Federal Register Vol. 81, No.135,

In a final rule 1 published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2012 (77 FR 42621-42625, Docket No. APHIS-2009-0100), and effective on August 20, 2012, we amended the regulations in 7 CFR 319.56-46 to allow for irradiation treatment of mangoes from India upon arrival in the mainland United States rather than just at the point of origin.

In a technical amendment 2 published in the Federal Register on September 21, 2012 (77 FR 58470-58471, Docket No. APHIS-2009-0100), we amended paragraph (c) of § 319.56-46, which contains inspection requirements for mangoes from India, to allow mangoes intended for irradiation treatment within the United States to be inspected by the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of India prior to shipment to the United States, and subsequently to be inspected by an inspector upon arrival at the port of entry in the United States. Prior to that technical amendment, paragraph (c) had required a joint preclearance inspection in India for all mangoes intended for export to the United States.

In that technical amendment, however, we neglected to also amend paragraphs (d) and (e)(2) of § 319.56-46, which together required consignments of mangoes to be inspected during preclearance activities and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration that the mangoes were inspected during preclearance activities and found free of Cytosphaera mangiferae, Macrophoma mangiferae, and Xanthomonas campestri pv. mangiferaeindicae.

Because we did not amend these requirements to remove references to preclearance activities, there has continued to be confusion among stakeholders regarding whether preclearance inspections are required for mangoes from India intended for irradiation in the United States. As noted in the previous technical amendment, however, we consider preclearance inspections, which are jointly conducted by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the NPPO of India, to be necessary only when irradiation will take place in India. If the mangoes will be irradiated in the United States, we require the mangoes to be inspected in the United States prior to this treatment. Accordingly, it is more useful and cost effective for the NPPO to initially inspect the mangoes in India, and for us to subsequently inspect the mangoes at the port of entry into the United States. As a result, we are amending paragraphs (d) and (e)(2) of § 319.56-46 to remove their references to preclearance activities.

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected airplanes.

In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

On November 3, 2015, American Airlines applied for a supplemental type certificate for installation of TSO-C39c-approved B/E Aerospace Super Diamond model oblique business-class passenger seats in Boeing Model 777-200 series airplanes. The Model 777-200 airplane, approved under type certificate no. T00001SE, is a transport-category, twin-engine jet airplane with a maximum capacity of 440 passengers and a maximum takeoff weight of 535,000 lbs.

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, American Airlines must show that the Boeing Model 777-200 series airplane, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. T00001SE, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections of the applicable part that are not relevant to these special conditions.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Boeing Model 777-200 series airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Boeing Model 777-200 series airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

The Boeing Model 777-200 series airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: Single-occupant oblique (side-facing) seats with inflatable lapbelts.

Amendment 25-15 to part 25, dated October 24, 1967, introduced the subject of side-facing seats, and a requirement that each occupant in a side-facing seat must be protected from head injury by a safety belt and a cushioned rest that will support the arms, shoulders, head, and spine.

Subsequently, Amendment 25-20, dated April 23, 1969, clarified the definition of side-facing seats to require that each occupant of a seat that is positioned at more than an 18-degree angle to the vertical plane containing the airplane centerline must be protected from head injury by a safety belt and an energy-absorbing rest that supports the arms, shoulders, head, and spine; or by a safety belt and shoulder harness that prevents the head from contacting injurious objects. The FAA concluded that a maximum 18-degree angle would provide an adequate level of safety based on tests that were performed at the time, and thus adopted that standard.

Amendment 25-64, dated June 16, 1988, revised the emergency-landing conditions that must be considered in the design of the airplane. It revised the static-load conditions in § 25.561 and added a new § 25.562, requiring dynamic testing for all seats approved for occupancy during takeoff and landing. The intent was to provide an improved level of safety for occupants on transport-category airplanes. Because most seating on transport-category airplanes is forward-facing, the pass/fail criteria developed in Amendment 25-64 focused primarily on forward-facing seats. Therefore, the testing specified in the rule did not provide a complete measure of occupant injury in seats that are not forward-facing. However, § 25.785 does require that occupants of all seats that are occupied during taxi, takeoff, and landing not suffer serious injury as a result of the inertia forces specified in §§ 25.561 and 25.562.

To address recent research findings and accommodate commercial demand, the FAA developed a methodology to address all fully side-facing seats (i.e., seats oriented in the airplane with the occupant facing 90 degrees to the direction of airplane travel) and has documented those requirements in a set of proposed new special conditions. The FAA issued policy statement PS-ANM-25-03-R1 on November 12, 2012, titled, “Technical Criteria for Approving Side-Facing Seats,” which conveys the injury criteria to be used in the special conditions. Some of those criteria are applicable to oblique seats but others are not, because the motion of an occupant in an oblique seat is different from the motion of an occupant in a fully side-facing seat during emergency landing conditions.

For shallower installation angles, the FAA has granted equivalent level of safety (ELOS) findings for oblique-seat installations on the premise that an occupant's kinematics in an oblique seat during a forward impact would result in the body aligning with the impact direction. We predicted that the occupant response would be similar to an occupant of a forward-facing seat, and would produce a level of safety equivalent to that of a forward-facing seat. These ELOS findings were subject to many conditions that reflected the injury-evaluation criteria and mitigation strategies available at the time of issuance of the ELOS. However, review of dynamic test results for many of these oblique seat installations raised concerns that the premise was not correct. Potential injury mechanisms exist that are unique to oblique seats and are not mitigated by the ELOS self-alignment approach even if the occupant appears to respond similarly to a forward-facing seat.

