On January 8, 2015, the DOT and FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking “Slot Management and Transparency at LaGuardia Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport.” 13 The DOT and FAA proposed to replace the Orders limiting scheduled operations at JFK, limiting scheduled operations at Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), and limiting scheduled and unscheduled operations at LaGuardia Airport (LGA) with a more permanent system for managing slots. The NPRM included certain proposed changes to how slots are currently managed in the New York City area in order to increase transparency and address issues considering anti-competitive behavior. Since the FAA and DOT first initiated this rulemaking effort there have been significant changes in circumstances affecting New York City area airports, including changes in competitive effects from ongoing industry consolidation, slot utilization and transfer behavior, and actual operational performance at the three airports. Furthermore, the FAA recently announced that slot controls are no longer needed at EWR (81 FR 19861). In light of the changes in market conditions and operational performance at the New York City area airports, the Department is withdrawing the NPRM by Federal Register notice published May 16, 2016 (81 FR 30218), to allow for further evaluation of these changes. Accordingly, the FAA has concluded it is necessary to extend the expiration date of this Order until October 27, 2018. This expiration date coincides with the extended expiration date for the Order limiting scheduled operations at LGA (81 FR 33126).14 No amendments other than correcting the expiration date in paragraph 3 have been made to this Order.

The FAA finds that notice and comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The FAA further finds that good cause exists to make this Order effective in less than 30 days.

The Order, as amended, is recited below in its entirety.

1. This Order assigns operating authority to conduct an arrival or a departure at JFK during the affected hours to the U.S. air carrier or foreign air carrier identified in the appendix to this Order. The FAA will not assign operating authority under this Order to any person or entity other than a certificated U.S. or foreign air carrier with appropriate economic authority and FAA operating authority under 14 CFR part 121, 129, or 135. This Order applies to the following:

a. All U.S. air carriers and foreign air carriers conducting scheduled operations at JFK as of the date of this Order, any U.S. air carrier or foreign air carrier that operates under the same designator code as such a carrier, and any air carrier or foreign-flag carrier that has or enters into a codeshare agreement with such a carrier.

b. All U.S. air carriers or foreign air carriers initiating scheduled or regularly conducted commercial service to JFK while this Order is in effect.

c. The Chief Counsel of the FAA, in consultation with the Vice President, System Operations Services, is the final decisionmaker for determinations under this Order.

2. This Order governs scheduled arrivals and departures at JFK from 6 a.m. through 10:59 p.m., Eastern Time, Sunday through Saturday.

3. This Order takes effect on March 30, 2008, and will expire October 27, 2018.

4. Under the authority provided to the Secretary of Transportation and the FAA Administrator by 49 U.S.C. 40101, 40103 and 40113, we hereby order that:

a. No U.S. air carrier or foreign air carrier initiating or conducting scheduled or regularly conducted commercial service at JFK may conduct such operations without an Operating Authorization assigned by the FAA.

b. Except as provided in the appendix to this Order, scheduled U.S. air carrier and foreign air carrier arrivals and departures will not exceed 81 per hour from 6 a.m. through 10:59 p.m., Eastern Time.

c. The Administrator may change the limits if he determines that capacity exists to accommodate additional operations without a significant increase in delays.

5. For administrative tracking purposes only, the FAA will assign an identification number to each Operating Authorization.

6. A carrier holding an Operating Authorization may request the Administrator's approval to move any arrival or departure scheduled from 6 a.m. through 10:59 p.m. to another half hour within that period. Except as provided in paragraph seven, the carrier must receive the written approval of the Administrator, or his delegate, prior to conducting any scheduled arrival or departure that is not listed in the appendix to this Order. All requests to move an allocated Operating Authorization must be submitted to the FAA Slot Administration Office, facsimile (202) 267-7277 or email 7-[email protected], and must come from a designated representative of the carrier. If the FAA cannot approve a carrier's request to move a scheduled arrival or departure, the carrier may then apply for a trade in accordance with paragraph seven.

7. For the duration of this Order, a carrier may enter into a lease or trade of an Operating Authorization to another carrier for any consideration. Notice of a trade or lease under this paragraph must be submitted in writing to the FAA Slot Administration Office, facsimile (202) 267-7277 or email [email protected], and must come from a designated representative of each carrier. The FAA must confirm and approve these transactions in writing prior to the effective date of the transaction. The FAA will approve transfers between carriers under the same marketing control up to five business days after the actual operation, but only to accommodate operational disruptions that occur on the same day of the scheduled operation. The FAA's approval of a trade or lease does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to grant the associated historical rights to any operator in the event that slot controls continue at JFK after this order expires.

8. A carrier may not buy, sell, trade, or transfer an Operating Authorization, except as described in paragraph seven.

9. Historical rights to Operating Authorizations and withdrawal of those rights due to insufficient usage will be determined on a seasonal basis and in accordance with the schedule approved by the FAA prior to the commencement of the applicable season.

a. For each day of the week that the FAA has approved an operating schedule, any Operating Authorization not used at least 80% of the time over the time-frame authorized by the FAA under this paragraph will be withdrawn by the FAA for the next applicable season except:

i. The FAA will treat as used any Operating Authorization held by a carrier on Thanksgiving Day, the Friday following Thanksgiving Day, and the period from December 24 through the first Saturday in January.

ii. The Administrator of the FAA may waive the 80% usage requirement in the event of a highly unusual and unpredictable condition which is beyond the control of the carrier and which affects carrier operations for a period of five consecutive days or more.

b. Each carrier holding an Operating Authorization must forward in writing to the FAA Slot Administration Office a list of all Operating Authorizations held by the carrier along with a listing of the Operating Authorizations and:

i. The dates within each applicable season it intends to commence and complete operations.

