Federal Register Vol. 81, No.174,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 174 (September 8, 2016)

Page Range61973-62352
FR Document

81_FR_174
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 62004 - Substances Generally Recognized as SafePDF
81 FR 62351 - National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month, 2016PDF
81 FR 62349 - National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, 2016PDF
81 FR 62347 - National Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, 2016PDF
81 FR 61979 - National Wilderness Month, 2016PDF
81 FR 61977 - National Preparedness Month, 2016PDF
81 FR 61975 - National Childhood Obesity Awareness Month, 2016PDF
81 FR 61973 - National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month, 2016PDF
81 FR 62077 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 62123 - National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology: Assumable Waters Subcommittee; Notice of Public MeetingsPDF
81 FR 62167 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Evaluation of the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program, Phase 2PDF
81 FR 62086 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset ReviewsPDF
81 FR 62165 - Notice of Single Family Loan Sales (SFLS 2016-2)PDF
81 FR 62088 - Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015PDF
81 FR 62096 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative ReviewPDF
81 FR 62170 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Federal Labor Standards Questionnaire Complaint Intake FormPDF
81 FR 62169 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Federal Labor Standards Payee Verification and Payment ProcessingPDF
81 FR 62086 - Stainless Steel Bar From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015PDF
81 FR 62098 - Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From India: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty InvestigationPDF
81 FR 62094 - Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From the Russian Federation: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
81 FR 62078 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 92-Harrison County, Mississippi; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; TopShip, LLC (Shipbuilding); Gulfport, MississippiPDF
81 FR 62205 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend Exchange Rule 11.22 To Describe Changes to System Functionality Necessary To Implement the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 62192 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend Exchange Rule 11.27 To Describe Changes to System Functionality Necessary To Implement the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 62195 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend Exchange Rule 11.27 To Describe Changes to System Functionality Necessary To Implement the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 62219 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend Exchange Rule 11.21 To Describe Changes to System Functionality Necessary To Implement the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 62228 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Certain Default Management Requirements Under Applicable LawPDF
81 FR 62235 - Privacy Act; System of Records: Overseas Citizens Services Records and Other Overseas Records, State-05PDF
81 FR 62187 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 11.18 To Address the Exchange's Liability for System Failures; Amend Rule 2.11 To Provide for an Error Account Maintained by the Exchange's Routing Broker; Adopt Rule 11.11(e) To Allow Cancellation of Orders When a System Failure Occurs; Amend Rule 1.5 To Reposition the Definition of a Trading Center; and Make Other Non-Substantive and Conforming ChangesPDF
81 FR 62208 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To List and Trade Options That Overlie the FTSE Developed Europe Index and the FTSE Emerging Index and To Amend the Maintenance Listing Criteria Applicable to Certain Index OptionsPDF
81 FR 62222 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Create an Academic Corporate Bond TRACE Data ProductPDF
81 FR 62198 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the Natixis Seeyond International Minimum Volatility ETF Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600PDF
81 FR 62222 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 62172 - Announcement of National Geospatial Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 62128 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
81 FR 62239 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Keir Collection of Art of the Islamic World” ExhibitionsPDF
81 FR 62081 - Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015PDF
81 FR 62240 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Monet: The Early Years” ExhibitionPDF
81 FR 62239 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Glory of Venice: Masterworks of the Renaissance” ExhibitionPDF
81 FR 62083 - Wooden Bedroom Furniture, From the People's Republic of China: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative ReviewPDF
81 FR 62239 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Paint the Revolution: Mexican Modernism, 1910-1950” ExhibitionPDF
81 FR 62140 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 62240 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Hélio Oiticica: To Organize Delirium, 1944-1980” ExhibitionPDF
81 FR 62103 - Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy Notice of Meeting; CancellationPDF
81 FR 62240 - Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Company-Operation Exemption-Valley Line in Harrison and Jefferson Counties, OhioPDF
81 FR 62177 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Linking Employment Activities Pre-Release EvaluationPDF
81 FR 62100 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Essential Fish HabitatPDF
81 FR 62069 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Snapper Management MeasuresPDF
81 FR 62156 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 62158 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 62158 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 62150 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 62123 - Petition To Reopen State Operating Permit; NY; Seneca Energy II, LLCPDF
81 FR 62099 - Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 62078 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 62104 - Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel (Judicial Proceedings Panel); Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 62138 - Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 62108 - Applications for New Awards; Rehabilitation Services Administration-Disability Innovation Fund-Transition Work-Based Learning Model Demonstrations; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 62079 - Effectiveness of Licensing Procedures for Agricultural Commodities to CubaPDF
81 FR 62233 - California Disaster #CA-00255 Declaration of Economic InjuryPDF
81 FR 62077 - Prince William Sound Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 62234 - New York Credit SBIC Fund, L.P. License No. 03/03-0265; Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of InterestPDF
81 FR 62242 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in CaliforniaPDF
81 FR 62241 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in CaliforniaPDF
81 FR 62243 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in CaliforniaPDF
81 FR 62008 - Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972PDF
81 FR 62135 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 62136 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 62129 - Notice of Agreements FiledPDF
81 FR 62124 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; EPA Application Materials for the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation ActPDF
81 FR 62245 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Orders 13660, 13661, 13662, and 13685.PDF
81 FR 62047 - Proposed Establishment of the Cape May Peninsula Viticultural AreaPDF
81 FR 62004 - Investigation of Claims of Evasion of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 62149 - National Advisory Council on the National Health Service Corps; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 62103 - Vietnam War Commemoration Advisory Committee; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 62109 - Freeport LNG Expansion, L.P., FLNG Liquefaction, LLC, FLNG Liquefaction 2, LLC & FLNG Liquefaction 3, LLC; Application for Amendment to Long-Term, Multi-Contract Authorizations To Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement Nations for a Period of 20 YearsPDF
81 FR 62106 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Lower Elkhorn Basin Levee Setback Project, Yolo County, CAPDF
81 FR 61982 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Integrated Light-Emitting Diode Lamps; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 62072 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Third National Survey of WIC Participants (NSWP-III)PDF
81 FR 62137 - Final Revised Vaccine Information Materials for Polio VaccinePDF
81 FR 62136 - Final Revised Vaccine Information Materials for Serogroup B Meningococcal VaccinePDF
81 FR 62139 - Final Revised Vaccine Information Materials for Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B VaccinesPDF
81 FR 62173 - Proposed Information Collection; National Park Service Leasing ProgramPDF
81 FR 62172 - Proposed Information Collection; National Capital Region Application for Public GatheringPDF
81 FR 62105 - Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Dam Safety Modification Report, Bluestone Dam, Hinton, Summers County, WVPDF
81 FR 62107 - Inland Waterways Users Board Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 62175 - Proposed Information Collection; Research Permit and Reporting System Applications and ReportsPDF
81 FR 62112 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC Forms 6 and 580); Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 62117 - Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 62109 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Student Assistance General Provisions-Subpart E-Verification of Student Aid Application InformationPDF
81 FR 62122 - Kinetica Energy Express, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 62120 - Caliber Bear Den Interconnect LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory OrderPDF
81 FR 62120 - Notice of Commission Staff AttendancePDF
81 FR 62111 - Western Area Power Administration; Notice of FilingPDF
81 FR 62127 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
81 FR 62245 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel GRIFFIN; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 62241 - Notice of Intent To Release Airport Property; Southwest Florida International Airport, Fort Myers, FL.PDF
81 FR 62244 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel PERSISTENCE; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 62244 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel 14 PENNIES; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 62142 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Postmarket SurveillancePDF
81 FR 62144 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Medical Device: Current Good Manufacturing Practice Quality System RegulationsPDF
81 FR 62141 - ICH S3A Guidance: Note for Guidance on Toxicokinetics: The Assessment of Systemic Exposure in Toxicity Studies-Questions and Answers; International Council for Harmonisation; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 62143 - Determination That PREVACID IV (Lansoprazole) Intravenous Injection, 30 Milligrams/Vial, Was Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or EffectivenessPDF
81 FR 62148 - Advisory Committee; Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee, RenewalPDF
81 FR 62160 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0063PDF
81 FR 62164 - Information Collection Request[s] to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0056PDF
81 FR 62162 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0028PDF
81 FR 62161 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0049PDF
81 FR 62163 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0079PDF
81 FR 62080 - Effects of Extending Foreign Policy-Based Export Controls Through 2017PDF
81 FR 62184 - Information Collection: Reporting of Defects and NoncompliancePDF
81 FR 62178 - Information Collection: NRC Form 136, “Security Termination Statement”PDF
81 FR 62179 - Information Collection: Suspicious Activity Reporting Using the Protected Web Server (PWS)PDF
81 FR 62099 - National Institute of Standards and Technology Performance Review Board MembershipPDF
81 FR 62177 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Chattem Chemicals, Inc.PDF
81 FR 62119 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
81 FR 62111 - CXA Sundevil II, Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 62118 - CXA Sundevil I, Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 62111 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
81 FR 62121 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
81 FR 62121 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
81 FR 62112 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 62118 - Phoenix Energy New England, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 62129 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMBPDF
81 FR 62176 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
81 FR 62046 - Proposed Revisions to Wine Labeling and Recordkeeping Requirements; Comment Period ReopeningPDF
81 FR 62221 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 62192 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change Amending Rules 2.17(c) and 2.23(i) To Extend the Time Within Which OTP Holders and OTP Firms Must File a Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration (“U5”)PDF
81 FR 62156 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program Fellowship Program and Summer Curriculum ApplicationsPDF
81 FR 62150 - National Institute on Aging Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 62159 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 62150 - Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 62157 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 62234 - Notice of Surrender of License of Small Business Investment CompanyPDF
81 FR 62077 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Tennessee Advisory Committee for Orientation and Project PlanningPDF
81 FR 62234 - Kentucky Disaster #KY-00062PDF
81 FR 62125 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Information Collection Request for Plywood and Composite Wood Products National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Residual Risk and Technology Review (RTR)PDF
81 FR 62135 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 62149 - Delegation of AuthoritiesPDF
81 FR 62010 - Safety Zones; Fireworks Events in Captain of the Port New York ZonePDF
81 FR 62185 - New Postal ProductsPDF
81 FR 62166 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Application for Community Compass TA and Capacity Building Program NOFAPDF
81 FR 62200 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Exchange's Price List To Amend the Date That Two Wireless Connections to Third Party Data Feeds Are Expected To Be AvailablePDF
81 FR 62203 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule and, the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services To Amend the Date That Two Wireless Connections to Third Party Data Feeds Are Expected To Be AvailablePDF
81 FR 62216 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change Amending the NYSE MKT Equities Price List and the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule To Amend the Date That Two Wireless Connections to Third Party Data Feeds Are Expected To Be AvailablePDF
81 FR 62233 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of PowerShares Government Collateral Pledge Portfolio Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600PDF
81 FR 62212 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Related to the NASDAQ Options Market LLC's Pricing at Chapter XV, Section 2(6)PDF
81 FR 62226 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to FeesPDF
81 FR 62198 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.PDF
81 FR 62225 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Delay the Implementation of Amendments to the Options Regulatory FeePDF
81 FR 62185 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Delay the Implementation of the Options Regulatory FeePDF
81 FR 62229 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To List and Trade Exchange-Traded Managed FundsPDF
81 FR 62168 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Mortgage Insurance Termination; Application for Premium Refund or Distributive Share PaymentPDF
81 FR 62084 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty DeterminationPDF
81 FR 62004 - International Traffic in Arms: Revisions to Definition of Export and Related DefinitionsPDF
81 FR 62099 - National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationPDF
81 FR 62180 - Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility and Lucky Mc Uranium Mill; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of Licenses and Conforming AmendmentPDF
81 FR 62129 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 62066 - Approval of Missouri's Air Quality Implementation Plans; Open Burning RequirementsPDF
81 FR 62128 - Notice of Termination; 10310 Western Commercial Bank, Woodland Hills, CaliforniaPDF
81 FR 61981 - AG Order No. 3737-2016PDF
81 FR 62257 - Initial Pricing for 2016 United States Mint American Eagle ProductsPDF
81 FR 62117 - San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services Into Markets Operated by the California Independent System Operator Corporation and the California Power Exchange; Investigation of Practices of the California Independent System Operator and the California Power Exchange; Notice of Compliance FilingPDF
81 FR 62122 - San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services Into Markets Operated by the California Independent System Operator Corporation and the California Power Exchange; Investigation of Practices of the California Independent System Operator and the California Power Exchange; Notice of Compliance FilingPDF
81 FR 61985 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 62052 - Fall Protection in Shipyard EmploymentPDF
81 FR 62150 - Announcement of Requirements and Registration for “Antimicrobial Resistance Rapid, Point-of-Need Diagnostic Test” ChallengePDF
81 FR 61983 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 62170 - Draft Screening Form and Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the Scenic Arizona Perez Home Development; Mohave County, AZPDF
81 FR 61990 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 62035 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 62018 - Technical Amendments and Recodification of Alaska Humpback Whale Approach RegulationsPDF
81 FR 62010 - Approach Regulations for Humpback Whales in Waters Surrounding the Islands of Hawaii Under the Marine Mammal Protection ActPDF
81 FR 62260 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Identification of 14 Distinct Population Segments of the Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) and Revision of Species-Wide ListingPDF
81 FR 62002 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Jetmore, KSPDF
81 FR 62003 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Lakota, NDPDF
81 FR 62026 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 62024 - Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Formerly Known as Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) AirplanesPDF
81 FR 61987 - Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation AirplanesPDF
81 FR 61999 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 62029 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V.PDF
81 FR 62022 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 62031 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 61993 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 62037 - Airworthiness Directives; Various Aircraft Equipped With BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co KG 912 A Series EnginePDF
81 FR 62044 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Wisconsin Towns; Land O' Lakes, WI; Manitowish Waters, WI; Merrill, WI; Oconto, WI; Phillips, WI; Platteville, WI; Solon Springs, WI; Superior, WI; and West Bend, WIPDF
81 FR 62041 - Proposed Amendment of Class D and E Airspace for the Following Texas Towns; Georgetown, TX; Corpus Christi, TX; Dallas/Fort Worth, TX; Gainesville, TX; Graford, TX; Hebbronville, TX; and Jasper, TXPDF
81 FR 62040 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Mapleton, IAPDF
81 FR 62322 - Intercountry AdoptionsPDF
81 FR 61996 - Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Type Certificate Previously Held by Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) AirplanesPDF

Issue

81 174 Thursday, September 8, 2016 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Forest Service

AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Meetings: U.S. Air Force Academy Board of Visitors; Cancellation, 62103 2016-21624 Alcohol Tobacco Tax Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau PROPOSED RULES Viticultural Areas: Cape May Peninsula; Establishment, 62047-62052 2016-21586 Wine Labeling and Recordkeeping Requirements, 62046-62047 2016-21522 Broadcasting Broadcasting Board of Governors NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 62077 2016-21712 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 62138-62139 2016-21609 Information Materials for Serogroup B Meningococcal Vaccine, 62136-62137 2016-21574 Vaccine Information Materials: Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B Vaccines, 62139-62140 2016-21573 Polio Vaccine, 62137-62138 2016-21575 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 62140-62141 2016-21628 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Tennessee Advisory Committee for Orientation and Project Planning, 62077-62078 2016-21510 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Fireworks Events in Captain of the Port New York Zone, 62010 2016-21503 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 62160-62165 2016-21545 2016-21546 2016-21547 2016-21548 2016-21549 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Collection of State Administrative Records Data, 62078 2016-21612
Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

See

Engineers Corps

See

Navy Department

NOTICES Meetings: Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel, 62104-62105 2016-21611 Vietnam War Commemoration Advisory Committee, 62103-62104 2016-21580
Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Importers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Chattem Chemicals, Inc., 62177 2016-21536 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Student Assistance General Provisions—Subpart E—Verification of Student Aid Application Information, 62109 2016-21565 Applications for New Awards: Rehabilitation Services Administration—Disability Innovation Fund—Transition Work-Based Learning Model Demonstrations; Correction, 62108-62109 2016-21608 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

RULES Energy Conservation Programs: Test Procedures for Integrated Light-Emitting Diode Lamps; Correction, 61982-61983 2016-21577 NOTICES Applications To Export Liquefied Natural Gas: Freeport LNG Expansion, LP, FLNG Liquefaction, LLC, FLNG Liquefaction 2, LLC and FLNG Liquefaction 3, LLC, 62109-62111 2016-21579
Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Dam Safety Modification Report, Bluestone Dam, Hinton, Summers County, WV, 62105-62106 2016-21570 Proposed Lower Elkhorn Basin Levee Setback Project, Yolo County, CA, 62106-62107 2016-21578 Meetings: Inland Waterways Users Board, 62107-62108 2016-21569 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Missouri; Open Burning Requirements, 62066-62068 2016-21467 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application Materials for the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, 62124-62125 2016-21592 Plywood and Composite Wood Products National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Residual Risk and Technology Review, 62125-62127 2016-21507 Meetings: National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology, Assumable Waters Subcommittee, 62123 2016-21666 Operating Permit Petitions: New York—Seneca Energy II, LLC, 62123-62124 2016-21614 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 61990-61996 2016-21144 2016-21283 Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes, 61983-61985 2016-21288 Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Airplanes, 61987-61990 2016-21155 Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Type Certificate Previously Held by Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Airplanes, 61996-61998 2016-20711 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 61985-61987, 61999-62001 2016-21152 2016-21410 Class E Airspace; Establishments: Jetmore, KS, 62002-62003 2016-21224 Lakota, ND, 62003-62004 2016-21221 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 62026-62029, 62035-62037 2016-21166 2016-21282 Fokker Services B.V., 62029-62031 2016-21151 Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Formerly Known as Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Airplanes, 62024-62026 2016-21165 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 62022-62024, 62031-62035 2016-21147 2016-21148 Various Aircraft Equipped With BRP-Powertrain GmbH and Co KG 912 A Series Engine, 62037-62040 2016-21052 Class D and E Airspace; Amendments: Georgetown, TX; Corpus Christi, TX; Dallas/Fort Worth, TX; Gainesville, TX; Graford, TX; Hebbronville, TX; and Jasper, TX, 62041-62044 2016-21028 Class E Airspace; Amendments: Land O'Lakes, WI; Manitowish Waters, WI; Merrill, WI; Oconto, WI; Phillips, WI; Platteville, WI; Solon Springs, WI; Superior, WI; and West Bend, WI, 62044-62046 2016-21030 Mapleton, IA, 62040-62041 2016-21027 NOTICES Airport Property Releases: Southwest Florida International Airport, Fort Myers, FL, 62241 2016-21558 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 62127-62128 2016-21560 2016-21636 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Terminations of Receivership: Western Commercial Bank, Woodland Hills, CA, 62128-62129 2016-21464 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 62112-62116 2016-21567 Applications: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., LLC, 62117 2016-21566 Combined Filings, 62111-62112, 62119-62122 2016-21529 2016-21530 2016-21531 2016-21532 2016-21535 Compliance Filings: San Diego Gas and Electric Co. v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services Into Markets Operated by California Independent System Operator Corp. and California Power Exchange, 2016-21415 62117-62118, 62122 2016-21416 Filings: Western Area Power Administration, 62111-62112 2016-21561 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: CXA Sundevil I, Inc., 62118-62119 2016-21533 CXA Sundevil II, Inc., 62111 2016-21534 Phoenix Energy New England, LLC, 62118 2016-21528 Petitions: Caliber Bear Den Interconnect LLC, 62120-62121 2016-21563 Requests Under Blanket Authorizations: Kinetica Energy Express, LLC, 62122-62123 2016-21564 Staff Attendances, 62120 2016-21562 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Final Federal Agency Actions: Proposed Highway in California, 62241-62244 2016-21599 2016-21600 2016-21601 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 62129 2016-21595 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 62129-62135 2016-21524 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 62129, 62135-62136 2016-21471 2016-21596 2016-21597 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; Corrections, 62135-62136 2016-21505 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Incidental Take Permit Applications: Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the Scenic Arizona Perez Home Development; Mohave County, AZ, 62170-62172 2016-21285 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Substances Generally Recognized as Safe, 62004 C1--2016--19164 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Medical Devices: Current Good Manufacturing Practice Quality System, 62144-62148 2016-21553 Postmarket Surveillance, 62142-62143 2016-21554 Charter Renewals: Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee, 62148-62149 2016-21550 Determinations That Products Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness: PREVACID IV (Lansoprazole) Intravenous Injection, 30 Milligrams/Vial, 62143-62144 2016-21551 Guidance: Toxicokinetics: The Assessment of Systemic Exposure in Toxicity Studies—Questions and Answers; International Council for Harmonisation, 62141-62142 2016-21552 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Third National Survey of WIC Participants, 62072-62076 2016-21576 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 62245-62257 2016-21590 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Proposed Production Activities: TopShip, LLC, Foreign-Trade Zone 92, Gulfport, MS, 62078-62079 2016-21651 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Prince William Sound Resource Advisory Committee, 62077 2016-21604 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Meetings: National Geospatial Advisory Committee, 62172 2016-21639 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Delegations of Authority, 62149-62150 2016-21504
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Council on the National Health Service Corps, 62149 2016-21581 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Community Compass TA and Capacity Building Program NOFA, 62166-62167 2016-21498 Evaluation of the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program, Phase 2, 62167-62168 2016-21663 Federal Labor Standards Payee Verification and Payment Processing, 62169-62170 2016-21657 Federal Labor Standards Questionnaire Complaint Intake Form, 62170 2016-21658 Mortgage Insurance Termination; Application for Premium Refund or Distributive Share Payment, 62168-62169 2016-21484 Single Family Loan Sales, 62165-62166 2016-21661 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Effectiveness of Licensing Procedures for Agricultural Commodities: Cuba, 62079 2016-21607 Effects of Extending Foreign Policy-Based Export Controls, 62080-62081 2016-21542 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Geological Survey

See

National Park Service

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From People's Republic of China, 62084-62086 2016-21483 Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China, 62088-62093 2016-21660 Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From the Russian Federation, 62094-62096 2016-21652 Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India, 62081-62082 2016-21634 Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From India, 62098-62099 2016-21653 Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 62096-62098 2016-21659 Stainless Steel Bar From India, 62086-62088 2016-21656 Sunset Reviews, 62086 2016-21662 Wooden Bedroom Furniture, From the People's Republic of China, 62083-62084 2016-21631 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Complaints: Certain Memory Modules and Components Thereof; Products Containing Same, 62176-62177 2016-21523 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

RULES Federal Awarding Agency Regulatory Implementation of Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, 61981-61982 2016-21452
Labor Department Labor Department See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Linking Employment Activities Pre-Release Evaluation, 62177-62178 2016-21622
Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Requests for Administrative Waivers of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel 14 PENNIES, 62244 2016-21556 Vessel GRIFFIN, 62245 2016-21559 Vessel PERSISTENCE, 62244-62245 2016-21557 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Performance Review Board Membership, 62099 2016-21538 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program Fellowship Program and Summer Curriculum Applications, 62156-62157 2016-21518 Challenges: Antimicrobial Resistance Rapid, Point-of-Need Diagnostic Test; Requirements and Registration Announcements, 62150-62156 2016-21328 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 62150, 62157-62160 2016-21513 2016-21514 2016-21515 Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 62158-62159 2016-21617 2016-21618 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 62150 2016-21616 National Institute of Mental Health, 62156 2016-21619 National Institute on Aging, 62150 2016-21516 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Alaska Humpback Whale Approach Regulations, 62018-62021 2016-21278 Approach Regulations for Humpback Whales in Waters Surrounding Islands of Hawaii: Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc., 62010-62018 2016-21277 Endangered and Threatened Species: Identification of 14 Distinct Population Segments of Humpback Whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, and Revision of Species-Wide Listing, 62260-62320 2016-21276 PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Snapper Management Measures, 62069-62071 2016-21620 NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Essential Fish Habitat, 62100-62103 2016-21621 Meetings: Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, 62099-62100 2016-21613 Performance Review Board Membership, 62099 2016-21478 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Capital Region Application for Public Gathering, 62172-62173 2016-21571 National Park Service Leasing Program, 62173-62174 2016-21572 Research Permit and Reporting System Applications and Reports, 62175-62176 2016-21568 Navy Navy Department RULES Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations: Preventing Collisions at Sea, 62008-62010 2016-21598 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance, 62184-62185 2016-21541 Security Termination Statement, 62178-62179 2016-21540 Suspicious Activity Reporting Using the Protected Web Server, 62179-62180 2016-21539 Direct Transfer of Licenses; Applications: Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility and Lucky Mc Uranium Mill, 62180-62184 2016-21472 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration PROPOSED RULES Fall Protection in Shipyard Employment, 62052-62066 2016-21369 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 62185 2016-21502 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month (Proc. 9479), 61973-61974 2016-21750 National Childhood Cancer Awareness Month (Proc. 9483), 62345-62348 2016-21816 National Childhood Obesity Awareness Month (Proc. 9480), 61975-61976 2016-21752 National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month (Proc. 9484), 62349-62350 2016-21817 National Preparedness Month (Proc. 9481), 61977-61978 2016-21754 National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month (Proc. 9485), 62351-62352 2016-21818 National Wilderness Month (Proc. 9482), 61979-61980 2016-21759 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 62221-62222 2016-21520 2016-21640 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., 62192-62195, 62198-62200 2016-21489 2016-21649 Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 62195-62198, 62225-62226 2016-21488 2016-21648 Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., 62219-62221, 62226-62228 2016-21491 2016-21647 Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., 62185-62187, 62205-62208 2016-21487 2016-21650 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 62208-62212 2016-21643 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 62222-62225 2016-21642 ICE Clear Europe Ltd., 62228-62229 2016-21646 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 62212-62216, 62229-62233 2016-21486 2016-21492 National Stock Exchange, Inc., 62187-62192 2016-21644 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 62200-62202 2016-21496 NYSE Arca, Inc., 2016-21493 62192, 62198, 62203-62205, 62233 2016-21495 2016-21519 2016-21641 NYSE MKT LLC, 62216-62218 2016-21494 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Conflict of Interest Exemptions: New York Credit SBIC Fund, LP, 62234-62235 2016-21603 Disaster Declarations: California, 62233-62234 2016-21605 Kentucky, 62234 2016-21508 Small Business Investment Company License Surrenders: Equinox Capital SBIC, L.P., 62234 2016-21511 State Department State Department RULES International Traffic in Arms: Revisions to Definition of Export and Related Definitions, 62004-62008 2016-21481 PROPOSED RULES Intercountry Adoptions, 62322-62343 2016-20968 NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Glory of Venice—Masterworks of the Renaissance, 62239 2016-21632 Helio Oiticica—To Organize Delirium, 1944-1980, 62240 2016-21627 Keir Collection of Art of the Islamic World, 62239-62240 2016-21635 Monet—The Early Years, 62240 2016-21633 Paint the Revolution—Mexican Modernism, 1910-1950, 62239 2016-21630 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 62235-62239 2016-21645 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Operation Exemptions: Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway Co. Valley Line, Harrison and Jefferson Counties, OH, 62240-62241 2016-21623 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Maritime Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

United States Mint

RULES Investigations of Claims of Evasions of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties; Correction, 62004 2016-21582
Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection RULES Investigations of Claims of Evasions of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties; Correction, 62004 2016-21582 U.S. Mint United States Mint NOTICES Product Pricing: 2016 United States Mint American Eagle Products, 62257 2016-21449 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 62260-62320 2016-21276 Part III State Department, 62322-62343 2016-20968 Part IV Presidential Documents, 62345-62352 2016-21816 2016-21817 2016-21818 Reader Aids

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

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.

81 174 Thursday, September 8, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 2 CFR Part 2800 28 CFR Parts 66 and 70 RIN 1121-AA81 AG Order No. 3737-2016 Federal Awarding Agency Regulatory Implementation of Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards AGENCY:

Department of Justice.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Justice finalizes its implementation of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on December 26, 2013.

DATES:

This rule is effective September 8, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rafael A. Madan, General Counsel, Office of Justice Programs, (202) 307-0790.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule makes technical corrections to, and finalizes, the interim final rule that was published by the Department of Justice (Department) on December 19, 2014, and that went into effect on December 26, 2014. See 79 FR 76081. The interim final rule added 2 CFR part 2800, which implements and supplements parts of 2 CFR part 200 for the Department of Justice, and removed 28 CFR parts 66 and 70, which were superseded by 2 CFR part 200.

The Department of Justice received no comments in response to its portion of the interim final rule. Therefore, the interim final rule is finalized with no substantive changes. The Department has made minor technical changes to make clear that where the Department's implementing rule incorporates by reference other provisions of law, it does so by general reference, which incorporates future amendments to those provisions.

Regulatory Analysis Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), see 44 U.S.C. 3506, the Department of Justice reviewed its final rule and determined that there are no new collections of information contained therein. However, the OMB uniform guidance in 2 CFR part 200 may have a negligible effect on burden estimates for existing information collections, including recordkeeping requirements for non-Federal entities that receive Federal awards.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency that is issuing a final rule to provide a final regulatory flexibility analysis or to certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). This rule finalizes the interim final rule implementing for the Department of Justice the OMB guidance at 2 CFR part 200. The OMB guidance consolidated and updated several guidance documents codified and published in various places into one omnibus document. The consolidation and updates are designed to streamline the Federal grant process, and should, as a whole, substantially simplify the requirements and cost principles applicable to many federally funded entities. Thus, the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563—Regulatory Review

This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation, and in accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” section 1(b), General Principles of Regulation.

The Department of Justice has determined that this rule is a not “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and accordingly this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

Further, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic effects, environmental effects, 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. The Department has assessed the costs and benefits of this regulation and believes that the regulatory approach selected maximizes net benefits.

Administrative Procedure Act

The rule issued by the Department of Justice concerns matters relating to “grants, benefits, or contracts,” 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), and therefore is exempt from the requirement of prior notice and comment. Thus, the Department, along with other Federal grant-making agencies, published an interim final rule that was effective on December 26, 2014. The Department received no comments on its interim final rule.

Generally, those agencies that are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) are required to delay the effective date of their final regulations by 30 days after publication. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The interim final rule issued by the Department that went into effect on December 26, 2014, concerned matters relating to “grants, benefits, or contracts,” 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), and therefore was exempt from the requirement of a 30-day delay in the effective date. This rule finalizes, with non-substantive technical changes, the interim final rule that is already in effect, and the final rule will take effect upon publication in the Federal Register.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Determination

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act), 2 U.S.C. 1532, requires that covered agencies prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, 2 U.S.C. 1535, also requires covered agencies to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule. OMB determined that the joint interim-final rule would not result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. See 79 FR 75877. Thus, a budgetary impact statement was not required for the interim final rule, and is not required here.

Executive Order 13132 Determination

The Department determined, as required by Executive Order 13132, “Federalism”, that the joint interim final rule did not have any federalism implications. This final rule similarly has no federalism implications.

List of Subjects 2 CFR Part 2800

Accounting, Colleges and universities, Grant programs, Hospitals, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Nonprofit organizations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

28 CFR Part 66

Accounting, Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

28 CFR Part 70

Accounting, Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, the interim final rule published by the Department of Justice on December 19, 2014, adding 2 CFR part 2800, and removing 28 CFR parts 66 and 70, is adopted as a final rule with the following changes:

Title 2—Grants and Agreements CHAPTER XXVIII—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PART 2800—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1. The authority citation for part 2800 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509; 28 U.S.C. 530C(a)(4); 42 U.S.C. 3789; 2 CFR part 200.

2. Section 2800.101 is revised to read as follows:
§ 2800.101 Adoption of 2 CFR part 200.

Under the authority listed above, the Department of Justice adopts the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except as otherwise may be provided by this Part. Unless expressly provided otherwise, any reference in this part to any provision of law not in this part shall be understood to constitute a general reference and thus to include any subsequent changes to the provision.

Dated: August 31, 2016. Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 2016-21452 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-TP-0071] RIN 1904-AC67 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Integrated Light-Emitting Diode Lamps; Correction AGENCY:

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY:

On July 1, 2016, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a final rule adopting a test procedure for integrated light-emitting diode (LED) lamps (hereafter referred to as “LED lamps”) to support the implementation of labeling provisions by the Federal Trade Commission, as well as the ongoing general service lamps rulemaking, which includes LED lamps (hereafter the “July 2016 final rule”). This correction addresses an error in the July 2016 final rule to add appendix BB to 10 CFR 430.3(p)(5). Neither the error nor the correction in this document affect the substance of the test procedure rulemaking or any of the conclusions reached in support of the final rule.

DATES:

Effective Date: September 8, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1604. Email: [email protected]

Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

DOE published the July 2016 final rule in the Federal Register on July 1, 2016, which adopted the test procedures for LED lamps in Appendix BB to support the implementation of labeling provisions by the Federal Trade Commission, as well as the ongoing general service lamps rulemaking, which includes LED lamps. 81 FR 43403. The test procedure for standby power adopted in the July 2016 final rule references the test standard published by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), titled “Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power,” IEC 62301 (Edition 2.0, 2011-01). Therefore, to incorporate by reference IEC 62301 for appendix BB, DOE attempted to amend § 430.3 to add appendix BB to the list of approved appendices in existing paragraph (p)(5). However, the amendatory instruction was incorrectly written and appendix BB was not added. This final rule corrects § 430.3(p)(5) to include appendix BB.

Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

The regulatory reviews conducted for this rulemaking are those set forth in the July 2016 final rule that originally codified DOE's adopted test procedures for integrated LED lamps. The test procedures in the July 2016 final rule became effective August 1, 2016.

Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b), DOE has determined that notice and prior opportunity for comment on this rule are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Neither the error nor the correction in this document affect the substance of the rulemaking or any of the conclusions reached in support of the final rule. For these reasons, DOE has also determined that there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 31, 2016. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations by making the following correcting amendment:

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

§ 430.3 [Corrected]
2. Section 430.3(p)(5) is corrected by removing the text “Z and CC” and adding in its place, the text “Z, BB, and CC”.
[FR Doc. 2016-21577 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6665; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-070-AD; Amendment 39-18644; AD 2016-18-13] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. This AD was prompted by an aileron-wing flutter analysis finding that, when a hydraulic aileron actuator is not powered while at least one aileron flutter damper is inoperative (latent failure), the maximum speed currently defined in the airplane flight manual (AFM) is insufficient to meet the required safety margin. This AD requires revising the AFM to include procedures to follow in the event of a hydraulic system failure and abnormal flight control behavior. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has procedures to follow in the event of a hydraulic system failure and abnormal flight control behavior. If not corrected, this condition could lead to aileron flutter and possible reduced control of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD is effective October 13, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 13, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6665.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6665; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 253-227-1137; fax 253-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 13, 2016 (81 FR 29800) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by an aileron-wing flutter analysis finding that, when a hydraulic aileron actuator is not powered while at least one aileron flutter damper is inoperative (latent failure), the maximum speed currently defined in the AFM is insufficient to meet the required safety margin. The NPRM proposed to require revising the AFM to include procedures to follow in the event of a hydraulic system failure and abnormal flight control behavior. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has procedures to follow in the event of a hydraulic system failure and abnormal flight control behavior. If not corrected, this condition could lead to aileron flutter and possible reduced control of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0078, dated May 6, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The MCAI states:

In the frame of a complementary aileron-wing flutter analysis performed by Fokker Services, it has been found that in case a hydraulic aileron actuator is not powered, while at least one aileron flutter damper is inoperative (latent failure), the maximum speed currently defined in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) is insufficient to meet the required safety margin.

This condition, if not corrected, could lead to aileron flutter, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.

To address this potential unsafe condition, Fokker Services published an AFM change through Manual Change Notification—Operational (MCNO) F100-066 which introduces an additional step in the Abnormal Procedures for [a] hydraulic [system] failure and for abnormal flight control behaviour. This new step consists in a speed reduction to Vra (IAS 250kt/M 0.65) to restore a sufficient margin to the flutter speed.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires incorporation of the amended abnormal procedures into the applicable AFM.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6665. Comments

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Fokker Manual Change Notification—Operational Documentation MCNO-F100-066, dated December 1, 2014. The service information contains amendments to applicable AFMs that introduce an additional step in the abnormal procedures for a hydraulic system failure and abnormal flight control behavior. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $680, or $85 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-18-13 Fokker Services B.V.: Amendment 39-18644; Docket No. FAA-2016-6665; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-070-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective October 13, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by an aileron-wing flutter analysis finding that, when a hydraulic aileron actuator is not powered while at least one aileron flutter damper is inoperative (latent failure), the maximum speed currently defined in the airplane flight manual (AFM) is insufficient to meet the required safety margin. We are proposing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has procedures to follow in the event of a hydraulic system failure and abnormal flight control behavior. If not corrected, this condition could lead to aileron flutter and possible reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) AFM Revision

Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the Abnormal Procedures and Limitations sections of the applicable AFM to include the information in Fokker Manual Change Notification—Operational Documentation MCNO-F100-066, dated December 1, 2014. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of Fokker Manual Change Notification—Operational Documentation MCNO-F100-066, dated December 1, 2014, into the applicable AFM. Fokker Manual Change Notification—Operational Documentation MCNO-F100-066, dated December 1, 2014, introduces procedures for the flightcrew to follow in the event of a hydraulic system failure and abnormal flight control behavior. When the information in Fokker Manual Change Notification—Operational Documentation MCNO-F100-066, dated December 1, 2014, is included in the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted in the AFM, and Fokker Manual Change Notification—Operational Documentation MCNO-F100-066, dated December 1, 2014, may be removed.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

(i) Related Information

Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0078, dated May 6, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6665.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Fokker Manual Change Notification-Operational Documentation MCNO F100-066, dated December 1, 2014.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com

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

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 29, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-21288 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6901; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-192-AD; Amendment 39-18646; AD 2016-18-15] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the aft pressure bulkhead is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This AD requires repetitive inspections of the aft pressure bulkhead web for any cracking, crack indications, discrepant fastener holes, and corrosion; and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the aft pressure bulkhead web, which could result in an uncontrolled decompression of the fuselage.

DATES:

This AD is effective October 13, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 13, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6901.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6901; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6450; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2016 (81 FR 40208) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the aft pressure bulkhead is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the aft pressure bulkhead web for any cracking, crack indications, discrepant fastener holes, and corrosion; and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the aft pressure bulkhead web, which could result in an uncontrolled decompression of the fuselage.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comments received. Boeing, the Airline Pilots Association International, and United Airlines supported the NPRM.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental type certificate (STC) ST00830SE does not affect compliance with the actions specified in the NPRM.

We agree with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the NPRM as (c)(1) and added a new paragraph (c)(2) to this final rule to state that installation of STC ST00830SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this final rule. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST00830SE is installed, a “change in product” Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1248, Revision 2, dated October 14, 2015. The service information describes procedures for low frequency eddy current, or high frequency eddy current, and detailed inspections of the bulkhead web for cracking, crack indications, discrepant fastener holes, and corrosion. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 680 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspections 34 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,890 per inspection cycle $2,890 per inspection cycle $1,965,200 per inspection cycle.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-18-15 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18646; Docket No. FAA-2016-6901; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-192-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective October 13, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

Certain requirements of this AD terminate certain requirements of AD 2005-21-06, Amendment 39-14344 (70 FR 61226, October 21, 2005) (“AD 2005-21-06”).

(c) Applicability

(1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes, certificated in any category, line number 1 through 1755, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1248, Revision 2, dated October 14, 2015.

(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSTC.nsf/0/38B606833BBD98B386257FAA00602538?OpenDocument&Highlight=st00830se) does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST00830SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the aft pressure bulkhead is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the aft pressure bulkhead web, which could result in an uncontrolled decompression of the fuselage.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections

At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1248, Revision 2, dated October 14, 2015, or within 18 months after November 25, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-21-06), whichever occurs later: Do a low frequency eddy current (LFEC) or high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection, and a detailed inspection, of the aft and forward sides, as applicable, of the aft pressure bulkhead web at the Y chord, above and below stringer S-15L and stringer S-15R, to detect discrepancies (including cracking, crack indications, discrepant fastener holes, and corrosion), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1248, Revision 2, dated October 14, 2015. Access and restoration procedures specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1248, Revision 2, dated October 14, 2015, are not required by this AD. Operators may do those procedures following their maintenance practices.

(1) If no discrepancy is found: Repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1248, Revision 2, dated October 14, 2015.

(2) If any discrepancy is found: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(i) Repair the discrepancy before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

(ii) On areas that are not repaired, repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1248, Revision 2, dated October 14, 2015.

(h) Terminating Action for AD 2005-21-06

Accomplishment of the initial inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the requirements of AD 2005-21-06.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1248, dated September 9, 2004; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1248, Revision 1, dated September 10, 2007; which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

(k) Related Information

(1) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6450; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

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

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1248, Revision 2, dated October 14, 2015.

(ii) Reserved.

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

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

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 30, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-21410 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9070; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-118-AD; Amendment 39-18642; AD 2016-18-11] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model G-1159, G-1159A, G-1159B, G-IV, and GV airplanes; and certain Model GIV-X and GV-SP airplanes. This AD requires a one-time replacement of the actuator end cap fitting of the main landing gear (MLG) door, and revision of the maintenance or inspection program to establish the life limit of the end cap fitting. This AD was prompted by a report of the failure of the right MLG to extend due to fatigue cracking of the end cap fitting. We are issuing this AD to prevent such cracking, which could result in depletion of the combined (left) and utility hydraulic system fluid and the nitrogen emergency blowdown system, failure of the combined (left) hydraulic system (all phases) to provide adequate hydraulic pressure, and failure of the MLG to extend when commanded.

DATES:

This AD is effective September 23, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 23, 2016.

We must receive comments on this AD by October 24, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept., P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone 800-810-4853; fax 912-965-3520; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.gulfstream.com/product_support/technical_pubs/pubs/index.htm. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9070.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9070; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gideon Jose, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ACE-119A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5569; fax: 404-474-5606; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We have received a report of an incident involving a Model G-1159A (G-III) airplane. During approach, the right MLG failed to extend during normal or alternative extension procedures. We have determined that the MLG door actuator end cap fitting is subject to fatigue cracking, allowing for the depletion of the combined (left) and utility hydraulic system fluid and the nitrogen emergency blowdown system. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the combined (left) hydraulic system (all phrases) to provide adequate hydraulic pressure and failure of the MLG to extend when commanded. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed the following temporary revisions (TRs), which provide procedures for replacing MLG door actuator end cap fittings, and establish life limits for the end cap fittings.

• Gulfstream G300 Maintenance Manual, TR 32-2, dated April 29, 2016.

• Gulfstream G300 Maintenance Manual, TR 5-3, dated April 29, 2016.

• Gulfstream G350 Maintenance Manual TR 32-1, dated April 22, 2016.

• Gulfstream G350 Maintenance Manual TR 5-2, dated April 22, 2016.

• Gulfstream G400 Maintenance Manual TR 32-2, dated April 29, 2016.

• Gulfstream G400 Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated April 29, 2016.