These seats will be installed at a maximum angle of 30 degrees to the aircraft centerline and will include an inflatable lapbelt restraint system for occupant restraint and injury protection.

The airbag in the inflatable lapbelt is designed to limit occupant forward excursion in the event of an emergency landing condition. This reduces the potential for head injury, thereby reducing the Head Injury Criteria (HIC) measurement. The use of an inflatable airbag in this fashion is novel for commercial aviation.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Boeing Model 777-200 series airplane. Should American Airlines apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on type certificate no. T00001SE, to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model series of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public-comment process with no substantive comments received. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Boeing Model 777-200 series airplanes modified by American Airlines.

In addition to the requirements of § 25.562:

Compliance with § 25.562(c)(5) is required, except that, if the anthropomorphic test device (ATD) has no apparent contact with the seat/structure but has contact with an airbag, a HIC unlimited score in excess of 1000 is acceptable, provided the HIC15 score (calculated in accordance with 49 CFR 571.208) for that contact is less than 700.

If a seat is installed aft of structure (e.g. interior wall or furnishings) that does not provide a homogenous contact surface for the expected range of occupants and yaw angles, then additional analysis and/or tests may be required to demonstrate that the injury criteria are met for the area which an occupant could contact. For example, if an airbag device is present, different yaw angles could result in different airbag-device performance, and additional analysis or separate tests may be necessary to evaluate performance.

The seating system must protect the occupant from experiencing serious neck injury. If an airbag device is present, the assessment of neck injury must be conducted with the airbag device activated, unless there is reason to also consider that the neck-injury potential would be higher for impacts below the airbag-device deployment threshold.

a. The Nij (calculated in accordance with 49 CFR 571.208) must be below 1.0, where Nij =Fz/Fzc + My/Myc, and Nij critical values are:

b. In addition, peak upper-neck Fz must be below 937 lb in tension and 899 lb in compression.

c. Rotation of the head about its vertical axis, relative to the torso, is limited to 105 degrees in either direction from forward-facing.

d. The neck must not impact any surface that would produce concentrated loading on the neck.

a. The lumbar spine tension (Fz) cannot exceed 1200 lb.

b. Significant concentrated loading on the occupant's spine, in the area between the pelvis and shoulders during impact, including rebound, is not acceptable. During this type of contact, the interval for any rearward (X direction) acceleration exceeding 20g must be less than 3 milliseconds as measured by the thoracic instrumentation specified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart E, filtered in accordance with SAE International (SAE) Recommended Practice J211/1, “Instrumentation for Impact Test—Part 1—Electronic Instrumentation.”

c. The occupant must not interact with the armrest or other seat components in any manner significantly different than would be expected for a forward-facing seat installation.

Any part of the load-bearing portion of the bottom of the ATD pelvis must not translate beyond the edges of the seat bottom seat-cushion supporting structure.

Axial rotation of the upper leg (about the z-axis of the femur per SAE Recommended Practice J211/1) must be limited to 35 degrees from the nominal seated position. Evaluation during rebound does not need to be considered.

Longitudinal tests conducted to measure the injury criteria above must be performed with the FAA Hybrid III ATD, as described in SAE 1999-01-1609, “A Lumbar Spine Modification to the Hybrid III ATD for Aircraft Seat Tests,” V. Gowdy, et al. (1999). The tests must be conducted with an undeformed floor, at the most-critical yaw cases for injury, and with all lateral structural supports (e.g., armrests or walls) installed.

Note: In addition to these special conditions, the inflatable lapbelts must meet the criteria of special conditions no. 25-187A-SC, titled, “Boeing Model 777 Series Airplanes; Seats with Inflatable Lapbelts.”

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 amends Class E airspace at De Quincy Industrial Airpark, De Quincy, LA; Homer Municipal Airport, Homer, LA; Minden Airport, Minden, LA; and Slidell, Airport, Slidell, LA.

On April 13, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (81 FR 21774), Docket No. FAA-2016-4429, to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at De Quincy Industrial Airpark, De Quincy, LA; Homer Municipal Airport, Homer, LA; Minden Airport, Minden, LA; and Slidell, Airport, Slidell, LA. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. Subsequent to publication, the FAA found that Minden-Webster Airport had been changed to Minden Airport and is noted as such in this rule.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation 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 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.5-mile radius of De Quincy Industrial Airpark, De Quincy, LA; within a 6.5-mile radius of Minden Airport, Minden, LA; and within a 6.5-mile radius of Slidell Airport, Slidell, LA, with segments extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 9.2 miles north, and 9 miles south of the airport. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of NDBs, cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of RNAV procedures at the above airports. The Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of Homer Municipal Airport, Homer, LA, is being removed as controlled airspace is no longer needed. Additionally, the name of Minden Airport (formerly Minden-Webster Airport) and the geographic coordinates at De Quincy Industrial Airpark, Minden Airport, and Slidell Airport are being adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. All modifications to the Class E airspace are in accordance with airspace requirements specified in FAA Joint Order 7400.2K, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airports.

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 5-6.5.a. 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:

In the Federal Register of February 12, 2016 (81 FR 7445), FDA published a final rule entitled “Removal of Review and Reclassification Procedures for Biological Products Licensed Prior to July 1, 1972” (February 2016 final rule). In the February 2016 final rule, FDA, in part, removed § 601.25 (21 CFR 601.25), which prescribed procedures for FDA's review of biological products licensed before July 1, 1972.