A. For each winter scheduling season, the report must be received by the FAA no later than August 15 during the preceding summer.

B. For each summer scheduling season, the report must be received by the FAA no later than January 15 during the preceding winter.

ii. The completed operations for each day of the applicable scheduling season:

A. No later than September 1 for the summer scheduling season.

B. No later than January 15 for the winter scheduling season.

iii. The completed operations for each day of the scheduling season within 30 days after the last day of the applicable scheduling season.

10. In the event that a carrier surrenders to the FAA any Operating Authorization assigned to it under this Order or if there are unallocated Operating Authorizations, the FAA will determine whether the Operating Authorizations should be reallocated. The FAA may temporarily allocate an Operating Authorization at its discretion. Such temporary allocations will not be entitled to historical status for the next applicable scheduling season under paragraph 9.

11. If the FAA determines that an involuntary reduction in the number of allocated Operating Authorizations is required to meet operational needs, such as reduced airport capacity, the FAA will conduct a weighted lottery to withdraw Operating Authorizations to meet a reduced hourly or half-hourly limit for scheduled operations. The FAA will provide at least 45 days' notice unless otherwise required by operational needs. Any Operating Authorization that is withdrawn or temporarily suspended will, if reallocated, be reallocated to the carrier from which it was taken, provided that the carrier continues to operate scheduled service at JFK.

12. The FAA will enforce this Order through an enforcement action seeking a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. 46301(a). A carrier that is not a small business as defined in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632, will be liable for a civil penalty of up to $25,000 for every day that it violates the limits set forth in this Order. A carrier that is a small business as defined in the Small Business Act will be liable for a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for every day that it violates the limits set forth in this Order. The FAA also could file a civil action in U.S. District Court, under 49 U.S.C. 46106, 46107, seeking to enjoin any air carrier from violating the terms of this Order.

13. The FAA may modify or withdraw any provision in this Order on its own or on application by any carrier for good cause shown.

Background

The Unverified List, found in Supplement No. 6 to Part 744 to the EAR, contains the names and addresses of foreign persons who are or have been parties to a transaction, as that term is described in § 748.5 of the EAR, involving the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of items subject to the EAR, and whose bona fides BIS has been unable to verify through an end-use check. BIS may add persons to the UVL when BIS or federal officials acting on BIS's behalf have been unable to verify a foreign person's bona fides (i.e., legitimacy and reliability relating to the end use and end user of items subject to the EAR) because an end-use check, such as a pre-license check (PLC) or a post-shipment verification (PSV), cannot be completed satisfactorily for such purposes for reasons outside the U.S. Government's control.

End-use checks cannot be completed for a number of reasons, including reasons unrelated to the cooperation of the foreign party subject to the end-use check. For example, BIS sometimes initiates end-use checks and cannot find a foreign party at the address indicated on export documents, and cannot locate the party by telephone or email. Additionally, BIS sometimes is unable to conduct end-use checks when host government agencies do not respond to requests to conduct end-use checks, are prevented from scheduling such checks by a party to the transaction other than the foreign party that is the proposed subject of the end-use check or refuse to schedule them in a timely manner. Under these circumstances, although BIS has an interest in informing the public of its inability to verify the foreign party's bona fides, there may not be sufficient information to add the foreign persons at issue to the Entity List under § 744.11 of the EAR (Criteria for revising the Entity List). In such circumstances, BIS may add the foreign persons to the UVL.

Furthermore, BIS sometimes conducts end-use checks but cannot verify the bona fides of a foreign party. For example, BIS may be unable to verify bona fides if during the conduct of an end-use check a recipient of items subject to the EAR is unable to produce those items for visual inspection or provide sufficient documentation or other evidence to confirm the disposition of those items. The inability of foreign persons subject to end-use checks to demonstrate their bona fides raises concerns about the suitability of such persons as participants in future exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of items subject to the EAR and indicates a risk that such items may be diverted to prohibited end uses and/or end users. However, BIS may not have sufficient information to establish that such persons are involved in activities described in part 744 of the EAR, preventing the placement of the persons on the Entity List. In such circumstances, the foreign persons may be added to the Unverified List.

As provided in § 740.2(a)(17) of the EAR, the use of license exceptions for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) involving a party or parties to the transaction who are listed on the UVL is suspended. Additionally, under § 744.15(b) of the EAR, there is a requirement for exporters, reexporters, and transferors to obtain (and keep a record of) a UVL statement from a party or parties to the transaction who are listed on the UVL before proceeding with exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to such persons, when the exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) are not subject to a license requirement.

Requests for removal of a UVL entry must be made in accordance with § 744.15(d) of the EAR. Decisions regarding the removal or modification of UVL listings will be made by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, based on a demonstration by the listed person of its bona fides.

This rule adds thirty-six (36) persons to the UVL by amending Supplement No. 6 to Part 744 of the EAR to include their names and addresses. BIS adds these persons in accordance with the criteria for revising the UVL set forth in § 744.15(c) of the EAR. The new entries consist of one person located in Finland, twenty-five persons located in Hong Kong, one person located in India, one person located in Latvia, one person located in Singapore, one person located in Switzerland, and six persons located in the United Arab Emirates. Each listing is grouped within the UVL by country with each party's name(s) listed in alphabetical order under the country; each entry includes available alias(es) and address(es), as well as the Federal Register citation and the date the person was added to the UVL. The UVL is included in the Consolidated Screening List, available at www.export.gov.

This rule also adds a new address for a current UVL person in Hong Kong: Hong Kong U.Star Electronics Technology Co., Ltd. BIS has determined that this person changed its registered address from that originally included in the UVL entry.