• Gulfstream G450 Maintenance Manual TR 32-1, dated April 22, 2016.

• Gulfstream G450 Maintenance Manual TR 5-2, dated April 22, 2016.

• Gulfstream G500 Maintenance Manual TR 32-1, dated May 20, 2016.

• Gulfstream G500 Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated May 20, 2016.

• Gulfstream G550 Maintenance Manual TR 32-1, dated May 20, 2016.

• Gulfstream G550 Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated May 20, 2016.

• Gulfstream II Maintenance Manual TR 32-1, dated April 15, 2016.

• Gulfstream II Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated April 15, 2016.

• Gulfstream IIB Maintenance Manual TR 32-3, dated April 15, 2016.

• Gulfstream IIB Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated April 15, 2016.

• Gulfstream III Maintenance Manual TR 32-1, dated April 15, 2016.

• Gulfstream III Maintenance Manual TR 5-2, dated April 15, 2016.

• Gulfstream IV Maintenance Manual TR 32-2, dated April 29, 2016.

• Gulfstream IV Maintenance Manual TR 5-7, dated April 29, 2016.

• Gulfstream V Maintenance Manual TR 32-2, dated May 20, 2016.

• Gulfstream V Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated May 20, 2016.

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

FAA's Determination

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

AD Requirements

This AD requires repetitively replacing the MLG door actuator end cap fittings and revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to establish life limits for MLG door actuator end cap fittings.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because fatigue cracking of the MLG door actuator end cap fitting could result in depletion of the combined (left) and utility hydraulic system fluid and the nitrogen emergency blowdown system, failure of the combined (left) hydraulic system (all phrases) to provide adequate hydraulic pressure, and failure of the MLG to extend when commanded. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2016-9070 and Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-118-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.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 1,409 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost
  • ($)
  • Cost per
  • product
  • ($)
  • Cost on U.S. operators
  • ($)
  • Replacement 37 work-hours × $85 per hour = $3,145 $698 $3,843 $5,414,787 Maintenance/inspection program revision 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 0 85 119,765
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-18-11 Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation: Amendment 39-18642; Docket No. FAA-2016-9070; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-118-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 23, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(7) of this AD.

    (1) All Model G-1159 airplanes.

    (2) All Model G-1159A airplanes.

    (3) All Model G-1159B airplanes.

    (4) All Model G-IV airplanes.

    (5) All Model GV airplanes.

    (6) Model GIV-X airplanes, serial numbers 4001 through 4350 inclusive.

    (7) Model GV-SP airplanes, serial numbers 5001 through 5542 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that the right main landing gear (MLG) failed to extend due to fatigue cracking of the end cap fitting. We are issuing this AD to prevent such cracking, which could result in depletion of the combined (left) and utility hydraulic system fluid and the nitrogen emergency blowdown system, failure of the combined (left) hydraulic system (all phrases) to provide adequate hydraulic pressure, and failure of the MLG to extend when commanded.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) MLG Actuator End Cap Fitting Replacement

    Before the accumulation of 9,500 total landings on the MLG actuator end cap fitting, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Replace the end cap fitting, in accordance with the applicable temporary revision (TR) identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(11) of this AD. For airplanes on which the number of total accumulated landings since new cannot be determined, do the replacement within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (1) Gulfstream IIB Maintenance Manual TR 32-3, dated April 15, 2016.

    (2) Gulfstream IV Maintenance Manual TR 32-2, dated April 29, 2016.

    (3) Gulfstream G300 Maintenance Manual TR 32-2, dated April 29, 2016.

    (4) Gulfstream G400 Maintenance Manual TR 32-2, dated April 29, 2016.

    (5) Gulfstream G350 Maintenance Manual TR 32-1, dated April 22, 2016.

    (6) Gulfstream G450 Maintenance Manual TR 32-1, dated April 22, 2016.

    (7) Gulfstream G500 Maintenance Manual TR 32-1, dated May 20, 2016.

    (8) Gulfstream G550 Maintenance Manual TR 32-1, dated May 20, 2016.

    (9) Gulfstream V Maintenance Manual TR 32-2, dated May 20, 2016.

    (10) Gulfstream II Maintenance Manual TR 32-1, dated April 15, 2016.

    (11) Gulfstream III Maintenance Manual TR 32-1, dated April 15, 2016.

    (h) Revision of Maintenance/Inspection Program

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information for the part number 1159HM20178 MLG actuator end cap fitting in the applicable TR identified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(11) of this AD. The initial compliance time to replace the MLG actuator end cap fitting, as specified in the TR, is before the accumulation of 9,500 total landings on the end cap fitting, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (1) Gulfstream IIB Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated April 15, 2016.

    (2) Gulfstream IV Maintenance Manual TR 5-7, dated April 29, 2016.

    (3) Gulfstream G300 Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated April 29, 2016.

    (4) Gulfstream G400 Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated April 29, 2016.

    (5) Gulfstream G350 Maintenance Manual TR 5-2, dated April 22, 2016.

    (6) Gulfstream G450 Maintenance Manual TR 5-2, dated April 22, 2016.

    (7) Gulfstream G500 Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated May 20, 2016.

    (8) Gulfstream G550 Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated May 20, 2016.

    (9) Gulfstream V Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated May 20, 2016.

    (10) Gulfstream II Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated April 15, 2016.

    (11) Gulfstream III Maintenance Manual TR 5-2, dated April 15, 2016.

    (i) No Alternative Actions and Intervals

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

    (j) Special Flight Permit

    A special flight permit may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane, for one flight only, to a location where the MLG actuator end cap fitting can be replaced, as required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

    (l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Gideon Jose, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ACE-119A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: 404-474-5569; fax: 404-474-5606; email: [email protected]

    (m) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Gulfstream G300 Maintenance Manual Temporary Revision (TR) 32-2, dated April 29, 2016.

    (ii) Gulfstream G300 Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated April 29, 2016.

    (iii) Gulfstream G350 Maintenance Manual TR 32-1, dated April 22, 2016.

    (iv) Gulfstream G350 Maintenance Manual TR 5-2, dated April 22, 2016.

    (v) Gulfstream G400 Maintenance Manual TR 32-2, dated April 29, 2016.

    (vi) Gulfstream G400 Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated April 29, 2016.

    (vii) Gulfstream G450 Maintenance Manual TR 32-1, dated April 22, 2016.

    (viii) Gulfstream G450 Maintenance Manual TR 5-2, dated April 22, 2016.

    (ix) Gulfstream G500 Maintenance Manual TR 32-1, dated May 20, 2016.

    (x) Gulfstream G500 Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated May 20, 2016.

    (xi) Gulfstream G550 Maintenance Manual TR 32-1, dated May 20, 2016.

    (xii) Gulfstream G550 Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated May 20, 2016.

    (xiii) Gulfstream II Maintenance Manual TR 32-1, dated April 15, 2016.

    (xiv) Gulfstream II Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated April 15, 2016.

    (xv) Gulfstream IIB Maintenance Manual TR 32-3, dated April 15, 2016.

    (xvi) Gulfstream IIB Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated April 15, 2016.

    (xvii) Gulfstream III Maintenance Manual TR 32-1, dated April 15, 2016.

    (xviii) Gulfstream III Maintenance Manual TR 5-2, dated April 15, 2016.

    (xix) Gulfstream IV Maintenance Manual TR 32-2, dated April 29, 2016.

    (xx) Gulfstream IV Maintenance Manual TR 5-7, dated April 29, 2016.

    (xxi) Gulfstream V Maintenance Manual TR 32-2, dated May 20, 2016.

    (xxii) Gulfstream V Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated May 20, 2016.

    (3) For Gulfstream service information identified in this AD, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept., P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone 800-810-4853; fax 912-965-3520; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.gulfstream.com/product_support/technical_pubs/pubs/index.htm.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 24, 2016. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21155 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6671; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-164-AD; Amendment 39-18643; AD 2016-18-12] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-203 and A300 B4-2C airplanes. This AD was prompted by cracks found on pylon side panels (upper section) at rib 8. This AD requires a detailed inspection for crack indications of the pylon side panels; a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection to confirm any crack indications; and repair of any cracking, or modification of the pylon side panels, and repetitive inspections and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the pylon side panels. Such cracking could result in pylon structural failure and in-flight loss of an engine.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective October 13, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6671.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6671; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM 116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A300 B4-203 and A300 B4-2C airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 23, 2016 (81 FR 32256) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by cracks found on pylon side panels (upper section) at rib 8. The NPRM proposed to require a detailed inspection for crack indications of the pylon side panels; an HFEC inspection to confirm any crack indications; and repair of any cracking, or modification of the pylon side panels, and repetitive inspections and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the pylon side panels. Such cracking could result in pylon structural failure and in-flight loss of an engine.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0201, dated October 7, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-203 and A300 B4-2C airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Cracks were found on pylon side panels (upper section) at rib 8 on Airbus A300, A310 and A300-600 aeroplanes equipped with General Electric engines. Investigation of these findings indicated that this problem was likely to also affect aeroplanes of this type design with other engine installations.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to reduced strength of the pylon primary structure, possibly resulting in pylon structural failure and in-flight loss of an engine.

    Prompted by these findings, EASA issued AD 2008-0181 [which corresponded to FAA AD 2010-06-04, Amendment 39-16228 (75 FR 11428, March 11, 2010; corrected May 4, 2010 (75 FR 23572))] to require repetitive detailed visual inspections and, depending on aeroplane configuration and/or findings, the accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

    Since that [EASA] AD 2008-0181 was issued, a fleet survey and updated Fatigue and Damage Tolerance analyses have been performed in order to substantiate the second A300-600 Extended Service Goal (ESG2) exercise. The results of these analyses have shown that the risk for these aeroplanes is higher than initially determined and consequently, the threshold and interval were reduced to allow timely detection of these cracks and the accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

    Consequently, EASA AD 2013-0136 was published to supersede EASA AD 2008-0181 and to require the inspections to be accomplished within reduced thresholds and intervals. Afterwards, [EASA] AD 2013-0136 was mistakenly revised [EASA AD 2013-0136R1 corresponds to FAA AD 2015-26-06, Amendment 39-18354 (81 FR 1870 January 14, 2016)] to reduce the Applicability, because it was considered at the time that aeroplanes on which Airbus mod 03599 was embodied, were not concerned by the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0136.

    Since EASA AD 2013-0136R1 was issued, a more thorough analysis determined that post-mod 03599 aeroplanes could be affected by this unsafe condition after all.

    [During] further deeper review, a list of nineteen A300 aeroplanes was identified as missing in the [EASA] AD 2013-0136R1 applicability (aeroplanes post-mod 03599).

    For the reasons described above this AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0136R1 and mandates these requirements for the 19 missing A300 aeroplanes MSNs [manufacturer serial numbers].

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6671.

    Comments

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

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 04, dated May 26, 2015. The service information describes procedures for an inspection for crack indications of the pylons, a HFEC inspection to confirm cracking, modification of the pylon side panels, and repair if necessary.

    Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A300-54-0081, dated August 11, 1993. This service information describes installation of a doubler on the left pylon 1 and right pylon 2, on pylon side panels (upper section) at Rib 8.

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

    Costs of Compliance

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

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspection of the pylon side panels 30 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,550 per inspection cycle $2,550 per inspection cycle $10,200 per inspection cycle.

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

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Crack repair 56 work-hours × $85 per hour = $4,760 per repair $3,910 per repair $8,670 per repair. Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-18-12 Airbus: Amendment 39-18643; Docket No. FAA-2016-6671; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-164-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 13, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-203 and A300 B4-2C airplanes, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers 210, 212, 218, 220, 227, 234, 235, 236, 239, 247, 255, 256, 259, 261, 274, 277, 292, 299, and 302.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/Pylons.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by cracks found on pylon side panels (upper section) at rib 8. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the pylon side panels. Such cracking could result in pylon structural failure and in-flight loss of an engine.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Detailed Inspection of Pylons and Corrections

    At the applicable time specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 04, dated May 26, 2015: Do a detailed inspection for crack indications of the pylons 1 and 2 side panels (upper section) at rib 8, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 04, dated May 26, 2015.

    (h) Crack Confirmation

    If any crack indication is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection to confirm the crack, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 04, dated May 26, 2015.

    (i) Follow-on Actions for No Crack/Indication

    If the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD reveals no crack indication, or if the HFEC inspection specified by paragraph (h) of this AD confirms no crack: Do the actions specified in either paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD at the applicable time specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 04, dated May 26, 2015.

    (2) At the applicable time specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0081, dated August 11, 1993: Modify the pylons, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0081, dated August 11, 1993. Thereafter, repeat the HFEC inspection specified in paragraph (h) of this AD at the applicable interval specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 04, dated May 26, 2015, and repair any crack before further flight using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (j) Follow-on Actions for Crack Findings

    If any crack is confirmed during the inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, repair before further flight using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

    (k) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(4) of this AD.

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, dated August 11, 1993, which was incorporated by referenced in AD 2010-06-04, Amendment 39-16228 (75 FR 11428, March 11, 2010); corrected May 4, 2010 (75 FR 23572).

    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 01, dated November 9, 2007.

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 02, dated June 26, 2008.

    (4) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 03, dated March 27, 2013.

    (l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0201, dated October 7, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6671.

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

    (n) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 04, dated May 26, 2015.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0081, dated August 11, 1993.

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

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 25, 2016. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21283 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-5814; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-247-AD; Amendment 39-18639; AD 2016-18-09] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of chafing damage on the fuselage skin at the bottom of certain frames, underneath the fairing structure. This AD requires repetitive detailed inspections for damage on the fuselage skin at certain frames, and applicable related investigative and corrective actions. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damage to the fuselage skin, which could lead to crack initiation and propagation, possibly resulting in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective October 13, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-5814.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-5814; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 27, 2015 (80 FR 74045) (“the NPRM”).

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2014-0259, dated December 5, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    An operator reported finding chafing damage on the fuselage skin at the bottom of frame (FR) 34 junction between stringer (STR) 43 left hand (LH) side and right hand (RH) side on several aeroplanes, underneath the fairing structure.

    After investigation, a contact between the fairing nut plate and the fuselage was identified, causing damage to the fuselage.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to crack initiation and propagation, possibly resulting in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive detailed inspections (DET) of the fuselage [for chafing] at FR 34 and provides an optional terminating action [modification of the belly fairing] to the repetitive inspections required by this [EASA] AD.

    Related investigative actions include a special detailed inspection of external fuselage skin panel for any cracking, and measurement of crack length and remaining thickness. Corrective actions include repair or modification of the fuselage skin panel. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-5814.

    Comments

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

    Request To Use Latest Service Information

    Airbus requested that we revise paragraph (i) of the NPRM to add Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1281, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated October 9, 2015.

    United Airlines also requested that we revise paragraph (i) of the NPRM to add Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1281, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated October 9, 2015, and provide credit for Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1281, Revision 01, dated December 1, 2014. United Airlines explained that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1281, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated October 9, 2015, includes numerous configuration additions.

    For the reasons stated by the commenter, we agree to revise this AD to include Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1281, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated October 9, 2015. Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1281, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated October 9, 2015, includes, among other things, configuration changes, new configurations, and revision of the Manufacturer Serial Numbers (MSNs), but adds no new actions. We also included Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1281, Revision 01, dated December 1, 2014, in paragraph (j) of this AD, as credit for certain actions performed before the effective date of this AD.

    Request To Allow Use of Any Airbus-Approved Corrective Action

    Airbus requested that we revise the NPRM to add a paragraph that allows for any corrective action provided by Airbus. Airbus stated that in case of deviation during service information embodiment, the only solution to cover the deviation for the customer is to ask for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC). Airbus included the following example, which allows any corrective action provided by Airbus:

    If, during modification of an aeroplane as required by paragraph (1) of this AD, a difference (see Note) is detected which makes the accomplishment of a part of the modification instructions impossible, before next flight, contact Airbus for approved instructions and accomplish those instructions accordingly, including follow-on action(s), as applicable.

    Note: For the purpose of this AD, the detected difference can be either:

    (a) a necessary design deviation due to production related concessions that directly affect the sensitive area of the modification;

    (b) an obvious typographical error in the SB instructions; or

    (c) an aircraft configuration not (yet) included in/addressed by the SB instructions.

    We disagree to add a paragraph that allows for any corrective action provided by Airbus, because CFR 39.19 requires approval of an AMOC for an alternative method to mitigate the risk associated with the unsafe condition addressed in an AD. The FAA uses its discretion in determining actions within the provision of an AMOC. We have made no changes to this AD in this regard. Request To Clarify Steps Required for Compliance

    United Airlines requested that we revise the NPRM to clarify that the actions that are required for compliance (RC) are limited to the steps in paragraphs 3.C. and 3.D. of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1287, dated July 29, 2014; Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1281, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated October 9, 2015; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1281, Revision 01, dated December 1, 2014. The commenter noted that paragraph 3.D. contains no test requirements.

    We agree with the request, although, as the commenter noted, paragraph 3.D. of the referenced service information does not include any test requirements. We have therefore revised paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD to limit the requirements to paragraph 3.C., “Procedure,” of the service information.

    Request for Clarification of Compliance Methods and Intervals

    United Airlines requested that we clarify whether the inspections specified in the NPRM and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1287, dated July 29, 2014, override the inspection methods and intervals defined in structures repair manual (SRM) 53-21-11 PB 101, and whether the terminating action in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD terminates the inspections in SRM 53-21-11 PB 101 following rework. The commenter stated that SRM 53-21-11 PB 101 defines different inspection methods, threshold, and repetitive intervals.

    We agree that clarification is necessary. We recognize that there may be a conflict between the inspections specified in this AD and SRM 53-21-11 PB 101. The requirements of this AD were developed to address a known unsafe condition and prevail over the actions of previously developed service information provided by a manufacturer. We have made no changes to this AD in this regard.

    Request for Clarification of Limit

    United Airlines requested that we revise paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD to clarify the “limits” of detected damage. Paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD refers to damage that exceeds the limits defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1287, dated July 29, 2014. United Airlines noted that this limit relates to the remaining skin thickness as defined by SRM 53-21-11 PB 101, but the meaning of “remaining thickness out of limits” is inconclusive. United Airlines stated that the remaining skin thickness following a blend out could become a Category ‘B’ repair with subsequent inspections or a Category ‘C’ repair, eventually requiring doubler repair. United Airlines stated that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1287, dated July 29, 2014, does not give instructions to accomplish a doubler repair if the remaining thickness is within SRM 53-21-11 PB 101 limits. United Airlines stated that it would not be wise to install an external doubler (unless necessary) if the remaining skin thickness is “within limits.” The commenter therefore proposed that we clarify the “limit” as an allowable rework (blend out) that does not require repair (doubler installation).

    We agree that clarification is necessary. If Subtask 531287-832-002-001 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1287, dated July 29, 2014, is performed, and no crack is found, and the measurement of the remaining thickness of fuselage skin exceeds certain limits, then Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1287, dated July 29, 2014, specifies contacting Airbus for repair instructions. The corresponding requirement in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD, requires that those repairs be done using a method approved by the FAA, EASA, or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval. Repair instructions are established based on the inspection results shared with Airbus, which may vary on a case-by-case basis. We have made no changes to this final rule in this regard.

    Request for Inclusion of Previously Repaired Area in Inspection

    United Airlines requested that we revise paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD to include damage on the “fuselage skin or skin repair (if present)” for the required detailed inspection. United Airlines explained that it experienced several issues of skin chafing prior to the release of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1287, dated July 29, 2014; as a result, some airplanes have needed doubler repairs due to skin wear beyond remaining thickness allowed. The commenter stated that because repairs may be present, it will not be possible to inspect the skin in the chafing area.

    For the reasons stated by the commenter, we agree to include previously repaired areas for the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. We have revised paragraph (g)(1) of this AD accordingly.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1281, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated October 9, 2015; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1287, dated July 29, 2014. The service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection for damage (including chafing marks) on the fuselage skin at FR 34 between STR 43 LH and RH sides, and applicable related investigative and corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 642 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 12 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $90 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $712,620, or $1,110 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 21 work-hours and require parts costing $3,550, for a cost of $5,335 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): AD 2016-18-09 Airbus: Amendment 39-18639; Docket No. FAA-2015-5814; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-247-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 13, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers, except those on which Airbus Modification 37878 has been embodied in production, or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1281 has been done in service.

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

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

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

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of chafing damage on the fuselage skin at the bottom of certain frames, underneath the fairing structure. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damage to the fuselage skin, which could lead to crack initiation and propagation, possibly resulting in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive Inspection and Corrective Action

    (1) Within the compliance times identified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a detailed inspection for damage (including chafing marks) on the fuselage skin, including previously repaired areas, at frame (FR) 34 between stringer (STR) 43 on the left-hand and right-hand sides, in accordance with paragraph 3.C., “Procedure,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1287, dated July 29, 2014. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12,000 flight cycles or 24,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (i) Before exceeding 12,000 flight cycles or 24,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first since the airplane's first flight.

    (ii) Within 5,000 flight cycles or 10,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) If any damage is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, before further flight, do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1287, dated July 29, 2014, except as required by paragraph (g)(3) of this AD.

    (3) If any cracking is found during any related investigative action required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, or if any damage detected during the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD exceeds the limits defined in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1287, dated July 29, 2014, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (h) Non-Terminating Repair Action

    Accomplishment of a repair on an airplane as required by paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive detailed inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, unless the approved repair indicates otherwise.

    (i) Terminating Action for the Repetitive Detailed Inspections

    Modification of the belly fairing on any airplane in accordance with paragraph 3.C., “Procedure,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1281, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated October 9, 2015, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive detailed inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD for that airplane.

    (j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1281, dated July 29, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1281, Revision 01, dated December 1, 2014. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

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

    (l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0259, dated December 5, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-5814.

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

    (m) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1281, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated October 9, 2015.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1287, dated July 29, 2014.

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

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 24, 2016. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21144 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6668; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-149-AD; Amendment 39-18627; AD 2016-17-14] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Type Certificate Previously Held by Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model SAAB 2000 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that on some airplanes, during the paint removal process for repainting the airplane, the basic corrosion protection (anodizing and primer) coating was sanded down to bare metal on the aluminum skin panels, and the bare metal might not have been treated correctly for corrosion prevention. This AD requires an inspection of structural components of the airplane for any damaged protective coating; inspections of those areas for pitting corrosion, if necessary; a thickness measurement to determine if there is reduced skin thickness, if necessary; and repair, if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damaged protective coatings. This condition could result in pitting corrosion damage; and reduced metal thickness, which could result in reduced static and fatigue strength of the airplane's structural parts.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective October 13, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Linköping, Sweden; telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.saabgroup.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6668.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6668; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model SAAB 2000 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 13, 2016 (81 FR 29807) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a report that on some airplanes, during the paint removal process for repainting the airplane, the basic corrosion protection (anodizing and primer) coating was sanded down to bare metal on the aluminum skin panels, and the bare metal might not have been treated correctly for corrosion prevention. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection of structural components of the airplane for any damaged protective coating; inspections of those areas for pitting corrosion, if necessary; a thickness measurement to determine if there is reduced skin thickness, if necessary; and repair, if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damaged protective coatings. This condition could result in pitting corrosion damage; and reduced metal thickness, which could result in reduced static and fatigue strength of the airplane's structural parts.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0160, dated July 9, 2014 (Correction: July 9, 2014) (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model SAAB 2000 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    SAAB received evidence that on a number of SAAB 2000 aeroplanes, during paint removal before repainting, the basic corrosion protection anodizing and primer were removed. In these cases, the basic corrosion protection coating was sanded down to bare metal on the aluminium [aluminum] skin panel in spite of existing instruction(s) contained in the Structural Repair Manual (SRM) which prohibit(s) exposing the aluminium bare metal. Due to the fact that the skin panels are manufactured from aluminium without a protective covering (unclad), the anodizing and primer is the corner stone of the aeroplane corrosion protection system. If the anodizing and primer is removed and the aluminium surface is not correctly treated, pitting corrosion may occur. In addition, sanding to bare metal can inadvertently lead to metal removal and subsequently reduce the static and fatigue strength of the aeroplane structural parts.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in corrosion damage and/or reduced structural strength of the aeroplane structure.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, SAAB issued SB 2000-51-002 to provide inspection instructions.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time [detailed] inspection [for damage] * * * of required anticorrosion protective coating [e.g., bonding primer], [detailed] inspection for pitting corrosion (if necessary) [, a dye penetrant inspection for pitting corrosion (if necessary)] and measure the skin thickness (if necessary) [to determine if there is reduced skin thickness] and, depending on findings, corrective action(s) [e.g., repair].

    This [EASA] AD is re-issued to correct typographical error of the effective date.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6668.

    Comments

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

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Saab Service Bulletin 2000-51-002, Revision 01, dated May 23, 2014. This service information describes procedures for an inspection of structural components of the airplane for any damaged protective coating; inspections of those areas for pitting corrosion; a thickness measurement to determine if there is reduced skin thickness; and repair. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it takes about 20 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $13,600, or $1,700 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 45 work-hours, for a cost of $3,825 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions. We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide cost estimates for the parts cost of the follow-on actions specified in this AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-17-14 Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Type Certificate previously held by Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems): Amendment 39-18627; Docket No. FAA-2016-6668; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-149-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 13, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Type Certificate previously held by Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Model SAAB 2000 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers, excluding the airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Those airplanes identified in Table 1 of Saab Service Bulletin 2000-51-002, Revision 01, dated May 23, 2014, on which an applicable “Related Statement” identified in Table 1 was accomplished.

    (2) Those airplanes that either have retained the original paint or have been repainted by Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 51, Standard Practices/Structures.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that on some airplanes, during the paint removal process for repainting the airplane, the basic corrosion protection (anodizing and primer) coating was sanded down to bare metal on the aluminum skin panels, and the bare metal might not have been treated correctly for corrosion prevention. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damaged protective coatings. This condition could result in pitting corrosion damage; and reduced metal thickness, which could result in reduced static and fatigue strength of the airplane's structural parts.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection, Related Investigative Actions, and Corrective Action

    (1) Within 2,000 flight hours or 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do a detailed inspection of the airplane structural parts to detect damaged protective coating (e.g., bonding primer), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 2000-51-002, Revision 01, dated May 23, 2014. If any damaged protective coating is found, before further flight, do a detailed inspection of the airplane structural parts to detect pitting corrosion and, if no pitting corrosion is found, do a dye penetrant inspection of the airplane structural parts to detect pitting corrosion and a thickness measurement to determine if there is reduced skin thickness, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 2000-51-002, Revision 01, dated May 23, 2014.

    (2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, any damage (such as pitting corrosion or damaged primer) or reduced skin thickness is detected, as defined in Saab Service Bulletin 2000-51-002, Revision 01, dated May 23, 2014, before further flight, contact the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics' EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA) for a repair method, and do the repair within the compliance time indicated in those instructions.

    (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Saab Service Bulletin 2000-51-002, dated April 9, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0160, dated July 9, 2014 (Correction: July 9, 2014), for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6668.

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

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Saab Service Bulletin 2000-51-002, Revision 01, dated May 23, 2014.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Linköping, Sweden; telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.saabgroup.com.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 18, 2016. Dorr M. Anderson, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20711 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8135; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-106-AD; Amendment 39-18636; AD 2016-18-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, and -400ER series airplanes. This AD was prompted by multiple reports of uncommanded escape slide inflation. This AD requires modifying the escape slide regulator valves of the forward-entry door, forward-service door, aft-entry door, and aft-service door, and as applicable, modifying the escape slide regulator valves of the mid-entry door and mid-service door. We are issuing this AD to prevent out-of-tolerance trigger mechanism components (sector and sear) in the escape slide regulator valves, which can produce insufficient trigger engagement and reduced pull force values, possibly leading to uncommanded deployment of the slide during normal airplane maintenance or operation. This condition could result in injury to passengers and crew, damage to equipment, and the slide becoming unusable in an emergency evacuation.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective October 13, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8135.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8135; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Caspar Wang, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6414; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, and -400ER series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 4, 2016 (81 FR 24) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by multiple reports of uncommanded escape slide inflation. The NPRM proposed to require modifying the escape slide regulator valves of the forward-entry door, forward-service door, aft-entry door, and aft-service door, and as applicable, modifying the escape slide regulator valves of the mid-entry door and mid-service door. We are issuing this AD to prevent out-of-tolerance trigger mechanism components (sector and sear) in the escape slide regulator valves, which can produce insufficient trigger engagement and reduced pull force values, possibly leading to uncommanded deployment of the slide during normal airplane maintenance or operation. This condition could result in injury to passengers and crew, damage to equipment, and the slide becoming unusable in an emergency evacuation.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment. Air Astana, Air Line Pilots Association International (ALPA), and United Airlines supported the NPRM.

    Request To Clarify Reference to the Escape Slide Regulator Valve

    American Airlines (AAL) and Boeing requested that we clarify that the NPRM is applicable to the regulator valve associated with the escape slide assembly and not the slide door. The commenters pointed out that without clarification, the regulator valve could be misconstrued to be associated with the door system pressure cylinder assembly or the emergency power assist system (EPAS).

    We agree to clarify the references to the escape slide regulator valve. We have revised the preamble in this final rule and paragraphs (e) and (g) of this AD to refer to the escape slide regulator valve.

    Request To Revise Paragraph (g) of the Proposed AD

    Air New Zealand (ANZ) requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the proposed AD or add an additional paragraph to clarify that operators are required only to modify escape slide regulator valves that have not been previously modified as specified in UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 130104-25-432 or 4A3939-25-434. ANZ stated that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD would require all escape slide regulator valves on affected airplanes to be removed and modified as specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0548, Revision 1, dated April 23, 2015. ANZ also pointed out that if before or during the accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0548, Revision 1, dated April 23, 2015, a determination could be made (by reviewing records or checking the part markings on the girt bar) that some of the escape slide regulator valves are already modified, as specified in UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 130104-25-432; or Service Bulletin 4A3939-25-434, then no additional work should be required on the modified escape slide regulator valves.

    We agree that escape slide regulator valves that have already been modified do not need to be removed and modified again. Boeing Service Bulletin 767-25-0548, dated November 5, 2014, included in paragraph (h) of this AD, references UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 130104-25-432; and Service Bulletin 4A3939-25-434 for the modification. As allowed by the phrase, “unless already done,” in paragraph (f) of this AD, if the requirements of this AD have already been accomplished, this AD does not require that those actions be repeated. Therefore, paragraph (g) this AD has not been changed in this regard.

    Request To Reduce the Proposed Compliance Time

    ALPA indicated its full support for the intent of the NPRM, but requested that we reduce the proposed 42-month compliance time for the modification of the escape slide regulator valves. ALPA pointed out that the risk of an uncommanded deployment is high and believes that the compliance time should be reduced in the interest of safety. ALPA provided no specific new compliance time.

    We disagree with the request to reduce the 42-month compliance time. In developing an appropriate compliance time, we considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for timely accomplishment of modification of the escape slide regulator valves. Further, we arrived at the proposed compliance time with operator and manufacturer concurrence. Additionally, ALPA did not provide any additional data to support a shorter compliance time. In consideration of all of these factors, we determined that the compliance time, as proposed, represents an appropriate interval in which the escape slide regulator valves can be modified in a timely manner within the fleet, while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. Most ADs, including this one, permit operators to accomplish the requirements of an AD at a time earlier than the specified compliance time; therefore, an operator may choose to modify the escape slide regulator valves before the 42-month compliance time. If additional data are presented that would justify a shorter compliance time, we may consider further rulemaking on this issue. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request To Revise References in Certain Service Information

    AAL requested that we revise references included in UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 130104-25-432, dated August 11, 2014. AAL stated that UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 130104-25-432, dated August 11, 2014, contains internal references to the UTC Aerospace Systems Component Maintenance Manual (CMM) that are incorrect and reference an old revision of the UTC Aerospace Systems CMM with different paragraph references.

    We agree that the references included in UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 130104-25-432, dated August 11, 2014, are incorrect. Since the specific references included in UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 130104-25-432, dated August 11, 2014, are not required for compliance with this AD, we have not changed the AD in this regard; however, we have identified this discrepancy to Boeing and UTC Aerospace Systems.

    Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets per STC ST01920SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions.

    We agree with the commenter that STC ST01920SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions. Therefore, the installation of STC ST01920SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0548, Revision 1, dated April 23, 2015. The service information describes procedures for modifying the escape slide regulator valves of the forward-entry door, forward-service door, aft-entry door, aft-service door, mid-entry door, and mid-service door. The modification includes replacing the existing trigger mechanism sector and sear of the escape slide regulator valve with new trigger mechanism sector and sear. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 302 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost
  • per product
  • Cost on
  • U.S. operators
  • Replacement of trigger mechanism components—forward and aft-entry/service doors 15 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,275 $2,236 $3,511 $1,060,322 Replacement of trigger mechanism components—mid-entry/mid-service doors 8 work-hours × $85 per hour = $680 1,118 1,798 542,996
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-18-06 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18636; Docket No. FAA-2015-8135; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-106-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 13, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0548, Revision 1, dated April 23, 2015.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by multiple reports of uncommanded escape slide inflation. We are issuing this AD to prevent out-of-tolerance trigger mechanism components (sector and sear) in the escape slide regulator valves, which can produce insufficient trigger engagement and reduced pull force values, possibly leading to uncommanded deployment of the slide during normal airplane maintenance or operation. This condition could result in injury to passengers and crew, damage to equipment, and the slide becoming unusable in an emergency evacuation.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Replacement of the Trigger Mechanism Sector and Sear

    Within 42 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the escape slide regulator valves of the forward-entry door, forward-service door, aft-entry door, and aft-service door, and as applicable, modify the escape slide regulator valves of the mid-entry door and mid-service door, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0548, Revision 1, dated April 23, 2015.

    (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the modification required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if the modification was performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0548, dated November 5, 2014.

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) apply.

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

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

    (j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Caspar Wang, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6414; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

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

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0548, Revision 1, dated April 23, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

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

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 24, 2016. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21152 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7002; Airspace Docket No. 16-ACE-5] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Jetmore, KS AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action establishes Class E airspace in Jetmore, KS. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures developed at Jetmore Municipal Airport, for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, November 10, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_ traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_ locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Raul Garza, Jr., Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone: (817) 222-5874.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This 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 controlled airspace at Jetmore Municipal Airport, Jetmore, KS.

    History

    On June 16, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Jetmore Municipal Airport, Jetmore, KS (81 FR 39217) FAA-2016-7002. 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 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 designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    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.

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of Jetmore Municipal Airport, Jetmore, KS, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

    Class E airspace areas 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 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    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.

    Environmental Review

    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 exists that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ACE KS E5 Jetmore, KS [New] Jetmore Municipal Airport, KS (Lat. 37°59′04″ N., long. 099°53′40″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of Jetmore Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on August 25, 2016. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21224 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6115; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-14] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Lakota, ND AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action establishes Class E airspace in Lakota, ND. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures developed at Lakota Municipal Airport, for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, November 10, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5857.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This 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 controlled airspace at Lakota Municipal Airport, Lakota, ND.

    History

    On June 8, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E Airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Lakota Municipal Airport, Lakota, ND (81 FR 36815) Docket No. FAA-2016-6115. 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 E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2016, 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.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2016, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of Lakota Municipal Airport, Lakota, ND, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

    Class E airspace areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2016, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    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.

    Environmental Review

    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 exists that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2016, effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL ND E5 Lakota, ND [New] Lakota Municipal Airport, ND (Lat. 48°01′44″ N., long. 098°19′33″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of Lakota Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on August 25, 2016. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21221 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Customs and Border Protection DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 19 CFR Part 165 [USCBP-2016-0053; CBP Dec. No. 16-11] RIN 1515-AE10 Investigation of Claims of Evasion of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties; Correction AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published an interim final rule on August 22, 2016, in the Federal Register, concerning investigation of claims of evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties. In accordance with section 421 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, the rule amended the U.S. Customs and Border Protection regulations to set forth procedures for CBP to investigate claims of evasion of antidumping and countervailing duty orders. That document inadvertently omitted a comma in the definition of “evade or evasion.” This document corrects the text in that definition.

    DATES:

    This correction is effective September 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Altneu, Chief, Trade and Commercial Regulations Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On August 22, 2016, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published in the Federal Register (81 FR 56477) an Interim Final Rule (CBP Dec. 16-11) document, entitled “Investigation of Claims of Evasion of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties.” As published, the interim final regulation contains an error in the text of the definition of “evade or evasion” in § 165.1. The definition should be the same as the statutory definition found in section 421 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (19 U.S.C. 1517(a)(5)), but a comma was inadvertently omitted.

    The effective date for the interim final rule (CBP Dec. 16-11), published August 22, 2016 (81 FR 56477), remains August 22, 2016. Written comments must be submitted on or before October 21, 2016.

    List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 165

    Administrative practice and procedure, Business and industry, Customs duties and inspection.

    For reasons stated in the preamble, 19 CFR part 165 is amended by making the following correcting amendment:

    PART 165—INVESTIGATION OF CLAIMS OF EVASION OF ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    19 U.S.C. 66, 1481, 1484, 1508, 1517 (as added by Pub. L. 114-125, 130 Stat. 122,155 (19 U.S.C. 4301 note)), 1623, 1624, 1671, 1673.

    § 165.1 [Amended]
    2. In § 165.1, in the definition of “Evade or evasion”, remove the phrase “or any omission that is material and that results in any cash deposit” and add in its place the phrase “or any omission that is material, and that results in any cash deposit”. Harold M. Singer, Director, Regulations and Disclosure Law Division, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Approved: September 2, 2016. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21582 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 20, 25, 170, 184, 186, and 570 [Docket No. FDA-1997-N-0020 (Formerly 97N-0103)] RIN 0910-AH15 Substances Generally Recognized as Safe Correction

    In rule document 2016-19164 appearing on pages 54959-55055 in the issue of Wednesday, August 17, 2016, make the following correction:

    On page 54960, in the first column, the DATES section, beginning in the fourth line, “October 17, 2016” should read “September 16, 2016”.

    [FR Doc. C1-2016-19164 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Parts 120, 125, 126, and 130 [Public Notice: 9672] RIN 1400-AD70 International Traffic in Arms: Revisions to Definition of Export and Related Definitions AGENCY:

    Department of State.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 3, 2016, the Department of State published an interim final rule amending and adding definitions to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) as part of the President's Export Control Reform (ECR) initiative. After review of the public comments to the interim final rule, the Department further amends the ITAR by revising the definition of “retransfer” and making other clarifying revisions.

    DATES:

    The rule is effective on September 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. C. Edward Peartree, Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, Department of State, telephone (202) 663-1282; email [email protected] ATTN: ITAR Amendment—Revisions to Definitions.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), U.S. Department of State, administers the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR parts 120 through 130). On June 3, 2015, the Department of State published a rule (80 FR 31525) proposing to amend the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) by revising key definitions, creating several new definitions, and revising related provisions, as part of the President's Export Control Reform (ECR) initiative. After review of the public comments on the proposed rule, the Department published an interim final rule (81 FR 35611, June 3, 2016) implementing several of the proposed revisions and additions, with an additional comment period until July 5, 2016. After reviewing the public comments to the interim final rule, the Department further amends the ITAR by revising the definition of “retransfer” in § 120.51, adding a new paragraph (f) to § 125.1, revising § 126.16(a)(1)(iii) and § 126.17(a)(1)(iii), revising § 126.18(d)(1), and revising § 130.2.

    Changes in This Rule

    The following changes are made to the ITAR with this final rule: (i) Revisions to the definition of “retransfer” in § 120.51 to clarify that temporary transfers to third parties and releases to same-country foreign persons are within the scope of the definitions; (ii) addition of a new paragraph (f) in § 125.1 to mirror the new sections of the ITAR in §§ 123.28 and 124.1(e) detailing the scope of licenses; (iii) revising § 126.16(a)(1)(iii) and § 126.17(a)(1)(iii) to reflect the definitions of reexport and retransfer in the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaties with Australia and the United Kingdom, respectively, and to make appropriate revisions to the definitions of reexport in § 120.19 and retransfer in § 120.51 to reflect that these definitions do not apply in the treaty context; (iv) revisions to § 126.18(d)(1) to clarify that the provisions include all foreign persons who meet the definition of regular employee in § 120.39; and (v) revisions to § 130.2 to ensure that the scope of the Part 130 requirements does not change due to the revised and new definitions. The remaining definitions published in the June 3, 2015 proposed rule (80 FR 31525) and not addressed in the June 3, 2016 interim final rule or this final rule, will be the subject of separate rulemakings and the public comments on those definitions will be addressed therein.

    Response to Public Comments

    One commenter stated that § 120.17 (a)(1) is ambiguous and could lead to misinterpretation as to whether the transfer of a defense article to a foreign person within the United States would be considered an export. The Department notes that a transfer of a defense article to a foreign person in the United States is not an export, unless it results in a release of technical data under § 120.17(a)(2), is a defense article covered under § 120.17(a)(3), or involves an embassy under § 120.17 (a)(4). The Department confirms that simply allowing a foreign person in the United States to possess a defense article does not require authorization under the ITAR unless technical data is revealed to that person through the possession, including subsequent inspection, of the defense article, or that person is taking the defense article into an embassy.

    One commenter stated that § 120.17(a)(2) implies that only transfers to foreign persons that occur in the United States constitute an export and asked the Department to add “or abroad” to include transfers to foreign persons outside of the United States. The Department does not accept the comment. One of the improvements of the new definitions for export, reexport, and retransfer is that they more specifically delineate the activities described by each term. The Department confirms that the transfer of technical data to a foreign person is always a controlled activity that requires authorization from the Department. The shipment of technical data, in physical, electronic, verbal, or any other format, from the United States to a foreign country is an export under § 120.17(a)(1). The release of technical data to a foreign person in the United States is an export under § 120.17(a)(2). The release of technical data to a foreign person in a foreign country is a retransfer under § 120.51(a)(2), if the person is a national of that country, or a reexport under § 120.19(a)(2), if the person is a dual or third country national (DN/TCN). The shipment of technical data, in physical, electronic, verbal, or any other format, from one foreign country to another foreign country is a reexport under § 120.19(a)(1). Finally, the shipment of technical data, in physical, electronic, verbal, or any other format, within one foreign country is a retransfer under § 120.51(a)(1).

    One commenter asked why paragraph (b) in §§ 120.17 and 120.19 is not within paragraph (a)(2) of each definition, as that paragraph deals with releases of technical data. The Department did not include the text of paragraph (b) in §§ 120.17 and 120.19 as a note because it warrants being included in the ITAR as regulatory text. The Department notes that paragraph (b) applies to all of paragraph (a) and not just to paragraph (a)(2). The Department did not include paragraph (b) in § 120.51 because a retransfer will only involve same country nationals. A release to a dual or third country national will be an export or reexport.