Under § 14.1(a)(2) (21 CFR 14.1(a)(2)), specific provisions are provided for a matter that is subject to a hearing before an advisory committee. Under § 20.100(c) (21 CFR 20.100(c)), in addition to the provisions of 21 CFR part 20, rules on the availability of specific categories of FDA records are established by regulations under Chapter I of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Sections 14.1(a)(2)(v) and 20.100(c)(22) include a reference to § 601.25. In the February 2016 final rule, FDA inadvertently did not remove these sections (§§ 14.1(a)(2)(v) and 20.100(c)(22)) that referenced § 601.25. Accordingly, FDA is removing and reserving §§ 14.1(a)(2)(v) and 20.100(c)(22).

Publication of this document constitutes final action under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). FDA has determined that notice and public comment is unnecessary because the amendments to the regulations are nonsubstantive.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Public Health Service Act, and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR parts 14 and 20 are amended as follows:

Background

These final regulations amend Procedure and Administration Regulations (26 CFR part 301) under section 7602 of the Internal Revenue Code. These final regulations clarify that persons described in section 6103(n) and Treas. Reg. § 301.6103(n)-1(a) with whom the IRS or Chief Counsel contracts for services—such as outside economists, engineers, consultants, or attorneys—may receive books, papers, records, or other data summoned by the IRS and, in the presence and under the guidance of an IRS officer or employee, participate fully in the interview of a person who the IRS has summoned as a witness to provide testimony under oath. On June 18, 2014, temporary regulations (TD 9669) regarding participation in a summons interview of a person described in section 6103(n) were published in the Federal Register (79 FR 34625). A notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-121542-14) cross-referencing the temporary regulations was published in the Federal Register (79 FR 34668) the same day.

No public hearing was requested or held. The Internal Revenue Service received two comments to the proposed regulations. One comment recommends that the regulations be revised to remove the provision permitting a contractor to question a witness under oath or to ask a witness's representative to clarify an objection or assertion of privilege. The other comment recommends that the proposed and temporary regulations be withdrawn. After consideration of both comments, the sole amendment to the proposed regulations is to replace the word “examine” with “review” in the phrase describing what contractors may do with books, papers, records, or other data received by the IRS under a summons. This revision clarifies that the regulations do not permit contractors to direct examinations (that is, audits) of a taxpayer's return. Accordingly, the proposed regulations are adopted as amended by this Treasury decision, and the corresponding temporary regulations are removed.

One comment raises concerns about how the regulations would operate in practice. This comment states that turning the questioning of a witness over to a third-party contractor may cause the IRS officer or employee in charge of the interview to lose control of the interview. The comment further states that having multiple persons “on the record”—an IRS officer or employee, a contractor, a witness, and a representative of the witness—may lead to a cluttered, incomprehensible transcript of the interview. To address these concerns, the comment suggests that instead of having the contractor question the witness directly, the IRS officer or employee should announce to the court reporter that he or she needs a moment to confer with the contractor, and after consultation ask to go back on the record to resume questioning.

These concerns are unfounded. When the IRS hires a contractor to assist the IRS in reviewing books and records, analyzing data, or receiving sworn testimony from a summoned witness, the IRS determines what information will be requested via a summons and who the summons will request to testify. An IRS officer or employee is present during the interview and remains in charge of the interview. A contractor asking questions does not present any additional difficulties for the IRS officer or employee in retaining control of that interview. Rather, the IRS officer or employee in charge of the interview may be in a better position to maintain control of the overall interview if someone else is asking the questions. The IRS officer or employee always has the ability to ask the court reporter to go off the record to confer with the contractor, if necessary.

Further, since 2002, § 301.7602-1(b)(1) has provided that a summoned witness may be required to appear before “one or more” IRS officers or employees to give testimony, including Chief Counsel attorneys. During this time, the IRS experience with multiple persons asking questions of summoned persons has not resulted in cluttered interview transcripts as compared to those transcripts in which only one person from the IRS asks a witness questions. Instead, the IRS has generally found that allowing multiple IRS persons to question a summoned witness results in more thorough and complete coverage of the appropriate interview topics. This is particularly true when a person asking questions for the IRS has the chance to focus questions on particular subject areas with which the questioner is most familiar. Furthermore, the IRS has found that significant value is also added when multiple persons have the opportunity to ask questions to address gaps in prior questioning or clarify answers by a witness.

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, the proposed regulations have not been amended as suggested by this comment.

Both comments state section 7602 does not authorize a contractor to question a witness during an IRS summons interview. Specifically, the comments state that the regulations improperly delegate to the contractor the Secretary's authority under section 7602(a)(3) to take testimony under oath. According to one of the comments, because section 7701(a)(11)(B) defines the term “Secretary” to include a delegate, and section 7701(a)(12)(A) defines a “delegate” of the Secretary, in part, as a duly authorized “officer, employee or agency of the Treasury Department,” the regulations improperly attempt to treat a “third party agent” (a contractor under section 6103(n)) as an “agency of the Treasury Department.” The other comment adds that this type of treatment of a contractor would be unprecedented under various IRS Delegation Orders and Internal Revenue Manual provisions and that a statutory authorization is required for “such delegation.” Both comments state that section 6306, regarding the IRS's use of private collection agencies to perform certain tax collection functions, was an example of such authorization by statute.