Shipments (1) removed from license exception eligibility or that are now subject to requirements in § 744.15 of the EAR as a result of this regulatory action, (2) eligible for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license before this regulatory action, and (3) on dock for loading, on lighter, laden aboard an exporting carrier, or en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, on June 21, 2016, pursuant to actual orders, may proceed to that UVL-listed person under the previous license exception eligibility or without a license, so long as the items have been exported from the United States, reexported or transferred (in-country) before July 21, 2016. Any such items not actually exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) before midnight on July 21, 2016 are subject to the requirements in § 744.15 of the EAR in accordance with this regulation.

Since August 21, 2001, the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, has been in lapse. However, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013), and as extended by the Notice of August 7, 2015 (80 FR 48233 (Aug. 11, 2015) has continued the EAR in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222 as amended by Executive Order 13637.

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

2. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment and a delay in effective date are inapplicable to this rule, which is adding 36 persons and updating the address of 1 Hong Kong listed company on the UVL, because this regulation involves military or foreign affairs under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). BIS implements this rule to protect U.S. national security or foreign policy interests by requiring a license or, where no license is required, a UVL statement for items being exported, reexported, or transferred (in country) involving a party or parties to the transaction who are listed on the UVL. If this rule were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a delay in effective date, the entities being added to the UVL by this action and the entity operating at previously unlisted addresses would continue to be able to receive items without additional oversight by BIS and to conduct activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. In addition, publishing a proposed rule would give these parties notice of the U.S. Government's intention to place them on the UVL or amend their current entry on the UVL, and create an incentive for these persons to accelerate receiving items subject to the EAR in furtherance of activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, and/or take steps to set up additional aliases, change addresses, and other measures to try to limit the impact of the listing once a final rule was published.

Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by 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 and none has been prepared.

3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor is subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under the following control numbers: 0694-0088, 0694-0122, 0694-0134, and 0694-0137.

This rule slightly increases public burden in a collection of information approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, which authorizes, among other things, export license applications. The removal of license exceptions for listed persons on the Unverified List will result in increased license applications being submitted to BIS by exporters. Total burden hours associated with the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB control number 0694-0088 are expected to increase minimally, as the suspension of license exceptions will only affect transactions involving persons listed on the Unverified List and not all export transactions. Because license exceptions are restricted from use, this rule decreases public burden in a collection of information approved by OMB under control number 0694-0137 minimally, as this will only affect specific individual listed persons. The increased burden under 0694-0088 is reciprocal to the decrease of burden under 0694-0137, and results in no change of burden to the public. This rule also increases public burden in a collection of information under OMB control number 0694-0122, as a result of the exchange of UVL statements between private parties, and under OMB control number 0694-0134, as a result of appeals from persons listed on the UVL for removal of their listing. The total increase in burden hours associated with both of these collections is expected to be minimal, as they involve a limited number of persons listed on the UVL.

4. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

Background

The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to part 744) identifies entities and other persons reasonably believed to be involved, or to pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved, in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The EAR imposes additional license requirements on, and limits the availability of most license exceptions for, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to those listed. The “license review policy” for each listed entity or other person is identified in the License Review Policy column on the Entity List and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the Federal Register notice adding entities or other persons to the Entity List. BIS places entities and other persons on the Entity List pursuant to sections of part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and part 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls) of the EAR.

The ERC, composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.

This rule implements the decision of the ERC to add twenty-eight persons under thirty-one entries to the Entity List. These twenty-eight persons are being added on the basis of § 744.11 (License requirements that apply to entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States) of the EAR. The thirty-one entries added to the entity list consist of one entry in Afghanistan, one entry in Austria, two entries in China, six entries in Hong Kong, four entries in Iran, eight entries in Israel, one entry in Panama, four entries in Taiwan, and four entries in the U.A.E. There are thirty-one entries for the twenty-eight persons because three persons are listed in multiple locations, resulting in three additional entries.

The ERC reviewed § 744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) in making the determination to add these twenty-eight persons under thirty-one entries to the Entity List. Under that paragraph, persons and those acting on behalf of such persons may be added to the Entity List if there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that they have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in, activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. Paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of § 744.11 include an illustrative list of activities that could be contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.

Pursuant to § 744.11(b)(2) of the EAR, the ERC determined that twenty persons, located in the destinations of Afghanistan, Austria, China, Hong Kong, Iran, Taiwan, and the U.A.E., be added to the Entity List for actions contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The ERC determined that there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that Mehrdad Rueen Foomanie, Mehrdad Moeinansari and related parties including Enrich Ever Technologies Co., Ltd.; Foang Tech Inc.; Global Merchant General Trading L.L.C.; Gulf Gate Sea Cargo L.L.C.; Gulf Gate Sea Cargo LLC; Gulf Gate Shipping Co. L.L.C.; Gulf Gate Spedition GmbH; Hivocal Technology Company, Ltd.; Infinity Wise Technology Limited; Kuang-Su Corporation; Morvarid Shargh Co. Ltd.; Morvarid Sanat Co. LTD; Ninehead Bird Semiconductor; Panda Semiconductor; Pinky Trading Co., Ltd.; Sazgan Ertebat Co. Ltd.; Well Smart (HK) Technology; and Wise Smart (HK) Electronics Limited, have been involved in actions contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. Specifically, Foomanie and Moeinansari conducted nearly 600 transactions with 63 different U.S. companies in which they obtained or attempted to obtain U.S.-origin parts and components without notifying the U.S. companies that the parts would be shipped to Iran and without getting the required U.S. Government license to ship the parts and components to Iran. Foomanie and Moeinansari, with the assistance of companies located in Iran, arranged to have the items unlawfully shipped to Iran through companies located in Taiwan, Hong Kong and China. Additionally, Moeinansari attempted to transship and transshipped cargo originating in the United States using his company, Gulf Gate Sea Cargo LLC, located in Dubai, U.A.E.