    One commenter asked if theoretical or potential access to technical data is a release. The Department confirms that theoretical or potential access to technical data is not a release. As stated in the preamble to the interim final rule however, a release will have occurred if a foreign person does actually access technical data, and the person who provided the access is an exporter for the purposes of that release.

    One commenter asked how extensively an exporter is required to inquire as to a foreign national's past citizenships or permanent residencies. The Department confirms that any release to a foreign person is a controlled event that requires authorization to all countries where that foreign person holds or has held citizenship or is a permanent resident. The Department also confirms that it will consider all circumstances surrounding any unauthorized release and will assess responsibility pursuant to its civil enforcement authority based on the relative culpability of all of the parties to the transaction.

    One commenter asked if an exporter is required to inquire into citizenships a foreign national has renounced. The Department confirms that any release to a foreign person is a controlled event that requires authorization to all countries where that foreign person has held citizenship.

    One commenter asked which citizenship controls (for purposes of DDTC authorizations) apply where a foreign national has multiple citizenships. The Department confirms that any release to a foreign person is a controlled event that requires authorization to all countries where that foreign person holds or has held citizenship or is a permanent resident, and that such authorization or authorizations must authorize all applicable destinations.

    One commenter asked if DDTC considers an individual's country of birth sufficient to establish a particular nationality for that individual for ITAR purposes (i.e., will DDTC consider a person born in a particular country as a national of that country, even if the person does not hold citizenship or permanent residency status in his/her country of birth?). The Department confirms that in circumstances where birth does not confer citizenship in the country of birth, it does not confer citizenship or permanent residency in that country for purposes of the ITAR. One commenter noted that the DDTC Agreement Guidelines refer to the country of origin or birth, in addition to citizenship, as a consideration when vetting DN/TCNs. The Department has updated the Agreement Guidelines consistent with the interim final rule.

    Several commenters asked whether a temporary retransfer to a separate legal entity within the same country, such as for the purpose of testing or to subcontractors or intermediate consignees, is within the scope of § 120.51. The Department confirms that such a temporary retransfer is a temporary change in end-user or end-use and is within the scope of § 120.51. The Department revises § 120.51 to clarify this point by adding “. . . or temporary transfer to a third party. . . .”

    Several commenters asked that the Department remove “letter of explanation” from §§ 123.28 and 124.1(e), stating that foreign parties do not have access to “letters of explanation” and other side documents which may have been submitted by the U.S. applicant, and which may impact the scope of the authorization. The Department does not accept the comments to the extent that they recommend a change to the regulatory text. However, the Department acknowledges the importance of the foreign parties being informed of the scope of the authorization relevant to their activities and will address the commenters' concerns in the licensing process.

    One commenter noted that, based upon the consolidation of § 124.16 into § 126.18, the reference to § 124.16 under § 126.18(a) is no longer accurate. The Department notes that amendatory instruction #16 in the interim final rule makes this amendment.

    One commenter asked if use of the word reexport in new § 126.18(d) means that only employees who have the same nationality as their employer can receive technical data directly from, or interact with, the U.S. exporter, with attendant responsibility on the employer who reexports such technical data to its DN/TCN. The Department confirms that, to the extent that a DN/TCN employee of an authorized end user, foreign signatory, or consignee acts as an authorized representative of that company, the provision of technical data by an authorized U.S. party to the foreign company through the DN/TCN employee is a reexport from the foreign company to the DN/TCN employee that may be authorized under § 126.18.

    One commenter noted that new § 126.18(d)(4) will require individual DN/TCNs to sign an non-disclosure agreement (NDA) unless their employer is a signatory to a relevant agreement, meaning that authorized DN/TCNs will have to sign an NDA for access to articles covered by a license. The commenter further noted that the exemptions progressively introduced for DN/TCNs were motivated at least in part by concerns among U.S. allies about domestic anti-discrimination law. The Department does not accept this comment. All activities that could be authorized under § 124.16 remain available under § 126.18(d). If a foreign party is not able to utilize the expansion of the authorization to non-agreement-related reexports due to its domestic law, the other provisions of § 126.18 remain available.

    One commenter asked whether the requirement of § 126.18(d)(5) that authorized individuals are “[n]ot the recipient of any permanent transfer of hardware” is intended to limit authorized recipients of temporary hardware transfers or to require, in the case of reexports to an individual person, the separate authorization by name or controlling entity on the agreement. The Department intended that permanent retransfers of hardware not be authorized under § 126.18(d). Eligible individuals may receive temporary hardware transfers or receive hardware on a temporary basis. If a permanent retransfer to an individual is intended, that person should be separately authorized by name or controlling entity on the agreement.

    One commenter noted that in §§ 125.4(b)(9) and 126.18(d), the defined term regular employee is modified. Revised § 125.4(b)(9)(iii) requires that an employee, including foreign person employees, be “directly employed by” a U.S. person. Revised § 126.18(d)(1), refers to “bona fide regular employees directly employed by the foreign business entity . . . .” The commenter requested that the Department clarify the use of the term “regular employee” and state clearly if conditions apply beyond those stated in the definition of “regular employee” set forth in § 120.39. The Department accepts the comment in part. The Department also confirms that a regular employee is any party who meets the definition set forth in § 120.39 and that § 126.18(d) is updated to clarify that the control relates to regular employees as defined in § 120.39. However, in § 125.4(b)(9), the term “directly employed” is used to distinguish employees of a U.S. person from employees of related business entities, such as foreign subsidiaries. The Department confirms that all regular employees of the U.S. person, under § 120.39, are included within the authorization, including an individual in a long-term contractual relationship hired through a staffing agency.

    One commenter noted that § 125.4(a) excludes use of the § 125.4(b) exemptions for § 126.1 countries and stated that it would be advantageous for the U.S. government if U.S. exporters could utilize § 125.4(b)(9) in the context of U.S. persons or foreign person employees supporting the U.S. government in a § 126.1 country. The Department does not accept the comment. Exports by private companies to § 126.1 countries require individual authorizations, unless authorized under § 126.4. Changes to § 126.4 to account for transfers in support of U.S. government efforts will be addressed in a separate rulemaking.

    One commenter noted that the revision to § 125.4(b)(9) expands the scope of the provision to allow exports, reexports, and retransfers to and between U.S. persons employed by different U.S. companies and the U.S. government. The commenter stated their opinion that this expansion is appropriate and desirable, as it benefits the U.S. government in practical situations. The Department accepts this comment and confirms that such exports, reexports, and retransfers may be authorized under the revised § 125.4(b)(9), if all other terms and conditions are met.

    One commenter asked the Department to clarify the impact of the new and revised definitions on the requirements under Part 130. The Department confirms that the changes to the ITAR in the interim final rule did not change the requirements under Part 130. The Department also revises § 130.2 to clarify this understanding.

    One commenter noted that the Department did not publish a final rule for activities that are not exports, reexports, or retransfers, and that the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) at the Department of Commerce did publish such a provision. The commenter asked the Department to clarify if any of the activities described by BIS as not being exports, reexports, or transfers under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) would be exports, reexports, or retransfers under the ITAR. The Department confirms that it would not be appropriate to rely on provisions outside of the ITAR or guidance provided by any entity other than the Department for authoritative interpretive guidance regarding the provisions or scope of the ITAR. The Department also notes that any activity meeting the definition of export, reexport, or retransfer requires authorization from the Department unless explicitly excluded by a provision of the ITAR, the Arms Export Control Act, or other provision of law.

    One commenter asked if, as the Department did not publish a final rule defining “required” or “directly related,” exporters can rely on definitions in the EAR or guidance from the BIS on those two terms. The ITAR does not define “required” or “directly related.” The Department confirms that it would not be appropriate to rely on definitions outside of the ITAR or guidance provided by any entity other than the Department for authoritative interpretive guidance regarding the provisions or scope of the ITAR. Further questions regarding the application of the terms “required” or “directly related” should be referred to the Department for additional interpretive guidance.

    Several commenters submitted comments regarding definitions and other provisions that were included in the proposed rule, but not published in the interim final rule. The Department did not accept comments on issues not addressed in the interim final rule and will address those definitions and other provisions included in the proposed rule, but not published in the interim final rule, in a separate rulemaking.

    Other Changes in This Rulemaking

    In this final rule, the Department has also made changes to §§ 126.16 and 126.17 to ensure that they remain consistent with the definitions contained in the treaties (with Australia and the United Kingdom, respectively) that they implement. These treaties are controlling law, and the Department realized that, unless a correction were made in this final rule, the ITAR definitions of “reexport” and “retransfer” would be inconsistent with the treaty definitions. Therefore, for those two sections and the matters controlled therein, the treaty definitions will control. Conforming edits were also made to the definitions in §§ 120.19 and 120.51 to clarify that the definitions did not apply to matters covered by the treaties.

    Regulatory Findings Administrative Procedure Act

    The Department of State is of the opinion that controlling the import and export of defense articles and services is a foreign affairs function of the U.S. government and that rules implementing this function are exempt from sections 553 (rulemaking) and 554 (adjudications) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Although the Department is of the opinion that this rulemaking is exempt from the rulemaking provisions of the APA and without prejudice to its determination that controlling the import and export of defense articles and defense services is a foreign affairs function, the Department provided a 30-day public comment period and is responding to the comments received.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Since this rulemaking is exempt from the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, there is no requirement for an analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rulemaking does not involve a mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (the “Act”), a major rule is a rule that the Administrator of the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) finds has resulted or is likely to result in: (1) An annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and foreign markets. The Department does not believe this rulemaking will meet these criteria.

    Executive Orders 12372 and 13132

    This rulemaking will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this rulemaking.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess 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, distributed impacts, and equity). The executive orders stress the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. OIRA has not designated this rulemaking a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

    Executive Order 12988

    The Department of State has reviewed the rulemaking in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.

    Executive Order 13175

    The Department of State has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Accordingly, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rulemaking.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rulemaking does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35; however, the Department of State seeks public comment on any unforeseen potential for increased burden.

    List of Subjects 22 CFR 120 and 125

    Arms and munitions, Classified information, Exports.

    22 CFR 126

    Arms and munitions, Exports.

    22 CFR 130

    Arms and munitions, Campaign funds, Confidential business information, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the interim final rule that was published at 81 FR 35611 on June 3, 2016, is adopted as a final rule with the following changes:

    PART 120—PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS 1. The authority citation for part 120 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 2, 38, and 71, Pub. L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2797); 22 U.S.C. 2794; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; Pub. L. 105-261, 112 Stat. 1920; Pub. L. 111-266; Section 1261, Pub. L. 112-239; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129.

    2. Section 120.19 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text to read as follows:
    § 120.19 Reexport.

    (a) Reexport, except as set forth in § 126.16 or § 126.17, means:

    3. Section 120.51 is revised to read as follows:
    § 120.51 Retransfer.

    (a) Retransfer, except as set forth in § 126.16 or § 126.17, means:

    (1) A change in end use or end user, or a temporary transfer to a third party, of a defense article within the same foreign country; or

    (2) A release of technical data to a foreign person who is a citizen or permanent resident of the country where the release or transfer takes place.

    (b) [Reserved]

    PART 125—LICENSES FOR THE EXPORT OF TECHNICAL DATA AND CLASSIFIED DEFENSE ARTICLES 4. The authority citation for part 125 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 2 and 38, 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778); 22 U.S.C. 2651a; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129.

    5. Section 125.1 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
    § 125.1 Exports subject to this part.

    (f) Unless limited by a condition set out in an agreement, the export, reexport, retransfer, or temporary import authorized by a license is for the item(s), end-use(s), and parties described in the agreement, license, and any letters of explanation. DDTC approves agreements and grants licenses in reliance on representations the applicant made in or submitted in connection with the agreement, letters of explanation, and other documents submitted.

    PART 126—GENERAL POLICIES AND PROVISIONS 6. The authority citation for part 126 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 2, 38, 40, 42, and 71, Pub. L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2780, 2791, and 2797); 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22 U.S.C. 287c; E.O. 12918, 59 FR 28205; 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 899; Sec. 1225, Pub. L. 108-375; Sec. 7089, Pub. L. 111-117; Pub. L. 111-266; Sections 7045 and 7046, Pub. L. 112-74; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129.

    7. Section 126.16 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to read as follows:
    § 126.16 Exemption pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iii) Reexport and retransfer. (A) Reexport means, for purposes of this section only, the movement of previously Exported Defense Articles by a member of the Australian Community from the Approved Community to a location outside the Territory of Australia.

    (B) Retransfer means, for purposes of this section only, the movement of previously Exported Defense Articles by a member of the Australian Community from the Approved Community to a location within the Territory of Australia;

    8. Section 126.17 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to read as follows:
    § 126.17 Exemption pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and United Kingdom.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iii) Reexport and retransfer. (A) Reexport means, for purposes of this section only, movement of previously Exported Defense Articles by a member of the United Kingdom Community from the Approved Community to a location outside the Territory of the United Kingdom.

    (B) Retransfer means, for purposes of this section only, the movement of previously Exported Defense Articles by a member of the United Kingdom Community from the Approved Community to a location within the Territory of the United Kingdom.

    9. Section 126.18 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1) to reads as follows:
    § 126.18 Exemptions regarding intra-company, intra-organization, and intra-governmental transfers to employees who are dual nationals or third-country nationals.

    (d) * * *

    (1) Regular employees of the foreign business entity, foreign governmental entity, or international organization;

    PART 130—POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS, FEES AND COMMISSIONS 10. The authority citation for part 130 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Sec. 39, Pub. L. 94-329, 90 Stat. 767 (22 U.S.C. 2779); 22 U.S.C. 2651a; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129.

    11. Section 130.2 is revised to read as follows:
    § 130.2 Applicant.

    Applicant means any person who applies to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls for any license or approval required under this subchapter for the export, reexport, or retransfer of defense articles or defense services valued in an amount of $500,000 or more which are being sold commercially to or for the use of the armed forces of a foreign country or international organization. This term also includes a person to whom the required license or approval has been given.

    Rose E. Gottemoeller, Under Secretary, Arms Control and International Security, Department of State.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21481 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-25-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy 32 CFR Part 706 Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Navy (DoN) is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (DAJAG) (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS JOHN FINN (DDG 113) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship. The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective September 8, 2016 and is applicable beginning August 10, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Commander Theron R. Korsak, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Admiralty Attorney, (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave. SE., Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066, telephone number: 202-685-5040.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR part 706.

    This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS JOHN FINN (DDG 113) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(ii), pertaining to the placement of task lights; Annex I, paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the location of the forward masthead light in the forward quarter of the ship, and the horizontal distance between the forward and after masthead lights; and Annex I, paragraph 3(c), pertaining to placement of task lights not less than two meters from the fore and aft centerline of the ship in the athwartship direction. The DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.

    Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions.

    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), and Vessels.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, amend part 706 of title 32 of the CFR as follows:

    PART 706—CERTIFICATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA, 1972 1. The authority citation for part 706 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1605.

    2. Section 706.2 is amended as follows: a. In Table Four, Paragraph 15 by adding, in alpha numerical order, by vessel number, an entry for USS JOHN FINN (DDG 113); b. In Table Five, by adding, in alpha numerical order, by vessel number, an entry for USS JOHN FINN (DDG 113):
    § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605. Table Four

    15. * * *

    Vessel Number Horizontal distance from the
  • fore and aft
  • centerline of the vessel
  • in the athwartship direction
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * USS JOHN FINN DDG 113 1.90 meters *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Table Five Vessel Number Masthead lights not over all other lights and
  • obstructions.
  • Annex I, sec. 2(f)
  • Forward
  • masthead light not in forward quarter of ship.
  • Annex I, sec. 3(a)
  • After masthead light less than
  • 1/2 ship's length
  • aft of forward
  • masthead light.
  • Annex I, sec. 3(a)
  • Percentage
  • horizontal
  • separation
  • attained
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * USS JOHN FINN DDG 113 X X 14.5 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Approved: August 10, 2016. C.J. Spain, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Acting. Dated: August 31, 2016 C. Pan, Lieutenant, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21598 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0798] Safety Zones; Fireworks Events in Captain of the Port New York Zone AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce various safety zones within the Captain of the Port New York Zone on the specified dates and times. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with fireworks displays. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the safety zones without permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP).

    DATES:

    The regulation for the safety zones described in 33 CFR 165.160 will be enforced on the dates and times listed in the table in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this notice, call or email Petty Officer First Class Ronald Sampert U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 718-354-4154, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.160 on the specified dates and times as indicated in Table 1 below. This regulation was published in the Federal Register on November 9, 2011 (76 FR 69614).

    Table 1 Rose Event, Pier D, Hudson River Safety Zone, 33 CFR 165.160(5.7) Launch site: A barge located in approximate position 40°42′57.5″ N., 074°01′34″ W., (NAD 1983), approximately 375 yards southeast of Pier D, Jersey City, New Jersey. This Safety Zone is a 360-yard radius from the barge.
  • • Date: September 10, 2016.
  • • Time: 7 p.m.-9 p.m.
  • 2. Pop Event Planning, Ellis Island Safety Zone., 33 CFR 165.160(2.2) • Launch site: A barge located between Federal Anchorages 20-A and 20-B, in approximate position 40°41′45″ N., 074°02′09″ W., (NAD 1983) about 365 yards east of Ellis Island. This Safety Zone is a 360-yard radius from the barge.
  • • Date: September 15, 2016.
  • • Time: 8:45 p.m.-10 p.m.
  • 3. Save the Date, Ellis Island Safety Zone, 33 CFR 165.160(2.2) • Launch site: A barge located between Federal Anchorages 20-A and 20-B, in approximate position 40°41′45″ N., 074°02′09″ W., (NAD 1983) about 365 yards east of Ellis Island. This Safety Zone is a 360-yard radius from the barge.
  • • Date: October 27, 2016.
  • • Time: 8:30 p.m.-10 p.m.
  • Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.160, vessels may not enter the safety zones unless given permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Spectator vessels may transit outside the safety zones but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of other vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.160(a) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide mariners with advanced notification of enforcement periods via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts.

    If the COTP determines that a safety zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the safety zone.

    Dated: August 18, 2016. M.H. Day, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21503 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 216 [Docket No. 160413333-6721-01] RIN 0648-BF98 Approach Regulations for Humpback Whales in Waters Surrounding the Islands of Hawaii Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule; notice of availability of Environmental Assessment.

    SUMMARY:

    We, NMFS, are issuing regulations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to prevent take by protecting humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) from the detrimental effects resulting from approach by humans within 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) of the islands of Hawaii. These regulations are necessary because existing regulations promulgated under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) protecting humpback whales from approach in Hawaii will no longer be in effect upon the effective date of a final rule published elsewhere in today's issue of the Federal Register that separates humpback whales into 14 Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) and identifies the “Hawaii DPS” as neither endangered nor threatened. These MMPA regulations prohibit operating an aircraft within 1,000 feet (304.8 m) of a humpback whale, approaching within 100 yards (91.4 m) of a humpback whale by any means, causing a vessel, person or other object to approach within 100 yards (91.4 m) of a humpback whale, or approaching a humpback whale by interception (i.e., placing an aircraft, vessel, person, or other object in the path of a humpback whale so that the whale approaches within a restricted distance). The regulations also prohibit the disruption of normal behavior or prior activity of a humpback whale by any act or omission. Certain vessels and activities are exempt from the prohibition. NMFS finds that there is good cause to waive public notice and comment prior to implementation of these regulations in order to avoid a gap in protections for the whales. However, we are requesting comments on the regulations and Environmental Assessment; NMFS will subsequently publish a final rule with responses to comments and any revisions, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective October 11, 2016. Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. on November 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, information, or data on this interim final rule and the Environmental Assessment identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0046, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0046. Click the “Comment Now” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Susan Pultz, Chief, Conservation Planning and Rulemaking Branch, Protected Resources Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Regional Office, 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg 176, Honolulu, HI 96818, Attn: Humpback Whale Approach Regulations.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. We will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous), although submitting comments anonymously will prevent us from contacting you if we have difficulty retrieving your submission.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Pultz, NMFS, Pacific Islands Regional Office, Chief, Conservation Planning and Rulemaking Branch, 808-725-5150; or Trevor Spradlin, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, Deputy Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Division, 301-427-8479.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Humpback whales occur throughout the world in both coastal and open ocean areas. They are a highly migratory species, moving between breeding grounds in tropical and subtropical latitudes and feeding grounds in temperate and polar latitudes. A large portion of the humpback whales found in the North Pacific occupy waters surrounding Hawaii annually during winter months where they engage in breeding, calving, and nursing behaviors. They are commonly found in Hawaii between October and May, with the peak season—the highest concentration of whales in the region—occurring from January through March. However, there are confirmed sightings and several anecdotal reports of humpback whales arriving to the region as early as August and remaining in the area until as late as June.

    Prior to commercial whaling, the worldwide population of humpback whales is thought to have been in excess of 125,000 individuals (NMFS, 1991), with abundance of humpback whales in the North Pacific estimated at 15,000 individuals (Rice, 1978). Between 1905 and 1960, intense commercial whaling operations targeted humpback whales worldwide and depleted the species in the North Pacific to approximately 1,000 individuals (Rice, 1978). Humpback whale abundance estimates in the waters surrounding Hawaii in the 1960s are not clear, but estimates around 1977 were as low as 895 (Darling et al., 1983).

    In 1966, treaties under the International Whaling Commission (IWC) protected humpback whales from further harvesting by issuing a global moratorium on the whaling of the species, including in the North Pacific. The humpback whale was then listed as an endangered species in 1970 under the United States (U.S.) Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, which was later superseded by the ESA. Humpback whales were considered to be a depleted species under the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 on the basis of their ESA listing. In 1992, Congress created the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (HIHWNMS) under the Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary Act to protect humpback whales and their habitat in Hawaii.

    Humpback whale abundance estimates in Hawaii have increased over time to the most recent 2006 estimate of 10,103 humpback whales (Calambokidis et al., 2008). The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) estimates that the current abundance of humpback whales that use waters surrounding Hawaii is between 10,000 and 15,000 animals, although not all of these animals are in Hawaii at the same time during the season (ONMS, 2015).

    Protections and Prohibitions Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

    The MMPA provides substantial protections to all marine mammals, although there are no regulations that specifically address humpback whales under the MMPA in Hawaii. Under section 102 of the MMPA, it is unlawful for any person, vessel, or other conveyance to “take” any marine mammal in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States (16 U.S.C. 1372). Section 3(13) of the MMPA defines the term “take” as “to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal” (16 U.S.C. 1362 (13)). Except with respect to military readiness activities and certain scientific research activities, the MMPA defines the term harassment as “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which: (i) Has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment)” (16 U.S.C. 1362 (18)).

    NMFS' regulations implementing the MMPA further describe the term “take” to include “the negligent or intentional operation of an aircraft or vessel, or the doing of any other negligent or intentional act which results in disturbing or molesting a marine mammal; and feeding or attempting to feed a marine mammal in the wild” (50 CFR 216.3). The MMPA provides limited exceptions to the prohibition on take for activities, such as scientific research, public display, or incidental take in commercial fisheries. Such activities require a permit or authorization, which may be issued only after a thorough agency review.

    Section 112 of the MMPA authorizes NMFS to implement regulations that are “necessary and appropriate to carry out the purpose” of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1382).

    Endangered Species Act of 1973

    Humpback whales have been listed as endangered under the ESA since 1970. The ESA prohibits any action that results in a take of a listed species, unless authorized or permitted. A take is defined by the ESA as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The ESA does not specifically define the term “harassment” of a listed species.

    Protections for humpback whales in Hawaii were initially promulgated under the ESA, after NMFS determined that guidelines published in 1979 as a “Notice of Interpretation of `Taking by Harassment' in Regard to Humpback Whales in the Hawaiian Islands Area” (44 FR 1113) proved ineffective in protecting humpback whales in Hawaii from tour vessel operators approaching closer than the recommended viewing guidelines. The ESA rule protecting humpback whales in Hawaii was published on November 23, 1987 as an interim regulation (52 FR 44912), and then finalized on January 19, 1995 (60 FR 3775). That rule made it unlawful to operate an aircraft within a 1,000 feet, approach by any means within 100 yards, cause a vessel or other object to approach within a 100 yards, or disrupt the normal behavior or prior activity of a humpback whale by any other act or omission. Regulations regarding implementation of the ESA were then reorganized on March 23, 1999, and the section containing the approach regulations for humpback whales in Hawaii was changed from 50 CFR 222.31 to 50 CFR 224.103 (64 FR 14052).

    Today, we publish elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register a final rule to separate humpback whales into 14 DPSs and revise the species-wide listing. In that rule, the humpback whales that use the waters surrounding Hawaii as their breeding grounds are identified as the “Hawaii DPS,” which is not listed under the ESA as endangered or threatened and, therefore, is no longer protected under the ESA. Because our approach regulations for humpback whales were authorized only under the ESA, these protections will no longer be in effect upon the effective date of the listing rule. Humpback whales in Hawaii would continue to be protected by approach regulations only within the boundaries of the HIHWNMS under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (15 CFR 922.184 (a)(1)-(2) and (b)).

    In the proposed listing rule, we solicited comments on whether we should continue to have approach regulations for the Hawaii humpback whales—other than in the sanctuary—if these whales are no longer listed under the ESA. We received five comments on this topic. Two of the comments were in support of continuing approach regulations for areas outside the sanctuary, and one of these comments further requested that an approach rule for the Hawaii humpback whales include an interception or leapfrog provision. One comment opposed an approach rule outside of the sanctuary, noting that the vessels do not pose a threat to the whales. As discussed in greater detail below, we disagree that vessels do not pose a threat to the whales. Finally, two comments generally supported approach regulations for humpback whales in U.S. waters.

    Need for Action

    The need for this action is to ensure that humpback whales are protected from take where protections from close approach do not exist or no longer apply. Because humpback whales in Hawaii will no longer be protected from take or harassment under the ESA upon the effective date of the humpback whale ESA listing rule, and because humpback whales are such charismatic species that invariably attract individuals and tour companies to interact with them, we believe regulatory protections are necessary and appropriate to prevent take, including harassment, as those terms are defined by the MMPA. Evidence cited under “Rationale for Regulations” below shows that interactions between humpback whales and vessels harass the whales, as shown by changes in behavior of the whales when closely approached, and pose a danger to humpback whales due to potential for vessel collisions. This is particularly concerning in Hawaiian waters where they breed, calve, and nurture their young. Further, preventing take fosters humpback whale health, development, and safety.

    Interim Final Rulemaking

    The regulatory measures in this interim final rule are designed to protect humpback whales from take or harassment, as defined by the MMPA, from approach within 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) of the islands of Hawaii. Although we stress that unpermitted take of humpback whales or any marine mammals continues to be prohibited by the MMPA in any location, we believe that specific regulations aimed at approach and human interactions that result in take of humpback whales in Hawaii are warranted because: (1) Humpback whales are charismatic and sought out by local community members and tourists; (2) commercial and recreational whale watchers and other tour operators are expected to pursue humpback whales for close encounters absent protections; (3) the number of whales and humans using waters surrounding Hawaii has increased and continues to increase, thus raising the likelihood of human-whale interactions; and (4) approaching whales during the breeding, calving, and nursing season is likely to cause disturbance that could adversely affect reproduction and development of individuals. We are issuing these regulations pursuant to our rulemaking authority under MMPA sections 112(a) (16 U.S.C. 1382(a)) and 102 (16 U.S.C. 1372).

    NMFS is implementing an interim final rule to ensure that there is no lapse in protection for humpback whales in Hawaii once the final ESA listing rule becomes effective. Notwithstanding this interim final rule, we are soliciting public comments on the Hawaii approach rule. NMFS will respond to any public comments in a final rule.

    Scope and Applicability Applications to All Humpback Whales

    Under the MMPA, the regulations apply to all humpback whales found in the action area.

    Geographic Action Area

    The action area for this rule is limited to the waters within 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) from shore of the islands of Hawaii. The islands of Hawaii consist of the entire Hawaiian Archipelago, including the Main Hawaiian Islands (Hawaii, Maui, Kahoolawe, Lanai, Molokai, Oahu, Kauai, and Niihau) and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

    Applications to All Forms of Approach

    The regulations apply to all forms of approach in water and air. Forms of approaching humpback whales include, but are not limited to, operating a manned or unmanned motorized, non-motorized, self-propelled, human-powered, or submersible vessel; operating a manned aircraft; operating an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) or drone; and swimming at the water surface or underwater (i.e., SCUBA or free diving). With this rule, we are not changing our existing approach restrictions for aircraft or other objects, including UASs. UASs are, at minimum, objects, and therefore UASs are not to approach humpback whales within 100 yards without a permit. We recognize that for many other purposes, however, UASs are considered “aircraft,” and we anticipate providing further guidance on this in the future.

    Approach Prohibitions

    The regulation prohibits people from operating aircraft within 1,000 feet (304.8 m) or approaching by any means within 100 yards (91.4 m) of humpback whales within the action area described above (see Geographic Action Area). This includes approach by interception (i.e., placing an aircraft, vessel, person, or other object in the path of a humpback whale so that the whale approaches within the restricted distance), also known as “leap frogging.” The regulations also prohibit disrupting the normal behavior or prior activity of a humpback whale. A disruption of normal behavior can include, but is not limited to, a rapid change in direction or speed; escape tactics such as prolonged diving, underwater course changes, underwater exhalation, or evasive swimming patterns; interruptions of breeding, nursing, or resting activities; attempts by a whale to shield a calf from a vessel or human observer by tail swishing or by other protective movements; or the abandonment of a previously frequented area.

    Exceptions

    We have determined that the following specific categories are exempt from the regulations:

    (1) Federal, State, or local government vessels or persons operating in the course of their official duties such as law enforcement, search and rescue, or public safety;

    (2) Vessel operations necessary to avoid an imminent and serious threat to a person, vessel, or the environment;

    (3) Vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver, and because of this restriction are not able to comply with approach restrictions; or

    (4) Vessels or persons authorized under permit or authorization issued by NMFS to conduct scientific research or response efforts that may result in taking of humpback whales.

    Rationale for Regulations Threats From Human Interaction

    Close human interaction poses a significant risk to the health and social structure of humpback whales. Because they are large and charismatic, humpback whales are often approached and observed by whale watchers and wildlife enthusiasts who are on vessels (boats), aircraft, or in the water. The interactions that ensue can result in take or harassment by causing injury or disrupting the normal behavior or prior actions of whales.

    There are few studies that have directly examined the effects of approach of humpback whales in Hawaii. This may be due to lack of prioritization in research because protections from approach have been implemented in the region for 29 years, or because longstanding approach restrictions have resulted in fewer instances of humpback whale take or harassment from approach in Hawaii than other areas that do not have approach restrictions. However, there is a large amount of research on adverse effects of human interaction and approach on humpback whales and similar species in other regions throughout the world. Below, we summarize our use of this analogous evidence to analyze management options for minimizing take or harassment of understudied humpback whales in Hawaii from approach. We also consider research from other regions that do not have approach restrictions to provide insight on future potential effects on humpback whales in Hawaii if approach regulations are no longer in effect.

    Threats to humpback whales from human interaction can result from vessel interactions, which create a risk of collisions, aircraft interactions, noise, and other human interactions, such as swimming with whales, that disrupt and interfere with the whales' normal activities while they are in Hawaii. Humpback whales in Hawaii may be more susceptible to harmful effects from human interaction than other regions because disruption of breeding, nursing, and calving activities could potentially impede healthy reproduction and development of the species. Furthermore, we expect an increase in human-whale interactions as both human and whale populations continue to increase.

    Vessel Interactions

    Vessel approach and interactions with humpback whales can lead to behavioral changes or physical injury to the whale, which may affect energy budgets and habitat use patterns, cause displacement from preferred habitats, and affect individual and population health and fitness. Humpback whales have been found to exhibit predictable changes in behavior in response to vessels in close proximity to the animals. Behavioral responses in humpback whales such as changes in swimming speed, respiration, diving, and social behaviors were linked to vessel numbers, speed, and proximity in waters around Maui (Bauer and Herman, 1986; Bauer et al., 1993). In other parts of the world, Baker and Herman (1989) found that humpback whales in Alaska responded to vessels within 4,000 m with changes in respiratory behavior (decreasing blow intervals and increasing dive times) and orientation (moving away from approaching vessels' path). They concluded that vessels repeatedly approaching humpback whales could result in abandonment of their preferred feeding areas. A study examining approach to humpback whales in Hervey Bay, Australia concluded that whales were more likely to dive when vessels were within 300 m than when they are farther away, implying that vessels in close proximity to humpback whales can elicit evasive behavior (Corkeron, 1995). Another study off New South Wales, Australia observed a response from humpback whales when approached by a whale watch vessel 40 percent of the time, with 23 percent having approached the vessel and 17 percent having avoided the vessel (Stamation et al., 2010). Most observed humpback whales that approached the whale watch vessels during this study elicited behaviors attributed to disruption (e.g., trumpet blows and fluke swishes), and whales that avoided the vessels were reported to have longer dive times and time submerged. Vessels that approached humpback whales within 100 m were significantly more likely to elicit an avoidance response, particularly with regard to pods with a calf. Overall, humpback whales that were approached by whale watch vessels had a higher dive time, higher time submerged, and fewer surface activity behaviors than whales that were observed from the shore without vessels present, and pods with calves were more sensitive to vessel approach than pods without calves (Stamation et al., 2010).

    In yet other situations, humpback whales became quickly habituated to human activity when repeatedly exposed to vessel traffic in the North Atlantic (Watkins, 1986). Habituation to human activity in Hawaii can lead to an increase in encounters between humans and whales, making whales more susceptible to physical injury from vessel strikes. This may especially be true for young humpback whales that are at an impressionable stage in development; 63.5 percent of vessel collisions between 1975 and 2011 in Hawaii involved calves and juveniles (Lammers et al., 2013). Regardless of whether humpback whales are eliciting evasive or incautious behavior, it is evident that behavioral harassment (take) of whales can occur with vessel approach.

    Because humpback whales annually migrate over extremely long distances, energy budgeting is crucial for the health and reproduction of the species. A recent study by Braithwaite et al. (2015) measured the effects of vessel disturbance on energy use of humpback whales during migration. They concluded that overall energy use in migrating humpback whales increases when disturbed by encounters with approaching vessels. It is rare that humpback whales feed in waters surrounding Hawaii, so these animals are reliant on limited fat stores to provide energy for their breeding, calving, and nursing activities in the region. Any deficiency in the conservation of energy can be detrimental to these essential reproductive behaviors. Excessive energy use can be particularly taxing on pregnant and postpartum humpback whale females and their calves. An exorbitant amount of energy is needed to give birth to and nurse newborn calves (Darling 2001). An increase in energy use because of vessel disruptions in waters surrounding Hawaii can have negative implications for the health of mothers and the growth potential of calves (Braithwaite et al., 2015).

    Reports of humpback whale harassment are common in Hawaii. NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) documented hundreds of complaints concerning harassment of humpback whales around Hawaii between 2007 and 2014. Although the locations of reported harassments to NOAA-OLE were not always precise, there were numerous complaints in areas outside the HIHWNMS.

    Humpback whales may be particularly sensitive to human interaction in Hawaii during their breeding, calving, and nursing behaviors. Because the relationship between adults, particularly mothers, and calves early in the calves' lives is an integral stage in the social development of the species, disrupting the mother-calf relationship can hinder the behavioral development of humpback whale calves (Cartwright, 1999; Darling, 2001; Glockner-Ferrari and Ferrari, 1985). Aggressive behavior on the part of male whales and lack of awareness by males, as well as females avoiding these males, potentially make whales more susceptible to vessel strikes. Male humpback whales often display aggressive behavior during courting activities in the Hawaii breeding grounds (Darling et al., 1983; Tyack and Whitehead, 1983; Baker and Herman, 1984; Glockner-Ferrari and Ferrari, 1985; Clapham et al., 1992). Although aggressive behavior by humpback whales towards humans is uncommon, an increase in interactions with humans could potentially create more stress for animals that are already in a combative state (Baker and Herman, 1984; Bauer and Herman, 1986). Furthermore, males engaging in competitive behaviors and females avoiding aggressive advances from one or more males may not be fully cognizant of approaching vessels. Female whales have even been observed leading pursuing males closely to vessels in order to thwart their advances to mate (Glockner-Ferrari and Ferrari, 1985). Females protecting newborn calves and male escorts maintaining mating status with post-partum females with calves have also been observed displaying aggressive behaviors towards intruders, including humans (Darling, 2001). Aggressive courting and mating behaviors by both male and female humpback whales can increase the risk of vessel strikes. Restrictions against approaching whales while in this vulnerable state would lessen hazards for whales and humans.

    Vessel Collisions

    Collisions between vessels and whales often result in life-threatening trauma or death for the cetacean. The impact is frequently caused by forceful contact with the bow or propeller of the vessel. Vessel strikes of humpback whales are typically identified by evidence of massive blunt force trauma (fractures of heavy bones and/or hemorrhaging) in stranded whales, and propeller wounds (deep slashes or cuts) and fluke/fin amputations on stranded or live whales (Wiley and Asmutis, 1995).

    There is substantial evidence indicating vessel strikes with whales are increasing both globally and in Hawaii (Laist et al., 2001; De Stephanis and Urquiola, 2006; Panigada et al., 2006; Douglas et al., 2008; Carrillo and Ritter, 2010; Lammers et al., 2013). Lammers et al. (2013) estimated that reports of vessel collisions (i.e., any physical contact between a humpback whale and a vessel) increased 20-fold between 1976 and 2011 in the waters surrounding Hawaii, particularly between 2000 and 2011. There were 68 confirmed reports of vessel collisions during this timeframe, and 63 percent of the collisions involved calves and subadults (Lammers et al., 2013). Between 2007 and 2012, there were 39 confirmed reports of vessel collisions with humpback whales near Hawaii; 11 of these collisions were determined to be serious injuries (i.e., injury that will likely result in mortality, 50 CFR 229.2) and another 11 were proportionally prorated as serious injuries per the NMFS process for distinguishing serious from non-serious injury of marine mammals (NMFS, 2012; Bradford and Lyman, 2015). According to a database managed by the HIHWNMS, there were 76 reports of whale-vessel contacts in waters surrounding the Main Hawaiian Islands between 2002 and 2015, with a large majority of them occurring in the four islands region between Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Kahoolawe. Of the vessel collisions where the status of the vessel's movement could be determined (i.e., either normal transiting or more directly approaching humpback whales), 17 percent of reports (11 of 66, 10 undetermined) indicated that the vessel was operating in a more directed approach of a humpback whale (Ed Lyman, personal communication, April 29, 2016).

    The increase in reported vessel strikes with humpback whales in Hawaii in recent years can likely be attributed to multiple factors. An extensive awareness campaign and Hotline number were initiated in 2003 and likely contribute to the increased number of reports. However, Lammers et al. (2013) compiled a summary of all reported vessel collisions in Hawaii between 1975 and 2011 and concluded that increasing numbers of humpback whales in Hawaii was an important contributor to the trend. Tour vessels (e.g., whale watching, diving, snorkeling boats, etc.) comprised 61 percent of vessel collisions with humpback whales. Because the behavior of these vessels typically places them in close proximity to humpback whales, vessel collisions may have increased over time as the tour industry comparably expanded. It is important to note that tour vessels typically have a high number of passengers, and this may increase the likelihood of reporting a vessel collision.

    Although more than half of reported vessel collisions with humpback whales in Hawaii in recent years occurred within the boundaries of the HIHWNMS, there have been a substantial number of vessel collisions outside Sanctuary waters. According to a database on reports of animals in distress managed by the HIHWNMS, 37 percent (28 of 76) of reported vessel collisions between 2002 and 2015 occurred outside the boundaries of the Sanctuary (Ed Lyman, HIHWNMS, personal communication, April 7, 2016). Many of the collisions outside the Sanctuary occurred in concentrated boat traffic and popular whale watching areas, such as the south shore of Oahu near Honolulu Harbor and the leeward side of Kauai. If legal protections from approaching humpback whales are not implemented outside the HIHWNMS, vessel collisions could significantly increase, especially with an increasing humpback whale population and increasing human-based use of the ocean in Hawaii.

    Vessel collisions with humpback whales can also cause significant damage to vessels and result in serious harm to or death of passengers (e.g., Laist et al., 2001; Neilson et al., 2012). Human injury and death have occurred on several incidents involving humpback whale collisions with boats in Hawaii. According to a database of human interactions managed by the HIHWNMS, 9.2 percent (7 of 76) vessel collisions with humpback whales between 2002 and 2015 involved injuries to passengers or crew; this figure does not include injuries sustained when vessels moved suddenly to avoid collisions (Ed Lyman, personal communication, April 7, 2016). Notable incidents of serious harm include a young child dying in 2003 from head trauma sustained after a close interaction with a humpback whale off of Oahu (DePledge, 2003), and one woman in 2001 and another in 2015 hospitalized after vessel collisions with humpback whales off of Kauai (DePledge, 2003; D'Angelo, 2015).

    Aircraft Interactions

    Aircraft flown in proximity to humpback whales in Hawaii have been shown to elicit a behavioral response. Smultea et al. (1995) reported that humpback whales near Kauai, particularly pods with calves, responded to low flying planes by increasing swim speeds and changing direction. General accounts of disturbance of humpback whales in Hawaii and other regions caused by a range of sources, including helicopter tours, were highlighted in a workshop that reviewed and evaluated whale watching programs (Atkins and Swartz, 1989). Other reports have also discussed cases of disturbance of humpback whales in Hawaii resulting from helicopters and other aircraft (Shallenberger, 1978; Tinney, 1988).

    Several studies targeting other species and/or other regions also provide evidence that aircraft can disrupt large whales. In their review on the effects of man-made noise on whales, Richardson and Würsig (1997) claim aircraft overflights with altitudes as high as 400 m can elicit specific reactions (e.g., sudden dives or turns and occasional tail or flipper slaps) from both baleen and toothed whales; however, behaviors can vary depending on species, animal activity, and water depth. Various behavioral responses from sperm whales were observed in response to aircraft throughout different parts of the world, including in waters near Kauai, where they reacted to aircraft at about 250 m in altitude and 360 m in horizontal distance (Smultea et al., 2008). Short-term behavioral responses (e.g., short surfaces, immediate dives or turns, changes in behavior state, vigorous swimming, and breaching) were observed in both bowhead and beluga whales when closely approached by helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. Most reactions occurred within 150 m altitude and 250 m lateral distance of helicopters and 182 m altitude and 250 m (but up to 460 m) lateral distance of fixed-wing aircraft (Patenaude et al., 2002). Aircraft that hover or repeatedly pass over whales at altitudes low enough to affect the whales are thought to cause significantly more disruption than aircraft that briefly pass directly over or to the side of whales (Richardson and Würsig, 1997).