Further, both comments question whether under the regulations inherently governmental functions will continue to be performed by IRS officers or employees, and state that reference to this in the preamble to the temporary regulations was included to allay potential concerns about improper delegation. The comment also asserts that taking testimony by asking questions, reviewing books or papers, and analyzing other data, as allowed by the regulations, is inherently governmental. In support of this, the comment states that when contractors ask questions that taxpayers are compelled to answer under oath, the contractor is deciding what information must be produced by the taxpayer. The comment asserts that it is clear that questioning a witness under oath and with compulsion, or directing counsel for a witness to clarify an objection or assertion of privilege, in an extra-judicial governmental investigation such as an IRS audit is inherently governmental. This comment states that the fact that a contractor's participation in a summons interview will only be done in the presence and under the guidance of an IRS officer or employee suggests that participation in a summons interview is inherently governmental.

These comments state further that the reference to § 301.7602-2(c)(1)(i)(B) and (c)(1)(ii) Example 2 in the preamble to the temporary regulations means that the regulations are delegating authority under section 7602(a) to the contractor.

The IRS has broad information gathering authority under section 7602(a). See United States v. Arthur Young & Co., 465 U.S. 805, 816 (1984). Section 7602(a) provides that, for the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any return, making a return where none has been made, or determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax, the Secretary (and the IRS as the Secretary's delegate) is authorized to examine books and records, issue summonses seeking documents and testimony, and take testimony from witnesses under oath. When a contractor assists the IRS in gathering facts by reviewing books and records or asking questions of a witness during a summons interview, the contractor is merely assisting in carrying out the powers granted to the Secretary. Nothing in section 7602(a) prohibits participation by a contractor in a summons interview, nor does it prescribe procedures that the IRS must follow during the summons interview.

Moreover, nothing in these regulations delegates authority under section 7602(a). The IRS's authority to engage contractors to assist with fact gathering has always existed under section 7602, and the comments acknowledge this authority. For instance, the comment addressing the impact of multiple questioners on the clarity of the transcribed record of the summons interview suggests as an alternative that the contractor provide the IRS with the questions to ask. Given that the commentators acknowledge that the IRS is authorized to have a contractor communicate the question off the record to the IRS, it seems implausible that having the contractor actually ask the question on the record, in the presence of and under the supervision of the IRS, is substantively different.

Section 6306, dealing with qualified tax collection contracts, does not support the contention in the comments that congressional action is required to engage a contractor to perform services for the IRS. Long before section 6306 was added to the Code in 2004, the IRS collection function had contracted with private persons (for example, locksmiths, tow truck drivers, storage facilities, property appraisers and auctioneers) for tax administration purposes to facilitate IRS seizures of property by levy and IRS sales of such property, pursuant to the statutory powers conferred on the Secretary by sections 6301, 6331, and 6335. In fiscal years 1996 and 1997, without making any modifications to the Code, Congress earmarked $13 million for the IRS to test the use of private debt collection companies. In 2004, rather than say it was authorizing the IRS to enter into collection agreements with outside contractors to assist the IRS in collecting tax debts, Congress instead said in section 6306(a) that “[n]othing in any provision of law shall be construed to prevent the Secretary from entering into a qualified tax collection contract.” Therefore, section 6306 was a congressional clarification of the IRS's existing authority to engage outside contractors to assist with collection. Accordingly, contrary to the comments' assertions, no explicit congressional authorization was needed to permit the IRS to hire outside contractors to assist in the collection of taxes, a role outside contractors had been playing for years prior to enactment of section 6306. As a result, enactment of section 6306 does not support the contention in the comments that having a contractor ask questions during a summons interview is inconsistent with authority under section 7602.

The comments are also incorrect that the regulations include an improper delegation to perform certain examination functions. One comment assumes that the role of questioner must be accompanied by the power to compel the witness to answer under oath. That is not accurate. While the contractor will ask questions during a summons interview, an IRS officer or employee will determine whether the questions must be answered by pursuing judicial enforcement. Only if an IRS officer or employee pursues the matter by seeking judicial enforcement can a witness be compelled to answer the question asked by the contractor. Similarly, a contractor can ask counsel for a witness to clarify an objection or assertion of privilege, but only an IRS officer or employee can pursue resolution of the claim of privilege by seeking judicial enforcement. Accordingly, the comment incorrectly equates the act of compelling a witness to answer a question asked with the mere act of asking the question. Further, the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998, Public Law 105-270 (31 U.S.C. 501 Note (FAIR Act)), defines “inherently governmental function” as “a function that is so intimately related to the public interest as to require performance by Federal Government employees.” FAIR Act section 5(2)(A). Inherently governmental functions include activities that require “the exercise of discretion in applying Federal Government authority,” including “the interpretation and execution of the laws of the United States so as . . . to bind the United States to take or not to take some action.” Id. at section 5(2)(B)(i). However, Congress further specified in FAIR Act section 5(2)(C)(i) that an inherently governmental function does not normally include “gathering information for or providing advice, opinions, recommendations, or ideas to Federal Government officials.”

In 2009, Congress further directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to refine the definition of “inherently governmental function” applicable to all agencies and provide guidance to improve internal agency management of functions that are inherently governmental. Public Law 110-417, section 321. Toward these ends, and after notice and comment, OMB's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) issued its Policy Letter 11-01 on September 12, 2011. 76 FR 56227. The Policy Letter clarified the “discretion” that a contractor may appropriately exercise as the circumstances “where the contractor does not have the authority to decide on the overall course of action, but is tasked to develop options or implement a course of action, and the agency official has the ability to override the contractor's action.” Id., at section 5-1(a)(1)(ii)(B), 76 FR at 56237. The Policy Letter further explains that “contractors routinely, and properly, exercise discretion in performing functions for the Federal Government when, providing advice, opinions, or recommended actions, emphasizing certain conclusions, and . . . deciding what techniques and procedures to employ, whether and whom to consult, [and] what research alternatives to explore given the scope of the contract.” Id., 76 FR at 56237-38. The Policy Letter recognizes that in addition to functions that are inherently governmental, there are also many functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions. The Policy Letter cautions that when a contractor function is closely associated with an inherently governmental one, the agency should “limit or guide the contractor's exercise of discretion,” by “establishing in advance a process for subjecting the contractor's discretionary decisions and conduct to meaningful oversight and, whenever necessary, final approval by an agency official.” Id., at section 5-2(a)(4)(ii) and Appendix C, section (1)(ii), 76 FR at 56238-39 and 56241-42.