In addition, pursuant to § 744.11(b) of the EAR, the ERC determined that eight persons, located in the destinations of Israel and Panama, be added to the Entity List for actions contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The ERC determined there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that Eliyahu Cohen and the following related persons: A. Leib Ltd.; AVS (Armored Vehicle Spares); M&P Trading Inc.; P.AD Ltd.; QPS Ltd.; RSP Ltd.; and Wheels Incorporated have been involved in activities that are contrary to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. Specifically, these persons procured and/or retransferred U.S.-origin items to Israel and Iran without having first obtained the required authorization or license from the U.S. Government.

Pursuant to § 744.11(b) of the EAR, the ERC determined that the conduct of these twenty-eight persons raises sufficient concern that prior review of exports, reexports or transfers (in-country) of items subject to the EAR involving these persons, and the possible imposition of license conditions or license denials on shipments to the persons, will enhance BIS's ability to prevent violations of the EAR. Therefore, these twenty-eight persons are being added to the Entity List under thirty-one entries.

For the twenty-eight persons under thirty-one entries added to the Entity List, BIS imposes a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR and a license review policy of presumption of denial. The license requirements apply to any transaction in which items are to be exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to any of the persons or in which such persons act as purchaser, intermediate consignee, ultimate consignee, or end-user. In addition, no license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to the persons being added to the Entity List in this rule. The acronym “a.k.a.” (also known as) is used in entries on the Entity List to help exporters, reexporters and transferors better identify listed persons on the Entity List.

This final rule adds the following twenty-eight persons under thirty-one entries to the Entity List:

This rule implements the decisions of the ERC to remove the following three entries from the Entity List based on removal requests received by the BIS: Nurminen Oy, located in Finland; Rayyan Air Pvt Ltd., located in Pakistan; and AAG Makina, located in Turkey.

The ERC's decisions to remove Nurminen Oy, Rayyan Air Pvt Ltd and AAG Makina from the Entity List were based on information received by the BIS pursuant to § 744.16 of the Export Administration Regulation and further review conducted by the ERC.

In accordance with § 744.16(c), the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration has sent written notification informing these three persons of the ERC's decisions to remove them from the Entity List.

This final rule implements the decisions to remove the following three entities located in Finland, Pakistan and Turkey from the Entity List:

Note that while Nurminen Oy is being removed, Olkebor Oy is being retained on the Entity List in this final rule.

The removal of the three persons referenced above, which was approved by the ERC, eliminates the existing license requirements in Supplement No. 4 to part 744 for exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) to these entities. However, the removal of these three persons from the Entity List does not relieve persons of other obligations under part 744 of the EAR or under other parts of the EAR. Neither the removal of an entity from the Entity List nor the removal of Entity List-based license requirements relieves persons of their obligations under General Prohibition 5 in § 736.2(b)(5) of the EAR which provides that, “you may not, without a license, knowingly export or reexport any item subject to the EAR to an end-user or end-use that is prohibited by part 744 of the EAR.” Additionally, these removals do not relieve persons of their obligation to apply for export, reexport or in-country transfer licenses required by other provisions of the EAR. BIS strongly urges the use of Supplement No. 3 to part 732 of the EAR, “BIS's `Know Your Customer' Guidance and Red Flags,” when persons are involved in transactions that are subject to the EAR.

Shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of export or reexport, on June 21, 2016, pursuant to actual orders for export or reexport to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR).

Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222, as amended by Executive Order 13637.

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications and carries a burden estimate of 43.8 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule. You may send comments regarding the collection of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to [email protected], or by fax to (202) 395-7285.

3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

4. For the twenty-eight persons under thirty-one entries added to the Entity List in this final rule, the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment and a delay in effective date are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. (See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).) BIS implements this rule to protect U.S. national security or foreign policy interests by preventing items from being exported, reexported, or transferred (in country) to the persons being added to the Entity List. If this rule were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a delay in effective date, the entities being added to the Entity List by this action would continue to be able to receive items without a license and to conduct activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. In addition, publishing a proposed rule would give these parties notice of the U.S. Government's intention to place them on the Entity List and would create an incentive for these persons to either accelerate receiving items subject to the EAR to conduct activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, and/or to take steps to set up additional aliases, change addresses, and other measures to try to limit the impact of the listing on the Entity List once a final rule was published. Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by 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 and none has been prepared.

5. For the three entries removed from the Entity List in this final rule, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), BIS finds good cause to waive requirements that this rule be subject to notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest.

In determining whether to grant removal requests from the Entity List, a committee of U.S. Government agencies (the End-User Review Committee (ERC)) evaluates information about and commitments made by listed persons requesting removal from the Entity List, the nature and terms of which are set forth in 15 CFR part 744, Supplement No. 5, as noted in 15 CFR 744.16(b). The information, commitments, and criteria for this extensive review were all established through the notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment process (72 FR 31005 (June 5, 2007) (proposed rule), and 73 FR 49311 (August 21, 2008) (final rule)). These three removals have been made within the established regulatory framework of the Entity List. If the rule were to be delayed to allow for public comment, U.S. exporters may face unnecessary economic losses as they turn away potential sales to the other entities removed by this rule because the customer remained listed persons on the Entity List even after the ERC approved the removals pursuant to the rule published at 73 FR 49311 on August 21, 2008. By publishing without prior notice and comment, BIS allows the applicants to receive U.S. exports immediately since the applicants already have received approval by the ERC pursuant to 15 CFR part 744, Supplement No. 5, as noted in 15 CFR 744.16(b).