    Aircraft are explicitly cited by NMFS as a potential instrument of take under the MMPA regulations, which state that take can include “the negligent or intentional operation of an aircraft or vessel, or the doing of any other negligent or intentional act which results in disturbing or molesting a marine mammal” (50 CFR 216.3). Other regulations and notices have interpreted approach to humpback whales by aircraft in Hawaii as a form of harassment. Current approach regulations promulgated under the ESA (50 CFR 224.103; regulations that will no longer apply upon the effective date of the ESA humpback whale listing final rule) and in the HIHWNMS (15 CFR 922.184) restrict operating aircraft within 1,000 feet (304.8 m) of humpback whales in Hawaii and Sanctuary waters. A response to a comment in the November 23, 1987, interim rule “Approaching Humpback Whales in Hawaiian Waters” further clarified the restricted area around the whale to aircraft as “a 1,000 foot aerial dome over a whale” (52 FR 44912). This 1,000 foot perimeter was implemented in the final rule humpback whale approach rule on January 19, 1995 (60 FR 3775).

    Regions outside Hawaii have also implemented aircraft operations near whales or other marine mammals, supporting the widely-accepted need to protect whales from this type of disturbance. Approach regulations for North Atlantic right whales published on February 13, 1997, restrict approach by aircraft conducting whale watching activities within 500 yards (457.2 m) of a whale, and require aircraft to take a course away from the whale and immediately leave the area at a constant airspeed if within 500 yards (457.2 m) (50 CFR 224.103(c)). It is also prohibited to fly motorized aircraft at less than 1,000 feet (304.8 m) over marine mammals in the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (15 CFR 922.71), the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (15 CFR 922.82), or in specified regions of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (15 CFR 922.132). Approach regulations for all cetaceans in Australia require that helicopters do not approach within 500 m and all other aircraft do not approach within 300 m (National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Marine Mammals) Regulation 2006 (Cth) No. 271 (57)). New Zealand has similar rules for approaching wildlife, in that it is unlawful to operate aircraft from a horizontal distance of 150 m from any marine mammal, 200 m from any baleen or sperm whale mother-calf pair, and 300 m from any marine mammal if three or more vessels or aircraft are already positioned to enable passengers to watch the animals (Marine Mammals Protection Regulations 1992 s 18(g, h) and s 19(d)).

    Human-Related Noise

    Humans introduce sound intentionally and unintentionally into the marine environment for navigation, oil and gas exploration and acquisition, research, military activities, and many other reasons. Noise exposure can result in a range of impacts to whales, from little or none to severe, depending on the source, level, distance between the source and the receptor, characteristics of the animal (e.g., hearing sensitivity, behavioral context, age, sex, and previous experience with sound source), time of day or season, and various other factors. In marine mammal populations, noise can seriously disrupt communication, navigational ability, and social patterns. Humpback whales use sound to communicate, navigate, locate prey, and sense their environment. Both anthropogenic and natural sounds may cause interference with these functions.

    Understanding the specific impacts of sounds on humpback whales is difficult. However, it is clear that the geographic scope of potential impacts is vast as low-frequency sounds can travel great distances under water, and these sounds have the potential to reduce the space that whales use for communication (i.e., communication space). For example, shipping was predicted to reduce communication space of singing humpback whales in the northeastern United States by eight percent (Clark et al., 2009). Other detrimental effects of anthropogenic noise include masking and possible temporary threshold shifts. Masking results when noise interferes with cetacean social communication, which may range greatly in intensity and frequency. Some adjustment in acoustic behavior is thought to occur in response to masking. For instance, humpback whale songs were found to lengthen during low-frequency active sonar activities (Miller et al., 2000). This altered song length persisted two hours after the sonar activities stopped (Fristrup et al., 2003). Researchers have also observed diminished song vocalizations in humpback whales during remote sensing experiments 200 km away from the whales' location in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (Risch et al., 2012). Hearing loss can also be permanent if the sound is intense enough, although effects vary greatly across individuals. This and other factors make it difficult to determine a standardized threshold. Humpback whales do not appear to be frequently involved in strandings related to noise events. However, there is one record of two whales found dead with extensive damage to the temporal bones near the site of a 5,000 kg explosion that likely produced shock waves responsible for the injuries (Ketten et al., 1993; Weilgart, 2007).

    Humpback whales in Hawaii are likely exposed to moderate levels of underwater noise resulting from human activities, which include commercial and recreational vessel traffic, pile driving from coastal construction, and activities in Naval test ranges. Boat noise might affect humpback whale singing behavior by altering the rhythm or increasing the tempo of songs (Norris, 1994). Noise is also the likely major contributor of reported behavioral changes of humpback whales in Hawaii with regard to aircraft disturbance (Shallenberger, 1978; Tinney, 1988; Atkins and Swartz, 1989; Smultea et al., 1995). Overall, population-level effects of exposure to underwater noise in Hawaii are not well established, but exposure is likely chronic. As vessel traffic and other in-water activities are expected to increase in Hawaii, the level of this threat is also expected to increase.

    Increase in Human-Whale Interactions as Both Populations Increase

    The humpback whale population in Hawaii is increasing (Darling et al., 1983; Baker and Herman, 1987; Calambokidis et al., 1997; Cerchio 1998; Mobley et al., 2001; Calambokidis et al., 2008). The human population is also increasing (U.S. Census, 2015). As both populations increase, the probability of humans interacting with humpback whales in Hawaii will likely increase. Increasing numbers of humpback whales in Hawaii also increase the likelihood of encountering whales outside the HIHWNMS, in areas where whales would not have the benefit of continued protection from approach if not ESA-listed. Current ESA approach restrictions (which will no longer be in effect upon the effective date of the ESA listing rule) limit opportunities to lawfully approach humpback whales, thus establishing a safe perimeter around whales. If whales are not protected by approach restrictions, this would erase this perimeter and increase the danger attributed to being in proximity to whales. With an increasing humpback whale population in Hawaii, eliminating approach regulations is a cause for concern with regard to both human and whale safety.

    As a result of human population growth and demand for new products and tourist destinations, ocean recreation in Hawaii is increasing. The value of the tour boat industry has increased by 300 percent from 1984 to 2003 (Markrich, 2004). Whale watching has also increased in recent years from 52 operators in 1999 to an estimated 117 companies currently offering tours specific to whale watching (Hoyt, 2002; Internet search, February 2016).

    As the number of people, tourism, and ocean-based activities increases in Hawaii, the number of interactions between humans and humpback whales is also likely to increase. If humpback whales are not protected by approach regulations in Hawaii, unrestricted access to whales outside the HIHWNMS would likely result in more encounters with commercial whale watching and recreational vessels, thus resulting in increased take of whales, while placing the safety of both humans and whales in jeopardy.

    Public Comments and Public Hearings

    We are soliciting comments on this interim final rule and the supporting Environmental Assessment (see ADDRESSES). No public hearings have been scheduled but public hearings can be requested. Requests for public hearings must be made in writing (see ADDRESSES) by October 11, 2016. If a public hearing is requested, a notice detailing the specific hearing location and time will be published in the Federal Register at least 15 days before the hearing is to be held. Information on the specific hearing locations and times will also be posted on our Web site at: http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/PRD/prd_humpback.html.

    References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this interim final rule can be found at http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/PRD/prd_humpback.html or www.regulations.gov, and is available upon request from the NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office in Honolulu, HI (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION).

    Classification National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    NMFS has prepared an Environmental Assessment pursuant to NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) to support this rule. The Environmental Assessment contains an analysis of two no action alternatives and two action alternatives. There are a number of elements that were common to both of the action alternatives analyzed, including the preferred alternative described in this document and a number of exceptions that would apply to these alternatives. The Environmental Assessment is available for review and comment on the NMFS Pacific Islands Region Web site at http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/PRD/prd_humpback.html.

    Executive Order 12866

    This interim final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act is to minimize the paperwork burden for individuals, small businesses, educational and nonprofit institutions, and other persons resulting from the collection of information by or for the Federal government. The interim final rule includes no new collection of information, so further analysis is not required.

    Coastal Zone Management Act

    NMFS has determined that this rule will be implemented in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal zone management program of the State of Hawaii. The consistency determination has been submitted for review to the responsible State agency under section 307(c)(1) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to take into account any federalism impacts of regulations under development. It includes specific directives for consultation in situations in which a regulation will preempt state law or impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments (unless required by statute). Neither of those circumstances is applicable to this interim final rule; therefore this action does not have federalism implications as that term is defined in E.O. 13132.

    Information Quality Act (IQA)

    Pursuant to Section 515 of Public Law 106-554 (the Information Quality Act), this information product has undergone a pre-dissemination review by NMFS. The signed Pre-dissemination Review and Documentation Form is on file with the NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office (see ADDRESSES).

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This interim final regulation is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because NMFS has determined that notice and public comment would be impracticable and against the public interest.

    Administrative Procedure Act

    There is good cause to waive the prior notice and public comment requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act, and make this rule effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register. This rule would prohibit the approach of humpback whales by aircraft within a 1,000 feet (304.8 m) and by any means within 100 yards (91.4 m), including to cause a vessel, person or other object to approach within 100 yard (91.4 m), and approach a whale by interception (placing an aircraft, vessel, person or other object in the path of a humpback whale so that the whale approaches within 1000 feet of the aircraft or 100 yards of the vessel, person or object). Approach regulations reflecting the above prohibitions have existed in Hawaii for 29 years, except the interception and exceptions provisions are new. Further, NMFS published in the Federal Register a proposed revision to the humpback listing in April 15, 2015 and, as dicussed above, requested comments on whether approach regulations under the MMPA should be considered if the proposed Hawaii DPS is finalized, as this DPS would no longer be listed or protected under ESA regulations.

    Unregulated approach of humpback whales in Hawaii by aircraft, vessel, persons, or other means would likely lead to increased take of humpback whales. Upon the effective date of the ESA listing final rule, there will be a lapse in protections for the Hawaii DPS of humpback whales if these approach regulations under the MMPA are not in place. Because we have an obligation to uphold the regulatory objectives of the MMPA, and leaving humpback whales in Hawaii without approach regulations would result in increased take and consequent noncompliance with the statute, NMFS finds it impracticable and contrary to the public interest to have prior notice and comment.

    For the reasons stated above, NMFS believes protections for Hawaii humpback whales are necessary and appropriate during the time the ESA listing determination becomes effective and the humpback whales begin to return to waters surrounding Hawaii in September.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 216

    Administrative practice and procedure, Marine mammals.

    Dated: August 30, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 216 is amended as follows:

    PART 216—REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TAKING AND IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS 1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 216 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1361, et seq., unless otherwise noted.

    2. In subpart B of part 216, add § 216.19 to read as follows:
    § 216.19 Special restrictions for humpback whales in waters surrounding the islands of Hawaii.

    (a) Prohibitions. Except as noted in paragraph (b) of this section, it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, or to cause to be committed, within 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) of the islands of Hawaii, any of the following acts with respect to humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae):

    (1) Operate any aircraft within 1,000 feet (304.8 m) of any humpback whale;

    (2) Approach, by any means, within 100 yards (91.4 m) of any humpback whale;

    (3) Cause a vessel, person, or other object to approach within 100 yards (91.4 m) of a humpback whale;

    (4) Approach a humpback whale by interception (i.e., placing an aircraft, vessel, person, or other object in the path of a humpback whale so that the whale approaches within 1,000 feet (304.8 m) of the aircraft or 100 yards (91.4 m) of the vessel, person, or object); or

    (5) Disrupt the normal behavior or prior activity of a whale by any other act or omission. A disruption of normal behavior may be manifested by, among other actions on the part of the whale, a rapid change in direction or speed; escape tactics such as prolonged diving, underwater course changes, underwater exhalation, or evasive swimming patterns; interruptions of breeding, nursing, or resting activities, attempts by a whale to shield a calf from a vessel or human observer by tail swishing or by other protective movements; or the abandonment of a previously frequented area.

    (b) Exceptions. The prohibitions of paragraph (a) of this section do not apply to:

    (1) Federal, State, or local government vessels or persons operating in the course of their official duties such as law enforcement, search and rescue, or public safety;

    (2) Vessel operations necessary to avoid an imminent and serious threat to a person, vessel, or the environment;

    (3) Vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver, and because of this restriction are not able to comply with approach restrictions; or

    (4) Vessels or persons authorized under permit or authorization issued by NMFS to conduct scientific research or response efforts that may result in taking of humpback whales.

    (c) Affirmative defense. (1) In connection with any action alleging a violation of this section, any person claiming the benefit of any exemption, exception, or permit listed in paragraph (b) of this section has the burden of proving that the exemption or exception is applicable, or that the permit was granted and was valid and in force at the time of the alleged violation.

    (2) [Reserved]

    [FR Doc. 2016-21277 Filed 9-6-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 216, 223, and 224 [Docket No. 150727648-6720-01] RIN 0648-BF31 Technical Amendments and Recodification of Alaska Humpback Whale Approach Regulations AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We, NMFS, are making technical amendments to and recodifying Alaska humpback whale approach regulations within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with only minor, technical revisions. Specifically, we are recodifying the regulations that apply to “Endangered Marine and Anadromous Species” so that they also appear in “Threatened Marine and Anadromous Species”. This action is necessary to reflect the change in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing status of humpback whales, whereby some populations of humpback whales will now be classified as endangered species and one will be classified as a threatened species. In addition, we are adding the Alaska approach regulations to the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to clarify that protections are in effect for all humpback whales that may occur in or transit through the waters surrounding Alaska, including those that are not ESA-listed. This clarification reflects that the approach regulations were originally adopted under the MMPA as well as the ESA. We are also making minor changes to the language of the existing regulations to modernize language and update citations to relevant authorities.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective October 11, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shannon Bettridge, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8402, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On May 31, 2001, we issued a final rule (66 FR 29502) applicable to waters within 200 nautical miles (370 km) of Alaska that made it unlawful for a person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to (a) approach within 100 yards (91.4 m) of a humpback whale, (b) cause a vessel or other object to approach within 100 yards (91.4 m) of a humpback whale, or (c) disrupt the normal behavior or prior activity of a whale. The regulations also require vessels to operate at a slow, safe speed when near a humpback whale. These regulations are set forth at 50 CFR 224.103(b) (2015). When the provisions were adopted, we cited MMPA section 112(a) and ESA section 11(f) as authority (16 U.S.C. 1382(a); 16 U.S.C. 1540(f)). However, because the humpback whale was listed as endangered throughout its range, the approach restrictions were codified only in part 224 of the ESA regulations (which applies to “Endangered Marine and Anadromous Species”).

    On April 21, 2015, we proposed to revise the species-wide ESA listing of the humpback whale by recognizing fourteen distinct population segments (DPSs), two of which would be listed as endangered species (Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa and Arabian Sea DPSs) and two as threatened species (Western North Pacific and Central America DPSs) (80 FR 22303). In that proposed ESA listing rule, we concluded that the remaining ten DPSs were not endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges and therefore did not propose to list them. Following consideration of information received through the public comment period on the proposed ESA listing rule, including public hearings, we are separately publishing in today's issue of the Federal Register a final rule implementing the revised listing determinations for humpback whales. Under that ESA listing final rule, we are listing one of the fourteen DPSs as a threatened species (the Mexico DPS), and four DPSs as endangered species (the Arabian Sea DPS, the Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa DPS, the Central America DPS, and the Western North Pacific DPS).

    As a result of the final humpback whale ESA listing rule, maintaining the Alaska approach regulations only within their the original location in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is no longer appropriate. This is because, while some humpback whales that spend part of the year in Alaskan waters remain listed as endangered (those that are members of the Western North Pacific DPS), others are now listed as threatened (those that are members of the Mexico DPS) or are not listed (those that are members of the Hawaii DPS). All protections of section 9 of the ESA, including the prohibitions against “take” in 16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)(B)-(C), are being extended to the threatened humpback whales as part of the final ESA listing rule (50 CFR 223.213). The ESA listing reclassifications thus require recodifying the approach regulations that currently appear in part 224 (which pertains only to endangered species) so that they also appear in part 223 (which pertains to threatened species) to ensure it is clear that humpback whales listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA are protected from approach in Alaska.

    Accordingly, concurrently with finalizing the humpback whale reclassification under the ESA, we are, through this final rule, recodifying the Alaska approach regulations that currently appear in § 224.103(b) so that they also appear in § 223.214 for the protection of listed humpback whales occurring in the waters surrounding Alaska. These include whales from the Western North Pacific DPS (endangered) and Mexico DPS (threatened), as specified in the final ESA listing rule. The approach regulations have been in effect for 15 years and are important in light of the potential impacts posed by the whale watching industry, recreational boating community, and other maritime users.

    In addition, we are also setting forth the Alaska approach regulations in part 216, which contains regulations regarding the taking and importing of marine mammals under the MMPA (50 CFR 216.18). Because the approach regulations were adopted in part under the authority of the MMPA, this represents a technical change only. Setting the regulations out clearly in this part of the CFR will clarify that all humpback whales that may occur in or transit through the waters surrounding Alaska are protected from approach, not just those that are ESA-listed, and reflects that the regulations were originally adopted under MMPA as well as ESA authority.

    These three regulations (50 CFR 224.103(b), 223.214, and 216.18) work together to provide seamless protection to humpback whales that occur in the waters surrounding Alaska. While the ESA rules only apply to humpback whales listed as endangered or threatened species under the ESA (currently, only the Western North Pacific DPS and the Mexico DPS), the MMPA protections apply to all humpback whales in the specified geographic area (including the Hawaii DPS that is not listed). The provisions set forth under these authorities are substantively identical, so vessel operators will need to continue to exercise the same caution with regard to all humpback whales, as the current regulations have long required.

    Recodifying these longstanding provisions so they appear both in 50 CFR parts 223 and 224, and setting them out clearly in part 216, represents a technical change only. The substantive provisions and the authority for their adoption are unchanged. The only changes to the regulations as compared to the existing provisions have been technical corrections and adjustments, including:

    • Inserting the word “endangered” in front of “humpback whales” in the heading and in the main sections of text of the existing ESA-based regulation in § 224.103(b) to reflect that it does not apply to all humpback whales;

    • Inserting the word “threatened” in front of “humpback whales” in the heading and in the main sections of text of the new ESA-based regulation in § 223.214 to reflect that it does not apply to all humpback whales;

    • Adjusting the numbering of subsections to fit the new locations in § 216.18 and § 223.214;

    • Directly incorporating the description of disruption of normal behavior or prior activity of a whale from § 224.103(a)(4) (2015) (a cross-referenced provision within the approach regulations protecting whales in Hawaii, which will no longer be in effect upon finalization of the revisions to the ESA listing status of humpback whales) into the regulations in § 216.18(a)(3), § 223.214(a)(3), and § 224.103(b)(1)(iii);

    • Updating language by changing “her” to “its” in the phrase “to the extent that a vessel is restricted in her ability to maneuver. . . .” in § 216.18(b)(2), § 223.214(b)(2), and § 224.103(b)(2)(ii);

    • In the provisions being set out at part 216, tailoring the reference to applicable permit procedures to refer to the relevant MMPA permit procedures (which are contained in subpart D of part 216);

    • In 50 CFR 224.103(b)(3), updating a reference to a safe speed rule formerly set out at 33 U.S.C. 2006. This is necessary because the safe speed rule is now set out in regulations from the Department of Homeland Security at 33 CFR 83.06. These regulations were adopted in 2010 pursuant to the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Authorization Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-293, sec. 303, 118 Stat. 1028 (2004)), which directed that such final regulations would replace sections 2001-2038 of Title 33 of the United States Code. See 33 U.S.C. 2071 (codifying sec. 303(b)); 75 FR 19544 (April 15, 2010), 79 FR 37898 (July 2, 2014); and

    • In 50 CFR 224.103(b)(2)(vi), updating a reference to special regulations for Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve formerly set out at 36 CFR 13.65. This is necessary because the special regulations applicable within Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, including vessel operating restrictions to protect whales, were reorganized in 2006 and are now set out in regulations from the Department of the Interior at 36 CFR 13.1102-13.1188. See 71 FR 69328 (Nov. 30, 2006).

    We solicited public comments in the proposed ESA listing rule (80 FR 22303, April 21, 2015) regarding relocation of the Alaska approach regulations. See 80 FR at 22354. At the time of the proposed listing rule, we did not expect that there would be any endangered DPSs present in Alaska and so sought comment as to whether we should relocate them from part 224 to part 223 (setting out ESA regulations applicable to “Threatened Marine and Anadromous Species”) and also as to whether we should set them out in part 216 as MMPA regulations. Because we are now listing the Western North Pacific DPS as endangered, we will retain the approach regulations under the ESA at 50 CFR 224.103, and because we are listing the Mexico DPS as threatened, we will also add the provisions to part 223 at 50 CFR 223.214.

    The State of Alaska was the only commenter that specifically addressed approach regulations in Alaska. The State supported retaining approach regulations in U.S. waters in Alaska because of the conservation benefits to ESA-listed and non-listed humpback whales that frequent Alaska waters. We therefore promulgate a final rule effecting a technical correction and recodification that recodifies these provisions so that they appear in both parts 223 and 224 and also setting the provisions out in part 216 (MMPA Regulations) at 50 CFR 216.18, to reflect that these provisions were originally adopted under the MMPA as well as the ESA and are an important source of protection for these marine mammals.

    Classification

    NMFS finds that good cause exists, under the Administrative Procedure Act, for adopting these rule changes as a final rule without stand-alone public notice and comment. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). As noted above, public comments on this action were solicited in the proposed ESA listing rule (80 FR 22303, April 21, 2015) and have been fully considered both for this technical regulation and in the context of the development of the final ESA listing rule. We find that additional notice and public procedure on this technical final rule is unnecessary because no substantive modifications are being made to the regulations being recodified so that they appear both in 50 CFR part 224 and 50 CFR part 223 and set out in 50 CFR part 216. All of the changes are technical, including the change to the language at § 224.103(b)(1)(iii) (which now sets out a definition directly in the text that was previously cross-referenced, as noted above). Consequently, the final rule does not alter the rights or responsibilities of any party. Additionally, delaying implementation of this rule for a separate public notice and comment period would be contrary to the public interest because it would create a lapse in necessary protections for the humpback whales that transit through Alaskan waters.

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    This final rule does not contain any collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Therefore, NMFS has not submitted any information to the Office of Management and Budget for review.

    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action affects owner-operator whale watch businesses, eco-tourism companies (mostly local kayak tour businesses), and owner-operator fishing enterprises.

    This action is a technical change to update the provisions and recodify them so they appear at both 50 CFR part 224 (which applies to “Endangered Marine and Anadromous Species”) and 50 CFR part 223 (which applies to “Threatened Marine and Anadromous Species”). Additionally, when the Alaska provisions were adopted, we cited section 112(a) of the MMPA in addition to section 11(f) of the ESA as authority (16 U.S.C. 1382(a); 16 U.S.C. 1540(f)). However, because the humpback whale was listed throughout its range as endangered, the rule was codified only in part 224. Setting out the regulations in a new section, § 223.214, is necessary in order to continue the protection of threatened humpback whales, in addition to the endangered humpback whales, in Alaska. We are also setting out these provisions in 50 CFR part 216, for the protection of all humpback whales that may occur or transit through the waters surrounding Alaska, to reflect that these provisions were adopted under the MMPA as well as the ESA and are an important source of protection for these marine mammals. These provisions have been in effect for 15 years and are important in light of the potential impacts posed by the whalewatching industry, recreational boating community, and other maritime users. These provisions are merely being recodified within the CFR to continue existing protections in light of revisions to the ESA listing status of humpback whales.

    Because of this certification, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

    NMFS analyzed this rule under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA's Administrative Orders (NAO) 216-6A and 216-6. NMFS determined that this action satisfies the standards for reliance upon a categorical exclusion under NAO 216-6 §  6.03c.3(i) for “policy directives, regulations and guidelines of an administrative, financial, legal, technical or procedural nature.” NAO 216-6, §  6.03c.3(i). The rule would not trigger an exception precluding reliance on the categorical exclusion because it does not involve a geographic area with unique characteristics, is not the subject of public controversy based on potential environmental consequences, will not result in uncertain environmental impacts or unique or unknown risks, does not establish a precedent or decision in principle about future proposals, will not have significant cumulative impacts, and will not have any adverse effects upon endangered or threatened species or their habitats. Id. §  5.05c. As such, it is categorically excluded from the need to prepare an Environmental Assessment. In addition, NMFS finds that because this rule will not result in any effects to the physical environment, much less any adverse effects, there would be no need to prepare an Environmental Assessment even aside from consideration of the categorical exclusion. See Oceana, Inc. v. Bryson, 940 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2013). Issuance of this rule does not alter the legal and regulatory status quo in such a way as to create any environmental effects. See Humane Soc. of U.S. v. Johanns, 520 F. Supp. 2d. 8, 29 (D.D.C. 2007).

    List of Subjects 50 CFR Part 216

    Administrative practice and procedure, Marine mammals.

    50 CFR Part 223

    Threatened marine and anadromous species.

    50 CFR Part 224

    Endangered marine and anadromous species.

    Dated: August 30, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 216, 223, and 224 are amended as follows:

    PART 216—REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TAKING AND IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS 1. The authority citation for part 216 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless otherwise noted.

    2. In subpart B of part 216, add § 216.18 to read as follows:
    § 216.18 Approaching humpback whales in Alaska.

    (a) Prohibitions. Except as provided under paragraph (b) of this section, it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, or to cause to be committed, within 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) of Alaska, or within inland waters of the state, any of the acts in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section with respect to humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae):

    (1) Approach, by any means, including by interception (i.e., placing a vessel in the path of an oncoming humpback whale so that the whale surfaces within 100 yards (91.4 m) of the vessel), within 100 yards (91.4 m) of any humpback whale;

    (2) Cause a vessel or other object to approach within 100 yards (91.4 m) of a humpback whale; or

    (3) Disrupt the normal behavior or prior activity of a whale by any other act or omission. A disruption of normal behavior may be manifested by, among other actions on the part of the whale, a rapid change in direction or speed; escape tactics such as prolonged diving, underwater course changes, underwater exhalation, or evasive swimming patterns; interruptions of breeding, nursing, or resting activities, attempts by a whale to shield a calf from a vessel or human observer by tail swishing or by other protective movement; or the abandonment of a previously frequented area.

    (b) Exceptions. The following exceptions apply, but any person who claims the applicability of an exception has the burden of proving that the exception applies:

    (1) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply if an approach is authorized by the National Marine Fisheries Service through a permit issued under subpart D of this part (Special Exceptions) or through a similar authorization.

    (2) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to the extent that a vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver and, because of the restriction, cannot comply with paragraph (a) of this section.

    (3) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to commercial fishing vessels lawfully engaged in actively setting, retrieving or closely tending commercial fishing gear. For purposes of this section, commercial fishing means taking or harvesting fish or fishery resources to sell, barter, or trade. Commercial fishing does not include commercial passenger fishing operations (i.e., charter operations or sport fishing activities).

    (4) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to state, local, or Federal government vessels operating in the course of official duty.

    (5) Paragraph (a) of this section does not affect the rights of Alaska Natives under 16 U.S.C. 1539(e).

    (6) This section shall not take precedence over any more restrictive conflicting Federal regulation pertaining to humpback whales, including the regulations at 36 CFR 13.1102-13.1188 that pertain specifically to the waters of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve.

    (c) General measures. Notwithstanding the prohibitions and exceptions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, to avoid collisions with humpback whales, vessels must operate at a slow, safe speed when near a humpback whale. “Safe speed” has the same meaning as the term is defined in 33 CFR 83.06 and the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (see 33 U.S.C. 1602), with respect to avoiding collisions with humpback whales.

    PART 223—THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 3. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, § 223.201-202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for § 223.206(d)(9).

    4. In subpart B of part 223, add § 223.214 to read as follows:
    § 223.214 Approaching threatened humpback whales in Alaska.

    (a) Prohibitions. Except as provided under paragraph (b) of this section, it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, or to cause to be committed, within 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) of Alaska, or within inland waters of the state, any of the acts in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section with respect to threatened humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae):

    (1) Approach, by any means, including by interception (i.e., placing a vessel in the path of an oncoming humpback whale so that the whale surfaces within 100 yards (91.4 m) of the vessel), within 100 yards (91.4 m) of any humpback whale;

    (2) Cause a vessel or other object to approach within 100 yards (91.4 m) of a humpback whale; or

    (3) Disrupt the normal behavior or prior activity of a whale by any other act or omission. A disruption of normal behavior may be manifested by, among other actions on the part of the whale, a rapid change in direction or speed; escape tactics such as prolonged diving, underwater course changes, underwater exhalation, or evasive swimming patterns; interruptions of breeding, nursing, or resting activities, attempts by a whale to shield a calf from a vessel or human observer by tail swishing or by other protective movement; or the abandonment of a previously frequented area.

    (b) Exceptions. The following exceptions apply, but any person who claims the applicability of an exception has the burden of proving that the exception applies:

    (1) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply if an approach is authorized by the National Marine Fisheries Service through a permit issued under part 222, subpart C, of this chapter (General Permit Procedures) or through a similar authorization.

    (2) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to the extent that a vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver and, because of the restriction, cannot comply with paragraph (a) of this section.

    (3) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to commercial fishing vessels lawfully engaged in actively setting, retrieving or closely tending commercial fishing gear. For purposes of this section, commercial fishing means taking or harvesting fish or fishery resources to sell, barter, or trade. Commercial fishing does not include commercial passenger fishing operations (i.e. charter operations or sport fishing activities).

    (4) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to state, local, or Federal government vessels operating in the course of official duty.

    (5) Paragraph (a) of this section does not affect the rights of Alaska Natives under 16 U.S.C. 1539(e).

    (6) This section shall not take precedence over any more restrictive conflicting Federal regulation pertaining to humpback whales, including the regulations at 36 CFR 13.1102-13.1188 that pertain specifically to the waters of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve.

    (c) General measures. Notwithstanding the prohibitions and exceptions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, to avoid collisions with threatened humpback whales, vessels must operate at a slow, safe speed when near a humpback whale. “Safe speed” has the same meaning as the term is defined in 33 CFR 83.06 and the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (see 33 U.S.C. 1602), with respect to avoiding collisions with humpback whales.

    PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 5. The authority citation for part 224 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

    6. Amend § 224.103 to revise the heading of paragraph (b), and paragraphs (b)(1) introductory text, (b)(1)(iii), (b)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(vi), and (b)(3) to read as follows:
    § 224.103 Special prohibitions for endangered marine mammals.

    (b) Approaching endangered humpback whales in Alaska—(1) Prohibitions. Except as provided under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, or to cause to be committed, within 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) of Alaska, or within inland waters of the state, any of the acts in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iii) of this section with respect to endangered humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae):

    (iii) Disrupt the normal behavior or prior activity of a whale by any other act or omission. A disruption of normal behavior may be manifested by, among other actions on the part of the whale, a rapid change in direction or speed; escape tactics such as prolonged diving, underwater course changes, underwater exhalation, or evasive swimming patterns; interruptions of breeding, nursing, or resting activities, attempts by a whale to shield a calf from a vessel or human observer by tail swishing or by other protective movement; or the abandonment of a previously frequented area.

    (2) * * *

    (ii) Paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not apply to the extent that a vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver and, because of the restriction, cannot comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

    (vi) Paragraph (b) of this section shall not take precedence over any more restrictive conflicting Federal regulation pertaining to humpback whales, including the regulations at 36 CFR 13.1102-13.1188 that pertain specifically to the waters of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve.

    (3) General measures. Notwithstanding the prohibitions and exceptions in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, to avoid collisions with endangered humpback whales, vessels must operate at a slow, safe speed when near a humpback whale. “Safe speed” has the same meaning as the term is defined in 33 CFR 83.06 and the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (see 33 U.S.C. 1602) with respect to avoiding collisions with humpback whales.

    [FR Doc. 2016-21278 Filed 9-6-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 174 Thursday, September 8, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9068; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-067-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracks in horizontal stabilizer lower skins. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracking of the horizontal stabilizer lower skin, and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD also provides actions that would terminate certain repetitive inspections. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in horizontal stabilizer lower skins resulting in reduced local stiffness of the horizontal stabilizer, which can cause heavy vibration leading to loss of structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9068.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9068; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gaetano Settineri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6577; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-9068; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-067-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We have received reports of approximately 90 cracks in horizontal stabilizer lower skins with most of them occurring between stabilizer station (SSTA) 111.10 and 166.30. Ten operators reported cracks on 18 airplanes outside this range with 14 of them inboard of SSTA 111.10. The cracks range in length from 0.25 inch to 3.75 inches, and the airplanes had between 12,670 and 69,569 total flight cycles.

    The cracks started on the outer surface of the horizontal stabilizer lower skin where the chem-milled edge aligns with the edge of the lower flange of the rear spar. The cracks grew parallel to the rear spar. High secondary bending stresses due to compression buckling of the skins and sonic fatigue can cause the cracks to grow. Cracks have also started from the fastener line nearest the chem-milled step.

    This horizontal stabilizer lower skin cracking, if not corrected, could result in reduced local stiffness of the horizontal stabilizer, which can cause heavy vibration leading to loss of structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-55-1059, Revision 1, dated April 6, 2016 (“SASB 737-55-1059 R1”). The service information describes procedures for doing inspections of the horizontal stabilizer lower skin, and repairs. The service information also describes procedures for doing actions that would terminate certain repetitive inspections. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

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

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9068.

    The phrase “related investigative actions” is used in this proposed AD. Related investigative actions are follow-on actions that (1) are related to the primary action, and (2) further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.

    The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. Corrective actions correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    SASB 737-55-1059 R1, specifies to contact the manufacturer for certain instructions, but this proposed AD would require accomplishment of repair methods, modification deviations, and alteration deviations in one of the following ways:

    • In accordance with a method that we approve; or

    • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 270 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspection 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 per inspection cycle $0 $340 per inspection cycle $91,800 per inspection cycle. Estimated Costs for Optional Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Modification Up to 51 work-hours per stabilizer × $85 per hour = $4,335 $721 Up to $5,056 per stabilizer.

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

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Skin slice repair Up to 438 work-hours × $85 per hour = $37,230 $0 Up to $37,230. External doubler repair 26 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,210 $0 $2,210. Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-9068; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-067-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 24, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-55-1059, Revision 1, dated April 6, 2016 (“SASB 737-55-1059 R1”).

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55; Horizontal stabilizer.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in horizontal stabilizer lower skins. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in horizontal stabilizer lower skins resulting in reduced local stiffness of the stabilizer, which can cause heavy vibration leading to loss of structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspections, Related Investigative Actions, and Corrective Actions for Group 1, Configuration 1 Airplanes

    For Group 1, Configuration 1 airplanes, as identified in SASB 737-55-1059 R1: Except as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-55-1059 R1, do a detailed inspection for cracking of the horizontal stabilizer lower skin; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-55-1059 R1, except as specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection of the horizontal stabilizer lower skin, if applicable, thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-55-1059 R1. Options specified in SASB 737-55-1059 R1, for accomplishing the inspections are acceptable for the corresponding requirements of this paragraph provided that the inspections are done at the applicable times in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the SASB 737-55-1059 R1.

    (h) Inspections, Related Investigative Actions, and Corrective Actions for Group 1, Configuration 2 Airplanes

    For Group 1, Configuration 2 airplanes, as identified in SASB 737-55-1059 R1: Except as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-55-1059 R1, do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-55-1059 R1, except as specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD, if applicable, thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-55-1059 R1. Options specified in SASB 737-55-1059 R1, for accomplishing the inspections are acceptable for the corresponding requirements of this paragraph provided that the inspections are done at the applicable times in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-55-1059 R1.

    (1) Do a high frequency eddy current inspection for cracking of the skin around any repair done as specified in the structural repair manual or any external doubler repair, and a detailed inspection for any loose or any missing fastener of repaired doublers.

    (2) Do a detailed inspection for cracking of the inspar lower skin of the horizontal stabilizer in unrepaired areas.

    (3) Do a low frequency eddy current inspection for cracking of the forward fastener row of any external doubler repair.

    (i) Service Information Exceptions

    (1) Where SASB 737-55-1059 R1, specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 1 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) If any cracking, corrosion, hole elongation, or loose or missing fastener is found during any inspection required by this AD, and SASB 737-55-1059 R1, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair the cracking, corrosion, hole elongation, loose or missing fasteners using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Gaetano Settineri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6577; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 24, 2016. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21148 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9056; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-007-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Formerly Known as Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model SAAB 2000 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an occurrence that was reported of rudder pedal restriction on a SAAB Model 2000 airplane with the large potable water system (LPWS) installed, equipped with in-line heaters. This proposed AD would require installation of shrinkable tubes on the water piping of the basic potable water system (BPWS). We are proposing this AD to prevent water spray in case of a failed pipe or coupling during water filling on the ground. This condition, if not corrected, could freeze parts of the flight control system possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Linköping, Sweden; telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.saabgroup.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9056; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112 ; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-9056; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-007-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0013, dated January 14, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model SAAB 2000 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    An occurrence was reported of rudder pedal restriction on a SAAB 2000 aeroplane with the Large Potable Water System (LPWS) installed, equipped with in-line heaters (options 38:201 and 38:201-1). Subsequent investigation showed that this event was the result of a ruptured in-line heater attachment, causing water leakage at the inlet tubing for the in-line heater in the lower part of the forward fuselage (Zone 116). In flight, the water froze on the rudder control mechanism, causing the rudder pedal restriction. Analysis after the reported event indicates that the pitch control mechanism (including pitch disconnect/spring unit) may also be frozen, which would prevent disconnection and normal pitch control.

    This condition, if not corrected, could result in further occurrences of water spray, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued Emergency AD 2013-0172-E, to require deactivation of the LPWS. Following that, EASA AD 2013-0172R1 introduced a temporary alternative procedure for filling, reactivation and operation of the LPWS.

    Finally, EASA AD 2014-0255 was issued, superseding EASA AD 2013-0172R1, to require a modification allowing reactivating of the system and the use of regular filling procedures.

    Although the Basic Potable Water System (BPWS) does not contain an in-line heater, which was the major risk contributor and the actual cause of the previous leakage events in the LPWS, a Zonal Safety Analysis performed by SAAB concluded that the implementation of spray shield (tube/hose) for the water piping is necessary for the BPWS as well, to protect the flight controls and electrical equipment from water spray in case of a failed pipe or coupling during water filling on ground.

    Consequently SAAB developed a modification and issued Service Bulletin (SB) 2000-38-012 to provide modification instructions to install shrinkable tubes as spray shields.

    For reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires installation of shrinkable tubes on the water piping of the BPWS.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9056.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Saab has issued Service Bulletin 2000-38-012, dated August 20, 2015. The service information describes how to install shrinkable tubes on the water piping of the BPWS. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 7 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $3,650 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $29,120 or $4,160 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (formerly known as Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems): Docket No. FAA-2016-9056; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-007-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 24, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (formerly known as Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Model SAAB 2000 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 017, 019 through 021 inclusive, 027 through 028 inclusive, 030, 034, 040, 050, and 052.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 38, Water/waste.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by an occurrence that was reported of rudder pedal restriction on a SAAB Model 2000 airplane with the large potable water system (LPWS) installed, equipped with in-line heaters. We are issuing this AD to prevent water spray in case of a failed pipe or coupling during water filling on the ground. This condition, if not corrected, could freeze parts of the flight control system, possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repair of Basic Potable Water System (BPWS)

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, install shrinkable tubes on the water piping of the BPWS, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SAAB Service Bulletin 2000-38-012, dated August 20, 2015.

    (h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch/ACO, send it to ATTN: Sharam Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112 ; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0013, dated January 14, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9056.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Linköping, Sweden; telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.saabgroup.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 24, 2016. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21165 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9055; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-071-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600R series airplanes, Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes, and Model A300 F4-600R series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by the results of a full stress analysis of the lower area of a certain frame that revealed a crack could occur in the forward fitting lower radius of a certain frame after a certain number of flight cycles. This proposed AD would require an inspection of the lower area of a certain frame radius for cracking, and corrective action if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the forward fitting lower radius of a certain frame. Such cracking could reduce the structural integrity of the fuselage.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    • Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9055; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-9055; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-071-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0085, dated April 28, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600R series airplanes, Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes, and Airbus Model A300 F4-600R series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Following a recently completed full stress analysis of the Frame (FR) 40 lower area, supported by a Finite Element Model (FEM), of the post-mod 10221 configuration, it was demonstrated that for the FR40 forward fitting lower radius, a crack could occur after a certain amount of flight cycles (FC).

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the fuselage.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus established that crack detection could be performed through a special detail inspection (SDI) using a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) method, and issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A57W009-16.

    For the reasons described above, this AD requires a one-time SDI of the FR40 lower area and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9055. Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Alert Operators Transmission—AOT A57W009-16, Rev 00, dated February 25, 2016, including Appendixes 1 and 2, both undated. The service information describes procedures for inspecting the forward fitting lower radius of FR40 for cracking and corrective action. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Clarification of Applicability

    The MCAI lists Airbus Model A300 B4-622R airplanes twice in the applicability. We have discussed the applicability with EASA, and the second reference was a typographical error which should have been “Airbus Model A300 F4-622R airplanes.” The applicability of this proposed AD will include Airbus Model A300 F4-622R airplanes.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 94 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Inspection 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 $0 $255 $23,970 Reporting 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $7,990 We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
    Paperwork Reduction Act

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-9055; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-071-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 24, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, on which Airbus Modification 10221 was embodied in production.

    (1) Airbus Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.

    (3) Airbus Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the results of a full stress analysis of the lower area of frame (FR) 40 that revealed a crack could occur in the forward fitting lower radius of FR 40 after a certain number of flight cycles. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the forward fitting lower radius of FR 40. Such cracking could reduce the structural integrity of the fuselage.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection

    At the later of the compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, do a high frequency eddy current inspection of the lower area of the FR 40 radius for cracking, in accordance with the procedures in Airbus Alert Operators Transmission—AOT A57W009-16, Rev 00, dated February 25, 2016, including Appendixes 1 and 2, both undated.

    (1) Prior to exceeding 19,000 total flight cycles or 41,000 flight hours since the airplane's first flight, whichever occurs first.

    (2) Within 300 flight cycles or 630 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    (h) Corrective Action

    If any crack is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).../../MADGE 2015/Differences/contact_mfr_foreign.doc.

    (i) Reporting Requirement

    Submit a report of all findings (both positive and negative) from the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD to Airbus Customer Services through TechRequest on Airbus World (https://w3.airbus.com/) by selecting Engineering Domain and ATA 57-10.

    (1) For airplanes on which the inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD is accomplished on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after performing the inspection.

    (2) For airplanes on which the inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD is accomplished before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

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

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

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0085, dated April 28, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9055.