Accordingly, the preamble to the temporary regulations described the inherently governmental functions associated with section 7602(a) as including the ultimate decisions to issue a summons, whom to summon, what information must be produced or who will be required to provide testimony, as well as issuing the summons. The final decision to issue an IRS summons may “bind the United States to take or not take some action,” within the meaning of the FAIR Act section 5(2)(B)(i). For example, serving an IRS summons pursuant to sections 7609(f) and (g) requires prior court approval, and IRS summonses issued for an examination purpose to third parties generally expose the United States to a court action the taxpayer may commence to quash a summons under section 7609(b)(2) or obligate the IRS to pay certain search and reproduction costs incurred by the summoned witness under section 7610. The final decision to include or not include certain document or testimony requests in an IRS summons also limits going forward what information or documents the IRS may ask a court to require a witness to produce in any future summons enforcement proceeding regarding that summons. The final decision to seek judicial enforcement of an IRS summons pursuant to sections 7402(b) and 7604 is also an inherently governmental function. These inherently governmental actions associated with issuing or seeking to enforce an IRS summons will continue to be performed by IRS officers and employees under these regulations.

As discussed above, pursuant to these regulations, contractors may assist IRS officers and employees when the IRS has summoned a witness, by receiving and reviewing books, papers, records, or other data produced in compliance with a summons and, in the presence and under the guidance of an IRS officer or employee, ask questions in the interview of the summoned witness. The contractor's assistance to the IRS officer or employee presiding over a summons interview is closely associated with the inherently governmental summons functions performed by an IRS employee, within the meaning of OFPP Policy Letter 11-01, without crossing the line into the performance of inherently governmental functions. A contractor participating fully in a summons interview will not, for example, be permitted to bind or otherwise disadvantage the IRS by making any unauthorized, premature statements that the summoned party has produced all of the summoned information or has fully answered all of the questions asked by the IRS in the interview. Similarly, the contractor has no authority to commit the IRS to pursue judicial enforcement of a summons for any documents or answers to questions that a witness failed to provide.

The contractor's “discretion” in pursuing any potentially relevant line of questioning in a summons interview is permissible under Policy Letter 11-01 standards because the contractor will not have the authority to decide on the overall course of action adopted by the IRS with respect to the summons interview. The IRS officer or employee presiding over IRS receipt of documents and evidence from the summoned witness will also be present for any questioning pursued by the contractor and will have the ability to override the contractor's actions, if necessary and appropriate. Rather than proving that a contractor would be performing an inherently governmental function under these regulations, the additional safeguards the comment points to—that a contractor's participation in a summons interview will only be done in the presence and under the guidance of an IRS officer or employee—show the IRS heeded the instructions of Policy Letter 11-01 to establish a process for subjecting the contractor's discretionary decisions and conduct under these regulations to meaningful IRS oversight.

The comments incorrectly interpret the purpose of the reference in the preamble of the temporary regulations to § 301.7602-2(c)(1)(i)(B) and (c)(1)(ii) Example 2. The purpose of referencing that regulation, which implements the provisions of section 7602(c) (requiring notice of third party contacts) in the case of a section 6103(n) contractor, was instead intended to highlight the fact that the IRS had been allowing contractors, under the guidance of an IRS officer or employee, to hold discussions and ask questions of witnesses for many years and that the proposed regulations were in the nature of a clarification. The purpose was not to demonstrate that the IRS is delegating authority to contractors as the comments incorrectly state.

Therefore, for the reasons above, Treasury and the IRS disagree with the comments' assertion that the regulations improperly delegate authority under section 7602. The statute permits section 6103(n) contractors to receive books, papers, records, or other data summoned by the IRS and, in the presence and under the guidance of an IRS officer or employee, participate fully in the interview of a person who the IRS has summoned as a witness to provide testimony under oath.

One of the comments suggests that the proposed regulations raise issues relating to confidentiality of taxpayer information. First, the comment states that the regulations place confidential taxpayer information unnecessarily at risk of unauthorized disclosure under section 6103. According to the comment, this is because placing taxpayer information in the hands of outside contractors under section 6103(n) increases the risk of misuse and unlawful disclosure because outside contractors are not subject to the same rules of conduct as IRS employees and may have loyalties to other clients besides the IRS and the public fisc.

Next, the comment questions whether the disclosure of confidential information to outside counsel is permitted under section 6103(n). The comment explains that in 1990 the phrase “other services” was added to section 6103(n) to cover outside experts, in part, because these experts are objective and the IRS is not. The comment continues that outside counsel, as an advocate, is not objective and, therefore, is not covered by the phrase “other services” in section 6103(n).

Finally, the comment states that the IRS has failed to demonstrate that government employees cannot effectively and more appropriately perform the function contemplated by the temporary regulations.