The removals from the Entity List granted by the ERC involve interagency deliberation and result from review of public and non-public sources, including sensitive law enforcement information and classified information, and the measurement of such information against the Entity List removal criteria. This information is extensively reviewed according to the criteria for evaluating removal requests from the Entity List, as set out in 15 CFR part 744, Supplement No. 5 and 15 CFR 744.16(b). For reasons of national security, BIS is not at liberty to provide to the public detailed information on which the ERC relied to make the decisions to remove these three entities. In addition, the information included in the removal request is information exchanged between the applicant and the ERC, which by law (section 12(c) of the Export Administration Act), BIS is restricted from sharing with the public. Moreover, removal requests from the Entity List contain confidential business information, which is necessary for the extensive review conducted by the U.S. Government in assessing such removal requests.

Section 553(d) of the APA generally provides that rules may not take effect earlier than thirty (30) days after they are published in the Federal Register. BIS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) because this rule is a substantive rule which relieves a restriction. This rule's removal of three persons under three entries from the Entity List removes a requirement (the Entity-List-based license requirement and limitation on use of license exceptions) on these three persons being removed from the Entity List. The rule does not impose a requirement on any other person for these three removals from the Entity List.

No other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required under the APA or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are not applicable. As a result, no final regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval, unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807) of the regulations.

Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1). Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2). Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and then a request for classification under the first procedure, the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. If the person submits a request to classify the device under this second procedure, FDA may decline to undertake the classification request if FDA identifies a legally marketed device that could provide a reasonable basis for review of substantial equivalence with the device or if FDA determines that the device submitted is not of “low-moderate risk” or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls to mitigate the risks cannot be developed.

In response to a request to classify a device under either procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA will classify the device by written order within 120 days. This classification will be the initial classification of the device.

On June 19, 2015, Advanced Surgical Concepts submitted a request for classification of the PneumoLiner device under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. The manufacturer recommended that the device be classified into class II (Ref. 1).

In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1). FDA classifies devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the request, FDA determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

Therefore, on April 7, 2016, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 884.4050.

Following the effective date of this final classification order, any firm submitting a premarket notification (510(k)) for a gynecologic laparoscopic power morcellation containment system will need to comply with the special controls named in this final order.

The device is assigned the generic name gynecologic laparoscopic power morcellation containment system and is identified as a prescription device consisting of an instrument port and tissue containment method that creates a working space allowing for direct visualization during a power morcellation procedure following a laparoscopic procedure for the excision of benign gynecologic tissue that is not suspected to contain malignancy.

FDA has identified the following risks to health associated with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks, in Table 1.

FDA believes that the special controls, in addition to the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.

A gynecologic laparoscopic power morcellation containment system is not safe for use except under the supervision of a practitioner licensed by law to direct the use of the device. As such, the device is a prescription device and must satisfy prescription labeling requirements (see 21 CFR 801.109, Prescription devices).

Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. Therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a premarket notification, prior to marketing the device, which contains information about the gynecologic laparoscopic power morcellation containment system they intend to market.

The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

The following reference is on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and is available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; it is also available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 884 is amended as follows:

Chapter 52 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (IRC) contains excise tax and related provisions pertaining to tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes. Section 5701 of the IRC (26 U.S.C. 5701) imposes various rates of tax on such products manufactured in, or imported into, the United States. Section 5704 of the IRC (26 U.S.C. 5704) provides for certain exemptions from those taxes. Sections 5712 and 5713 of the IRC (26 U.S.C. 5712 and 5713) provide that manufacturers and importers of tobacco products or processed tobacco and export warehouse proprietors must apply for and possess a permit in order to engage in such businesses. Section 5712 also allows for the promulgation of regulations prescribing minimum manufacturing and activity requirements for such permittees, and section 5713 also sets forth standards regarding the suspension and revocation of permits. Section 5754 of the IRC (26 U.S.C. 5754) sets forth restrictions on the importation of previously exported tobacco products. Section 5761 of the IRC (26 U.S.C. 5761) sets forth civil penalties for, among other things, selling, relanding, or receiving any tobacco products or cigarette papers or tubes that were labeled or shipped for exportation.

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers these statutory provisions pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2003, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01 (dated December 10, 2013, superseding Treasury Order 120-01 (Revised), “Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau,” dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of these laws.

Regulations implementing the Chapter 52 provisions are contained in chapter I of title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (27 CFR). Those regulations include: Part 40 (Manufacture of tobacco products, cigarette papers and tubes, and processed tobacco); part 41 (Importation of tobacco products, cigarette papers and tubes, and processed tobacco); and part 44 (Exportation of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes, without payment of tax, or with drawback of tax).

On June 27, 2013, TTB published in the Federal Register at 78 FR 38555, T.D. TTB-115 amending the regulations in 27 CFR parts 40, 41, and 44. The temporary rule was effective on August 26, 2013, and would have expired on August 26, 2016, if not finalized prior to that date. In the same issue of the Federal Register, TTB also requested public comments on the temporary rule via a notice of proposed rulemaking, Notice No. 137 (78 FR 38646). TTB received one comment in response to Notice No. 137 by the close of the comment period on August 26, 2013. That comment is discussed in more detail below.

TTB received one comment in response to Notice No. 137, submitted by a Washington, DC law firm on behalf of an individual who imports cigars.

The comment regards the amendment in the temporary rule, in which TTB inserted the words “United States” before the word “manufacturer” in 27 CFR 41.39, Determination of Sale Price of Large Cigars. Under 26 U.S.C. 5701(a)(2), the Federal excise tax on large cigars manufactured in or imported into the United States is a percentage of the “price for which sold” but not more than a maximum. Currently, the tax is 52.75 percent of the price for which sold but not more than 40.26 cents per cigar. The commenter objects to the “price for which sold” being the price for which the cigars are sold by the importer, and concludes by requesting that TTB not insert “United States” before the word “manufacturer” in § 41.39, Determination of Sale Price of Large Cigars, and, instead, adopt a regulation to authorize importers of large cigars to base their Federal excise tax calculations on the foreign manufacturer's sales price.