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 22, 2016. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21166 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9058; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-024-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD), for certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an analysis which determined that, for certain areas of the fuselage, the current threshold of an Airworthiness Limitations Section inspection is insufficient to detect early crack development. This proposed AD would require one time high and low frequency eddy current inspections of the affected fuselage skin for cracks and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the fuselage skin; such cracking could result in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone: +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax: +31 (0)88-6280-111; email: [email protected]; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9058; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-9058; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-024-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive Airworthiness Directive 2016-0029, dated February 23, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Recently, a complementary fatigue and damage tolerance analysis was accomplished by the design approval holder on the traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) antenna installation on the top of the fuselage between station (STA) 6805 and STA7305. Based on the results, it was determined that for the affected area, the current threshold of the Airworthiness Limitations Section inspection task 533001-00-20 (special detailed inspection of longitudinal lap joints) is insufficient to timely detect possible crack development.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the fuselage in this area.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Fokker Services published Service Bulletin (SB) SBF100-53-130 to provide inspection instructions. For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time inspection [high and low frequency eddy current inspections for cracks] of the fuselage skin around the largest TCAS antenna external doubler and of the longitudinal lap joint at stringer (STR) 37 between fuselage STA6805 and STA7305 [and repair if necessary. This [EASA] AD is considered to be an interim action and further [EASA] AD action may follow.

    More information on this subject can be found in Fokker Services All Operators Message AOF100.199.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9058.

    Related Service Information Under1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-53-130, dated December 01, 2015. This service information describes one-time high and low frequency eddy current inspections for cracks of the fuselage skin. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Inspection 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $680

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Fokker Services B.V.: Docket No. FAA-2016-9058; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-024-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 24, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 11244 through 11407 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by an analysis which determined that, for certain areas of the fuselage, the current threshold of an Airworthiness Limitations Section inspection is insufficient to detect early crack development. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the fuselage skin; such cracking could result in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection

    Within the compliance time specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable, do high and low frequency eddy current inspections for cracks in the fuselage skin around the largest traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) antenna external doubler and of the longitudinal lap joint at fuselage stringer STR37 between fuselage station (STA) STA6805 and STA7305, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-53-130, dated December 01, 2015.

    (1) For airplanes having 45,000 or more flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD, since the date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness: Do the high and low frequency eddy current inspections within 750 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) For airplanes having 40,000 or more flight cycles, but less than 45,000 flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD, since the date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness: Do the high and low frequency eddy current inspections within 1,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.

    (h) Corrective Action

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM 116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Fokker B.V. Service's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0029, dated February 23, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9058.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone: +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax: +31 (0)88-6280-111; email: [email protected]; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 24, 2016. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21151 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9067; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-043-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of incidents involving fatigue cracking in transport category airplanes that are approaching or have exceeded their design service objective and a structural reevaluation by the manufacturer that identified additional structural elements that qualify as structural significant items (SSIs). This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include inspections that will give no less than the required damage tolerance rating (DTR) for certain SSIs, and repairing any cracked structure. This proposed AD would also require inspections to detect cracks of all SSI structure, and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to ensure the continued structural integrity of all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9067; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-9067; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-043-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On December 26, 2007, we issued AD 2004-07-22 R1, Amendment 39-15326 (73 FR 1052, January 7, 2008); corrected February 14, 2008 (73 FR 8589) (“AD 2004-07-22 R1”); for all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. AD 2004-07-22 R1 requires that the maintenance inspection program be revised to include inspections that will give no less than the required DTR for each SSI, and repair of cracked structure. AD 2004-07-22 R1 was prompted by a report of incidents involving fatigue cracking in transport category airplanes that are approaching or have exceeded their design service objective. We issued AD 2004-07-22 R1 to ensure the continued structural integrity of all Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes.

    Actions Since AD 2004-07-22 R1 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2004-07-22 R1, a structural reevaluation by the manufacturer identified additional structural elements that qualify as SSIs. We have determined that supplemental inspections are required for timely detection of fatigue cracking for these additional structural elements.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Document No. D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013. The service information describes procedures for inspections to detect cracks of all structure identified as SSIs and includes six new SSIs since the last revision.

    We also reviewed Boeing Document No. D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015. The service information describes procedures for inspections of wing, fuselage, and empennage SSIs for Model 747-400 LCF airplanes.

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

    FAA's Determination

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

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include inspections that will give no less than the required DTR for certain SSIs, and repairing any cracked structure. This proposed AD would also require inspections to detect cracks of all SSI structure, and repair if necessary.

    This proposed AD does not supersede 2004-07-22 R1. However, accomplishing the revision specified in paragraph (h) of this proposed AD would terminate the requirements of paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of AD 2004-07-22 R1. Also, doing an inspection specified in paragraph (i) of this proposed AD would terminate the corresponding inspection required by paragraph (i) of AD 2004-07-22 R1.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 118 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on
  • U.S. operators
  • Revision of maintenance or inspection program 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $10,030

    We have not specified cost estimates for the inspection and repair specified in this proposed AD. Compliance with this proposed AD constitutes a method of compliance with the FAA aging airplane safety final rule (AASFR) (70 FR 5518, February 2, 2005) for certain baseline structure of Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. The AASFR requires certain operators to incorporate damage tolerance inspections into their maintenance inspection programs. These requirements are described in 14 CFR 121.1109(c)(1) and 14 CFR 129.109(b)(1). Accomplishment of the actions specified in this proposed AD will meet the requirements of these regulations for certain baseline structure. The costs for accomplishing the inspection portion of this proposed AD were accounted for in the regulatory evaluation of the AASFR.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-9067; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-043-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 24, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2004-07-22 R1, Amendment 39-15326 (73 FR 1052, January 7, 2008); corrected February 14, 2008 (73 FR 8589) (“AD 2004-07-22 R1”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD:

    A Model 747-400 LCF airplane is a Model 747-400 series airplane that has been modified from a passenger airplane to a freighter configuration as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-00-2084.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage; 54, Nacelles/Pylons; 55, Stabilizers; 57, Wings.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of incidents involving fatigue cracking in transport category airplanes that are approaching or have exceeded their design service objective and a structural reevaluation by the manufacturer that identified additional structural elements that qualify as structural significant items (SSIs). We are issuing this AD to ensure the continued structural integrity of all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Definition of SSI

    For the purposes of this AD, an SSI is defined as a principal structural element (PSE). A PSE is a structural element that contributes significantly to the carrying of flight, ground, or pressurization loads, and whose integrity is essential in maintaining the overall structural integrity of the airplane.

    (h) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision for All Airplanes

    Prior to reaching the compliance thresholds specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i), (i)(2)(i), (j)(1)(i), or (j)(2)(i) of this AD, as applicable, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Incorporate a revision into the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, that provides no less than the required damage tolerance rating (DTR) for each SSI listed in the applicable service information specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD. The revision to the maintenance or inspection program must include, and must be implemented in accordance with, the procedures in Section 5.0, “Damage Tolerance Rating (DTR) System Application,” of Boeing Document No. D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013; and Boeing Document No. D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015; as applicable. Accomplishing the revision required by this paragraph terminates the actions required by paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of AD 2004-07-22 R1. After accomplishing the revision required by this paragraph, the revisions required by paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of AD 2004-07-22 R1, as applicable, must be removed.

    (1) For all airplanes except Model 747-400 LCF airplanes: SSIs listed in Boeing Document No. D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013.

    (2) For Model 747-400 LCF airplanes: SSIs listed in Boeing Document No. D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013; and SSIs listed in Boeing Document No. D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015. For SSIs listed in both Boeing Document No. D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015; and Boeing Document No. D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013: Incorporate the SSIs listed Boeing Document No. D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015.

    (i) Inspection Compliance Times for All Model 747 Airplanes Except Model 747-400 LCF airplanes

    For all Model 747 airplanes except Model 747-400 LCF airplanes: Perform inspections to detect cracks of all structure identified in Boeing Document No. D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013, at the times specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, as applicable. Once the initial inspection has been performed, in order to remain in compliance with the maintenance or inspection program, as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, repetitive inspections are required at the intervals specified in Boeing Document No. D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013. Doing an inspection required by this paragraph terminates the corresponding inspection required by paragraph (i) of AD 2004-07-22 R1.

    (1) For wing structure, except as provided by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD: Inspect at the times specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i) or (i)(1)(ii) of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (i) Within the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i)(A) or (i)(1)(i)(B) of this AD.

    (A) For all Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes: Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles or 100,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (B) For all Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes: Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles or 115,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (ii) Within 1,000 flight cycles or 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (2) For all structure other than wing structure, except as provided by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD: At the time specified in paragraph (i)(2)(i) or (i)(2)(ii) of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (i) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles.

    (ii) Within 1,000 flight cycles or 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (3) For any portion of an SSI that has been replaced with new structure: Inspect at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(3)(i) and (i)(3)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) At the time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

    (ii) Within 10,000 flight cycles after the replacement of the part with a new part.

    (j) Inspection Compliance Times for Model 747-400 LCF Airplanes

    For Model 747-400 LCF airplanes: Perform inspections to detect cracks of all structure identified in Boeing Document No. D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013; and Boeing Document No. D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015; at the times specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, as applicable. Once the initial inspection has been performed, in order to remain in compliance with the maintenance or inspection program, as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, repetitive inspections are required at the intervals specified in Boeing Document No. D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013; and Boeing Document No. D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015. Where SSIs are listed in both Boeing Document No. D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013; and Boeing Document No. D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015; the SSIs listed in Boeing Document No. D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015, take precedence. Doing an inspection required by this paragraph terminates the corresponding inspection required by paragraph (i) of AD 2004-07-22 R1.

    (1) For wing structure: Inspect at the times specified in paragraph (j)(1)(i) or (j)(1)(ii) of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (i) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles or 115,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (ii) Within 1,000 flight cycles or 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (2) For all structure other than wing structure: At the time specified in paragraph (j)(2)(i) or (i)(2)(ii) of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (i) At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i)(A) and (j)(2)(i)(B) of this AD.

    (A) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles.

    (B) Within the applicable initial compliance time specified in Boeing Document No. D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013; and Boeing Document No. D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015. Where SSIs are listed in both Boeing Document No. D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013; and Boeing Document No. D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015; the SSIs listed in Boeing Document No. D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015, take precedence.

    (ii) Within 1,000 flight cycles or 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (k) Repair

    If any cracked structure is found during any inspection required by paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD, repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.

    (l) Inspection Program for Transferred Airplanes

    Before any airplane that is subject to this AD and that has exceeded the applicable compliance times specified in paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD can be added to an air carrier's operations specifications, a program for the accomplishment of the inspections required by this AD must be established in accordance with paragraph (l)(1) or (l)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

    (1) For airplanes that have been inspected as specified in this AD, the inspection of each SSI must be accomplished by the new operator using the previous operator's schedule and inspection method, or the new operator's schedule and inspection method, at whichever time would result in the earlier accomplishment for that SSI inspection. The compliance time for accomplishment of this inspection must be measured from the last inspection accomplished by the previous operator. After each inspection has been performed once, each subsequent inspection must be performed using the new operator's schedule and inspection method.

    (2) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in this AD, the inspection of each SSI required by this AD must be accomplished either prior to adding the airplane to the air carrier's operations specification, or using a schedule and an inspection method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO). After each inspection has been performed once, each subsequent inspection must be performed using the new operator's schedule and inspection method.

    (m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

    (4) AMOCs approved for AD 2004-07-22 R1 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of this AD for the SSIs identified in the AMOC, except for any SSI that has an expanded inspection area identified in Boeing Document No. D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013; or Boeing Document No. D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015.

    (n) Related Information

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

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 24, 2016. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21147 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9071; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-019-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) which indicates that the main landing gear (MLG) does not comply with certification specifications, which could result in a locking failure of the MLG side stay. This proposed AD would require modification or replacement of certain MLG side stay assemblies. We are proposing this AD to prevent possible collapse of the MLG during takeoff and landing.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9071; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-9071; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-019-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0018, dated January 19, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During studies for a new landing gear design, it was discovered that the single-locked upper and lower cardan joints of the MLG do not comply with the certification specifications of (CS), (formerly Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR)) Part 25.607.

    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to MLG side stay locking failure that, during take-off and landing, may result in damage to the aeroplane and detrimental effect on safe flight.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, the MLG manufacturer developed a modification to change the single-locked MLG joint into a double-locked one. This modification is available for in-service application through Messier-Bugatti-Dowty (MBD) Service Bulletin (SB) 200-32-315 or SB 201-32-63, or Airbus SB A320-32-1429.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires modification or replacement of the MLG side stay assemblies to introduce the double locking of the MLG upper and lower cardan joints.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9071.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We have reviewed the following service information. The service information describes procedures for modifying the MLG side stay assembly.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1429, dated September 10, 2015.

    • Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 200-32-315, dated April 24, 2015.

    • Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 201-32-63, dated April 24, 2015.

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

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    The MCAI allows modification to the MLG in accordance with the following Airbus service information or the applicable Messier-Bugatti-Dowty service information:

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1429, dated September 10, 2015;

    • Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 200-32-315, dated April 24, 2015;

    • Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 201-32-63, dated April 24, 2015.

    This proposed AD would require that the MLG be modified in accordance with the Airbus service information and the applicable Messier-Bugatti-Dowty service information.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 959 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on
  • U.S. operators
  • Replacement or Modification 9 work-hour × $85 per hour = $765 $14,104 $14,869 $14,259,371
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new Airworthiness Directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-9071; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-019-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 24, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None

    (c) Applicability

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

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

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

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

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

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) which indicates that the main landing gear (MLG) does not comply with certification specifications, which could result in a locking failure of the MLG side stay. We are issuing this AD to prevent possible collapse of the MLG during takeoff and landing.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Modification or Replacement

    Within 66 months after the effective date of this AD, accomplish the action specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Modify each MLG side stay assembly having a part number listed in figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1429, dated September 10, 2015, and the service information specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.

    (i) For Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes: Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 200-32-315, dated April 24, 2015.

    (ii) For Model A321 series airplanes: Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 201-32-63, dated April 24, 2015.

    (2) Replace the MLG side stay assembly with a side stay assembly that has been modified in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. Do the replacement using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    Note 1 to paragraph (g)(2) of this AD:

    Additional guidance for the replacement can be found in Chapter 32 of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Aircraft Maintenance Manual.

    (h) Unaffected Airplanes

    An airplane on which Airbus modification (mod) 156646, Airbus mod 161202, or Airbus mod 161346 has been embodied in production is not affected by the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, provided it is determined that no part having a part number identified as listed in figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD, has been installed on that airplane since the date of issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the original export certificate of airworthiness. A review of maintenance records is acceptable to make this determination, provided that these records are accurate and can be relied upon to conclusively make that determination.

    (i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, do not install on any airplane, an MLG side stay assembly having a part number, with the strike number not cancelled, as identified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD, unless it has been modified in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    Figure 1 to Paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of This AD—Affected MLG Side Stay Assemblies Models Affected part numbers (the `xxx' used in this figure can be any 3-digit combination) Strike
  • number not
  • cancelled
  • A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes 201166001-xxx
  • 201166002-xxx
  • 201166003-xxx
  • 201166004-xxx
  • 201166005-xxx
  • 12
  • 12
  • 12
  • 12
  • 12
  • 201166006-xxx 12 201166007-xxx 12 201166008-xxx 12 201166009-xxx 12 201166010-xxx 12 201166011-xxx 12 201166012-xxx 12 201166013-000 through 201166013-030 inclusive 12 201166014-000 through 201166014-030 inclusive 12 A321-111, -112, and -131 airplanes 201390001-000 through 201390001-040 inclusive 15 201390002-000 through 201390002-040 inclusive 15 201527001-000 through 201527001-025 inclusive 15 201527002-000 through 201527002-025 inclusive 15 A321-211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes 201524001-000 through 201524001-035 inclusive 15 201524002-000 through 201524002-035 inclusive 15 201660001-000 through 201660001-030 inclusive 15 201660002-000 through 201660002-030 inclusive 15
    (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

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

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0018, dated January 19, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9071.

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 19, 2016. Dorr M. Anderson, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21282 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9000; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-027-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Various Aircraft Equipped With BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co KG 912 A Series Engine AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for various aircraft equipped with a BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co KG (formerly Rotax Aircraft Engines) 912 A series engine. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a manufacturing defect found in certain carburetor floats. We are issuing this proposed AD to prevent the fuel supply to the affected cylinder from becoming reduced or blocked, which could cause an in-flight engine shutdown and result in a forced landing and damage to the airplane or injury to the occupants.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: (202) 493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co. KG, Welser Strasse 32, A-4623 Gunskirchen, Austria; phone: +43 7246 601 0; fax: +43 7246 601 9130; Internet: www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9000; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-9000; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-027-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No.: 2016-0144, correction dated July 25, 2016, to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Due to a quality escape in the manufacturing process of certain floats, Part Number (P/N) 861185, a partial separation of the float outer skin may occur during engine operation. Separated particles could lead to a restriction of the jets in the carburetor, possibly reducing or blocking the fuel supply to the affected cylinder.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to in-flight engine shutdown and forced landing, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, BRP-Powertrain published Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) ASB-912-069/ASB-914-051 (single document, hereafter referred to as `the ASB' in this AD), providing instructions for identification and replacement of the affected parts.

    For the reasons stated above, this AD required identification and replacement of the affected floats with serviceable parts.

    This AD is republished to correct one typographical error in Table 2 of Appendix 2, and to include reference to revision 1 of the ASB in the Referenced Publications.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9000. Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    BRP-Powertrain GmbH & CO KG has issued Rotax Aircraft Engines BRP Alert Service Bulletin ASB-912-069R1/ASB-914-051R1 (co-published as one document), dated July 22, 2016. The service information describes procedures for identifying and replacing defective carburetor floats. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 65 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $100 per product.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $17,550, or $270 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: Various Aircraft: Docket No. FAA-2016-9000; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-027-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 24, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all serial numbers (S/N) of the airplanes listed in table 1 of paragraph (c) of this AD, certificated in any category, that incorporate one of the following:

    (1) a BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co KG (formerly Rotax Aircraft Engines) 912 A series engine having a serial number with a carburetor part number (P/N) and S/N listed in table 2 of paragraph (c) of this AD, installed as noted, in cylinder head position 1 through 4; or

    (2) an engine that, after May 8, 2016, has had an affected float, P/N 861185, installed in service as part of the airframe. Affected floats were initially delivered between May 9, 2016, and July 17, 2016, and do not have three dots stamped on the surface, as shown in paragraph 3.3) of the Accomplishment/Instructions in Rotax Aircraft Engines BRP Alert Service Bulletin ASB-912-069R1/ASB-914-051R1 (co-published as one document), dated July 22, 2016. A certification document (e.g., Form 1), delivery document or record of previous installation of the float are acceptable to determine an initial delivery on or before May 8, 2016.

    Table 1 of Paragraph (c)—Affected Airplanes Type certificate holder Aircraft model Engine model Aeromot-Indústria Mecânico-Metalúrgica Ltda AMT-200 912 A2 Diamond Aircraft Industries HK 36 R “SUPER DIMONA” 912 A DIAMOND AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES GmbH HK 36 TS and HK 36 TC 912 A3 Diamond Aircraft Industries Inc DA20-A1 912 A3 HOAC-Austria DV 20 KATANA 912 A3 Iniziative Industriali Italiane S.p.A Sky Arrow 650 TC 912 A2 SCHEIBE-Flugzeugbau GmbH SF 25C 912 A2, 912 A3 Table 2 of Paragraph (c)—Affected Carburetors Engine Cylinder
  • position
  • Carburetor P/N and S/N
    912A1, 912A2, 912A3, 912A4 1 or 3 P/N 892500—S/Ns 161138 through 161143, 161483 through 161490, 161493 through 161507, 161516 through 161518, and 161526. 2 or 4 P/N 892505—S/Ns 162193, 162194, 162196 through 162199, and 162205.
    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 73: Engine—Fuel and Control.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a manufacturing defect found in certain carburetor floats. We are issuing this AD to require actions to prevent the fuel supply to the affected cylinder from becoming reduced or blocked, which could cause an in-flight engine shutdown and result in a forced landing and damage to the airplane or injury to the occupants.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions:

    (1) Within the next 25 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this AD or within the next 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace all affected floats with a serviceable float following paragraph (3) Accomplishment/Instructions in Rotax Aircraft Engines BRP Alert Service Bulletin ASB-912-069R1/ASB-914-051R1 (co-published as one document), dated July 22, 2016.

    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install a float, P/N 861185, that does not have three dots stamped on the surface, as shown in paragraph (3.3) of the Accomplishment/Instructions in Rotax Aircraft Engines BRP Alert Service Bulletin ASB-912-069R1/ASB-914-051R1 (co-published as one document), dated July 22, 2016.

    (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

    (h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2016-0144, correction dated July 25, 2016, and BRP-Powertrain GmbH & CO KG Rotax Aircraft Engines BRP Alert Service Bulletin ASB-912-069/ASB-914-051 (co-published as one document), dated July 14, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9000. For service information related to this AD, contact BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co. KG, Welser Strasse 32, A-4623 Gunskirchen, Austria; phone: +43 7246 601 0; fax: +43 7246 601 9130; Internet: www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 25, 2016. David R. Showers, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21052 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8834; Airspace Docket No. 16-ACE-9] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Mapleton, IA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at James G. Whiting Memorial Field Airport, Mapleton, IA. Decommissioning of the Mapleton non-directional radio beacon (NDB), cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures have made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-8834; Airspace Docket No. 16-ACE-9, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at James G. Whiting Memorial Field Airport, Mapleton, IA.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-8834/Airspace Docket No. 16-ACE-9.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.regulations.gov.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius (increased from the 6.3-mile radius) of James G. Whiting Memorial Field Airport, Mapleton, IA, with an extension southwest of the airport from the 6.6-mile radius to 10.3 miles. The segment extending 10 miles northeast of the airport would be removed. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Mapleton NDB, cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of RNAV procedures at the airport and for the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

    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 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ACE IA E5 Mapleton, IA [Amended] Mapleton, James G. Whiting Memorial Field Airport, IA (Lat. 42°10′42″ N., long. 95°47′37″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of James G. Whiting Memorial Field Airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 204° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 10.3 miles southwest of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 24, 2016. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21027 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8827; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-12] Proposed Amendment of Class D and E Airspace for the Following Texas Towns; Georgetown, TX; Corpus Christi, TX; Dallas/Fort Worth, TX; Gainesville, TX; Graford, TX; Hebbronville, TX; and Jasper, TX AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify Class D airspace at Georgetown Municipal Airport, Georgetown, TX, and modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Rockport Aransas County Airport, Corpus Christi, TX; Lancaster Airport, Dallas/Fort Worth, TX; Gainesville Municipal Airport, Gainesville, TX; Georgetown Municipal Airport, Georgetown, TX; (Hebbronville, TX) O.S. Wyatt Airport, Realitos, TX; and Jasper County-Bell Field, Jasper, TX. Decommissioning of non-directional radio beacons (NDBs), cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures have made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at these airports. Additionally, the geographic coordinates at Corpus Christi International Airport; the Corpus Christi VORTAC; Aransas County Airport, Rockport, TX; Nueces County Airport, Robstown, TX; Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Dallas/Fort Worth, TX; McKinney National Airport, McKinney, TX; Lancaster Airport; Bourland Field Airport, Fort Worth, TX; and Jasper County-Bell Field would be adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. Also, the names of McCampbell-Porter Airport (formerly T.P. McCampbell Airport); McKinney National Airport (formerly Collin County Regional Airport); and Ralph M. Hall/Rockwall Municipal Airport (formerly Rockwall Municipal Airport) would be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 24, 2016.

    ADDRESS:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-8827; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-12, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html. FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify Class D airspace at Georgetown Municipal Airport, Georgetown, TX; modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Rockport Aransas County Airport, Corpus Christi, TX; Lancaster Airport, Dallas/Fort Worth, TX; Gainesville Municipal Airport, Gainesville, TX; Georgetown Municipal Airport, Georgetown, TX; O.S. Wyatt Airport, Realitos, TX; Jasper County-Bell Field, Jasper, TX.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-8827/Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-12.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.regulations.gov.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying:

    Class D airspace within a 4.1-mile radius (reduced from a 5-mile radius) of Georgetown Municipal Airport, Georgetown, TX;

    Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Corpus Christi, TX; Within a 6.6-mile radius (reduced from a 7.6-mile radius) of Aransas County Airport, Rockport, TX, with extensions to the north of the airport from the 6.6-mile radius to 10 miles, to the southeast of the airport from the 6.6-mile radius to 10 miles, to the south of the airport from the 6.6-mile radius to 10 miles, and to the northwest of the airport from the 6.6-mile radius to 10 miles, and updating the geographic coordinates of Corpus Christi International Airport (also located in Class E extension airspace), Nueces County Airport, Robstown, TX, and the name of McCampbell-Porter Airport (formerly T.P. McCampbell Airport) to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. The Corpus Christi VORTAC listed for Sinton, TX, also would have geographic coordinates updated.

    Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Dallas/Fort Worth, TX;

    Within a 6.6-mile radius (increased from a 6.5-mile radius) of the Lancaster Airport, Lancaster, TX, with an extension southeast of the airport from the 6.6-mile radius to 9.2 miles and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport;

    By updating the geographic coordinates of Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, McKinney National Airport, and Bourland Field Airport, and the name of McKinney National Airport (formerly Collin County Regional Airport) and Ralph M. Hall/Rockwall Municipal Airport (formerly Rockwall Municipal Airport) to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;

    By removing the 10.4-mile segment extending from the 6.6-mile radius of Gainesville Municipal Airport, Gainesville, TX;

    Within a 6.6-mile radius (increased from a 6.5-mile radius) of Georgetown Municipal Airport, Georgetown, TX, with extensions to the northwest of the airport from the 6.6-mile radius to 9.8 miles, and to the north of the airport from the 6.6-mile radius to 10.4 miles.

    Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hebbronville, TX; Within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from a 6.9-mile radius) of O.S. Wyatt Airport, Realitos, TX;

    And within a 6.6-mile radius (increased from a 6.5-mile radius) of Jasper County-Bell Field, Jasper, TX, with an extension to the north of the airport from the 6.6-mile radius to 6.7 miles, and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of NDBs, cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of RNAV procedures, and would enhance the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at these airports.

    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6003, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ASW TX D Georgetown, TX [Amended] Georgetown Municipal Airport, Texas (Lat. 30°40′44″ N., long. 97°40′46″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,300 feet MSL within a 1-mile radius of Georgetown Municipal Airport. This Class D airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. ASW TX E2 Rockport, TX [Amended] Aransas County Airport, TX (Lat. 28°05′10″ N., long. 97°02′37″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.1-mile radius of Aransas County Airport.

    Paragraph 6003 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension. ASW TX E3 Corpus Christi, TX [Amended] Corpus Christi International Airport, TX (Lat. 27°46′16″ N., long. 97°30′04″ W.) Corpus Christi VORTAC

    (Lat. 27°54′14″ N., long. 97°26′42″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.3 miles each side of the 200° radial of the Corpus Christi VORTAC extending from a 5-mile radius of Corpus Christi International Airport to 6.4 miles north of the airport.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASW TX E5 Corpus Christi, TX [Amended] Corpus Christi International Airport, TX (Lat. 27°46′16″ N., long. 97°30′04″ W.) Corpus Christi NAS/Truax Field, TX (Lat. 27°41′34″ N., long. 97°17′25″ W.) Port Aransas, Mustang Beach Airport, TX (Lat. 27°48′43″ N., long. 97°05′20″ W.) Rockport, San Jose Island Airport, TX (Lat. 27°56′40″ N., long. 96°59′06″ W.) Rockport, Aransas County Airport, TX (Lat. 28°05′10″ N., long. 97°02′37″ W.) Ingleside, McCampbell-Porter Airport, TX (Lat. 27°54′47″ N., long. 97°12′41″ W.) Robstown, Nueces County Airport, TX (Lat. 27°46′41″ N., long. 97°41′24″ W.) Corpus Christi VORTAC, TX (Lat. 27°54′14″ N., long. 97°26′42″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.5-mile radius of Corpus Christi International Airport and within 1.4 miles each side of the 200° radial of the Corpus Christi VORTAC extending from the 7.5-mile radius to 8.5 miles north of the airport, and within 1.5 miles each side of the 316° bearing from Corpus Christi International Airport extending from the 7.5-mile radius to 10.1 miles northwest of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 179° bearing from Corpus Christi International Airport extending from the 7.5-mile radius to 14 miles south of the airport, and within an 8.8-mile radius of Corpus Christi NAS/Truax Field, and within a 6.3-mile radius of Mustang Beach Airport, and within a 6.4-mile radius of McCampbell-Porter Airport, and within a 6.3-mile radius of Nueces County Airport, and within a 6.6-mile radius of Aransas County Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 010° bearing from the Aransas County Airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 10 miles north of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 145° bearing from the Aransas County Airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 10 miles southeast of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 190° bearing from the Aransas County Airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 10 miles south of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 325° bearing from the Aransas County Airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 10 miles northwest of the airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of San Jose Island Airport, and within 8 miles west and 4 miles east of the 327° bearing from the San Jose Island Airport extending from the airport to 20 miles northwest of the airport, and within 8 miles east and 4 miles west of the 147° bearing from San Jose Island Airport extending from the airport to 16 miles southeast of the airport, excluding that portion more than 12 miles from and parallel to the shoreline.

    ASW TX E5 Dallas/Fort Worth, TX [Amended] Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, TX (Lat. 32°53′50″ N., long. 97°02′16″ W.) McKinney, McKinney National Airport, TX (Lat. 33°10′37″ N., long. 96°35′20″ W.) Rockwall, Ralph M. Hall/Rockwall Municipal Airport, TX (Lat. 32°55′50″ N., long. 96°26′08″ W.) Mesquite, Mesquite Metro Airport, TX (Lat. 32°44′49″ N., long. 96°31′50″ W.) Mesquite NDB (Lat. 32°48′34″ N., long. 96°31′45″ W.) Mesquite Metro ILS Localizer (Lat. 32°44′03″ N., long. 96°31′50″ W.) Lancaster, Lancaster Airport, TX (Lat. 32°34′39″ N., long. 96°43′03″ W.) Point of Origin (Lat. 32°51′57″ N., long. 97°01′41″ W.) Fort Worth, Fort Worth Spinks Airport, TX (Lat. 32°33′55″ N., long. 97°18′29″ W.) Cleburne, Cleburne Regional Airport, TX (Lat. 32°21′14″ N., long. 97°26′02″ W.) Fort Worth, Bourland Field Airport, TX (Lat. 32°34′55″ N., long. 97°35′27″ W.) Granbury, Granbury Regional Airport, TX (Lat. 32°26′40″ N., long. 97°49′01″ W.) Weatherford, Parker County Airport, TX (Lat. 32°44′47″ N., long. 97°40′57″ W.) Bridgeport, Bridgeport Municipal Airport, TX (Lat. 33°10′31″ N., long. 97°49′42″ W.) Decatur, Decatur Municipal Airport, TX (Lat. 33°15′15″ N., long. 97°34′50″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 30-mile radius of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, and within a 6.6-mile radius of McKinney National Airport, and within 1.8 miles each side of the 002° bearing from McKinney National Airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 9.2 miles north of the airport, and within a 6.3-mile radius of Ralph M. Hall/Rockwall Municipal Airport, and within 1.6 miles each side of the 010° bearing from Ralph M. Hall/Rockwall Municipal Airport extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 10.8 miles north of the airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Mesquite Metro Airport, and within 8 miles east and 4 miles west of the 001° bearing from Mesquite NDB extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 19.7 miles north of the airport, and within 1.7 miles each side of the Mesquite Metro ILS Localizer south course extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 11.1 miles south of the airport, and within a 6.6-mile radius of Lancaster Airport, and within 1.9 miles each side of the 140° bearing from Lancaster Airport from the 6.6-mile radius to 9.2 miles southeast of the airport, and within 8 miles northeast and 4 miles southwest of the 144° bearing from the Point of Origin extending from the 30-mile radius of Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport to 35 miles southeast of the Point of Origin, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Fort Worth Spinks Airport, and within 8 miles east and 4 miles west of the 178° bearing from Fort Worth Spinks Airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 21 miles south of the airport, and within a 6.9-mile radius of Cleburne Regional Airport, and within 3.6 miles each side of the 292° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 12.2 miles northwest of Cleburne Regional Airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Fort Worth's Bourland Field Airport, and within a 6.3-mile radius of Granbury Regional Airport, and within a 6.3-mile radius of Weatherford's Parker County Airport, and within 8 miles east and 4 miles west of the 177° bearing from Parker County Airport extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 21.4 miles south of the airport, and within a 6.3-mile radius of Bridgeport Municipal Airport, and within 1.6 miles each side of the 040° bearing from Bridgeport Municipal Airport extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 10.6 miles northeast of the airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 001° bearing from Bridgeport Municipal Airport extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 10.7 miles north of the airport, and within a 6.3-mile radius of Decatur Municipal Airport, and within 1.5 miles each side of the 263° bearing from Decatur Municipal Airport extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 9.2 miles west of the airport.

    ASW TX E5 Gainesville, TX [Amended] Gainesville Municipal Airport, TX (Lat. 33°39′08″ N., long. 97°11′50″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Gainesville Municipal Airport.

    ASW TX E5 Georgetown, TX [Amended] Georgetown Municipal Airport, TX (Lat. 30°40′44″ N., long. 97°40′46″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Georgetown Municipal Airport, and within 2.0 miles each side of the 301° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 9.8 miles northwest of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 004° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 10.4 miles north of the airport.

    ASW TX E5 Hebbronville, TX [Amended] Hebbronville, Jim Hogg County Airport, TX (Lat. 27°20′58″ N., long. 98°44′13″ W.) Realitos, O.S. Wyatt Airport, TX (Lat. 27°25′18″ N., long. 98°36′16″ W.) Hebbronville NDB (Lat. 27°21′14″ N., long. 98°44′39″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Jim Hogg County Airport and within 2.5 miles each side of the 325° bearing from the Hebbronville NDB extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 7.5 miles northwest of the airport and within a 6.5-mile radius of O.S. Wyatt Airport.

    ASW TX E5 Jasper, TX [Amended] Jasper, Jasper County-Bell Field, TX (Lat. 30°53′09″ N., long. 94°02′06″ W.)

    The airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Jasper County-Bell Field and within 1.6 miles each side of the 001° bearing from the airport from the 6.6-mile radius to 6.7 miles north of the airport.

    ASW TX E5 Sinton, TX [Amended] Sinton, San Patricio County Airport, TX

    (Lat. 28°02′19″ N., long. 97°32′32″ W.)

    Corpus Christi VORTAC (Lat. 27°54′14″ N., long. 97°26′42″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of San Patricio County Airport and within 1.3 miles each side of the 328° radial of the Corpus Christi VORTAC extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 9.6 miles southeast of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 24, 2016. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21028 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8830; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-18] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Wisconsin Towns; Land O' Lakes, WI; Manitowish Waters, WI; Merrill, WI; Oconto, WI; Phillips, WI; Platteville, WI; Solon Springs, WI; Superior, WI; and West Bend, WI AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Kings Land O' Lakes Airport, Land O' Lakes, WI; Manitowish Waters Airport, Manitowish Waters, WI; Merrill Municipal Airport, Merrill, WI; Oconto-J. Douglas Bake Municipal Airport, Oconto, WI; Price County Airport, Phillips, WI; Platteville Municipal Airport, Platteville, WI; Solon Springs Municipal Airport, Solon Springs, WI; Richard I. Bong Airport, Superior, WI; and West Bend Municipal Airport, West Bend, WI. Decommissioning of non-directional radio beacons (NDBs), cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures have made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at these airports. Additionally, the geographic coordinates for Kings Land O' Lakes Airport; Manitowish Waters Airport; Oconto-J. Douglas Bake Municipal Airport; and Solon Springs Municipal Airport would be adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. The name of Oconto-J. Douglas Bake Municipal Airport (formerly Oconto Municipal Airport) also would be updated.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-8830; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-18, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Kings Land O' Lakes Airport, Land O' Lakes, WI; Manitowish Waters Airport, Manitowish Waters, WI; Merrill Municipal Airport, Merrill, WI; Oconto-J. Douglas Bake Municipal Airport, Oconto, WI; Price County Airport, Phillips, WI; Platteville Municipal Airport, Platteville, WI; Solon Springs Municipal Airport, Solon Springs, WI; Richard I. Bong Airport, Superior, WI; and West Bend Municipal Airport, West Bend, WI.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-8830/Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-18.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.regulations.gov.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface:

    Within a 6.4-mile radius (reduced from the 7-mile radius) of Kings Land O' Lakes Airport, Land O' Lakes, WI, and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;

    Within a 6.3-mile radius (reduced from the 7-mile radius) of Manitowish Waters Airport, Manitowish, WI, and removing the 9-mile segment southeast of the airport, and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's database;

    Within a 6.6-mile radius (reduced from the 7-mile radius) of Merrill Municipal Airport, Merrill, WI;

    By removing the 7-mile segment extending from the 6.3-mile radius southeast of Oconto-J. Douglas Bake Municipal Airport, Oconto, WI, and updating the name and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;

    By removing the 7-mile segments extending from the 6.6-mile radius southwest and northeast of Price County Airport, Phillips, WI;

    Within a 6.4-mile radius (reduced from the 7.4-mile radius) of Platteville Municipal Airport, Platteville, WI, with an extension southeast of the airport from the 6.4-mile radius to 10.2 miles;

    Within a 6.3-mile radius (reduced from the 6.6-mile radius) of Solon Springs Municipal Airport, Solon Springs, WI, and removing the 7.4-mile segment north of the airport, and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;

    Within an 8.5-mile radius (increased from a 6.7-mile radius) of Richard I. Bong Airport, Superior, WI, and removing the 12.2-mile segment southeast of the airport;

    And within a 6.8-mile radius (reduced from the 7.4-mile radius) of the West Bend Municipal Airport, West Bend, WI, reducing existing segment extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 11.4 miles southwest, and adding segments extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 7 miles northeast and 10 miles northwest of the airport.

    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of NDBs, cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of RNAV procedures at these airports, and for the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations.

    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 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL WI E5 Land O' Lakes, WI [Amended] Kings Land O' Lakes Airport, WI (Lat. 46°09′15″ N., long. 89°12′43″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Kings Land O'Lakes Airport.

    AGL WI E5 Manitowish Waters, WI [Amended] Manitowish Waters Airport, WI (Lat. 46°07′13″ N., long. 89°52′56″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of the Manitowish Waters Airport.

    AGL WI E5 Merrill, WI [Amended] Merrill Municipal Airport, WI (Lat. 45°11′56″ N., long. 89°42′46″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of the Merrill Municipal Airport.

    AGL WI E5 Oconto, WI [Amended] Oconto-J. Douglas Bake Municipal Airport, WI (Lat. 44°52′27″ N., long. 87°54′35″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of the Oconto-J. Douglas Bake Municipal Airport.

    AGL WI E5 Phillips, WI [Amended] Price County Airport, WI (Lat. 45°42′32″ N., long. 90°24′09″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of the Price County Airport.

    AGL WI E5 Platteville, WI [Amended] Platteville Municipal Airport, WI (Lat. 42°41′22″ N., long. 90°26′40″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Platteville Municipal Airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 145° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 10.2 miles southeast of the airport.

    AGL WI E5 Solon Springs, WI [Amended] Solon Springs Municipal Airport, WI (Lat. 46°18′53″ N., long. 91°48′59″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Solon Springs Municipal Airport.

    AGL WI E5 Superior, WI [Amended] Richard I. Bong Airport, WI. (Lat. 46°41′23″ N., long. 92°05′41″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8.5-mile radius of Richard I. Bong Airport.

    AGL WI E5 West Bend, WI [Amended] West Bend Municipal Airport, WI (Lat. 43°25′20″ N., long. 88°07′41″ W.) West Bend VOR (Lat. 43°25′19″ N., long. 88°07′31″ W .)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of West Bend Municipal Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 239° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 11.4 miles southwest of the airport, and within 1.2 miles each side of the West Bend VOR 052° radial extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 7 miles northeast of the airport, and within 1.3 miles each side of the West Bend VOR 303° radial extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 10 miles northwest of the airport, excluding that airspace within the Hartford, WI, Class E airspace area.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 24, 2016. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21030 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Parts 4 and 24 [Docket No. TTB-2016-0005; Notice No. 160A; Re: Notice No. 160] RIN 1513-AC27 Proposed Revisions to Wine Labeling and Recordkeeping Requirements; Comment Period Reopening AGENCY:

    Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) is reopening the comment period for Notice No. 160, Proposed Revisions to Wine Labeling and Recordkeeping Requirements, a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on June 22, 2016. In Notice No. 160, TTB proposed to amend its labeling and recordkeeping regulations in 27 CFR part 24 to provide that any standard grape wine containing 7 percent or more alcohol by volume that is covered by a certificate of exemption from label approval may be labeled with a varietal (grape type) designation, a type designation of varietal significance, a vintage date, or an appellation of origin only if the wine is labeled in compliance with the standards set forth in the appropriate sections of 27 CFR part 4 for that label information. TTB also proposed to amend its part 4 wine labeling regulations to include a reference to the new part 24 requirement. TTB is reopening the comment period in response to requests from two wine industry trade associations. In addition, this reopening of the comment period solicits comments from the public on issues that were raised in comments received in response to Notice No. 160.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the proposed rule published on June 22, 2016 (81 FR 40584) is reopened. Written comments on Notice No. 160 are now due on or before December 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please send your comments on Notice No. 160 to one of the following addresses:

    Internet: https://www.regulations.gov (via the online comment form for this notice as posted within Docket No. TTB-2016-0005 at “Regulations.gov,” the Federal e-rulemaking portal);

    U.S. Mail: Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; or

    Hand delivery/courier in lieu of mail: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005.

    See the Public Participation section of Notice 160 notice for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing.

    You may view copies of this document and any comments TTB receives about this proposal at https://www.regulations.gov within Docket No. TTB-2016-0005. A link to that docket is posted on the TTB Web site at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine-rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 160. You also may view copies of this proposed rule and any comments TTB receives about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. Please call 202-453-2270 to make an appointment.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Berry, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Regulations and Rulings Division; telephone 202-453-1039, ext. 275.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In Notice No. 160 (81 FR 40584, June 22, 2016), the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposed to amend its labeling and recordkeeping regulations in 27 CFR part 24 to provide that any standard grape wine containing 7 percent or more alcohol by volume that is covered by a certificate of exemption from label approval may be labeled with a varietal (grape type) designation, a type designation of varietal significance, a vintage date, or an appellation of origin only if the wine is labeled in compliance with the standards set forth in the appropriate sections of 27 CFR part 4 for that label information. TTB is also proposing to amend its part 4 wine labeling regulations to include a reference to the new part 24 requirement. The 60-day comment period for Notice No. 160 originally closed on August 22, 2016.