These comments do not address the clarification made by the proposed and temporary regulations (that is, that section 6103(n) contractors may be present at summons interviews, ask questions at a summons interview, and review summoned books, papers, records, or other data). Further, the comments do not explain why the proposed regulations place confidential taxpayer information at risk of unauthorized disclosure at all. Rather, these comments address disclosure to experts under section 6103(n), which is not the subject of these regulations. Therefore, the comments do not address issues under the regulations.

Regardless of the relevance of the comments to these regulations, the IRS takes protection of the confidentiality of taxpayer information seriously and will not disclose taxpayer information unless authorized under the law. “Return information” and “taxpayer return information” are in general broadly defined in sections 6103(b)(2) and (b)(3), as including information concerning a taxpayer's identity, the nature, source or amount of his income, payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liabilities, tax withheld, owed, or paid, whether the taxpayer is being or will be examined or investigated, to the extent such information is filed with or furnished to the IRS by or on behalf of the taxpayer to whom such information relates.

Section 6103(n) authorizes the IRS to disclose confidential taxpayer information to persons who provide services to the IRS, including outside experts. The legislative history of section 6103(n) indicates that Congress added the words “other services” in 1990 to ensure that persons who provide services to the IRS, such as expert witnesses, and to whom the IRS discloses returns and return information pursuant to section 6103, would clearly be subject to the same confidentiality standards and penalties for unauthorized disclosure as are IRS employees.

In sections 7431, 7213, and 7213A, Congress created parallel civil and criminal deterrents for outside contractors (to those applicable to IRS employees) to punish any misuse of taxpayer return information through unlawful inspection or unlawful disclosure of such information. Specifically, section 7431(a)(2) authorizes taxpayers to file the same type of civil action for damages against an IRS contractor for knowingly, or by reason of negligence, making any unauthorized inspection or unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer return information, as may be filed against the United States for the same type of conduct committed by any officer or employee of the United States. Similarly, in sections 7213(a)(1) and 7213A(a)(1)(B) (by references to persons described in section 6103(n)), Congress made it a crime punishable by up to five years or up to one year of imprisonment, plus a fine, for an IRS contractor to willfully make an unauthorized disclosure or an unauthorized inspection of taxpayer return information, respectively. If an IRS officer or employee is convicted under sections 7213 or 7213A, such person will also be dismissed or discharged from Federal employment. Before any conviction, if the IRS determines that a contractor has violated its taxpayer return information disclosure obligations under its contract, the IRS may also suspend or terminate the contract, pursuant to § 301.6103(n)-1(e)(4)(iii). Moreover, § 301.6103(n)-1(e)(4) provides further safeguards against unlawful disclosures or inspections of taxpayer return information by contractors.

Finally, it is unclear what connection the comment is making between protecting confidentiality of taxpayer information and objectivity of the section 6103(n) contractor. First, there is no obligation under section 6103(n) or the regulations thereunder for a contractor under section 6103(n) to be objective. Second, whether a contractor is objective has no relation to whether the contractor has an obligation to protect confidential taxpayer information from disclosure or the contractor's ability to do so.

For these reasons, the Treasury and the IRS disagree that the regulations place confidential taxpayer information unnecessarily at risk of unauthorized disclosure.

One comment states that including a provision to allow an IRS contractor in a summons interview to question a witness under oath in the final regulations would result in time-consuming and costly litigation for the IRS, taxpayers, third party witnesses, and the courts, and that these costs would outweigh the potential benefits to the IRS from a contractor directly questioning a summoned witness under oath. The comment does not indicate how it came to this conclusion, nor does it provide any support for its concern.

The IRS makes the decision of whether to issue a summons or to pursue summons enforcement actions on a case-by-case basis, analyzing each situation in the light of its particular facts and weighing the desired information against the tax liability involved, the time and expense of obtaining the records, and the adverse effect on voluntary compliance by others if the enforcement actions are not successful. A contractor's participation in a summons interview does not factor into the IRS's decision to request the Department of Justice to institute enforcement action or lead the taxpayer ultimately to file a deficiency action in the United States Tax Court or a refund claim in a United States District Court or the Court of Federal Claims. As a practical matter, the IRS will likely hire contractors to assist in the factual development of an examination only in significant cases. These are cases in which litigation over summons enforcement is already likely to occur if the IRS examination team faces resistance from taxpayers to providing requested information. Accordingly, there should not be considerably more litigation as a result of these final regulations. Moreover, when there is summons enforcement litigation, it will be because the IRS has determined that such litigation is in the best interest of tax administration.

One of the comments states that the temporary regulations were not issued in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The temporary regulations were promulgated in full compliance with the APA. In addition, this document finalizes proposed regulations contained in a notice of proposed rulemaking that cross-referenced the temporary regulations. The proposed regulations were also promulgated in full compliance with the APA. Because these final regulations adopt the proposed regulations, it is not necessary to address concerns regarding procedural issues relating to promulgation of the temporary regulations.

It has been determined that this Treasury Decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. The IRS has determined that sections 553(b) and (d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) do not apply to these regulations and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comments on its impact on small business, and no comments were received.