In the temporary rule, T.D. TTB-115, TTB did not propose to change its interpretation regarding the Federal excise tax determination of large cigars. Rather, the addition of “United States” before the word “manufacturer” in § 41.39 is a technical correction intended to bring § 41.39 more clearly into conformity with other regulatory provisions in parts 40 and 41 which already reflect the interpretation by TTB and TTB's predecessor agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), of the text of section 5701(a)(2), that is, that the Federal excise tax for large cigars is based on the sale price at which the cigars are sold by the importer or the United States manufacturer. This interpretation dates to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388), which changed the basis of taxation on large cigars, from the “wholesale price” (generally, the manufacturer's or importer's suggested delivered price at which the cigars are sold to retailers) to the “price for which sold.”

In T.D. ATF-307 (December 21, 1990; 55 FR 52742), ATF amended its regulations to reflect the new text of section 5701(a)(2). On March 19, 1991, ATF issued Industry Circular 91-3, which provided guidance concerning the implementation of the tax on large cigars and included specific guidance regarding the tax on imported large cigars. The Industry Circular explains how an importer determines the tax on large cigars when the release from customs custody (the taxable event) occurs before the sale of the cigars. In T.D. TTB-78 (June 22, 2009; 74 FR 29401), TTB clarified the definition of “sale price” in § 41.11 by adding the words “United States” before “manufacturer.” (That temporary rule was finalized by T.D. TTB-104 (June 21, 2012, 77 FR 37287).) However, when this change was made, TTB inadvertently failed to make a corresponding change to the operative regulation in § 41.39. Therefore in T.D. TTB-115, TTB made the necessary technical change by adding “United States” before the word “manufacturer” in § 41.39.

As stated above, the temporary rule did not introduce a substantive change to the TTB regulations regarding the application of the sale price but, rather, made a technical correction to bring § 41.39 more clearly into conformity with other TTB regulatory provisions and with the position stated in Industry Circular 91-3. Thus, the request of the commenter is beyond the scope of the rulemaking.

TTB adopts as a final rule, without change, the temporary regulatory amendments contained in T.D. TTB-115, effective 30 days from the publication of this document. As a result, TTB is permanently amending its regulations in 27 CFR parts 40, 41, and 44 pertaining to permits for importers of tobacco products and processed tobacco by extending the duration of new permits from three years to five years. In addition, TTB is permanently amending the definition of “Manufacturer of tobacco products” to reflect a recent statutory change, and is amending a reference to the sale price of large cigars to incorporate a clarification published in a prior TTB temporary rule that was finalized in 2012. Finally, this final rule makes permanent regulatory changes pertaining to importer permit requirements for tobacco products, and minimum manufacturing and marking requirements for tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes.

Please see T.D. TTB-115 for a detailed discussion of the temporary regulatory amendments finalized by this document, as well as a detailed discussion of the various statutory changes and court actions necessitating regulatory amendments, the earlier related temporary rules and notices of proposed rulemaking issued by ATF (T.D. ATF-421, December 22, 1999, 64 FR 71918; Notice No. 887, December 22, 1999, 64 FR 71927; T.D. ATF-422, December 22, 1999, 64 FR 71947; and Notice No. 888, December 22, 1999, 64 FR 71955), the comments received by ATF on its temporary rules, and other ATF and TTB regulatory documents related to this rulemaking.

On the Federal e-rulemaking portal, “Regulations.gov,” within Docket No. TTB-2013-0006, you may view copies of this final rule, the related temporary and proposed rules, the comment received in response to the proposed rule, and all other related final and temporary rules and notices of proposed rulemaking issued by ATF and TTB related to this matter. A direct link to that docket is posted on the TTB Web site at https://www.ttb.gov/tobacco/tobacco-rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 137. You may also reach that docket through the Regulations.gov search page at https://www.regulations.gov.

You also may view copies of those documents at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20220. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Contact TTB's information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202-453-2270 to schedule a viewing appointment or to request copies.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), we certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Any effects of this rulemaking on small businesses flow directly from the underlying statutes. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. These regulations also reduce the administrative burden on importers of tobacco products and processed tobacco by requiring that they renew their permits only every five years rather than every three years. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7805(f), TTB submitted the temporary regulations and notice of proposed rulemaking to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on the impact of the regulations on small businesses; TTB received no comment in reply.

Certain regulations issued pursuant to the IRC, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required.

The collections of information in the regulations contained in this final rule have been previously reviewed and approved by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3504(h)) and assigned control numbers 1513-0002, 1513-0068, 1513-0070, 1513-0078, 1513-0106, and 1513-0107. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. The temporary rule did not impose a new collection of information, and this final rule makes no changes to the temporary rule.

The list of collections of information in the regulations contained in the temporary rule inadvertently omitted control number 1513-0002, which authorizes the collection of information on TTB Form 5000.9, the Personnel Questionnaire. The changes made in the temporary rule increased the paperwork burden associated with the control number by requiring additional submissions of the form. TTB requested comment on the increased number of respondents and total annual burden hours in a document published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2015 (Comment Request No. 51, 80 FR 13072). Based on a comment on TTB Form 5000.9, TTB proposed revisions to the form in a document published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2016 (Comment Request No. 57, 81 FR 1679); comments on this notice were due on March 14, 2016.

TTB will submit the information collection requirements described in the notice to the Office of Management and Budget for approval. When OMB takes action on the changes, TTB will publish a document in the Federal Register.

Michael D. Hoover of the Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, drafted this document.

Accordingly, the temporary rule that amended 27 CFR, chapter I, parts 40, 41, and 44, and published as T.D. TTB-115 at 78 FR 38555 on June 27, 2013, is adopted as a final rule without change.