    TTB has received two requests from California-based wine industry trade associations to extend the public comment period an additional 90 days. The first, dated August 2, 2016, was submitted by Wine Institute; the second, dated August 19, 2016, was submitted by the California Association of Winegrape Growers. Both associations state that additional time is needed to assess the proposal's effects on their membership, noting that their members are currently preoccupied with the grape harvest. The letters are posted as Comment 7 and Comment 41 within Docket No. TTB-2016-0005 at www.regulations.gov.

    Determination To Re-Open the Public Comment Period

    In response to the requests from Wine Institute and the California Association of Winegrape Growers to extend the comment period, TTB is reopening the comment period for Notice No. 160 for an additional 90 days. We believe this additional time is necessary for industry members and the public to fully consider the proposals outlined in Notice 160. Therefore, comments on Notice No. 160 are now due on or before December 7, 2016.

    Based on comments TTB has received to date on Notice No. 160, TTB is especially interested in comments regarding whether any geographic reference to the source of the grapes used in the wine could be included on a wine label in a way that would not be misleading with regard to the source of the wine. In light of the reopening of the comment period, TTB is asking that commenters consider this issue when commenting on Notice No. 160. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments.

    Drafting Information

    Jennifer Berry of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice.

    Dated: September 1, 2016. John J. Manfreda, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21522 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [Docket No. TTB-2016-0007; Notice No. 161] RIN 1513-AC26 Proposed Establishment of the Cape May Peninsula Viticultural Area AGENCY:

    Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to establish the 126,635-acre “Cape May Peninsula” viticultural area in Cape May and Cumberland Counties, New Jersey. The proposed viticultural area lies entirely within the Outer Coastal Plain viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. TTB invites comments on this proposed addition to its regulations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by November 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please send your comments on this notice to one of the following addresses:

    Internet: https://www.regulations.gov (via the online comment form for this notice as posted within Docket No. TTB-2016-0007 at “Regulations.gov,” the Federal e-rulemaking portal);

    U.S. Mail: Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; or

    Hand delivery/courier in lieu of mail: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005.

    See the Public Participation section of this notice for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing or view or obtain copies of the petition and supporting materials.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kate M. Bresnahan, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 151.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority

    Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 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, dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of these provisions.

    Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.

    Definition

    Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.

    Requirements

    Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes the standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:

    • Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;

    • An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;

    • A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA;

    • The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and

    • A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.

    Cape May Peninsula Petition

    TTB received a petition from Alfred Natali, owner of Natali Vineyards, LLC, on behalf of the ad hoc Cape May Wine Growers Association, proposing the establishment of the “Cape May Peninsula” AVA. The proposed Cape May Peninsula AVA covers portions of Cape May and Cumberland Counties, New Jersey. The proposed AVA lies entirely within the established Outer Coastal Plain AVA (27 CFR 9.207) and does not overlap any other existing or proposed AVA. The proposed Cape May Peninsula AVA contains 126,635 acres, with 6 commercially-producing vineyards covering approximately 115 acres distributed throughout the proposed AVA, and an additional 147 vineyard acres planned within the proposed AVA in the next few years. Grape varieties planted within the proposed AVA include Albariño, Dolcetto, Tempranillo, Nebbiolo, Merlot, Barbera, Moscato, Malvasia, and Viognier.

    According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Cape May Peninsula AVA include its temperature and soils. Unless otherwise noted, all information and data pertaining to the proposed AVA contained in this document are from the petition for the proposed Cape May Peninsula AVA and its supporting exhibits.

    Name Evidence

    The proposed Cape May Peninsula AVA is located in southeastern New Jersey on Cape May, named after Dutch explorer Captain Cornelius May. Captain May began exploring the Delaware Bay and its surrounding areas including the Cape, which he named after himself, in 1620. The first settlement in Cape May County, in 1650, was the whaling community of Town Bank, just north of Cape May Point.

    The petitioner provided several examples of the current use of “Cape May Peninsula” to refer to the region of the proposed AVA. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service brochure describing the wildlife of the region is titled “The Cape May Peninsula Is Not Like the Rest of New Jersey.” Two scientific articles describing birds found in the region are titled “The Influence of Weather, Geography, and Habitat on Migrating Raptors on Cape May Peninsula” 1 and “Woodcock Banding on the Cape May Peninsula, New Jersey.” 2 Finally, the petitioner provided two photos of the region from a commercial stock photo Web site which are titled “Aerial view of Cape May Peninsula, New Jersey” and “Salt marsh landscape, Cape May Peninsula, New Jersey.”

    1 Niles, Lawrence J., Joanna Berger, and Kathleen E. Clark. 1996. The influence of weather, geography, and habitat on migrating raptors on Cape May Peninsula. The Condor. 98: 382-394.

    2 Rieffenberger, Joseph C., and Fred Ferrigno. 1970. Bird-Banding. 41: 1-10.

    The petitioner also provided multiple examples of the current use of “Cape May” to refer to the region of the proposed AVA. For example, numerous municipalities use the name “Cape May,” including: Cape May County, Cape May Courthouse, Cape May Point, West Cape May, and North Cape May. Civic organizations such as the Cape May County Beach Plum Association and the Cape May and Cape May County Chamber of Commerce use the “Cape May” name, as does the Cape May County Board of Agriculture. In the Yellow Pages, over 100 entries contain the “Cape May” name, from Cape May Arcade to Cape May Wicker. Finally, one of the wineries in the proposed AVA is called “Cape May Winery and Vineyards.”

    Boundary Evidence

    The northern and northwestern boundaries of the proposed Cape May Peninsula AVA separate the proposed AVA from the New Jersey Pinelands, in which development is severely restricted by law. While permitted in the New Jersey Pinelands, grape growing is difficult due to extremely acidic soils. The eastern, western, and southern boundaries separate the proposed AVA from the wetlands and coastal communities along the Delaware Bay and Atlantic Ocean, which are unsuitable for viticulture due to marshy conditions and urban development. The Delaware Bay borders the proposed AVA to the south and west, and the Atlantic Ocean is to the east of the proposed AVA.

    Distinguishing Features

    The distinguishing features of the proposed Cape May Peninsula AVA are its temperature and soils.

    Temperature

    According to the petition, temperature is the most important distinguishing feature of the proposed Cape May Peninsula AVA. The petitioner compared temperature data from Cape May County Airport, Woodbine Airport, and a U.S. Department of Agriculture site in Swainton, New Jersey, all within the proposed AVA, with temperature data from Millville Airport, the southernmost weather station in the Outer Coastal Plain AVA outside the proposed AVA.

    The petition included information on growing degree days (GDD) 3 from both inside and outside the proposed AVA. GDDs are important to viticulture because they represent how often daily temperatures rise above 50 °F, which is the minimum temperature required for active vine growth and fruit development. Inside the proposed AVA, Cape May Airport and Swainton have averages of 3,491 GDDs and 3,331 GDDs, respectively, making the proposed AVA a Winkler Region III, which is defined as between 3,001 and 3,500 GDDs.4 Millville Airport, outside of the proposed AVA, has an average of 3,516 GDDs per year, making that area a warmer Winkler Region IV, which is defined as between 3,501 and 4,000 GDDs.

    3 In the Winkler climate classification system, annual heat accumulation during the growing season, measured in annual growing degree days (GDDs), defines climatic regions. One GDD accumulates for each degree Fahrenheit that a day's mean temperature is above 50 degrees, the minimum temperature required for grapevine growth. See Albert J. Winkler, General Viticulture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), pages 61-64.

    4 The GDD data for Cape May Airport and Millville Airport was recorded between 1998 and 2013. The GDD data for Swainton was recorded between 1996 and 2013.

    However, the petition states that comparing only the average number of GDDs within and outside the proposed AVA can be misleading when it comes to determining the length of the growing season and the types of grapes that can grow inside and outside the proposed AVA. For example, the petition notes significant temperature differences in terms of extreme temperatures. The average summertime high temperature at Cape May Airport is 94 °F (F), while the average summertime high temperature at Millville Airport is 98 °F.5 Average summertime high temperatures for Woodbine Airport and Swainton are not provided in the petition. The average wintertime low temperatures at Woodbine Airport, Swainton, and Cape May Airport are 7 °F, 9 °F, and 12 °F, respectively. The average wintertime low temperature at Millville Airport is 3 °F.6 Plus 5 °F to minus 5 °F is the killing range for all but the most cold-hardy Vitis vinifera vines.

    5 Extreme high temperature data for Cape May Airport and Millville Airport was recorded between 1998 and 2013.

    6 Extreme low temperature data for Woodbine Airport and Swainton was recorded between 2005 and 2014. Extreme low temperature data for Cape May Airport and Millville Airport was recorded between 1998 and 2014.

    Another significant indicator of the climate difference between the proposed Cape May Peninsula AVA and the existing Outer Coastal Plain AVA is the number of frost-free days. A comparison of weather data from Millville and Swainton shows that the average number of frost-free days at Millville is 179, while the average number of frost-free days at Swainton is 207.7 At Swainton, the last freeze usually occurs around April 15 and the first frost usually occurs around November 1. At Millville, the last freeze usually occurs in late April and the first frost usually occurs in mid-October. Due to the above differences in frost-free days and GDD totals, the proposed AVA accumulates fewer GDDs over a longer growing season than the Outer Coastal Plain AVA accumulates in a shorter season.

    7 The average number of frost-free days per year at Millville Airport is based on data recorded between 1998 and 2013. The average number of frost-free days per year at Swainton is based on data recorded between 1996 and 2013.

    The combination of warmer wintertime temperatures and a longer growing season explains the proposed AVA's ability to grow cold-tender Vitis vinifera (more than 90 percent of its plantings) in preference to the hybrids and native plants grown throughout the existing Outer Coastal Plain AVA.

    Soils

    The soils in the proposed AVA are mostly loamy sand, whereas the soils in the existing Outer Coastal Plain AVA are a sandy loam. According to the petition, soils best suited to viticulture are well-drained, where the water table is a minimum of six feet or deeper. These types of soils include Downer, Evesboro, Sassafras, Fort Mott, Hooksan, Swainton, and Aura. All of these soils are present in the proposed AVA and in the Outer Coastal Plain AVA; however, the Outer Coastal Plain AVA contains additional soils not found in the proposed AVA, including Hammonton, Waterford, Galetown, and Metapeake.

    The soils in the 126,635-acre proposed AVA are as follows:

    • Hydric (unsuited to farming): 51,609 acres;

    • Arable (suited to berry-type farming): 48,454 acres;

    • Well-drained (suited to viticulture): 16,381 acres; and

    • Municipal parks, airports, freshwater lakes, ponds, and tidal creeks: 10,191 acres.

    The Cape May County Planning Department has identified the areas with the most well-drained soils as prospective sites for viticulture.

    The New Jersey Pinelands to the north and west of the proposed AVA is an area of dense pine forest with acidic soils that are unsuitable for most farming, including viticulture. The Pinelands cover 22 percent of the state and nearly half of the existing Outer Coastal Plain AVA. The Pinelands consist of pygmy pines, swamp cedars, insect-eating plants, orchids, unique species of reptiles, endangered birds, self-contained springs, lakes, streams and bogs, and a sandy, extremely acidic and nutrient-poor surface soil. The only serious commercial crops in the Pinelands are acid-loving cranberries and blueberries. The petition states that during colonial times, people attempted to farm this land but failed due to the infertility of the soil and the low pH (the mean pH for the Pinelands is 4.4; grape vines require a pH in the 6 to 7 range). In order to improve the quality of the soils in the Pinelands, one would have to apply and incorporate large amounts of lime over a long period of time.

    Summary of Distinguishing Features

    In summary, the temperature and soils of the proposed Cape May Peninsula AVA distinguish it from the surrounding regions. The proposed AVA is a Winkler Region III climate, while Millville, located in the existing Outer Coastal Plain AVA, is a Winkler Region IV climate. The proposed AVA also experiences more frost-free days and a longer growing season than the rest of the Outer Coastal Plain AVA. Warmer wintertime low temperatures and a longer growing season explain the proposed AVA's ability to grow Vitis vinifera grape varieties, which cannot grow in the cooler winter climate found throughout most of the Outer Coastal Plain AVA. Finally, due to sufficient soil depth above the water table, which allows for deep vine growth, the proposed AVA is suitable for growing grapes, while the New Jersey Pinelands to the north and west of the proposed AVA are unsuitable for most farming due to tremendously acidic soils that make the area infertile.

    Comparison of the Proposed Cape May Peninsula AVA to the Existing Outer Coastal Plain AVA Outer Coastal Plain AVA

    T.D. TTB-58, which published in the Federal Register on February 9, 2007 (72 FR 6165), established the Outer Coastal Plain AVA in all of Cumberland, Cape May, Atlantic, and Ocean Counties and portions of Salem, Gloucester, Camden, Burlington, and Monmouth Counties, New Jersey. The Outer Coastal Plain AVA is described in T.D. TTB-58 as having well-drained soils with a low pH, elevations below 280 feet above sea level, and a generally warm climate strongly influenced by the Atlantic Ocean and the Delaware Bay.

    Despite their differences, the proposed Cape May Peninsula AVA and the existing Outer Coastal Plain AVA have broadly similar characteristics. Developed during the Pleistocene Epoch, the surface layers in the proposed Cape May Peninsula AVA are composed of sand, gravel, clay-based silt, and peat. This is similar to the surface layers of the Outer Coastal Plain AVA. Additionally, both the established Outer Coastal Plain AVA and the proposed AVA have lower elevations, soils with lower amounts of fine silt, and longer growing seasons than the region outside the established AVA. Therefore, the proposed Cape May Peninsula AVA appears to share enough similarities to remain within the established Outer Coastal Plain AVA.

    TTB Determination

    TTB concludes that the petition to establish the 126,635-acre Cape May Peninsula AVA merits consideration and public comment, as invited in this notice of proposed rulemaking.

    Boundary Description

    See the narrative description of the boundary of the petitioned-for AVA in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this proposed rule.

    Maps

    The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the proposed regulatory text.

    Impact on Current Wine Labels

    Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in § 4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See § 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details.

    If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, its name, “Cape May Peninsula,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the proposed regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name “Cape May Peninsula” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, would have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin if this proposed rule is adopted as a final rule. TTB is not proposing “Cape May,” standing alone, as a term of viticultural significance if the proposed AVA is established, in order to avoid a potential conflict with a current label holder. Accordingly, the proposed part 9 regulatory text set forth in this document specifies only the full name “Cape May Peninsula” as a term of viticultural significance for the purposes of part 4 of the TTB regulations.

    The approval of the proposed Cape May Peninsula AVA would not affect any existing AVA, and any bottlers using “Outer Coastal Plain” as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes grown within the Outer Coastal Plain would not be affected by the establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the proposed Cape May Peninsula AVA would allow vintners to use “Cape May Peninsula” and “Outer Coastal Plain” as appellations of origin for wines made from grapes grown within the proposed Cape May Peninsula AVA, if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.

    Public Participation Comments Invited

    TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on whether it should establish the proposed AVA. TTB is also interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, soils, climate, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. In addition, given the proposed Cape May Peninsula AVA's location within the existing Outer Coastal Plain AVA, TTB is interested in comments on whether the evidence submitted in the petition regarding the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA sufficiently differentiates it from the existing Outer Coastal Plain AVA. TTB is also interested in comments on whether the geographic features of the proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the surrounding Outer Coastal Plain AVA that the proposed Cape May Peninsula AVA should no longer be part of that AVA. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments.

    Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the proposed Cape May Peninsula AVA on wine labels that include the term “Cape May Peninsula” as discussed above under Impact on Current Wine Labels, TTB is particularly interested in comments regarding whether there will be a conflict between the proposed AVA name and currently used brand names. If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise, the comment should describe the nature of that conflict, including any anticipated negative economic impact that approval of the proposed AVA will have on an existing viticultural enterprise. TTB is also interested in receiving suggestions for ways to avoid conflicts, for example, by adopting a modified or different name for the AVA.

    Submitting Comments

    You may submit comments on this notice by using one of the following three methods:

    Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You may send comments via the online comment form posted with this notice within Docket No. TTB-2016-0007 on “Regulations.gov,” the Federale-rulemaking portal, at https://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available under Notice No. 161 on the TTB Web site at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine-rulemaking.shtml. Supplemental files may be attached to comments submitted via Regulations.gov. For complete instructions on how to use Regulations.gov, visit the site and click on the “Help” tab.

    U.S. Mail: You may send comments via postal mail to the Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: You may hand-carry your comments or have them hand-carried to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005.

    Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this notice. Your comments must reference Notice No. 161 and include your name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English, be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public disclosure. TTB does not acknowledge receipt of comments, and TTB considers all comments as originals.

    In your comment, please clearly state if you are commenting for yourself or on behalf of an association, business, or other entity. If you are commenting on behalf of an entity, your comment must include the entity's name, as well as your name and position title. If you comment via Regulations.gov, please enter the entity's name in the “Organization” blank of the online comment form. If you comment via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please submit your entity's comment on letterhead.

    You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing.

    Confidentiality

    All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

    Public Disclosure

    TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this notice, selected supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2016-0007 on the Federal e-rulemaking portal, Regulations.gov, at http://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available on the TTB Web site at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 161. You may also reach the relevant docket through the Regulations.gov search page at http://www.regulations.gov. For information on how to use Regulations.gov, click on the site's “Help” tab.

    All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization (if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all address information, including email addresses. TTB may omit voluminous attachments or material that the Bureau considers unsuitable for posting.

    You may also view copies of this notice, all related petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed comments that TTB receives about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Public Reading Room, 1310 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5 x 11-inch page. Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies of USGS maps or other similarly-sized documents that may be included as part of the AVA petition. Contact TTB's Public Reading Room at the above address or by telephone at 202-822-9904 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments or other materials.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

    Executive Order 12866

    It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.

    Drafting Information

    Kate M. Bresnahan of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice of proposed rulemaking.

    List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

    Wine.

    Proposed Regulatory Amendment

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB proposes to amend title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    27 U.S.C. 205.

    Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas 2. Subpart C is amended by adding §9.__ to read as follows:
    §__ Cape May Peninsula.

    (a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this section is “Cape May Peninsula”. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, “Cape May Peninsula” is a term of viticultural significance.

    (b) Approved maps. The 11 United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the Cape May Peninsula viticultural area are titled:

    (1) Ocean City, New Jersey, 1989;

    (2) Marmora, New Jersey, 1989;

    (3) Sea Isle City, New Jersey, 1952; photorevised, 1972;

    (4) Woodbine, New Jersey, 1958; photorevised, 1972;

    (5) Stone Harbor, New Jersey, 1955; photorevised, 1972;

    (6) Wildwood, New Jersey, 1955; photorevised, 1972;

    (7) Cape May, New Jersey, 1954; photorevised, 1972;

    (8) Rio Grande, New Jersey, 1956; photorevised, 1972;

    (9) Heislerville, New Jersey, 1957; photorevised, 1972;

    (10) Port Elizabeth, New Jersey, 1956; photorevised, 1972; and

    (11) Tuckahoe, New Jersey, 1956; photorevised, 1972.

    (c) Boundary. The Cape May Peninsula viticultural area is located in Cape May and Cumberland Counties, New Jersey. The boundary of the Cape May Peninsula viticultural area is as described below:

    (1) The beginning point is on the Ocean City quadrangle at the intersection of the 10-foot elevation contour and the Garden State Parkway, on the southern shore of Great Egg Harbor, northwest of Golders Point. Proceed southeast, then generally southwest along the meandering 10-foot elevation contour, crossing onto the Marmora quadrangle, then onto the Sea Isle City quadrangle, to the intersection of the 10-foot elevation contour with an unnamed road known locally as Sea Isle Boulevard; then

    (2) Proceed northwesterly along Sea Isle Boulevard to the intersection of the road with U.S. Highway 9; then

    (3) Proceed southwesterly along U.S. Highway 9 to the intersection of the highway with the 10-foot elevation contour south of Magnolia Lake; then

    (4) Proceed generally southwesterly along the meandering 10-foot elevation contour, crossing onto the Woodbine quadrangle, then briefly back onto the Sea Isle City quadrangle, then back onto the Woodbine quadrangle, to the intersection of the 10-foot elevation contour with the western span of the Garden State Parkway east of Clermont; then

    (5) Proceed southwest along the Garden State Parkway to the intersection of the road with Uncle Aarons Creek; then

    (6) Proceed westerly (upstream) along Uncle Aarons Creek to the intersection of the creek with the 10-foot elevation contour near the headwaters of the creek; then

    (7) Proceed easterly, then southwesterly along the 10-foot elevation contour, crossing onto the Stone Harbor quadrangle, then onto the northwesternmost corner of the Wildwood quadrangle, then onto Cape May quadrangle, to the intersection of the 10-foot elevation contour with State Route 109 and Benchmark (BM) 8, east of Cold Spring; then

    (8) Proceed southeast, then south, along State Route 109 to the intersection of the road with the north bank of the Cape May Canal; then

    (9) Proceed northwest along the north bank of the Cape May Canal to the intersection of the canal with the railroad tracks (Pennsylvania Reading Seashore Lines); then

    (10) Proceed south along the railroad tracks, crossing the canal, to the intersection of the railroad tracks with the south bank of the Cape May Canal; then

    (11) Proceed east along the canal bank to the intersection of the canal with Cape Island Creek; then

    (12) Proceed south, then northwest along the creek to the intersection of the creek with a tributary running north-south west of an unnamed road known locally as 1st Avenue; then

    (13) Proceed north along the tributary to its intersection with Sunset Boulevard; then

    (14) Proceed northwest along Sunset Boulevard to the intersection of the road with Benchmark (BM) 6; then

    (15) Proceed south in a straight line to the shoreline; then

    (16) Proceed west, then northwest, then northeast along the shoreline, rounding Cape May Point, and continuing northeasterly along the shoreline, crossing onto the Rio Grande quadrangle, then onto the Heislerville quadrangle, to the intersection of the shoreline with West Creek; then

    (17) Proceed generally north along the meandering West Creek, passing through Pickle Factory Pond and Hands Millpond, and continuing along West Creek, crossing onto the Port Elizabeth quadrangle, and continuing along West Creek to the fork in the creek north of Wrights Crossway Road; then

    (18) Proceed along the eastern fork of West Creek to the cranberry bog; then

    (19) Proceed through the cranberry bog and continue northeasterly along the branch of West Creek that exits the cranberry bog to the creek's terminus south of an unnamed road known locally as Joe Mason Road; then

    (20) Proceed northeast in a straight line to Tarkiln Brook Tributary; then

    (21) Proceed easterly along Tarkiln Brook Tributary, passing through the cranberry bog, crossing onto the Tuckahoe quadrangle, and continuing along Tarkiln Brook tributary to its intersection with the Tuckahoe River and the Atlantic-Cape May County line; then

    (22) Proceed easterly along the Atlantic-Cape May County line, crossing onto the Marmora and Cape May quadrangles, to the intersection of the Atlantic-Cape May County line with the Garden State Parkway on the Cape May quadrangle; then

    (23) Proceed south along the Garden State Parkway, returning to the beginning point.

    John J. Manfreda, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21586 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Part 1915 [Docket No. OSHA-2013-0022] RIN 1218-AA68 Fall Protection in Shipyard Employment AGENCY:

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor.

    ACTION:

    Request for information (RFI).

    SUMMARY:

    OSHA is considering revising and updating its safety standards that address access and egress (including stairways and ladders), fall and falling object protection, and scaffolds in shipbuilding, ship repair, shipbreaking, and other shipyard related employment (collectively referred to as “shipyard employment” in this document). The Agency has not updated these standards since adopting them in 1971. To assist with this determination, OSHA requests comment, information and data on a number of issues, including: The workplace hazards these standards address, particularly fall hazards; the current practices employers in shipyard employment use to protect workers from those hazards; any advances in technology since OSHA adopted the standards in subpart E; and the revisions and updates to subpart E that stakeholders recommend. OSHA will use the information received in response to this RFI to determine what action, if any, it may take.

    DATES:

    Submit comments and additional material on or before December 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments and additional material using one of the following methods:

    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions online for making electronic submissions.

    Facsimile (FAX): You may fax submissions if they do not exceed 10 pages, including attachments, to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648.

    Regular mail, express mail, hand (courier) delivery, or messenger service: You may submit comments and any additional material (e.g., studies, journal articles) to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2013-0022, Technical Data Center, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2350 (TDY number (877) 889-5627). Please note that security procedures may result in a significant delay in receiving comments and other written materials submitted by regular mail. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security procedures concerning delivery of materials by express mail, hand delivery, or messenger service. The hours of operation for the OSHA Docket Office are 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Agency name and the docket number for this document (Docket No. OSHA-2013-0022). OSHA places all submissions, including any personal information provided, in the docket without change and this information may be available online at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the Agency cautions individuals about submitting information they do not want made publicly available or submitting comments that contain personal or personally-identifiable information (about themselves or others) such as Social Security numbers and birth dates.

    Docket: To read or download submissions and other material in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. While the Agency lists all documents in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through this Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are accessible at the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in locating docket submissions.

    Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available at http://www.regulations.gov. This document, as well as news releases and other relevant information, are available at OSHA's Web page at http://www.osha.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Press inquiries: Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1999; email: [email protected].

    General and technical information: Amy Wangdahl, Director, Office of Maritime and Agriculture, OSHA Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-3609, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2222; fax: (202) 693-1663; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    References and exhibits. In this Federal Register document OSHA references materials in Docket No. OSHA-2013-0022. OSHA has also incorporated in this docket materials from the following dockets:

    • Docket Nos. S-205, S-205A and S-205B, which is the record from the scaffolds in construction rulemaking (29 CFR part 1926, subpart L);

    • Docket No. S-041, specifically the scaffold-related materials pertaining to the 1990 proposed rule on walking-working surfaces in general industry; and

    • Docket No. S-047A, the materials from the limited reopening of the record of the Safety Standards for Scaffolds Used in Shipyard Employment rulemaking (29 CFR part 1915, subpart N).

    References to materials incorporated into this RFI docket are given as “Ex.” followed by the last sequence of numbers in the document identification (ID) number in Docket No. OSHA-2013-0022. For example, “Ex. 100” refers to document ID number OSHA-2013-0022-0100 in this RFI docket.

    In addition, OSHA incorporates by reference the following dockets:

    • Docket No. OSHA-2007-0072, which is the record from the general industry Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment (Fall Protection Systems) rulemaking (hereafter referred to as the “proposed general industry Walking-Working Surfaces rule” or the “Proposed Rule” in this document) (29 CFR part 1910, subparts D and I);

    • Docket No. OSHA-2010-0001, which is the record from the 2010 meetings of the Maritime Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (MACOSH); and

    • Docket No. OSHA-2011-0007, which is the record from the 2011 meetings of MACOSH.

    In this RFI, referenced materials in those three dockets are given as “Ex.” followed by the full document identification (ID) number for the document in that docket. For example, “Ex. OSHA-2011-0007-0003” refers to minutes of the July 14, 2010, MACOSH meeting in Docket No. OSHA-2011-0007.

    Table of Contents I. Background A. Introduction B. Regulatory History II. Request for Information, Data, and Comments A. General Issues B. Subpart E—Stairways, Ladders and Access and Egress C. Subpart M—Fall and Falling Object Protection D. Subpart N—Scaffolds E. Outdated Requirements, Technological Advances and Industry Best Practices III. Economic Impacts IV. Public Participation Authority and Signature I. Background A. Introduction

    OSHA is considering revising and updating its shipyard employment Scaffolds, Ladders and Other Working Surfaces standards (29 CFR part 1915, subpart E). OSHA adopted these standards in 1971, pursuant to section 6(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651, 655),1 and they have not been updated since. OSHA believes that revising subpart E may be needed for several reasons.

    1 Section 6(a) allowed OSHA, during the first two years after the OSH Act became effective, to promulgate as an occupational safety and health standard any national consensus standard or any established Federal standard, such as the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941).

    First, workplace slips, trips and falls, particularly falls to a lower level, continue to be a major cause of worker fatalities and injuries in shipyard employment. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries data from 1992-2014 indicate that on average 40 percent of all fatal occupational incidents in shipyard employment resulted from falls to a lower level. Also, OSHA Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) data indicate 32 falls resulting in death or hospitalization occurred in shipbuilding and ship repair (NAICS 336611) between 2002 and 2014. Of those falls, 24 (80%) resulted in a fatality. The IMIS data shows the falls were from various workplace surfaces, including scaffolds, ladders, stairways, platforms, drydocks, and ship decks. OSHA also notes that nine struck by falling object injuries occurred in shipyard employment during that same period, seven (78%) of which resulted in death.

    According to BLS occupational injury data from 2003-2013, an average of 642 slip, trip and fall injuries involving days away from work (DAFW) occurred annually in shipyard employment. This accounts for approximately 22 percent of all DAFW injuries in this industry. Slips, trips and falls are the third leading cause of DAFW injuries in shipyard employment, behind overexertion and contact with equipment.

    Second, the standards in subpart E are not comprehensive in their coverage of slip, trip and fall hazards in shipyard employment and are supplemented by applicable general industry standards (29 CFR part 1910, subparts D, E and I) to fill the gaps in subpart E's coverage of those hazards (29 CFR 1910.5(c)(2)).2 However, this approach requires that shipyard employers look in both parts 1915 and 1910 to find the standards on fall and falling object protection, scaffolding and access/egress that apply to shipyard employment. Stakeholders in shipyard employment and MACOSH have urged OSHA repeatedly to consolidate all standards applicable to shipyard employment into part 1915 so they only have to follow one set of standards (53 FR 48092 (11/29/1988); Exs. OSHA-2011-0007-0003; OSHA-2010-0001-0034).

    2 Additionally, construction standards apply when shipyard workers perform construction activities.

    Third, the standards in subpart E are outdated and do not reflect advances in technology or industry best practices developed since OSHA adopted subpart E.

    Comments received from the U.S. Navy and MACOSH members (Exs. OSHA-2011-0007-0003; OSHA-2010-0001-0034), as well as other stakeholders, expressed similar issues with subpart E and its need for revision.

    To assist OSHA in determining whether to initiate rulemaking, the Agency requests comment on revising and updating subpart E, including information on:

    • Revising and updating shipyard employment standards that address slip, trip and fall hazards;

    • Increasing consistency in the shipyard employment, general industry and construction standards that address fall and falling object protection, scaffolding and access/egress;

    • Identifying technological advances, industry best practices, and outdated provisions;

    • Consolidating general industry standards into part 1915; and

    • Reorganizing subpart E standards into three subparts (subparts E, M, and N).

    B. Regulatory History

    As mentioned, in May 1971 OSHA adopted established Federal standards issued under section 41 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941) as standards applicable to ship repairing, shipbuilding, and shipbreaking. At that time, OSHA also adopted other established Federal standards and national consensus standards as general industry and construction standards. These standards cover hazards and working conditions that shipyard employment standards did not address, but nevertheless often applied to shipyard employment.

    On April 20, 1982, OSHA consolidated its ship repairing, shipbuilding, and shipbreaking standards into one part (part 1915) titled “Occupational Safety and Health Standards for Shipyard Employment” (47 FR 16984). The consolidation eliminated duplicate and overlapping provisions. It did not alter substantive requirements or affect the applicability of general industry standards to shipyard hazards and working conditions not specifically addressed in part 1915 shipyard employment standards (29 CFR 1910.5(c)(2)). General industry standards continue to apply to shipyard employment to fill gaps when part 1915 standards do not address a particular hazard or working condition.

    Thereafter, OSHA proposed to revise subpart E in November 1988 (53 FR 48130 (11/29/1988)), and reopened the rulemaking record in April 1994 (59 FR 17290 (4/12/1994)) to request additional information on the 1988 proposal. The intent of the rulemaking was to update the shipyard employment standards and consolidate OSHA access/egress, fall and falling object protection, and scaffold standards applicable to shipyard employment into subpart E, so employers would have a single set of standards to follow. However, the proposal and record reopening received only a few comments, and due to other Agency priorities, OSHA did not continue the rulemaking.

    In 2010, OSHA proposed to revise and update its general industry Walking-Working Surfaces standards (29 CFR part 1910, subparts D and I), which, like the subpart E standards, were adopted in 1971 and had not been updated (75 FR 28862 (05/24/2010)). The Proposed Rule incorporated provisions from updated national consensus standards and OSHA construction standards, particularly the scaffold requirements. One of the purposes of the rulemaking was to make the general industry standards more consistent with the construction Stairways and Ladders (subpart X), Fall Protection (subpart M) and Scaffolds (subpart L) standards, which OSHA revised and updated in 1990, 1994 and 1996, respectively (55 FR 47687 (11/14/1990); 59 FR 40730 (8/9/1994); 61 FR 46104 (8/30/1996)). OSHA held an informal public hearing on the general industry Proposed Rule in January 2011, and is in the process of completing the final rule.

    II. Request for Information, Data, and Comments

    OSHA requests information, comments and data to determine whether there is a need for rulemaking to revise and update subpart E. Specifically, OSHA requests comment on incorporating into subpart E provisions from the proposed general industry Walking-Working Surfaces rule. Requirements in the Proposed Rule are noted below. OSHA also requests comment on consolidating existing general industry standards on access/egress and fall and falling object protection into subpart E. Finally, OSHA requests comment on regrouping subpart E standards into three separate subparts (subparts E, M, and N). OSHA will carefully review and evaluate the information, data, and comments received in response to this Federal Register document to determine what action, if any, may be needed.

    A. General Issues

    1. Fatalities and injuries. As mentioned, workplace slips, trips and falls, especially falls to a lower level, are a significant cause of worker fatalities and injuries in shipyard employment. OSHA requests information and data on slip, trip and fall injuries and fatalities at your establishment during the past 5 years. What percentage of injuries and fatalities at your establishment do these incidents represent? Please explain where the injuries and fatalities resulting from falls to a lower level occurred (e.g., ladders, scaffolds, vessel sections, docks), the circumstances involved, and what fall protection (e.g., guardrails, personal fall arrest system), if any, was used.

    2. Consolidation. As mentioned, OSHA is considering consolidating existing general industry access/egress, fall and falling object protection standards into part 1915 so that employers may have these standards together in one part of the Code of Federal Regulations.3

    3 Previous rulemakings where OSHA has consolidated general industry and construction standards into part 1915 include: (1) Subpart B—Confined and Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous Atmospheres in Shipyard Employment (59 FR 37816 (7/25/1994)); (2) Subpart I—Personal Protective Equipment in Shipyard Employment (61 FR 26322 (5/24/1966)); and (3) Subpart P—Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment (69 FR 55702 (10/15/2004)).

    OSHA believes that consolidating requirements from general industry into a single set of shipyard employment standards would make it easier for employers and workers to understand and follow applicable requirements. As OSHA explained in its 1988 proposal, having a single set of shipyard employment standards would eliminate the possibility that employers would interpret the applicability of general industry standards in different ways and ensure that employers and workers know what requirements apply to shipyard employment activities (53 FR 48092). In addition, consolidating those applicable standards into part 1915 would utilize an organizational approach that already is familiar to shipyard employment employers and workers (53 FR 48092-93). For example, subpart E addresses access/egress requirements for shipyard employment, while applicable general industry access/egress standards are in two different subparts of part 1910 (subparts D and E).

    To what extent will consolidation of existing general industry access/egress and fall and falling object protection standards into part 1915 make compliance easier for your establishment and shipyard employment employers and workers to understand and follow? Discussion of the consolidation of specific standards into part 1915 is in sections II-B, II-C and II-D.

    3. Reorganization of standards. OSHA is considering reorganizing the standards in subpart E into three subparts:

    • Subpart E—Stairways, Ladders and Access/Egress;

    • Subpart M—Fall and Falling Object Protection; and

    • Subpart N—Scaffolds.

    The Agency believes grouping the requirements into separate subparts may make it easier for employers and workers to understand and follow the standards that apply to shipyard employment.

    OSHA invites comment on an option of reorganizing subpart E into three subparts. Do the three subparts that OSHA is considering provide for a more understandable and logical structure? If not, what organization would you recommend? Please describe any unique or special circumstances that OSHA may need to take into account when considering the reorganization of subpart E.

    4. Scope. OSHA is considering combining the individual scope provisions contained in each section of subpart E into one scope section for each of subparts E, M, and N. OSHA has done this when revising and updating other subparts of part 1915.4 The existing scope provisions in subpart E specify the provisions in each section that apply to each sector of shipyard employment (i.e., ship repairing, shipbuilding, shipbreaking). Combining the scope provisions would eliminate duplication, provide clarity about the standards' application, and be consistent with other subparts of part 1915 that OSHA has revised.

    4 See for example, General Working Conditions (29 CFR part 1915, subpart F).

    OSHA requests comment on an option of combining the scope provisions currently spread throughout subpart E's various sections into one section—dedicated to “scope” in subparts E, M and N, respectively. Would this combination aid employers and employees in understanding the standard's applicability, or cause confusion?

    5. Definitions. The proposed general industry Walking-Working Surfaces rule defines the key terms in the proposed standards (proposed §§ 1910.21(b), 1910.140(b)). Those definitions are consistent with the definitions in the corresponding construction standards (§§ 1926.500(b), 1926.1050(b)). The construction scaffold standards also defines key terms (§ 1926.450(b)). Subpart E, by contrast, does not define any terms.

    OSHA requests comment about an option of adopting into part 1915 the proposed general industry Walking-Working Surfaces rule definitions, and the construction scaffold definitions. Please discuss whether there are other terms pertaining to access/egress, fall and falling object protection, and scaffolds that OSHA should define and how OSHA should define them.

    B. Subpart E—Stairways, Ladders and Access and Egress

    As mentioned, the provisions in part 1915 are not comprehensive in their coverage of access/egress hazards in shipyard employment. Part 1915 contains some requirements that pertain to those hazards (e.g., subpart E; § 1915.81); however, the part does not provide complete coverage and must be supplemented by general industry provisions. For example, subpart E contains provisions on ladders and stairways, but they are limited or cover only certain types of ladders and stairways.

    1. General Revisions

    a. Walking-working surface strength. The proposed general industry Walking-Working Surfaces rule requires that employers ensure walking-working surfaces can support the “maximum intended load” for that surface (proposed § 1910.22(b)), which OSHA defines as the total load (weight and force of all employees, equipment, vehicles, tools, materials, and other loads the employer “reasonably anticipates” to be applied to a walking-working surfaces at any one time (proposed § 1910.21(b)). Similarly, the construction fall protection standard requires that employers determine whether walking-working surfaces have the “strength and structural integrity” to support workers safely (§ 1926.501(a)(2)). Part 1915 does not contain similar requirements.

    OSHA requests comment about an option of adopting the Proposed Rule's strength requirements into part 1915. Please discuss what practices and procedures your establishment uses (or employers should use) to ensure that walking-working surfaces (e.g., floors, ladders, elevated work areas) are capable of supporting the maximum load intended for that surface. What criteria, factors and methods does your establishment use (or should employers use) to determine whether a walking-working surface is capable of supporting the weight and force of the workers, tools and materials reasonably anticipated to be applied to it?

    b. Inspection of walking-working surfaces. The proposed general industry Walking-Working surface rule requires that employers inspect walking-working surfaces regularly and periodically to ensure surfaces are maintained in a safe condition and correct or guard hazardous conditions to prevent workers from being injured or killed (proposed § 1910.22(d)(1) and (2)). If a repair involves the structural integrity of the walking-working surface, a qualified 5 person must perform or supervise the repair (proposed § 1910.22(d)(3)). While § 1915.81 requires good housekeeping in walkways and working surfaces, no requirements in part 1915 specifically address regular or periodic inspections of all walking-working surfaces or indicate who must perform repairs or correct deficiencies. Part 1915 also does not address the qualifications of persons who make structural repairs to walking-working surfaces.

    5 The proposed rule defines a “qualified” person as a person who, by possession of a recognized degree, certificate or professional standing, or who by extensive knowledge, training, and experience has successfully demonstrated the ability to solve or resolve problems related to the subject matter, the work, or the project (proposed § 1910.21(b)).

    OSHA requests comment on an option of adopting the Proposed Rule's inspection and repair requirements into part 1915. What inspection practices and procedures does your establishment have (or should employers implement) to ensure walking-working surfaces are maintained in a safe condition? How frequently does your establishment inspect (or should employers inspect) walking-working surfaces? What does your establishment do (or should employers do) when an inspection identifies hazardous conditions that need correction, including corrections that involve the structural integrity of the walking-working surface? Who conducts inspections and performs or oversees repairs at your establishment and what qualifications do (or should) these workers have?

    c. Access/egress. The proposed general industry Walking-Working Surfaces rule requires that employers ensure workers have and use safe means of access to and from walking-working surfaces (proposed § 1910.22(c)). The existing general industry means of egress standards (29 CFR part 1910, subpart E—Exit Routes, Emergency Action Plans, and Fire Prevention Plans) require that employers ensure workers have adequate and safe exit routes for evacuation during emergencies (§§ 1910.34-1910.37). However, the existing general industry means of egress standards do not apply to “mobile workplaces” and specifically exclude vessels and vehicles (§ 1910.34(a)). While part 1915 contains specific access requirements for vessels, dry docks, marine railways, cargo and confined spaces (§§ 1915.74-1915.76), it has no general access/egress requirements for other walking-working surfaces.

    OSHA requests comment about an option of adopting the Proposed Rule and the existing general industry means of egress standards into part 1915. OSHA also requests comment on extending the general industry means of egress standards to vessels and vessel sections. What practices and procedures does your establishment have (or should employers implement) to ensure workers have a safe means of access to, and egress from walking-working surfaces? Please discuss whether your exit route practices and procedures include vessels/vessel sections? Please explain in what situations or circumstances, if any, it would not be possible to implement the general industry means of egress provisions on vessels and vessel sections.

    d. Emergency action and fire prevention plans. The Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment standards (29 CFR part 1915, subpart P) require that employers develop and implement a written fire safety plan that covers all the actions employers must take to ensure employee safety in the event of a fire on shore or on vessels (§ 1915.502). However, these fire prevention requirements do not address other types of emergencies, such as toxic chemical releases and weather-related emergencies (e.g., hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, flash floods). Moreover, although the general industry standards may require that on-shore shipyard employment workplaces have an emergency action plan that covers other emergencies (e.g., § 1910.120—Hazardous Waste Operations), they do not apply to vessels (§ 1910.34(a)). Section 1910.38 sets out the requirements of such plans when they are required. The plans must include procedures for reporting emergencies, evacuating workers, operating critical plant operations before evacuation, accounting for evacuated workers, and performing rescue or medical duties (§ 1910.38(b)).