The principal author of these final regulations is William V. Spatz of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is amended as follows:

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

During the Tall Ships Challenge Great Lakes 2016, tall ships will be participating in parades and then mooring in the harbors of Fairport Harbor, OH, Bay City, MI, Chicago, IL, Green Bay, WI, Duluth, MN, Erie, PA. This is a tri-annual event that teaches character building and leadership through sail training. The Tall Ships event seeks to educate the public about both the historical aspects of sailing ships as well as their current use as training vessels for students. Tall ships are large, traditionally-rigged sailing vessels. The event will consist of festivals at each port of call, sail training cruises, tall ship parades, and races between the ports. More information regarding the Tall Ships Challenge 2016 and the participating vessels can be found at http://www.sailtraining.org/tallships/2016greatlakes/TSC2016index.php

The Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone; Tall Ships Challenge Great Lakes 2016, Fairport Harbor, OH, Bay City, MI, Chicago, IL, Green Bay, WI, Duluth, MN, Erie, PA (USCG-2016-0267, 81 FR 26767, May 4, 2016). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related. During the comment period that ended June 3, 2016, we received one comment.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Ninth District Commander has determined that potential hazards associated with tall ships operating in crowded harbors in close proximity to spectator craft necessitate a safety zone. The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of all vessels during the Tall Ship events.

As noted above, we received one comments on our NPRM published May 4, 2016. The comment was directed at a rule pertaining to a fireworks show during a university graduation and did not apply to this rule. 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 12:01 a.m. July 6, 2016, that is established around each Tall Ship participating in this event. The safety zone covers all navigable waters within 100 yards of a tall ship in the Great Lakes. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters during the 2016 Tall Ships Challenge. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. If the tall ships are operating in a confined area such as a small harbor and there is not adequate room for vessels to stay out of the safety zone because of a lack of navigable water, then vessels will be permitted to operate within the safety zone and shall travel at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course. The navigation rules apply at all times within the safety zone. The safety zone terminates at 12:01 a.m. on September 12, 2016.

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 regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone. Commercial traffic does not typically come within the boundaries of the safety zone, and would be permitted to pass through the safety zone in accordance with the rule. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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

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

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

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

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 safety zone that will prohibit vessels from passing within 100 yards of a tall ship without coming to a slow speed. It 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 165 as follows:

I. Does this action apply to me?

A list of potentially affected entities is provided in the Federal Register of May 16, 2016 (81 FR 30452) (FRL-9944-77). If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

In the May 16, 2016 Federal Register, EPA issued direct final SNURs for the chemical substances that are identified in this document. These direct final SNURs were issued under the procedures in 40 CFR part 721, subpart D. Because the Agency received notices of intent to submit adverse comments, in accordance with § 721.160(c)(3)(ii), EPA is withdrawing the direct final SNURS issued for the following chemical substances, which were the subject of PMNs: Functionalized carbon nanotubes (generic), (PMN P-15-276), Diisocyanato hexane, homopolymer, alkanoic acid-polyalkylene glycol ether with substituted alkane (3:1) reaction products-blocked (generic), (PMN P-15-378), and Modified diphenylmethane diisocyanate prepolymer with polyol (generic), (PMN P-15-559). EPA intends to publish proposed SNURs for the chemical substances identified in this document.

For further information regarding EPA's direct final rulemaking procedures for issuing SNURs, see 40 CFR part 721, subpart D, and the Federal Register of July 27, 1989 (54 FR 31314).

EPA determined that this document is not subject to the 30-day delay of effective date generally required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(d)) because of the time limitations for publication in the Federal Register. This document must publish on or before the effective date of the direct final rule containing the direct final SNURs being withdrawn.

This action withdraws regulatory requirements that have not gone into effect and which contain no new or amended requirements. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have any adverse impacts, economic or otherwise. The statutory and Executive Order review requirements applicable to the direct final rule were discussed in the May 16, 2016 Federal Register. Those review requirements do not apply to this action because it is a withdrawal and does not contain any new or amended requirements.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Section 808 of the CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. As required by 5 U.S.C. 808(2), this determination is supported by a brief statement in Unit III.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

On May 27, 2016, the EPA proposed to approve the limited maintenance plan submitted by the State of Washington for the Spokane CO area, including proposed approval of an alternative CO monitoring strategy and removal of an obsolete site-specific order and amendment for the former Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation's aluminum reduction plant (81 FR 33632). An explanation of the Clean Air Act requirements, a detailed analysis of the submittal, and the EPA's reasons for proposing approval were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and will not be restated here. The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on June 27, 2016. The EPA received no comments on the proposal.

The EPA is approving the limited maintenance plan submitted by the State of Washington for the Spokane CO area. We are approving the request to remove the associated order and amendment for the former Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation's aluminum reduction plant located in Mead, Washington from incorporation by reference in the Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP) because the facility has been shut down, dismantled, and the operating permit has been revoked. We are also approving the State's alternative CO monitoring strategy for the Spokane area. The EPA's approval of this limited maintenance plan satisfies the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A requirements for the second 10-year period in the Spokane CO area.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference as described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. These materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.1 The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This SIP revision is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in Washington or any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). However, consistent with EPA policy, the EPA provided a consultation opportunity to the Spokane Tribe in a letter dated September 11, 2015. The EPA did not receive a request for consultation.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 12, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

I. Background

On March 12, 2008, EPA revised both the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) (annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration, averaged over three years) to provide increased protection of public health and the environment. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). The 2008 ozone NAAQS retains the same general form and averaging time as the 0.08 ppm NAAQS set in 1997, but is set at a more protective level.