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

On December 27, 2015, the Bucksport Marina notified the Coast Guard that it will sponsor a series of drag boat races from noon to 7 p.m. on July 9, 2016 and July 10, 2016. In response, on April 6, 2016, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking titled Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Extravaganza, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; Bucksport, SC. There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this special local regulation. During the comment period that ended May 6, 2016, we received no comments.

Under good cause provisions in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), we are making this rule effective less than 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register. The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective starting July 9, 2016 because this special local regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of life and property during the Bucksport Summer Extravaganza and it would be contrary to public interest not to make this rule effective by July 9, 2016.

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the rule is to insure safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the two days of drag boat races.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published April 6, 2016. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

From July 9, 2016 through July 10, 2016, Bucksport Marina will host a series of drag boat races on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South Carolina during the Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Extravaganza. Approximately 75 powerboats are anticipated to participate in the races and approximately 35 spectator vessels are expected to attend the event. This rule establishes a special local regulation on certain waters on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South Carolina. The special local regulation will be enforced daily from noon until 7 p.m. on July 9, 2016 and July 10, 2016.

Except for those persons and vessels participating in the drag boat races, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within any of the race areas unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within any of the race areas may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race areas is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) Non-participant persons and vessels may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during the enforcement periods if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; (2) vessels not able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative may operate in the surrounding areas during the enforcement period; (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the special local regulation to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners; and (4) the safety zone will impact only a small designated area of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway for the 2 days of July 9, and 10, from noon to 7 p.m., and thus is limited in time and scope.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owner or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during the enforcement period. For the reasons discussed in Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction.

An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

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

I. Table of Abbreviations DHS Department of Homeland Security U.S.C. United States Code CFR Code of Federal Regulations FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NAD 83 North American Datum of 1983 § Section II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

On October 23, 2015, the Coast Guard was notified of a swimming and stand up paddling event from 7:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. on July 23, 2016 with a weather date on July 24, 2016 named the Misery Challenge. The participants will launch from Tucks Point in Manchester Bay, Manchester, MA and continue around Greater Misery Island returning to Tucks Point. In response, on March 2, 2016, the Coast Guard published an NPRM titled Safety Zone; Misery Challenge, Manchester Bay, Manchester, MA (81 FR 10820). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this event. During the comment period that ended April 1, 2016, we received no comments.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP Boston has determined that potential hazards associated with the event on July 23, 2016 will be a safety concern for the participants and support vessels. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of participants, vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published on March 2, 2016. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 7:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on July 23, 2016 with a weather date on July 24, 2016. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within specific geographic locations specified in the regulatory text on the navigable waters of Manchester Bay, Manchester, Massachusetts. Vessels not associated with the event shall maintain a distance of at least 100 yards from the participants. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of event participants, support vessels, and the maritime public before, during, and after the event scheduled from 7:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text appears at the end of this document.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

We expect the economic impact of this rule to be minimal. This regulation may have some impact on the public, but that potential impact will likely be minimal for several reasons. First, this safety zone will be in effect for only 5 and 1/2 hours in the morning when vessel traffic is expected to be light. Second, vessels may enter or pass through the safety zone during an enforcement period with the permission of the COTP or the designated representative. Finally, the Coast Guard will provide notification to the public through Broadcast Notice to Mariners well in advance of the event.

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

For all of the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section, this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting 5 and 1/2 hours that would prohibit entry within 100 yards of the participants and vessels in support of the event. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

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

Introduction

The Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) published a final rule in the Federal Register of May 19, 2014, (81 FR 31506) that added a new term, Eligible Minimum Fee Webcaster, to the definition section of 37 CFR 370.4. In doing so, the Judges intended to expand relaxed reporting requirements to certain noncommercial educational webcasters that previously had been excluded from such relaxed requirements. The Judges added those webcasters to the group and renamed the group to more precisely describe the members. The new term for the group is “Eligible Minimum Fee Webcaster.” The new definition includes all entities that qualified under the previous “Minimum Fee Broadcaster” definition and certain noncommercial educational webcasters.

The amended regulation inadvertently did not reference the new term “Eligible Minimum Fee Webcaster” in the relevant sections of part 370, namely, 37 CFR 370.4(d)(2)(vi) and (vii) and 370.4(d)(3)(i) and (ii). The amended regulation also should have removed the “Minimum Fee Broadcaster” definition, which is no longer necessary.

The Judges now make the necessary changes to clarify that the reporting requirements in Part 370 that applied to “Minimum Fee Broadcasters” now apply to the more inclusive group, “Eligible Minimum Fee Webcasters.”

In consideration of the foregoing, the Copyright Royalty Judges amend 37 CFR part 370 as follows:

A. Background

Changes to the rules of practice are necessary to accommodate the Judicial Officer Department's electronic filing system and establish rules relative to that system; for the Chief Administrative Law Judge to assign the presiding judge in cases governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551, et seq.; and to delete the automatic scheduling of a hearing upon receipt of a mailability appeal. Changes to the authority citations are necessary to identify the authority for adjudicating each type of case, as well as the Chief Administrative Law Judge's authority for adjudicating them under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The authority citation is revised to identify the authority for adjudicating this type of case, as well as the Chief Administrative Law Judge's authority for adjudicating it under the Administrative Procedure Act.

In § 952.4, the heading is revised to Office business hours; electronic filing, and the text is amended as follows:

• The existing paragraph is designated paragraph (a), and is amended to clarify the office hours.

• Paragraph (b) is added to identify the Internet address for the electronic filing system.

In § 952.9, the heading is revised to Filing; docketing and serving documents, and the text is amended as follows:

• Paragraph (a) is amended to indicate that electronic filing is required and when documents submitted by parties are considered received.