    OSHA requests comment on an option of adopting into part 1915 the general industry requirements for emergency action plans and extending their coverage to vessels. Does your establishment have (or should employers have) emergency action plans and in what situations and locations (e.g., vessels) do those plans apply? Please describe any unique or special circumstances that OSHA may need to take into account when considering applying emergency action plans to vessel/vessel sections. To what emergencies, other than fire, do your emergency action plans (or should emergency action plans) apply (e.g., environmental, hazardous chemical spills, radiation release, terrorism)?

    2. Specific Revisions

    a. Dockboards. The existing general industry standards contain requirements on the use and design of dockboards (§ 1910.30(a)). The proposed general industry Walking-Working Surfaces rule updates and expands on those provisions (proposed § 1910.26). The Proposed Rule defines dockboards as a portable or fixed device that spans a gap or compensates for a difference in elevation between a loading platform and a transport vehicle (proposed § 1910.21(b)). Dockboards, also referred to as bridge plates or dock levelers, primarily are used to transfer items from one area to another, such as from a transport vehicle or vessel to a dock or loading area. The Proposed Rule requires that dockboards be designed, constructed, and maintained to prevent transfer vehicles from running off the dockboard edge (proposed § 1910.26(b)). In addition, the Proposed Rule (29 CFR part 1910, subparts D and I) requires that portable dockboards be secured or have substantial contact or overlap to prevent the dockboard from slipping (proposed § 1910.26).

    OSHA requests comment on an option of adopting the Proposed Rule's dockboard requirements into 1915. Does your establishment use dockboards to move or transfer items from vehicles and/or vessels/vessel sections. If so, what type of dockboards does your establishment use and in what operations and locations? What practices and procedures does your establishment follow to ensure dockboards are safely used and maintained?

    b. Ladders. Part 1915 contains only a few requirements on ladders, and those primarily address portable ladders (§ 1915.72). The provisions are not comprehensive and do not include specific requirements for fixed ladders and mobile ladder stands and platforms, therefore, they must be supplemented by general industry standards. The proposed general industry Walking-Working Surfaces rule includes general requirements that apply to all ladders and specific requirements for portable ladders, fixed ladders,6 and mobile ladder stands and platforms (proposed § 1910.23). These provisions revise and update the existing general industry ladder requirements (§§ 1910.24 through 1910.27).

    6 The Proposed Rule defines “fixed ladder” as a ladder that is permanently attached to a building, structure or equipment (proposed § 1910.21(b)). The proposed definition includes fixed individual rung ladders.

    OSHA requests comment on an option of adopting the Proposed Rule's ladder requirements into part 1915. OSHA requests comment on the types of ladders (e.g., portable, fixed, individual rung ladders) your establishment uses and in what operations and locations. To what extent does your establishment use fixed ladders, including individual rung ladders, in onshore facilities, on vessels/vessel sections, in tanks, and on docks or drydocks? Does your establishment use portable ladders and mobile ladder stands and in what locations and operations?

    c. Inspection of ladders. Part 1915 does not contain any ladder inspection requirements. The proposed general industry Walking-Working Surfaces rule requires that all ladders be inspected before being used during a work shift to identify visible defects that could injure workers and tag and remove any defective ladder from service until the employer repairs or replaces it (proposed § 1910.23(b)(9) and (10)).

    OSHA requests comment on an option of adopting the Proposed Rule's ladder inspection requirements into part 1915. What inspection practices and procedures does your establishment have (or should employers implement) to ensure that ladders are safe to use? How frequently does your establishment inspect (or should employers inspect) ladders? What does your establishment do (or should employers do) when an inspection identifies visible defects in ladders?

    d. Ladder rung spacing. Part 1915 standards only includes rung spacing requirements for portable wood cleated ladders, which must be uniformly spaced not more than 12 inches apart (§ 1915.72(b)(7) and (c)(1)). As such, the general industry standards on fixed ladders and mobile ladder stand platform rung spacing must supplement the requirements of part 1915. The proposed general industry Walking-Working rule, like the construction ladder standard, requires that ladder rungs, steps, and cleats be spaced not less than 10 inches and not more than 14 inches apart (proposed § 1910.23(b)(2)).

    OSHA requests comment on an option of adopting the Proposed Rule's requirements on ladder rung spacing into part 1915. What is the rung spacing on ladders that your establishment uses? What is the rung spacing on fixed ladders and mobile ladder stand platforms that your establishment uses? OSHA also requests comment on an option of adopting the proposed general industry ladder rung spacing requirements into part 1915. Please discuss whether the flexibility of the Proposed Rule would make compliance easier and less expensive for shipyard employment employers.

    e. Carrying objects while climbing ladders. Carrying objects while climbing ladders is a cause of a number of fall fatalities and injuries for general industry, construction and shipyard employment. In shipyard employment, for example:

    • On May 13, 2010, a worker exiting a barge died when he lost his grip and fell off a fixed ladder as he was trying to hand off a broom to another worker and struck his head on a pipe support 11 feet below; and

    • On April 11, 2002, a worker died when he slipped and fell off a ladder while carrying a paint can and brush, striking his head on the deck 20 feet below.

    Part 1915 does not contain any requirements to prevent workers from falling off ladders while carrying objects. The proposed general industry Walking-Working Surfaces rule, like the relevant construction ladder standard (§ 1926.1053(b)(21) and (22)), requires that workers climbing ladders maintain a grasp on it with at least one hand at all times and not carry any load or object that could cause them to lose balance and fall off the ladder (proposed § 1910.23(b)(12) and (13)).

    OSHA requests comment on an option of adopting into part 1915 the Proposed Rule's requirements on carrying objects while climbing ladders. What practices and procedures does your establishment have (or should employers implement) to prevent workers from falling off ladders while carrying objects? What tools and equipment (e.g., tool belts, backpacks, rope lifts) does your establishment use (or should employers have) to move items to elevated work areas? Have any workers at your establishment fallen off a ladder when they were carrying a load or object? If yes, please describe the incident and what practices or changes your establishment implemented in response to the incident.

    f. Stairways. The proposed general industry Walking-Working Surfaces rule includes requirements for standard stairs as well as for less-commonly used stairways such as spiral stairs, ship stairs 7 and alternating tread-type stairs 8 (proposed § 1910.25) (see Figures 1 and 2).

    7 The proposed Walking-Working Surfaces rule defines “ship stairs” as stairways that are equipped with treads, has a slope between 50 to 70 degrees from horizontal and open risers (proposed § 1910.21(b)).

    8 The proposed Walking-Working Surfaces rule defines “alternating tread-type stairs” as a series of steps usually attached to a center support in an alternating manner so that a user normally does not have both feet on the same level (proposed § 1910.21(b)).

    OSHA requests comment on an option of adopting the Proposed Rule's requirements on spiral stairs, ship stairs and alternating tread-type stairs into part 1915. OSHA also requests comment on the types of stairways your establishment uses in different locations (e.g., in onshore facilities, on drydocks, on vessels/vessel sections). To what extent and in what locations does your establishment use spiral stairs, ship stairs and alternating tread-type stairs? What types of stairways does your establishment use in locations where space is limited?

    EP08SE16.003 EP08SE16.004

    9 Figure 1, which provides an example of ship stairs, was obtained from OSHA's proposed rule on Walking-Working Surfaces (75 FR 29139 (5/24/2010)).

    10 Figure 2, which provides an example of alternating tread-type stairs, was obtained from a fact sheet from the Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Administration addressing Ship's Ladders and Alternating Tread Stairs (OR-OSHA (5/09) FS-34).

    C. Subpart M—Fall and Falling Object Protection

    As mentioned, falls to a lower level and being hit by falling objects are major causes of worker fatalities in shipyard employment. Examples of fatal fall and falling object incidents in shipyard employment include:

    • On June 30, 2004, a maintenance worker was killed when he fell 70 feet through a lubbers' hole, to the main deck. Although the worker was wearing a full body harness, he was not tied off to an anchorage;

    • On March 10, 2005, a worker painting a ship died when he fell approximately 57 feet from the open edge when a turnbuckle on a wire rope in the guardrail loosened;

    • On February 14, 2008, an employee working on an aircraft carrier ventilation system fell into the water and drowned when he was trying to remove a cover from a plenum. The employer had not provided any fall protection; and

    • On November 30, 2010, an employee was killed when a metal frame fell from above and struck him.

    OSHA believes that many shipyard employment fatalities and injuries could have been prevented by employers providing and using fall and falling object protection, implementing inspection procedures and providing training.

    1. General Revisions

    a. Fall protection options. OSHA is considering an option of adopting the fall protection requirements in proposed general industry Walking-Working Surfaces rule into part 1915. The Proposed Rule, like the construction fall protection standards, allow employers to select from among accepted conventional fall protection options (i.e., guardrails systems, safety net systems, personal fall protection systems) they believe would work best in the particular situation (§ 1926.501(b)(1), proposed § 1910.28(b)(1)).

    OSHA requests comment about an option of adopting the Proposed Rule's fall protection options into part 1915. OSHA also requests comment on what fall protection systems your establishment uses and in what work locations and operations. To what extent would allowing employers to use the fall protection options in the Proposed Rule make it easier and less expensive for your establishment to protect workers from falls?

    b. Inspection of fall protection systems. Part 1915 does not contain any requirements to inspect fall protection equipment and systems. The proposed general industry Walking-Working Surfaces rule requires that walking-working surfaces, including fall protection equipment, be inspected regularly and as necessary to ensure they are in safe condition (proposed § 1910.22(d)(1)). Specifically, the Proposed Rule, like the construction fall protection standards (§ 1926.502(d)(21)), requires that employers ensure personal fall protection systems be inspected before initial use in each work shift (proposed § 1910.140(c)(18)) and safety net systems be inspected at least weekly and after any occurrence that could affect the system's integrity (§ 1926.502(c)(5), proposed § 1910.29(c)). The Proposed Rule also requires that walking-working surfaces, including guardrail systems and covers, be inspected regularly and periodically to ensure they are in safe condition (proposed § 1910.22(d)(1)).

    OSHA requests comment about an option of adopting the Proposed Rule's fall protection inspection requirements into part 1915. What practices and procedures does your establishment use (or should employers implement) for inspecting fall protection? When and how frequently does your establishment inspect (or should employers inspect) fall protection equipment, especially personal fall protection systems and safety net systems? What action does your establishment take (or should employers take) if an inspection reveals any damage or deterioration of the fall protection equipment?

    c. Training. Part 1915 requires that workers who use personal fall protection systems be trained by employers (§ 1915.152(e)); however, part 1915 does not require that employers train workers who use other types of fall protection (e.g., guardrail systems, ladder-safety systems) or other equipment that involves protection from falls. The proposed general industry Walking-Working Surfaces rule requires that employers train workers who use personal fall protection systems about fall hazards; procedures to minimize them; and the correct procedures for installing/dismantling, inspecting, using, storing and caring for/maintaining personal fall protection systems (proposed § 1910.30(a)). The Proposed Rule also requires that employers train workers in the proper use, care, inspection and storage of equipment subpart D covers, including ladders, dockboards, rope descent systems (RDS), and fall protection (proposed § 1910.30(b)).

    OSHA requests comment about an option of adopting the Proposed Rule's training requirements into part 1915. What training does your establishment provide (or should employers provide) on equipment such as fall protection, ladders, and RDS? Does your establishment provide (or should employers provide) retraining and, if so, when or in what circumstances? Who provides the training and what are their qualifications? What measures does your establishment use (or should employers use) to ensure that workers, especially non-English speaking workers, understand the training?

    2. Specific Revisions

    a. Guardrail heights. In part 1915, requirements for minimum guardrail system heights vary depending on what area is being guarded. For example:

    • Guardrails of at least 30 inches are required for systems installed around flush manholes and other small openings of comparable size located in decks and other walking or working surfaces aboard vessels and vessel components (§ 1915.73(b));

    • Guardrails of at least 33 inches are required for each side of gangways and turntables, if used (§ 1915.74(a)(2));

    • Guardrails ranging from 36 inches to 42 inches are required for systems installed around open hatches (not protected by coamings to a height of 24 inches) and other large openings (§ 1915.73(c));

    • Guardrails ranging from 42 to 45 inches are required for unguarded edges of decks, platforms and similar flat surfaces more than 5 feet above a solid surface and for catwalks on stiles of marine railways (§§ 1915.73(d) and 1915.75(g));

    • Guardrails of approximately 42 inches are required for systems installed on gangways and ramps provided between floating drydocks and the pier or bulkhead, edges of wing walls on graving docks, and where employees are working on the floor of floating drydocks and exposed to the hazard of falling into the water (§ 1915.75(b)-(e)).

    By contrast, the existing construction standards and the proposed general industry Walking-Working Surfaces rule establish one uniform height requirement for all guardrails: 42 inches, plus or minus 3 inches 11 (§ 1926.502(b)(1) and proposed § 1910.29(b)(1), respectively).

    11 The construction and proposed general industry standards also allow guardrails to exceed 45 inches if the guardrail system meets all of the other guardrail criteria (§ 1926.502(b)(1), proposed § 1910.29(b)(1)).

    OSHA requests comment about an option of adopting the Proposed Rule's uniform guardrail height requirement into part 1915. Should all guardrail systems used in shipyard employment meet one height requirement and, if so, what height? If not, please explain why different guardrail heights are necessary or more effective and what factors or work location issues support varying heights. If OSHA adopted a uniform guardrail height requirement into part 1915, how many or what percentage of guardrails would your establishment need to replace?

    b. Designated areas, warning line systems and controlled access zones. Part 1915 does not include any provisions permitting employers to use alternative measures to protect workers from falling off elevated surfaces. In certain situations, the construction standard and the proposed general industry Walking-Working Surfaces rule allow employees to work in certain elevated areas without the use of guardrail systems, personal fall protection systems, or safety net systems. For example, the construction fall protection standard allows employers to use a warning line system 12 for roofing work on low-slope roofs (§ 1926.501(b)(10)). In addition, the construction standard permits employers to use a controlled access zone (CAZs) (i.e., an area where employees can perform leading edge or overhead bricklaying and related work) without conventional fall protection when access to that zone is controlled (§ 1926.501(b)(2)(ii) and (b)(9)).

    12 The construction fall protection standard defines a “warning line system” as a barrier erected on a roof to warn workers that they are approaching an unprotected roof side or edge and that designates an area in which roofing work may take place without the use of a guardrail, personal fall protection or safety net system (§ 1926.500(b)).

    The Proposed Rule allows the use of designated areas,13 similar to a warning line system, to perform temporary work at least 6 feet from the unprotected side or edge on a low-slope (i.e., a slope of less than 10 degrees) walking-working surface (proposed §§ 1910.28 and 1910.29(d)). Part 1915 does not contain similar provisions and does not include alternatives to guardrail or personal fall protection systems when employees work a certain minimum distance from an unprotected edge.

    13 The proposed rule general industry fall protection rule defines “designated area” as a distinct portion of a walking-working surface delineated by a perimeter warning line in which temporary work may be performed without additional fall protection (proposed § 1910.21(b)).

    OSHA requests comment about an option of adopting the Proposed Rule's requirements that address alternatives to guardrail or personal fall protection systems (i.e., designated areas, warning line systems, CAZs) into part 1915. Please discuss whether there are specific or limited situations in your establishment or in shipyard employment where designated areas, warning line systems and/or CAZs may provide adequate protection (e.g., employees working on an elevated flat surface that is a distance from an unguarded edge or in the middle of a platform or deck). If so, in what work situations and at what distance from an unprotected edge should those fall protection alternatives be allowed and why? In what situations in shipyard employment would any of those fall protection alternatives not provide sufficient protection? To what extent would allowing the use of fall protection alternatives make it easier and less expensive for your establishment to protect workers from fall hazards?

    c. Hoist areas. Part 1915 does not contain any fall protection requirements to protect employees working in elevated hoist areas. The construction standard and proposed general industry Walking-Working Surfaces rule require that workers in a hoist area or involved in hoisting activities be protected from fall hazards by guardrail systems, personal fall arrest systems or travel restraint systems (§ 1926.501(b)(3), proposed § 1910.28(b)(2)). The construction and proposed general industry standards also specify that if guardrail systems (or chain, gate, or guardrail), or portions thereof, are removed to facilitate hoisting operations and employees must lean through or out over the access opening, they must be protected from fall hazards by a personal fall arrest system.

    OSHA requests comment about an option of adopting into part 1915 the Proposed Rule's requirements to use personal fall arrest systems during hoist operations when workers may be exposed to fall hazards. OSHA requests comment on what fall protection your establishment uses (or should employers provide) when guardrail systems, or a portion, must be removed to permit hoisting or line handling activities.

    d. Hole covers. The construction fall protection standard requires that all hole covers be color coded or marked with the word “HOLE” or “COVER” to provide warning of the hazard (§ 1926.502(i)(4)). Part 1915 does not have a similar requirement. Employers in shipyard employment frequently use pieces of plywood as covers with no mark to distinguish covered holes from debris.

    OSHA requests comment about an option of adopting into part 1915 the construction provision that requires hole covers to be painted or otherwise clearly marked to indicate their function as a cover. OSHA requests comment on what your establishment and the shipyard employment industry does (or should employers use) to indicate the location of covered holes.

    e. Dangerous equipment. Part 1915 does not contain any fall protection requirements to protect workers from falling on or into dangerous equipment. The construction and proposed general industry Walking-Working Surfaces rule fall protection standards require that employers protect workers from falling into or onto dangerous equipment by use of a guardrail, safety net, travel-restraint or personal fall arrest system (§ 1926.501(b)(8), proposed § 1910.28(b)(6)).

    OSHA requests comment about an option of adopting the Proposed Rule's requirements for dangerous equipment into part 1915. What protection does your establishment use (or should employers provide) to protect workers from falling into or onto dangerous equipment? At what elevation/height above dangerous equipment does your establishment provide (or should employers provide) particular fall protection?

    f. Fall protection on fixed ladders. Part 1915 does not include any fall protection requirements on fixed ladders. The existing general industry standard requires that fixed ladders be equipped with cages or wells (§ 1910.27(d)(1)(ii)). The proposed general industry Walking-Working Surfaces rule gives employers the option of equipping fixed ladders with cages, wells, ladder-safety systems or personal fall arrest systems (proposed § 1910.28(b)(9)).

    During the public comment period and the informal public hearing on the Proposed Rule, a number of stakeholders said that cages and wells neither prevent workers from falling off fixed ladders nor protect them from injury when a fall occurs (e.g., Exs. OSHA-2007-0072-0113; OSHA-2007-0072-0155; OSHA-2007-0072-0185; OSHA-2007-0072-0198; OSHA-2007-0072-0329 (1/21/2011), pgs. 18-19, 259)). These stakeholders said cages and wells simply contain employees in the event of a fall and direct them to a lower landing rather than preventing them from hitting a lower level. They also said fixed ladder cages and wells may increase the severity of fall injuries. Therefore, they recommended that fixed ladders be equipped with ladder-safety systems or personal fall arrest systems. Part 1915 does not contain any specific fall protection requirements for fixed ladders.

    OSHA requests comment about an option of adding a new requirement into part 1915 to equip new fixed ladders (except permanent fixed ladders on vessels or vessel sections) with personal fall arrest or ladder-safety systems to prevent falls. What type of fall protection equipment does your establishment use (or should employers provide) to protect workers from falling off fixed ladders? What type of fall protection does your establishment provide (or should employers provide) on new fixed ladders? What fall protection does your establishment use (or should employers provide) for workers climbing fixed ladders on vessels/vessel sections? What would be the incremental cost to equip new fixed ladders with personal fall arrest systems or ladder-safety systems?

    g. Falling object protection. The construction standard and proposed general industry Walking-Working Surfaces rule require that workers exposed to falling objects wear head protection and implement one or more of the following: Toeboards; screens; guardrail systems; canopy structures to prevent objects from falling to a lower level and keeping objects far enough from an edge, hole or opening to prevent them from falling; or barricading the area in which objects could fall (§ 1926.501(c), proposed § 1910.28(c)). Part 1915 requires that employers provide head protection to workers where such hazards exist (§ 1915.155(a)(1)), and install toeboards, when necessary, to prevent tools and materials from falling on workers below (§ 1915.71(j)(5)). However, part 1915 does not give employers the option of using screens, guardrail systems, canopy structures or barricades instead of installing toeboards.

    OSHA requests comments about an option of adopting the Proposed Rule's requirements on falling object options into part 1915. Please discuss whether the flexibility of the Proposed Rule would make compliance easier and less expensive for shipyard employment employers. In addition to using toeboards to prevent objects from falling, what additional measures, if any, does your establishment use (or should employers provide) to prevent workers on a lower level from being hit by falling objects? Have workers at your establishment been killed or injured by falling objects? If so, please describe the circumstances and what falling object protection (e.g., toeboards, screens, canopies), if any, was used.

    D. Subpart N—Scaffolds

    As mentioned, OSHA adopted the part 1915 scaffold standards (§ 1915.71) in 1971 from established Federal and national consensus standards and the Agency has never updated them. Likewise, the Agency adopted the general industry scaffold standards (§§ 1910.28 and 1910.29) that same year and in the same manner, and also has not updated them.

    In 1988, the Agency proposed to update the shipyard employment scaffold standards, but did not finalize the proposal because the Agency received only limited comment and information. Since then, OSHA has continued collecting information on fall protection and walking-working surfaces, such as scaffolds used in shipyard employment. In its most recent effort, OSHA surveyed a selected cross-section of shipyard employers in July 2013 regarding the types of scaffolds they and the shipyard employment industry use. OSHA surveyed two small shipyard (less than 100 employees) employers, three medium shipyard (100-500 employees) employers, and four large shipyard (500 or more employees) employers. The survey asked those employers the following five questions:

    1. Of the existing shipyard employment scaffold requirements, which types of scaffolding systems are still used by the shipyard employment industry?

    2. Which types of scaffolding systems are not used in the shipyard employment industry?

    3. Are there any types of scaffolding systems currently used in shipyard employment that part 1915 standards do not address (e.g., marine hanging staging and systems scaffolding)?

    4. What percentage of each type of scaffold system is used in the shipyard employment industry?

    5. Is the shipyard employment industry complying with the scaffold rail height requirement (42 to 45 inches) in the shipyard employment scaffold standard (§ 1915.71(j)(1)) and would the construction standards' scaffold rail height requirement (38 to 45 inches) (§ 1926.451(g)(4)(ii)) provide adequate protection to prevent shipyard employment workers from falling off scaffolds? 14

    14 ERG report, dated August 23, 2013, outlines the results from the July 2013 survey of the nine shipyard employers (Ex. 0002).

    The survey results indicated that none of the employers use wood trestle or extension trestle ladders, and very few employers use independent pole wood scaffolds, painters' suspended scaffolds, or horse scaffolds. Most of the medium and large shipyards surveyed still use independent pole metal scaffolds, seven of nine employers use tubular welded frame scaffolds, and five employers use bricklayer's square scaffolds and bracket scaffolds.

    The employers indicated that interior hung scaffolds (including marine hanging staging and float, or ship scaffolds) were the next most frequently used type of scaffolding, followed by mobile work platforms and systems, or modular scaffolding. Lastly, a few employers reported using outrigger scaffolds, aluminum joist beam scaffolds, power climbing scaffolds, tube and coupler scaffolds, and boatswain's chairs. Survey results regarding scaffold rail heights are discussed in section II-D-1-h.

    OSHA did not find any clear trend on scaffold use among the medium and large shipyards, but noted those shipyards use system scaffolds and independent pole metal scaffolds more than other types of scaffolding in ship repair and shipbuilding operations. About one-half of the shipyard employers reported using aerial lifts and scissor lifts; however, only a couple of employers indicated they use personnel platforms suspended from cranes or derricks. A June 2013 survey of the Scaffold and Access Industry Association (SAIA) conducted among its members reported results comparable with that of the July 2013 survey.15

    15 Results of June 27, 2013, Scaffold and Access Industry Association (SAIA) member survey (Ex. 0003).

    Although the survey information is based on a small cross-section of employers in shipyard employment, OSHA generally believes these employers are typical of the industry as a whole. OSHA requests comment on whether the survey results are typical of the shipyard employment industry. For example, to what extent and in what aspects are the survey results consistent with scaffolds your establishment uses? In addition, to develop the most complete information on scaffolds used in shipyard employment, OSHA requests that stakeholders answer the five survey questions noted above.

    1. General Revisions

    a. Construction scaffold standards. As mentioned, OSHA adopted the shipyard employment and general industry scaffold standards in 1971 and has not updated either one since then. In 2010, OSHA proposed to replace the existing general industry scaffold provisions with the requirement that employers must comply with the construction scaffold requirements (29 CFR part 1926, subpart L) (75 FR 28862 (5/24/2010)).

    In the preamble to the proposed general industry Walking Working Surfaces rule, OSHA explained that adopting the construction scaffold standards would ensure regulatory consistency between the two industries, ease compliance for the many general industry employers who use scaffolds to perform both general industry and construction activities, and increase employer and worker understanding of applicable requirements (75 FR 28884). Moreover, since many general industry employers who use scaffolds also perform construction activities, OSHA said they already were familiar with the construction scaffold standards. In addition, OSHA noted that the construction scaffold requirements, which the Agency issued in 1996 (61 FR 46045 (8/30/1996)), were much more current than the general industry scaffold standards, adopted in 1971 from established Federal standards and national consensus standards and not updated since. Given that the construction scaffold standards contain requirements for the same scaffolds general industry uses, OSHA concluded that incorporating the construction standards into part 1910 would provide a seamless transition for achieving regulatory consistency.

    OSHA requests comment on an option of adopting the construction scaffold standards into part 1915. To what extent would adopting construction scaffold standards make compliance easier for your establishment and the shipyard employment industry and make the standards easier for employers and workers to understand and follow? Please discuss whether any construction scaffold standards are not applicable to shipyard employment activities. If so, what activities and why?

    b. Scaffold types—shipyard employment v. general industry and construction. The shipyard employment scaffold standard includes requirements for five specific types of scaffolds (§ 1915.71(c) through (g)) and general requirements for “Other types of scaffolds” (§ 1915.71(h)). Part 1915 must be supplemented by the existing general industry scaffold provisions, which include requirements for more than 20 specific types of scaffolds (§§ 1910.28 and 1910.29). The construction scaffold standards also contain requirements for more than 20 types of scaffolds (§ 1926.452) (see Table 1).

    Table 1—List Scaffolding Standards in Existing Parts 1915, 1926, and 1910 Shipyard employment scaffold standards
  • (29 CFR part 1915, subpart E)
  • Construction scaffold standards
  • (29 CFR part 1926, subpart L)
  • General industry scaffold standards
  • (29 CFR part 1910, subpart D)
  • 1915.71(c): Independent wood scaffolds 1926.452(a): Pole scaffolds 1910.28(b): Wood pole scaffolds. 1915.71(d): Independent pole metal scaffolds 1926.452(b): Tube and coupler scaffolds 1910.28(c): Tube and coupler scaffolds. 1915.71(f): Painters suspended scaffolds 1926.452(p): Two-point adjustable suspension scaffolds 1910.28(g): Two-point suspension scaffolds. 1915.71(g): Horse scaffolds 1926.452(f): Horse scaffolds 1910.28(m): Horse scaffolds. 1915.71(e): Wood trestle and extension trestle ladders 1926.452(n): Step, platform, and trestle ladder scaffolds 1926.452(c): Fabricated frame (tubular welded) scaffolds 1910.28(d): Tubular welded frame scaffolds. 1926.452(i): Outrigger scaffolds 1910.28(e): Outrigger scaffolds. 1926.452(q): Multi-point adjustable suspension scaffolds, stone setters' multi-point adjustable suspension scaffolds, and masons' multi-point adjustable suspension scaffolds 1910.28(h): Stone setter's adjustable multipoint suspension scaffolds.
  • 1910.28(f): Masons' adjustable multi-point suspension scaffolds.
  • 1926.452(o): Single-point adjustable suspension scaffolds 1910.28(i): Single-point adjustable suspension scaffolds.
  • 1910.28(j): Boatswain's chair.
  • 1926.452(g): Form scaffolds and carpenters' bracket scaffolds 1910.28(k): Carpenters' bracket scaffolds. 1926.452(e): Bricklayers' square scaffolds 1910.28(l): Bricklayers' square scaffolds. 1926.452(u): Needle beam scaffolds 1910.28(n): Needle beam scaffolds. 1926.452(d): Plasterers', decorators', and large area scaffolds 1910.28(o): Plasterers', decorators', and large area scaffolds. 1926.452(t): Interior hung scaffolds 1910.28(p): Interior hung scaffolds. 1926.452(k): Ladder jack scaffolds 1910.28(q): Ladder jack scaffolds. 1926.452(l): Window-jack scaffolds 1910.28(r): Window-jack scaffolds. 1926.452(h): Roof bracket scaffolds 1910.28(s): Roofing bracket scaffolds. 1926.452(m): Crawling boards (chicken ladders) 1910.28(t): Crawling boards or chicken ladders. 1926.452(s): Float (ship) scaffolds 1910.28(u): Float or ship scaffolds. 1926.452(w): Mobile scaffolds 1910.29(e): Mobile work platforms. 1926.452(r): Catenary scaffolds

    OSHA requests information on what types of and how many scaffolds your establishment and the shipyard employment industry use and in what operations and locations (e.g., on decks, drydocks, vessels, vessel sections). To what extent does your establishment and the shipyard employment industry use (1) supported scaffolds (e.g., frame or fabricated scaffolds); (2) suspension scaffolds (e.g., single-point, two-point, multi-point suspension (swinging scaffolds)); and (3) mobile scaffolds (which are a type of supported scaffold set on wheels or casters)? Does your establishment or the shipyard employment industry use any types of scaffolds that the construction scaffolds standards cover, but not part 1915 or applicable general industry scaffold standards? What types of scaffolds, if any, does your establishment or the shipyard employment industry use that no OSHA standard covers? What additional or new scaffolding systems OSHA should consider covering if the Agency revises the shipyard employment scaffold standard?

    c. Inspection of scaffolds. The shipyard employment scaffold standard requires that employers maintain scaffolds in safe condition and replace components that are damaged, broken or defective (§ 1915.71(b)(5)). However, it does not contain a scaffold inspection requirement (§ 1915.71). The construction scaffold standard requires employers to ensure that a competent person 16 inspects scaffolds and their components for visible defects before each work shift and after any occurrence that could affect a scaffold's structural integrity (§ 1926.451(f)(3)). Examples of such occurrences include impact loadings caused by vehicles, hoists, extremely high winds; and other events that place heavy stress on the scaffold system.

    16 The construction scaffold standard defines a “competent person” as capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards in the surroundings or working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to employees, and who has authorization to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them (§ 1926.450(b)). Section 1915.4(o) similarly defines competent person.

    OSHA requests comment about an option of adopting the construction scaffold inspection requirement into part 1915. What scaffold inspection practices and procedures does your establishment (or should employers) use to ensure scaffolds are safe for workers to use? How frequently does your establishment (or should employers) inspect scaffolds? What actions does your establishment (or should employers) take when an inspection identifies scaffold damage or deterioration? Also, what qualifications do employees performing the inspections possess? How much time does it take to inspect the scaffolds that your establishment uses?

    d. Weather conditions. The shipyard employment scaffold standard does not contain any requirements addressing the use of scaffolds during hazardous weather conditions; therefore, the general industry scaffold requirements apply. The general industry standard prohibits employees from working on scaffolds during “storms or high winds” (§ 1910.28(a)(18)). Construction scaffold standards also prohibit employers from permitting employees to work on or from supported scaffolds during storms or high winds but allows an exception when (1) a competent person has determined that it is safe for workers to be on the scaffold; and (2) those employees are protected by a personal fall arrest system or wind screens (if the scaffold is secured against the anticipated wind forces) (§ 1926.451(f)(12)).

    OSHA requests comment on an option of adopting the construction scaffold requirements on hazardous weather conditions into part 1915. To what extent would the added flexibility the construction scaffold standard provides make compliance easier and reduce costs while still providing the same level of protection as the applicable general industry scaffold requirement? What safety practices and procedures has your establishment and the shipyard employment industry implemented to ensure that employees working on or from scaffolds, particularly supported and suspension scaffolds, are protected from hazardous weather conditions? What weather conditions (e.g., high winds, thunderstorms, snow storms, lightening) do your safety practices and procedures address? Do your practices/procedures prohibit work on certain types of scaffolds (e.g., suspended/suspension scaffolds) during storms and in high winds, and, if so, when is work prohibited and who makes that determination?

    e. Erecting and dismantling scaffolds. The construction scaffold standards require that employers provide fall protection for workers erecting and dismantling supported scaffolds unless a competent person determines that the installation and use of fall protection (1) is not feasible; or (2) would create a greater hazard (§ 1926.451(g)(2)). The shipyard employment scaffold standard does not contain a requirement that specifically addresses the use of fall protection while erecting and dismantling scaffolds. However, the shipyard scaffold standard requires that employers ensure supported or suspended scaffolds more than 5 feet above a solid surface or water be equipped with railings (§ 1915.71(j)(1)). In addition, the shipyard employment PPE standard requires that employers provide personal fall protection equipment when a hazard assessment indicates there are hazards present, or likely to be present, that necessitate the use of PPE (§ 1915.152(a) and (b)).

    OSHA requests comment on an option of adopting into part 1915 the construction scaffold requirements to provide fall protection when workers erect and dismantle supported scaffolds. What fall protection does your establishment and the shipyard employment industry use to protect workers from falling while erecting and dismantling supported scaffolds? Please explain whether there are any type(s) of supported scaffolds or any situations (e.g., work conditions, restrictions, unique hazards) where it is impossible for your establishment or the shipyard employment industry to use fall protection while erecting/dismantling scaffolds. If fall protection is impossible to use in a specific situation, please explain what alternative measures your establishment and the shipyard employment industry use to protect workers from falls.

    f. Front edge distance. The construction scaffold standards require that the front edge of scaffold platforms be no more than 14 inches from the “face of the work” (e.g., vessel/vessel section, building, structure), unless the employer (1) installs a guardrail system along the front edge, and/or (2) provides and ensures workers use a personal fall arrest system (§ 1926.451(b)(3)). The shipyard employment scaffold standard does not contain a specific front edge distance requirement, but it requires:

    • Employees to be protected by a personal fall arrest system where scaffold rails are not installed on scaffolds that are more than five feet above a solid surface (§ 1915.71(j)(3));

    • Employees to be protected from falling toward the vessel by use of a railing or personal fall arrest system that is attached to the backrail when working from swinging scaffolds that are triced out of vertical line with their supports (§ 1915.71(j)(4)); and

    • Employees to be protected from falling toward the vessel by use of a railing or personal fall arrest system that is attached to the backrail when working from scaffolds on paint floats subject to surging (§ 1915.71(j)(4)).

    OSHA seeks public comment on an option of adopting into part 1915 the construction scaffold requirement on front edge distance. What safety practices or rules does your establish and shipyard employment industry have to ensure that workers are protected from falling off the front edge of scaffold platforms? Please explain whether your practices/rules specify a maximum space that is permitted between the front edge and the face of the work (e.g., vessel/vessel section) and, if so, what is the maximum distance and why.

    g. Fall protection height. Part 1915 requires that employers ensure their employees working on any supported or suspended scaffold five feet or more above a solid surface are protected from falling to a lower level (§ 1915.71(k)(1)). The construction scaffold standards, on the other hand, require that any employee working on a scaffold more than 10 feet above a lower level be protected from falling to that lower level (§ 1926.451(g)(1)).

    OSHA requests comment on an option of adopting the 10-foot fall protection height requirement in the construction scaffold standards into part 1915, which would make the shipyard employment and construction scaffold standards consistent. Please discuss whether the added flexibility the construction scaffold standards provide would make compliance easier and less expensive for shipyard employment employers while still providing adequate fall protection for employees working on scaffolds. At what height does your establishment provide fall protection when workers perform construction activities on scaffolds above a solid surface and why?

    h. Scaffold rail height. The shipyard employment scaffold standard requires that the height of scaffold top rails be 42 to 45 inches (§ 1915.71(j)(1)). By contrast, the construction scaffold standards require that scaffolds manufactured or placed into service after January 1, 2000, have a top-rail height of between 38 to 45 inches (§ 1926.451(g)(4)(ii)). The construction standards also specify that the top-rail height of scaffolds manufactured or put into service before January 1, 2000, must be between 36 to 45 inches. Also, in some cases, the construction standards permit scaffold top rails to exceed 45 inches “[w]hen conditions warrant.”

    The July 2013 survey of a cross section of employers in shipyard employment also asked the employers about scaffold top-rail heights. Five employers said they comply with the scaffold rail height requirement in § 1915.71, while three employers indicated their shipyards were not in compliance. Two employers did not indicate whether their shipyards comply with the § 1915.71 scaffold rail height requirement, but said they support allowing shipyard employment establishments to comply with the construction rail height requirement.

    Three employers support retaining the existing rail height requirement in § 1915.71, stating that a lower rail height would not adequately protect workers. However, the other six employers support allowing a scaffold rail height of 38 to 45 inches. Four employers pointed out that some types of system scaffolds do not comply with § 1915.71(j)(1). As a result, employers would have to modify the rails on those scaffolds, which they claimed would potentially compromise worker safety.

    Finally, one employer said there were three problems with requiring that employers meet scaffold rail height requirements of part 1915 when performing work on vessels. First, the employer said guardrails permanently installed on many vessels are 38 inches high. Second, the employer said many employers and contractors that work in shipyards also perform construction work and often have difficulty transitioning between the different scaffold rail heights required by the shipyard employment and construction standards. Finally, the employer claimed that there is no proof that scaffold rails that are 42 to 45 inches high provide greater protection than rails that are less than 42 inches, but at least 38 inches high.

    OSHA requests comment about an option of adopting the construction scaffold rail height requirement (38 to 45 inches) into part 1915. Please discuss whether the added flexibility that the construction scaffold rail height requirement provides would make compliance easier and less expensive for shipyard employment employers while still providing adequate fall protection for employees working on scaffolds. What rail heights do your establishment and the shipyard employment industry typically use on various types of scaffolds? Are there types of scaffolds your establishment or the shipyard employment industry uses for which OSHA should retain the current scaffold rail height requirement in § 1915.71 and if so, which scaffold types?

    2. Specific Revisions

    a. Marine hanging staging (MHS). In the 1988 proposal (53 FR 48092) and 1994 record reopening (59 FR 17290), OSHA requested comment on the use of marine hanging staging (MHS) scaffold systems in shipyard employment, which were new to the industry at that time. OSHA received few comments and did not finalize the proposal. In April 2005, OSHA published a guidance document titled “Safe Work Practices for Marine Hanging Staging (MHS),” and a Web-based guidance tool (eTool) on MHS in February 2011. OSHA's guidance materials included safety practices from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) A10.8-2011 Scaffolding Safety Requirements standard (A10.8-2011) and best practices such as job hazard analysis, system key-components (e.g., anchorage and attachments, strut connections, planking) and loading characteristics.

    OSHA requests comment on an option to adopt provisions from the OSHA guidance documents and the A10.8 standard into part 1915. To what extent has your establishment and the shipyard employment industry implemented provisions and requirements from those documents? What provisions from the OSHA guidance and A-10.8 standard has your establishment and the shipyard employment industry found to be particularly effective to protect workers using MHS? To what extent does your establishment or the shipyard employment industry use MHS and in what operations and locations?

    b. Mobile scaffolds. Part 1915 does not contain any requirements on mobile scaffolds. The existing general industry scaffold standard, which applies on vessels and on shore for shipyard employment, includes provisions on manually propelled mobile scaffolds (towers) (§ 1910.29(a)).

    In addition to moving mobile scaffolds manually, the construction scaffold standards address the movement of mobile scaffolds by way of “power systems” (§ 1926.452(w)(4)). This provision states that power systems must be designed for such use, and specifically prohibits using forklifts, trucks, similar motor vehicles or add-on motors to move mobile scaffolds “unless the scaffold is designed for such propulsion systems” (§ 1926.452(w)(4)).

    OSHA requests comment about an option of adopting into part 1915 the construction requirements for mobile scaffolds. To what extent does your establishment and the shipyard employment industry use mobile scaffolds and in what operations and locations? To what extent does your establishment and the shipyard employment industry move mobile scaffolds with (1) “power systems;” and (2) manually? What types of mobile scaffolds that your establishment uses are designed to be moved by a power/propulsion system and what types are not? For both types of mobile scaffolds, what measures do you take (or should employers take) to ensure the safety of employees working on or near them?

    c. Securing suspended/suspension scaffolds. Part 1915 does not include any specific requirements for securing suspension/suspended scaffolds (e.g., painters' suspended scaffolds, two-point adjustable suspension scaffolds), and the use of this equipment is governed by the general industry provisions. The existing general industry standard requires that two-point suspension scaffolds and single-point adjustable suspension scaffolds must be securely lashed to the building or structure to prevent the scaffold from swaying (§ 1910.28(g)(11)).

    The construction scaffold standards require that employers take the same measures as the general industry standard when it is “determined to be necessary based on an evaluation by a competent person” (§ 1926.451(d)(18)). Both standards prohibit employers from using “window cleaner's anchors” to secure scaffolds (§§ 1910.28(g)(11), 1926.451(d)(18)).

    OSHA requests comment on the types of suspension/suspended scaffolds (e.g., two-point suspension scaffolds, single-point adjustable suspension scaffolds, boatswain's chairs) your establishment and the shipyard employment industry use and in what operations and locations. Also, OSHA requests comment on an option of adopting the construction scaffold requirement to secure suspension/suspended scaffolds into part 1915. Please explain whether the added flexibility and consistency the construction scaffold standards would provide would make compliance easier while still ensuring workers are protected from injury due to swaying scaffolds. What equipment or measures does your establishment and shipyard employment industry use to secure suspension/suspended scaffolds from swaying? What factors does your establishment consider in determining whether securing a particular scaffold is necessary and who makes that determination?

    d. Rope descent systems. The proposed general industry Walking Working Surfaces rule allows employers to use rope descent systems (RDS) (proposed § 1910.27(b)). An RDS is a suspension system that allows a worker to descend in a controlled manner and, as needed, stop at any point during the descent to perform work activities (proposed § 1910.21(b)). It generally consists of a roof anchorage support rope, descent device, carabiner (s) or shackle(s), and a chair or seatboard. An RDS also is called a controlled descent system or equipment. A boatswains' chair is similar to an RDS except is can descend and ascend. Part 1915 does not contain requirements for the use of RDS or similar equipment.