Effective July 20, 2012, EPA designated any area that was violating the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent years (2008-2010) of air monitoring data as a nonattainment area. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). The Atlanta Area, consisting of Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Newton, Paulding, and Rockdale counties, was designated as a marginal ozone nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 81.311. Areas that were designated as marginal ozone nonattainment areas were required to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS no later than July 20, 2015, based on 2012-2014 monitoring data. The Atlanta Area did not attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by July 20, 2015, and therefore on April 11, 2016, the EPA Administrator signed a final rule reclassifying the Atlanta Area from a marginal nonattainment area to a moderate nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. See 81 FR 26697 (May 4, 2016). Moderate areas are required to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by no later than July 20, 2018, six years after the effective date of the initial nonattainment designations. See 40 CFR 51.1103. Air quality monitoring data from the 2013-2015 monitoring period show that the Atlanta Area is now attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

Under the provisions of EPA's ozone implementation rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR part 51, subpart AA), if EPA issues a determination that an area is attaining the relevant standard, also known as a Clean Data Determination, the area's obligations to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, RFP, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS are suspended until EPA: (i) Redesignates the area to attainment for the standard or approves a redesignation substitute, at which time those requirements no longer apply; or (ii) EPA determines that the area has violated the standard, at which time the area is again required to submit such plans. See 40 CFR 51.1118. While these requirements are suspended, EPA is not precluded from acting upon these elements at any time if submitted to EPA for review and approval.

An attainment determination is not equivalent to a redesignation under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. The designation status of the Atlanta Area will remain nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that the Area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment, including an approved maintenance plan, and redesignates the Area. Additionally, the determination of attainment is separate from, and does not influence or otherwise affect, any future designation determination or requirements for the Atlanta Area based on any new or revised ozone NAAQS, and the determination of attainment remains in effect regardless of whether EPA designates this Area as a nonattainment area for purposes of any new or revised ozone NAAQS.

In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on May 3, 2016, EPA proposed to determine that the Atlanta Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 26515 (May 3, 2016). No comments were received on the May 3, 2016, proposed rulemaking. The details of Georgia's submittal and the rationale for EPA's actions are further explained in the NPRM. See 81 FR 26515 (May 3, 2016).

EPA is making the determination that the Atlanta Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This final determination is based upon complete, quality assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing that the Atlanta Area has monitored attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2013-2015 monitoring period. The requirement for this Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS are suspended until EPA redesignates the Area to attainment, approves a redesignation substitute, or determines that the Area has violated the standard.

This action makes a determination of attainment based on air quality data and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• will not have disproportionate human health or environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law because it merely makes a determination based on air quality data.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 12, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Sections 108 and 109 of the CAA govern the establishment, review, and revision, as appropriate, of the NAAQS to protect public health and welfare. The CAA requires periodic review of the air quality criteria—the science upon which the standards are based—and the standards themselves. EPA's regulatory provisions that govern the NAAQS are found at 40 CFR 50—National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards. In this rulemaking, EPA is taking direct final action to approve North Carolina's December 11, 2015, submission amending the State's regulations to incorporate the NAAQS for PM2.5, which are found at 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02D .0410. The SIP submittal amending North Carolina's rules to incorporate the NAAQS can be found in the docket for this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov and is summarized below.

On December 14, 2012, EPA promulgated a revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 78 FR 3086. In that action, EPA revised the primary annual PM2.5 standard, strengthening it from 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 12.0 μg/m3, and retained the existing 24-hour PM2.5 standard at 35 μg/m3. Accordingly, in the December 11, 2015, SIP submittal, North Carolina revised state rule 15A NCAC 02D .0410 PM 2.5 Particulate Matter to update the primary air quality standard for PM2.5 to be consistent with the NAAQS that were promulgated by EPA in 2012. EPA has reviewed this change to North Carolina's rule for PM2.5 and has made the determination that this change is consistent with federal regulations.

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of North Carolina regulation 15A NCAC 02D .0410 PM 2.5 Particulate Matter effective September 1, 2015, which was revised to be consistent with the current NAAQS. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.1 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section of this preamble for more information).

EPA is approving the aforementioned change to the North Carolina SIP because it is consistent with EPA's 2012 PM2.5 standards. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective September 12, 2016September 12, 2016 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by August 15, 2016.

If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on September 12, 2016 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 12, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 Part 52 is amended as follows:

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (81 FR 14740, March 18, 2016) apportions the 2016 Pacific halibut PSC limit for trawl gear in the GOA to two trawl fishery categories: A deep-water species fishery and a shallow-water species fishery. The halibut PSC limit for these two trawl fishery categories is further apportioned by season, including four seasonal apportionments to the shallow-water species fishery and three seasonal apportionments to the deep-water species fishery. The two fishery categories also are apportioned a combined, fifth seasonal halibut PSC limit. Unused seasonal apportionments are added to the next season apportionment during a fishing year.

Regulations at § 679.21(d)(4)(iii)(D) require NMFS to combine management of the available trawl halibut PSC limits in the second season (April 1 through July 1) deep-water and shallow-water species fishery categories for use in either fishery from May 15 through June 30 of each year. Furthermore, NMFS is required to reapportion the halibut PSC limit between the deep-water and shallow-water species fisheries after June 30 to account for actual halibut PSC use by each fishery category during May 15 through June 30. As of July 6, 2016, NMFS has determined that the trawl deep-water and shallow-water fisheries used 28 metric tons (mt) and 32 mt of halibut PSC, respectively, from May 15 through June 30. Accordingly, pursuant to § 679.21(d)(4)(iii)(D), the Regional Administrator is reapportioning the combined first and second seasonal apportionments (810 mt) of halibut PSC limit between the trawl deep-water and shallow-water fishery categories to account for the actual PSC use (792 mt) in each fishery. Therefore, Table 15 of the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (81 FR 14740, March 18, 2016) is revised consistent with this adjustment.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would allow for harvests that exceed the originally specified apportionment of the halibut PSC limits to the deep-water and shallow-water fishery categories. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of July 8, 2016.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.