• Paragraph (b) is amended to include electronic filing and when service of documents on the opposing party is required.

• Paragraphs (c) and (d) are deleted.

The authority citation is revised to identify the authority for adjudicating this type of case, as well as the Chief Administrative Law Judge's authority for adjudicating it under the Administrative Procedure Act.

In § 953.2, concerning initiation, the text is amended to identify the Internet address for the electronic filing system. In § 953.4, the heading is revised to Filing, docketing and serving documents; service of notice; reply; motion for summary judgment. The text of § 953.4 is amended to indicate that electronic filing is required, delete the automatic scheduling of a hearing, indicate when documents submitted by the parties are considered received, provide for service on appellant by the Postal Service, and indicate when service of documents on the opposing party is required for purposes of the electronic filing system.

In § 953.10, concerning presiding officers, the text is amended to have the Chief Administrative Law Judge assign cases.

The authority citation is revised to identify the authority for adjudicating this type of case, as well as the Chief Administrative Law Judge's authority for adjudicating it under the Administrative Procedure Act.

In § 954.4, the heading is revised to Office business hours; electronic filing and the text is amended as follows:

• The existing paragraph is designated paragraph (a) and is amended to clarify the office hours.

• Paragraph (b) is added to identify the Internet address for the electronic filing system.

In § 954.8, concerning pleading, paragraph (a) is amended to indicate electronic filing is required, when documents submitted by parties are considered received, and to indicate when service of documents on the opposing party is required for purposes of the electronic filing system.

In § 955.1, concerning jurisdiction, procedure, and service of documents in proceedings before the Board, paragraph (b)(1) is amended to update the Internet address for the electronic filing system.

The authority citation is revised to identify the Chief Administrative Law Judge's authority for adjudicating this type of case under the Administrative Procedure Act.

In § 958.2, concerning definitions, paragraph (g) is amended to have the Chief Administrative Law Judge assign cases.

In § 958.19, concerning form and filing of documents, paragraph (b) is amended to indicate electronic filing is required, identify the Internet address for the electronic filing system, and indicate when documents submitted by the parties are considered received.

In § 958.20, the heading is revised to Service, and the text is revised to indicate when service of documents on the opposing party is required for purposes of the electronic filing system.

The authority citation is revised to identify the authority for adjudicating this type of case, as well as the Chief Administrative Law Judge's authority for adjudicating it under the Administrative Procedure Act.

In § 959.3, the heading is revised to Office address and business hours; electronic filing. The text is revised to clarify the office hours and new paragraph (b) is added to identify the Internet address for the electronic filing system.

In § 959.9, concerning filing documents for the record, the following paragraphs are amended:

• Paragraph (a) is amended to require electronic filing and indicate when service of documents on the opposing party is required for purposes of the electronic filing system.

• Paragraph (b) is deleted.

• Paragraph (c) is redesignated as paragraph (b) and revised to include when documents submitted by the parties are considered received.

The authority citation is revised to identify the Chief Administrative Law Judge's authority for adjudicating this case type under the Administrative Procedure Act.

In § 962.2, concerning definitions, paragraph (i) is amended to have the Chief Administrative Law Judge assign cases.

In § 962.22, concerning form and filing of documents:

• Paragraph (a) is amended to require electronic filing and identify the Internet address for the electronic filing system.

• Paragraph (b) is amended to indicate when documents submitted by the parties are considered received.

In § 962.23, the heading is revised to Service, and the text is revised to indicate when service of documents on the opposing party is required for purposes of the electronic filing system.

In § 963.3, the heading is revised to Petition; notice of hearing; answer; filing of documents; summary judgment, and the text is revised as follows:

• The last sentence of paragraph (a) is amended to identify the Internet address for the electronic filing system.

• Paragraph (d) is amended to indicate that electronic filing is required, when documents submitted by parties are considered received, and when service of documents on the opposing party is required for purposes of the electronic filing system.

The authority citation is revised to identify the Chief Administrative Law Judge's authority for adjudicating this type of case under the Administrative Procedure Act.

In § 964.3, the heading is revised to Customer petitions, notice of hearing; answer; summary judgment; filing and service, and the text is revised as follows:

• Paragraph (a) is amended to indicate that electronic filing is required and identify the Internet address for the electronic filing system

• Paragraph (e), Filing and service, is added to indicate that electronic filing is required, when documents submitted by parties are considered received, and when service of documents on the opposing party is required for purposes of the electronic filing system.

In § 964.7, concerning presiding officers, the text is amended to have the Chief Administrative Law Judge assign cases.

In § 965.5, concerning initial submissions by parties, the text is revised to indicate that electronic filing is required, and to identify the Internet address for the electronic filing system.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Postal Service amends 39 CFR parts 952, 953, 954, 955, 958, 959, 962, 963, 964, and 965 as follows:

Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.110. The regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state are described in § 648.102.

The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan, as published in the Federal Register on December 17, 1993 (58 FR 65936), provided a mechanism for transferring summer flounder commercial quota from one state to another. Two or more states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence of the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator, can transfer or combine summer flounder commercial quota under § 648.102(c)(2). The Regional Administrator is required to consider the criteria in § 648.102(c)(2)(i)(A) through (C) in the evaluation of requests for quota transfers or combinations.

North Carolina is transferring 3,732 lb (1,693 kg) of summer flounder commercial quota to Virginia. This transfer was requested by North Carolina to repay landings by a North Carolina-permitted vessel that landed in Virginia under a safe harbor agreement.

The revised summer flounder quotas for calendar year 2016 are now: Virginia, 1,759,561 lb (798,123 kg); and North Carolina, 2,143,714 lb (972,372 kg) based on the initial quotas published in the 2016-2018 Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Specifications and previous 2016 quota transfers as referenced in Table 1.