    OSHA requests comment on an option of adopting the Proposed Rule's RDS provisions into part 1915. To what extent does your establishment and the shipyard employment industry use RDS or similar equipment (controlled descent systems, mechanical lowering devices, boatswains' chairs) and in what operations and locations? If they are used, at what heights do your establishment and the shipyard employment industry (or should shipyard employment employers) use RDS? What practices or procedures do you follow (or should employers follow) to protect employees using RDS or similar equipment? Please describe whether the added flexibility and consistency the proposed general industry RDS provisions would make compliance easier, increase productivity and result in costs savings while still ensuring workers are protected from injury while performing elevated work.

    e. Stilts. Part 1915 and general industry standards do not include any provisions addressing the use of stilts on scaffolds. The construction scaffold standards, however, establish requirements on the use of stilts on scaffolds and their maintenance (§§ 1926.452(y)).

    OSHA requests comment on an option of adopting the construction stilt requirements into part 1915. To what extent do your establishment and the shipyard employment industry use stilts on scaffolds and on what types of scaffolds and in what operations? What safety practices and procedures do your establishment and the shipyard employment industry have to keep workers safe while using stilts on scaffolds?

    E. Outdated Requirements and Technological Advances

    OSHA is aware that some requirements in subpart E are outdated and/or insufficient in their coverage of shipyard employment hazards. For example, subpart E contains requirements for scaffold systems that the shipyard employment industry no longer uses, such as pole wood scaffolds and horse scaffolds. Conversely, subpart E does not address marine hanging staging (MHS)/interior hung (or suspended) scaffolds, even though they are commonly used in the shipyard employment. Subpart E also contains outdated terminology, such as “safety belts” (body belts) and “moused” (moussing hooks) (§§ 1915.71(b)(10) and (j)(3), 1915.77(c)). Since 1998, OSHA has prohibited the use of safety belts in personal fall arrest systems under the construction fall protection standard and part 1915 personal fall arrest system standard (§§ 1915.159 and 1926.502(d)). The Agency requests that stakeholders identify outdated requirements and terminology in subpart E and provide recommendations on revising and updating those provisions.

    OSHA also requests comment on what technological advances on access/egress, fall and falling object protection, and scaffolds you and the shipyard employment industry are using or are available. What do these new technologies cost and has their use resulted in any cost savings, increases in productivity and/or reductions in worker injuries and fatalities?

    III. Economic Impacts

    The Agency requests data and information from industry on potential economic impacts if OSHA decides to revise and update the standards in Subpart E. When responding to the questions in this RFI, OSHA requests, whenever possible, that stakeholders discuss potential economic impacts in terms of:

    • Quantitative benefits (e.g., reductions in injuries, fatalities, and property damage);

    • Costs (e.g., compliance costs or decreases in productivity); and

    • Offsets to costs (e.g., increases in productivity, less need for maintenance and repairs).

    OSHA also invites comment on any unintended consequences and consistencies or inconsistences with other policies or regulatory programs that might result if OSHA revises the standards in subpart E.

    OSHA welcomes all comments but requests that stakeholders discuss economic impacts in as specific terms as possible. For example, if a provision or policy change would necessitate additional employee training, it is most helpful to OSHA to receive information on the following:

    • The training courses necessary;

    • The types of employees who would need training and what percent (if any) of those employees currently receive the training;

    • The length and frequency of training;

    • The topics training would cover;

    • Any retraining necessary; and

    • The training costs if conducted by a third-party vendor or in-house trainer.

    For discussion of equipment related costs, OSHA is interested in all relevant factors including:

    • The prevalence of current use of the equipment;

    • The purchase price;

    • Cost of installation and training;

    • Cost of equipment maintenance and upgrades; and

    • Expected life of the equipment.

    The Agency also invites comment on the time and level of expertise required if OSHA were to implement potential changes this RFI discusses, even if dollar-cost estimates are not available.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, as amended) requires that OSHA to assess the impact of proposed and final rules on small entities. OSHA requests comment, information and data on the following inquiries:

    1. How many and what kinds of small businesses or other small entities in shipyard employment could be affected if OSHA decides to revise provisions in Subpart E? Describe any such effects. Where possible, please provide detailed descriptions of the size and scope of operation for affected small entities and the likely technical, economic and safety impacts for those entities. In the final rule on General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment (76 FR 24666 (5/2/2011)) (“Subpart F”) industry profile OSHA estimated that all establishments with 100 or more employees are shipyards; that about 73 percent of establishments with 20-99 employees are contractors who work at shipyards or off-site establishments that perform shipyard employment operations; and that all very small establishments with fewer than 20 employees are contractors or off-site establishments. OSHA requests comment on whether those estimates still reflect the industry today? In the Subpart F final rule OSHA also assumed that most small and all very small establishments in NAICS 336611 (Ship Building and Repairing) are contractors working at shipyards, and are not themselves shipyards. These contract employers, in most cases, will not incur the full cost of compliance due to either their adherence to the host employer's programs or the type of work they perform at shipyards. Is this assumption and conclusion still reasonable?

    2. Are there special issues that make the control of fall hazards more difficult in small firms?

    3. Are there any reasons that the benefits of reducing exposure to hazards associated with access/egress, scaffolds, and fall protection might be different in small firms than in larger firms? Please describe any specific concerns related to potential impacts on small entities that you believe warrant special attention from OSHA. Please describe alternatives that might serve to minimize those impacts while meeting the requirements of the OSH Act.

    IV. Public Participation

    OSHA invites interested persons to submit information, comments, data, studies, and other materials on the issues and questions in this RFI. In particular, throughout this RFI OSHA has invited comment on specific issues and requested information and data about practices at your establishment and other workplaces in shipyard employment. When submitting comments to questions or issues raised or revisions to subpart E that OSHA is considering, OSHA requests that the public explain their rationale and, if possible, provide data and information to support their comments and recommendations.

    You may submit comments in response to this RFI (1) electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, (2) by hard copy, or (3) by facsimile (FAX). All comments, attachments, and other materials must identify the Agency name and the docket number for this document (Docket No. OSHA-2013-0022). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files electronically. If, instead, you wish to provide a hardcopy of additional materials in reference to an electronic submission, you must submit them to the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section). The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic submission by name, date, and docket number so OSHA can attach them to your comments.

    Because of security-related problems there may be a significant delay in the receipt of comments by regular mail. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by express delivery, hand delivery and messenger or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section).

    All comments and submissions in response to this RFI, including personal information, are placed in the public docket without change. Therefore, OSHA cautions against submitting certain personal information such as social security numbers and birthdates. All comments and submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through that Web site. All comments and submissions are available at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using http://www.regulations.gov to submit comments and access dockets is available at that Web site. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available through that Web site and for assistance in using the Web site to locate and download docket submissions.

    Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available at http://www.regulations.gov. This document, as well as news releases and other relevant documents, are also available at OSHA's Web site at http://www.osha.gov.

    Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this document under the authority granted by 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657; 33 U.S.C. 941; 29 CFR part 1911; and Secretary's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on August 31, 2016. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21369 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0470; FRL-9951-88-Region 7] Approval of Missouri's Air Quality Implementation Plans; Open Burning Requirements AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of Missouri related to open burning. On November 24, 2009, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) requested to amend the SIP to replace four area specific open burning rules into one rule that is area specific and applicable state-wide. These revisions to Missouri's SIP do not have an adverse effect on air quality as demonstrated in the technical support document (TSD) which is a part of this docket. EPA's proposd approval of these SIP revisions is being done in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0470, to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steven Brown, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913-551-7718, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

    I. What is being addressed in this document? II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? III. What action is EPA taking? I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision submitted by the state of Missouri that replaces four area specific open burning rules with a rule that is applicable state-wide. On November 24, 2009, the MDNR requested to amend the SIP that recinds Missouri Open Burning Restrictions 10 CSR 10-2.100, 10 CSR 10-3.030, 10 CSR 10-4.090, 10 CSR 10-5.070 and consolidates these four rules into a new rule, 10 CSR 10-6.045. The rule adds language that allows burning of “trade wastes” by permit in areas for situations where open burning is in the best interest of the general public or when it can be shown that open burning is the safest and most feasible method of disposal. The rule reserves the right for the staff director to deny, revoke or suspend an open burn permit. It changes the general provisions section by not limiting liability to an individual who is directly responsible for a violation and extends the regulatory liability to any person, such as a property owner who hires an individual to start the fire. The rule also adds the definition of “untreated wood” for clarification to aid compliance purposes.

    II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail, including a technical analysis in the technical support document which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

    III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing approval of revisions to the Missouri SIP regarding an open burn regulation that replaces four area-specific open burning rules. EPA has conducted a full evaluation of the regulation, which is discussed in detail in the TSD, which is in the docket for this rulemaking.

    As discussed in detail in the TSD, Missouri submitted emissions and monitoring analyses to make a demonstration that the rule does not violate the requirements of CAA section 110 (l), 42 U.S.C. 7411. In addition, EPA Region 7 performed an analysis of open burning emissions and utilized emissions inventory data from Missouri's Early Progress Plan to analyze over all emissions in the St. Louis area.

    EPA believes that consolidating the four rules into one single rule creates less confusion and simplifies open burning restrictions for compliance and implementation. Simplifying the rule and permitting process increases clarity and removes uncertainty in the process of applying for an open burn permit. MDNR credits streamlining the permitting rule and process as the reason for the decrease in illegal open burning attempts in the state, especially in and around the St. Louis area.

    The evidence provided in the TSD included in the docket for the rulemaking and Missouri's SIP submittal and rules show the rule change does not interfere with state's ability to attain or maintain an ambient air quality standard nor interfere with state's progress toward attainment. Specifically, MDNR's SIP revision will not compromise the State's efforts to meet and/or maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone, 2008 8-hour ozone, or Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Therefore, EPA supports approving these SIP revisions that add Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.045 to replace four rescinded open burning rules: 10 CSR 10-2.100, 10 CSR 10-3.030, 10 CSR 10-4.090, 10 CSR 10-5.070.

    We are processing this as a proposed action because we are soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below. 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 documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 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 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).

    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 proposed 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 proposed 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 November 7, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this proposed rule does not affect the finality of this rulemaking 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 future rule or action. This proposed action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 24, 2016. Mark Hague, Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart AA—Missouri 2. In § 52.1320, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by: a. Removing the entries “10-2.100”, “10-3.030”, “10-4.090”, and “10-5.070”. b. Adding the entry “10-6.045” in numerical order.

    The addition reads as follows:

    § 52.1320 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations Missouri citation Title State effective date EPA approval date Explanation Missouri Department of Natural Resources *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of Missouri *         *         *         *         *         *         * 10-6.045 Open Burning Requirements 9/30/09 [Date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] [Federal Register citation of the final rule] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-21467 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 160630573-6573-01] RIN 0648-BG19 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Snapper Management Measures AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in Amendment 45 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) (Amendment 45). This proposed rule would extend the 3-year sunset provision for the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) red snapper recreational sector separation measures for an additional 5 years. Additionally, this rule would correct an error in the Gulf red snapper recreational accountability measures (AMs). The purpose of this proposed rule is to extend the sector separation measures to allow the Council more time to consider and possibly develop alternative management strategies within the Gulf red snapper recreational sector.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before October 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the amendment identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2016-0089” by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0089, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Peter Hood, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Electronic copies of Amendment 45, which includes an environmental assessment, a fishery impact statement, a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peter Hood, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, telephone: 727-824-5305; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS and the Council manage the Gulf reef fish fishery, which includes red snapper, under the FMP. The Council prepared the FMP and NMFS implements the FMP through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

    Background

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield (OY) from federally managed fish stocks. These mandates are intended to ensure fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems. In meeting these requirements, Amendment 45 would extend a sunset provision implemented through the final rule for Amendment 40 to the FMP (80 FR 22422, April 22, 2015) for an additional 5 years.

    Amendment 40 established distinct private angling and Federal for-hire (charter vessel and headboat) components of the Gulf reef fish recreational sector fishing for red snapper, and allocated red snapper resources between these recreational components. The purpose for establishing these separate recreational components was to provide a basis for increasing the stability for the for-hire component and the flexibility in future management of the recreational sector, and to reduce the likelihood of recreational red snapper quota overruns, which could jeopardize the rebuilding of the red snapper stock (the Gulf red snapper stock is currently overfished and is under a rebuilding plan). As a result of the stock status, the actions in Amendment 40 were also intended to prevent overfishing while achieving the OY and rebuilding the red snapper stock, particularly with respect to recreational fishing opportunities.

    Amendment 40 defined the Federal for-hire component as including operators of vessels with Federal charter vessel/headboat permits for Gulf reef fish and their angler clients. The private angling component was defined as including anglers fishing from private vessels and state-permitted for-hire vessels. Amendment 40 allocated the red snapper recreational quota between the Federal for-hire and private angling components at 42.3 and 57.7 percent, respectively. The allocation was derived by using historical and recent time series of recreational landings. Amendment 40 also established accountability measures for the Gulf red snapper recreational components. The component allocation was applied to the red snapper recreational annual catch target (ACT), which is set 20 percent below the recreational annual catch limit. Both components' Federal red snapper seasons begin on June 1 and close when the respective component's ACT is projected to be met.

    Amendment 40 also applied a 3-year sunset provision for the regulations implemented through its final rule. The sunset provision maintained the measures for sector separation through the end of the 2017 fishing year, on December 31, 2017.

    The 3-year sunset provision in Amendment 40 was included to provide an incentive for the Council to continue to evaluate alternative management measures or programs for the recreational sector. Unless modified, after the 2017 fishing year, on January 1, 2018, the management measures implemented through Amendment 40 will expire and the recreational sector will be managed as a single entity. The Council is currently working to develop and approve other amendments to address the management of the charter and headboat fishing within the Federal for-hire component (Amendments 41 and 42 to the FMP, respectively). The development of these amendments is taking longer than the Council anticipated, and if approved by NMFS, would likely not be effective until after the sector separation provisions expire at the end of the 2017 fishing year (December 31, 2017). Therefore, through Amendment 45, the Council determined there was a need to extend the sunset provision to allow for additional time to consider and possibly implement alternative management strategies within the Gulf red snapper recreational sector.

    Management Measure Contained in This Proposed Rule

    Amendment 45 would extend the 3-year sunset provision for separation of the Federal for-hire and private angling recreational components for Gulf red snapper and associated management measures for an additional 5 years. This proposed rule would extend Gulf recreational red snapper sector separation through the end of the 2022 fishing year, on December 31, 2022, rather than the current sunset date of December 31, 2017. Beginning on January 1, 2023, the red snapper recreational sector would be managed as a single entity without the Federal for-hire and private angling components. The Council would need to take further action for these recreational components and management measures to extend beyond the 5-year extension proposed in Amendment 45.

    Additionally, as a result of extending the sunset provision for sector separation, this proposed rule would extend the respective red snapper recreational component quotas and ACTs through the 2022 fishing year, instead of through the 2017 fishing year as implemented through Amendment 40.

    As described above, extending the duration of the Gulf red snapper recreational sunset provision would give the Council additional flexibility in developing alternative management approaches for red snapper.

    Additional Proposed Changes to Codified Text

    On May 1, 2015, NMFS published the final rule for a framework action to revise the Gulf red snapper commercial and recreational quotas and ACTs, including the recreational component ACTs, and to announce the closure dates for the recreational sector components for the 2015 fishing year (80 FR 24832). However, during the implementation of the framework action, the term and regulatory reference for total recreational quota was inadvertently used instead of total recreational ACT when referring to the applicability of the recreational component ACTs after sector separation ends in § 622.41(q)(2)(iii)(B) and (C). This rule corrects this error by revising the text and regulatory references within the component ACTs to reference the total recreational sector ACT instead of the total recreational quota in § 622.41(q)(2)(iii)(B) and (C).

    Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.

    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if implemented, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows:

    The purpose of this proposed rule is to extend the sunset provision that would end the distinct private angling and Federal for-hire components (sector separation) of the red snapper recreational sector. This would allow more time for the Council to develop and potentially implement Federal for-hire and private angling component management measures to better prevent overfishing while achieving the OY on a continuing basis, particularly with respect to recreational opportunities, and while rebuilding the red snapper stock. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule.

    This proposed rule, if implemented, would directly affect all vessels with a Gulf Federal charter vessel/headboat reef fish permit (hereafter referred to as a for-hire permit). Headboats, which charge a fee per passenger, and charter vessels, which charge a fee on a whole vessel basis, are types of vessel operations that participate in the for-hire fishing component of the recreational sector. In addition to the difference in how fees are paid, headboats are generally larger and carry more passengers than charter vessels. A for-hire permit is required for for-hire vessels to harvest reef fish species, including red snapper, in the Gulf Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). On February 17, 2016, there were 1,312 valid (non-expired) or renewable for-hire permits. A renewable permit is an expired permit that may not be actively fished, but is renewable for up to 1 year after expiration. Although the for-hire permit application collects information on the primary method of operation, the permit itself does not identify the permitted vessel as either a headboat or a charter vessel and vessels may operate in both capacities. However, only federally permitted headboats are required to submit harvest and effort information to the NMFS Southeast Region Headboat Survey (SRHS). Participation in the SRHS is based on determination by the Southeast Fishery Science Center that the vessel primarily operates as a headboat. Sixty-nine Gulf vessels were registered in the SHRS as of February 2016. As a result, the estimated 1,312 vessels expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule are expected to consist of 1,243 charter vessels and 69 headboats. The average charter vessel is estimated to receive approximately $83,000 (2015 dollars) in annual revenue. The average headboat is estimated to receive approximately $252,000 (2015 dollars) in annual revenue.

    NMFS has not identified any other small entities that would be expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule. Although this proposed rule would also directly affect recreational anglers, recreational anglers are not small entities under the RFA.

    The Small Business Administration has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S. A business involved in the for-hire fishing industry is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $7.5 million (NAICS code 487210, for-hire businesses) for all its affiliated operations worldwide. All for-hire fishing businesses expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule are believed to be small business entities.

    This proposed rule consists of one action that would extend the sunset date of the sector separation provisions for the recreational harvest of red snapper in the Gulf, and correct the Gulf red snapper recreational sector AMs. Sector separation is scheduled to sunset at the end of 2017 fishing year. This proposed rule would extend the sunset date for an additional 5 years, through the 2022 fishing year. As a part of sector separation there are sector allocations, which allow each sector to have distinct seasons unaffected (in the short term) by the harvest activity by the other sector, and accountability measures intended to restrain each sector to its allocation and help ensure that the potential benefits expected to accrue to sector separation are realized. Sector separation also established a platform which enables management changes that may result in increased economic benefits to the affected small entities. These effects would be a direct effect of these management changes, as they are implemented, and not of this proposed rule.

    The current sector separation sunset date provision limits the cumulative amount and duration of these positive economic effects. The 3-year duration of sector separation as is currently in place is insufficient time to conduct substantive evaluation of each sector's needs, develop and implement appropriate sector-specific management measures, and allow the measures to remain in effect long enough for the benefits to be realized. Additionally, the imminent lapse of the 3-year sunset provision is believed to be a disincentive for business owners to make substantive financial or other operational decisions that may improve the economic viability of their business. Extending the sunset date for an additional 5 years would be expected to result in increased economic benefits to for-hire small business entities because it would lengthen their planning horizon and opportunity to make beneficial operational changes and would increase the management flexibility to implement sector-specific measures designed to increase the economic benefits accruing to both the for-hire and private angling components.

    It is not feasible to generate quantitative estimates of the expected economic benefits expected to accrue to these small for-hire business entities as a result of the proposed change in the sunset date because of an inability to forecast the behavioral changes by the for-hire businesses or the anglers who hire their services, and the absence of detail on, or schedule of implementation of, the sector-specific management measures that may be implemented. Nevertheless, the net effect of the proposed change in the sunset date of sector separation is expected to be an increase in profit per affected small entity.

    The proposed change to the Gulf red snapper recreational sector AMs would be administrative, not substantive, in nature, correcting text and regulatory reference errors made in prior rulemaking. These errors have not affected how the recreational harvest of red snapper has been managed or the behavior of any small entities engaged in the recreational harvest of red snapper. The proposed corrections are consistent with the intent of the prior rulemaking (80 FR 24832, May 1, 2015) and would not be expected to have any direct effect on any small entities.

    Based on the discussion above, NMFS determines that this proposed rule, if implemented, would result in an increase in revenue and associated profits and would not have a significant adverse economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

    Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf, Quotas, Recreational, Red snapper.

    Dated: August 31, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assitant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC 1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In § 622.39, revise paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(B) and (C) to read as follows:
    § 622.39 Quotas.

    (a) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (B) Federal charter vessel/headboat component quota. The Federal charter vessel/headboat component quota applies to vessels that have been issued a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish any time during the fishing year. This component quota is effective for only the 2015 through 2022 fishing years. For the 2023 and subsequent fishing years, the applicable total recreational quota, specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) of this section, will apply to the recreational sector.

    (1) For fishing year 2015—2.964 million lb (1.344 million kg), round weight.

    (2) For fishing year 2016—3.042 million lb (1.380 million kg), round weight.

    (3) For fishing years 2017 through 2022—2.993 million lb (1.358 million kg), round weight.

    (C) Private angling component quota. The private angling component quota applies to vessels that fish under the bag limit and have not been issued a Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish any time during the fishing year. This component quota is effective for only the 2015 through 2022 fishing years. For the 2023 and subsequent fishing years, the applicable total recreational quota, specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) of this section, will apply to the recreational sector.

    (1) For fishing year 2015—4.043 million lb (1.834 million kg), round weight.

    (2) For fishing year 2016—4.150 million lb (1.882 million kg), round weight.

    (3) For fishing years 2017 through 2022—4.083 million lb (1.852 million kg), round weight.

    3. In § 622.41, revise paragraphs (q)(2)(iii)(B) and (C) to read as follows:
    § 622.41 Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs).

    (q) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (iii) * * *

    (B) Federal charter vessel/headboat component ACT. The Federal charter vessel/headboat component ACT applies to vessels that have been issued a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish any time during the fishing year. This component ACT is effective for only the 2015 through 2022 fishing years. For the 2023 and subsequent fishing years, the applicable total recreational ACT, specified in paragraph (q)(2)(iii)(A) of this section, will apply to the recreational sector.

    (1) For fishing year 2015—2.371 million lb (1.075 million kg), round weight.

    (2) For fishing year 2016—2.434 million lb (1.104 million kg), round weight.

    (3) For fishing years 2017 through 2022—2.395 million lb (1.086 million kg), round weight.

    (C) Private angling component ACT. The private angling component ACT applies to vessels that fish under the bag limit and have not been issued a Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish any time during the fishing year. This component ACT is effective for only the 2015 through 2022 fishing years. For the 2023 and subsequent fishing years, the applicable total recreational ACT, specified in paragraph (q)(2)(iii)(A) of this section, will apply to the recreational sector.

    (1) For fishing year 2015—3.234 million lb (1.467 million kg), round weight.

    (2) For fishing year 2016—3.320 million lb (1.506 million kg), round weight.

    (3) For fishing years 2017 through 2022—3.266 million lb (1.481 million kg), round weight.

    [FR Doc. 2016-21620 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 174 Thursday, September 8, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request—Third National Survey of WIC Participants (NSWP-III) AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a new collection to conduct the Third National Survey of WIC Participants (NSWP-III).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before November 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments are invited on the following topics: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, and/or other forms of information technology.

    Comments may be sent to: Anthony Panzera, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Anthony Panzera at 703-305-2576, or via email to [email protected]. Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Anthony Panzera at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Third National Survey of WIC Participants (NSWP-III).

    Form Number: N/A.

    OMB Number: Not yet assigned.

    Expiration Date: Not yet determined.

    Type of Request: New collection.

    Abstract: The Third National Survey of WIC Participants (NSWP-III) is designed to provide nationally representative estimates of improper payments in the WIC program arising from errors in the certification or denial of WIC applicants, to investigate potential State and local agency characteristics that may correlate with these errors, and to assess WIC participants' reasons for satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the program. The NSWP-III builds on three previous studies and reports spanning several decades.

    To accomplish study objectives, the following data collections are planned: (1) A Certification Survey with up to 2,000 recently certified WIC participants; (2) a Denied Applicant Survey with up to 240 WIC applicants who did not qualify for the program; (3) a Program Experiences Survey with up to 2,500 current WIC program participants; (4) a Former Participant Case Study with 520 inactive WIC program participants who have stopped redeeming WIC benefits; (5) a State Agency Survey with 90 agencies, including 50 States and the District of Columbia, the 34 Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs), and 5 U.S. Territories; (6) and a Local WIC Agency Survey with 1,500 local WIC agency directors.

    In addition, NSWP-III will pilot a new methodology for the future annual estimates of improper payments in the WIC program. Under this approach, the data collection instruments and recruiting materials, developed for the 2017 Certification Survey and Denied Applicants Survey, will be fielded in 2018 and 2019 by replacing one of 10 “panels” from the 2017 sample with newly selected WIC participants (180 per year) and denied applicants (24 per year); these data will be pooled with the extant 2017 data from the remaining (non-replaced) panels to update the estimates of improper payments in each year. Data collection activities in these 2 years will include recruiting recently certified WIC participants to complete the Certification Survey and denied WIC applicants to complete the Denied Applicant Survey.

    Affected Public: This study includes two respondent groups: (1) State, Local, and Tribal Government (State WIC agency directors and local WIC agency directors); and (2) Individuals or Households (current WIC program participants, denied applicants, and former WIC participants).

    Estimated Number of Respondents: The total estimated number of respondents is 7,008. This figure includes 4,745 respondents and 2,263 non-respondents. This study will include six data collection activities.

    The initial sample for the State Agency Survey will consist of 90 State WIC agency directors. Assuming that 100 percent respond to the web-based survey, the resulting respondent sample will include approximately 90 State WIC agency directors.

    Local WIC agency directors will also complete a web-based survey, the Local WIC Agency Survey. The initial sample will include 1,500 local WIC agency directors and, assuming an 80 percent response rate, the final sample will result in 1,200 local WIC agency directors.

    The initial sample size for the Certification Survey is 2,000 current WIC program participants. A portion of the current WIC program participants in the sample unit may complete up to two surveys, the Certification Survey and the Program Experiences Survey. A sample of 1,000 current WIC program participants, a subset of the sample of 2,000 WIC program participants, will be recruited to complete both the Certification Survey and the Program Experiences Survey interviews in person during the same visit. Assuming an 80 percent response rate for each survey, a total of 1,600 current WIC program participants will complete Certification Surveys, and 800 will also complete the Program Experiences Survey.

    An additional sample for the Program Experiences Survey will be administered the questionnaire by telephone or in person during a follow-up home visit. The initial sample size is 1,500 current WIC program participants, and assuming an 80 percent response rate, the final sample will include 1,200 current program participants (750 by telephone and 450 in person).

    The Denied Applicant Survey, administered in person, will include an initial sample of 240 recently denied WIC program applicants. Assuming an 80 percent response rate, the final sample will be 192 recently denied WIC program applicants.

    This study includes a Former WIC Participant Case Study with an initial sample of 520 former WIC program participants. As a qualitative case study with people who are no longer participating in the program, the expected response rate is 30 percent. This response rate will result in 156 respondents who will be asked screening questions. Assuming 20 percent are screened out, the final screened sample will be 125 former participants.

    The Alternative Methodology Pilot Studies will take place in 2018 and 2019. The initial sample size for each is estimated to be 186 current WIC program participants for the Certification Survey sample and 24 recently denied WIC program applicants for the Denied Applicant Survey sample. Assuming an 80 percent response rate for each sample, the resulting respondent sample will include approximately 150 current WIC program participants and 19 recently denied WIC program applicants for each year.

    Estimated Frequency of Responses per Respondent: FNS estimates that the frequency of responses per respondent will average 5.92 responses per respondent (including respondents and non-respondents) across the entire collection. State agency directors, local WIC agency directors, denied applicants, and former WIC participants will provide a one-time response during their respective survey or interview. A portion of the current WIC participants will be invited to complete two surveys, although most will provide responses on only one survey. Each respondent type may be contacted several times by telephone, mail, email, and home visits to encourage participation and, when appropriate, to remind the respondent of the importance of their contribution to this study.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: The total number of responses (including respondents and non-respondents) expected across all respondent categories is 41,504.

    Estimated Time per Response: The estimated time will vary depending on the respondent category and will range from 1.2 minutes (0.02 hours) to 66 minutes (1.1 hours). The following table outlines the estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent. Across all study respondents and non-respondents, the average estimated time per response is 0.10 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours on Respondents: 3,898.05 hours (see Table 1: Burden Estimate for Respondents and Non-Respondents for estimated total annual burden hours by type of respondent).

    Dated: August 31, 2016. Audrey Rowe, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. EN08SE16.000 EN08SE16.001 EN08SE16.002
    [FR Doc. 2016-21576 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Prince William Sound Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Prince William Sound Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Cordova, Alaska. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pts/specialprojects/racweb.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on September 24, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Cordova Ranger District office, 612 2nd Street, 3rd floor conference room (courtroom), Cordova, Alaska. The meeting will also be available via teleconference. For anyone who would like to attend via teleconference, please visit the Web site listed in the Summary section or contact the person listed under the For Further Information Contact section.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Cordova Ranger District. Please call ahead at 907-424-4722 to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nancy O'Brien, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 907-424-4722, or by email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to discuss and vote on project proposals.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by September 12, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Nancy O'Brien, RAC Coordinator, P.O. Box 280, Cordova, Alaska 99574; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 907-424-7214.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: August 31, 2016. Tim Charnon, District Ranger.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21604 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS Sunshine Act Meeting DATE AND TIME:

    Friday, September 9, 2016, 11 a.m. EDT.

    PLACE:

    Broadcasting Board of Governors, Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20237.

    SUBJECT:

    Notice of Closed Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

    SUMMARY:

    The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will meet in a special session, to be conducted telephonically, to discuss and approve a budget submission for Fiscal Year 2018. According to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11, Section 22.1, all agency budgetary materials and data are considered confidential prior to the President submitting a budget to Congress. In accordance with section 22.5 of Circular A-11, the BBG has determined that its meeting should be closed to public observation pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B). In accordance with the Government in the Sunshine Act and BBG policies, the meeting will be recorded and a transcript of the proceedings, subject to the redaction of information protected by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), will be made available to the public. The publicly-releasable transcript will be available for download at www.bbg.gov within 21 days of the date of the meeting.

    Information regarding member votes to close the meeting and expected attendees can also be found on the Agency's public Web site.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact Oanh Tran at (202) 203-4545.

    Oanh Tran, Director of Board Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21712 Filed 9-6-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Tennessee Advisory Committee for Orientation and Project Planning AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Tennessee Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on Wednesday, September 28, 2016, at 12:00 p.m. EST for the purpose of welcoming the new committee and discussing potential projects.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 28, 2016 12:00 p.m. EST. Public Call-In Information: The meeting will be by teleconference. Toll-free call-in number: 888-297-0358, conference ID: 6138915.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeff Hinton at [email protected] or by phone at 404-562-7006.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-297-0358, conference ID: 6138915. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also entitled to make statements during the open comment period of the meeting. In addition, members of the public may submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by September 23, 2016. Written comments may be mailed to the Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 16T126, Atlanta, GA 30303. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (404) 562-7005, or emailed to Regional Director, Jeffrey Hinton at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Southern Regional Office at (404) 562-7000.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Southern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Tennessee Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Southern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Call to Order Diane Di Ianni, Chairman Tennessee SAC Jeff Hinton, Regional Director Regional Update—Jeff Hinton Member Introduction/Open Comment—Diane Di Ianni, Chair Tennessee SAC Staff/Advisory Committee Public Participation Adjournment Dated: August 29, 2016. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21510 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Title: Collection of State Administrative Records Data.

    OMB Control Number: 0607-xxxx.

    Form Number(s): Information will be collected in the form of a data transfer to the Census Bureau. No form will be used.

    Type of Request: Regular/General.

    Number of Respondents: 50 states, plus the District of Columbia.

    Average Hours per Response: 75 hours.

    Burden Hours: 3,825 hours.

    Needs and Uses: The State administrative records will be integrated and linked with Census Bureau data from surveys and censuses and used to augment or replace Census operations, improve the Census Bureau's Title 13, U.S. Code (U.S.C.) authorized censuses and surveys and methods of collecting program participation data, as well as improving record linking methods.

    The Census Bureau will return tabulated data to state data sharing partners. Data sharing and analysis of linked files are solely for statistical purposes, not for program enforcement. All State administrative records data are and will remain confidential, whether in their original form or when comingled or linked.

    Affected Public: State governments.

    Frequency: Initial data extract delivery followed by an annual data extract delivery through the duration of the terms of the agreement.

    Respondent's Obligation: None. The data is being requested.

    Legal Authority: The authority for the Census Bureau to enter into these agreements is 13 U.S.C. 6, which permits the Census Bureau to access, by purchase or otherwise, information to assist the Census Bureau in the performance of duties under Title 13, United States Code. Other specific citations may apply per the data sharing partner.

    This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21612 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-57-2016] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 92—Harrison County, Mississippi; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; TopShip, LLC (Shipbuilding); Gulfport, Mississippi

    The Mississippi Coast Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 92, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of TopShip, LLC (TopShip), located in Gulfport, Mississippi. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on August 30, 2016.

    The request indicates that a separate application for subzone designation at the TopShip facility will be submitted. A subzone application would be processed under Section 400.31 of the Board's regulations. The TopShip facility is used for the manufacturing of ocean-going vessels. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt TopShip from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, TopShip would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to: Vessels for the transport of persons and goods; and, hulls (duty-free) for the foreign-status inputs noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Floor bonding and coating; plastic tubes and joints for generator sets; plastic flooring; plastic generator set spare parts; rubber hoses with fittings; sealing rings; curtains; oil booms; rock wool; glass partitions; steel flanges; marine doors; small steel drums; steel metadisc fasteners; steel washers; steel fasteners; manholes; ladders; raceways; aluminum profiles; aluminum wall and ceiling panels; copper nickel flanges; bobbins; handrails; hollow aluminum profiles; aluminum profiles for door and window frames; tin battery boxes and parts; marine door parts; door mounts; aluminum cofferdams; aluminum electrodes; diesel engines; diesel engine parts; propulsion parts; ride control system parts; ride control systems; cables; marine engine spare parts; propulsion equipment; marine engine seals; main foil assemblies; vulkan shafts; manifold for engines; ride controllers; fuel pumps; heaters; fire dampers; ventilation equipment; intake filters; water separators; food waste handling system pumps; winches; straddle carriers; davits; ships spare bushings; computerized monitoring systems; solid waste processors; controls; thrusters; pressure valves; composite parts; bearings; shafts; gears; couplings; mechanical seals for water jets; propeller blades; anti-vibration mounts; AC multi-phase electric motors; electric motors not exceeding 373kW; electrical generators with output exceeding 750 kVA; davit parts; transformers; converter cabinet units; horns; bells; gongs; windshield wiper parts; computer parts; electrical equipment; central control units; power supplies; control systems containers; breakers; electrical terminals; bridge firefighting control panels; distribution panels; 20A, 20V power supplies; switchboards; electrical components; electrical cables; vibration control equipment; marine evacuation equipment; marine evacuation system life rafts and components; helm chairs; table brackets and plates; seats and accessories; furniture; seat parts; searchlights; and, bathroom modules (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 11.3%). The request indicates that curtains classified under HTSUS Subheading 6303.12 will be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41) or domestic status (19 CFR 146.43), thereby precluding inverted tariff benefits on such items. The production activity under FTZ procedures would be subject to the “standard shipyard restriction” applicable to foreign origin steel mill products, which requires that TopShip pay all applicable duties on such items.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is October 18, 2016.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at [email protected] or (202) 482-0473.

    Dated: September 1, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21651 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security [160826784-6784-01] RIN 0694-XC033 Effectiveness of Licensing Procedures for Agricultural Commodities to Cuba AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is requesting public comments on the effectiveness of its licensing procedures as defined in the Export Administration Regulations for the export of agricultural commodities to Cuba. BIS will include a description of these comments in its biennial report to the Congress, as required by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, as amended (TSRA).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by October 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be sent by email to [email protected] with a reference to “TSRA 2016 Report” in the subject line. Written comments may be submitted by mail to Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2099B, Washington, DC 20230 with a reference to “TSRA 2016 Report.”

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tracy L. Patts, Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance, Telephone: (202) 482-4252. Additional information on BIS procedures and previous biennial reports under TSRA is available at http://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/policy-guidance/country-guidance/sanctioned-destinations/13-policy-guidance/country-guidance/426-reports-to-congress. Copies of these materials may also be requested by contacting the Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to section 906(a) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA) (22 U.S.C. 7205(a)), the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) authorizes exports of agricultural commodities, as defined in part 772 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), to Cuba. Requirements and procedures associated with such authorization are set forth in section 740.18 of the EAR (15 CFR 740.18). These are the only licensing procedures in the EAR currently in effect pursuant to the requirements of section 906(a) of TSRA.

    Under the provisions of section 906(c) of TSRA (22 U.S.C.7205(c)), BIS must submit a biennial report to the Congress on the operation of the licensing system implemented pursuant to section 906(a) for the preceding two-year period. This report must include the number and types of licenses applied for, the number and types of licenses approved, the average amount of time elapsed from the date of filing of a license application until the date of its approval, the extent to which the licensing procedures were effectively implemented, and a description of comments received from interested parties during a 30-day public comment period about the effectiveness of the licensing procedures. BIS is currently preparing a biennial report on the operation of the licensing system for the two-year period from October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2016.

    Request for Comments

    By this notice, BIS requests public comments on the effectiveness of the licensing procedures for the export of agricultural commodities to Cuba set forth under section 740.18 of the EAR. Parties submitting comments are asked to be as specific as possible. All comments received by the close of the comment period will be considered by BIS in developing the report to Congress.

    All comments must be in writing and will be available for public inspection and copying. Any information that the commenter does not wish to be made available to the public should not be submitted to BIS.

    Dated: September 2, 2016. Kevin J. Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21607 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security [Docket No. 160825782-6782-01] Effects of Extending Foreign Policy-Based Export Controls Through 2017 AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is seeking public comments on the effect of existing foreign policy-based export controls in the Export Administration Regulations. Section 6 of the Export Administration Act requires BIS to consult with industry on the effect of such controls and to report the results of the consultations to Congress. BIS is conducting the consultations through this request for public comments. Comments from all interested persons are welcome. All comments will be made available for public inspection and copying and included in a report to be submitted to Congress.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by October 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on this rule may be submitted through the Federal e-Rulemaking portal (www.regulations.gov). The regulations.gov ID for this rule is: BIS-2016-0028. Comments may also be sent by email to [email protected] or on paper to Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 2099B, Washington, DC 20230. Include the phrase “FPBEC Comment” in the subject line of the email message or on the envelope if submitting comments on paper. All comments must be in writing (either submitted to regulations.gov, by email or on paper). All comments, including Personally Identifiable Information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter will be a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection and copying. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Salinas, Foreign Policy Division, Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry and Security, telephone 202-482-2164. Copies of the current Annual Foreign Policy Report to the Congress are available at http://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/about-bis/newsroom/archives/27-about-bis/502-foreign-policy-reports, and copies may also be requested by calling the Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance at the number listed above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Foreign policy-based controls in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) are implemented pursuant to section 6 of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, (50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015)) (EAA). The current foreign policy-based export controls maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) are set forth in the EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774), including in parts 742 (CCL Based Controls), 744 (End-User and End-Use Based Controls) and 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls). These controls apply to a range of countries, items, activities and persons, including:

    • Entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States (§ 744.11);

    • Certain general purpose microprocessors for “military end-uses” and “military end-users” (§ 744.17);

    • Significant items (SI): Hot section technology for the development, production, or overhaul of commercial aircraft engines, components, and systems (§ 742.14);

    • Encryption items (§ 742.15);

    • Crime control and detection items (§ 742.7);

    • Specially designed implements of torture (§ 742.11);

    • Certain firearms and related items based on the Organization of American States Model Regulations for the Control of the International Movement of Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition included within the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials (§ 742.17) “Exports of firearms to OAS member countries”;

    • Regional stability (§ 742.6);

    • Equipment and related technical data used in the design, development, production, or use of certain rocket systems and unmanned air vehicles (§§ 742.5 and 744.3);

    • Chemical precursors and biological agents, associated equipment, technical data, and software related to the production of chemical and biological agents (§§ 742.2 and 744.4) and various chemicals included on the list of those chemicals controlled pursuant to the Chemical Weapons Convention (§ 742.18);

    • Communication intercepting devices, software and technology (§ 742.13);

    • Maritime nuclear propulsion (§ 744.5);

    • Certain foreign aircraft and vessels (§ 744.7);

    • Restrictions on exports and reexports to certain persons designated as proliferators of weapons of mass destruction (§ 744.8);

    • Certain cameras to be used by military end-users or incorporated into a military commodity (§ 744.9);

    • Countries designated as Supporters of Acts of International Terrorism (§§ 742.8, 742.9, 742.10, 742.19, 746.4, 746.7, and 746.9);

    • Industry sectors and regions related to U.S. policy towards Russia (§§ 746.5, 746.6);

    • Certain entities in Russia (§ 744.10);

    • Individual terrorists and terrorist organizations (§§ 744.12, 744.13 and 744.14);

    • Certain persons designated by Executive Order 13315 (“Blocking Property of the Former Iraqi Regime, Its Senior Officials and Their Family Members”) (§ 744.18);

    • Certain sanctioned entities (§ 744.20);

    • Embargoed countries (Part 746); and

    • U.S. and U.N. arms embargoes (§ 746.1 and Country Group D:5 of Supplement No. 1 to Part 740).

    In addition, the EAR impose foreign policy-based export controls on certain nuclear related commodities, technology, end-uses and end-users (§§ 742.3 and 744.2), in part, implementing section 309(c) of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act (42 U.S.C. 2139a).

    Under the provisions of section 6 of the EAA, export controls maintained for foreign policy purposes require annual extension. Section 6 of the EAA requires a report to Congress when foreign policy-based export controls are extended. The EAA expired on August 20, 2001. 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), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 4, 2016 (81 FR 52587 (Aug. 8, 2016)), continues the EAR and, to the extent permitted by law, the provisions of the EAA, in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706 (2000)). The Department of Commerce, as appropriate, follows the provisions of section 6 of the EAA by reviewing its foreign policy-based export controls, conducting consultations with industry on such controls through public comments and preparing a report to be submitted to Congress. In January 2015, the Secretary of Commerce, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, extended for one year all foreign policy-based export controls then in effect. BIS is now soliciting public comment on the effects of extending the existing foreign policy-based export controls from January 2017 to January 2018. Among the criteria considered in determining whether to extend U.S. foreign policy-based export controls are the following:

    1. The likelihood that such controls will achieve their intended foreign policy purposes, in light of other factors, including the availability from other countries of the goods, software or technology proposed for such controls;

    2. Whether the foreign policy objective of such controls can be achieved through negotiations or other alternative means;

    3. The compatibility of the controls with the foreign policy objectives of the United States and with overall U.S. policy toward the country subject to the controls;

    4. Whether the reaction of other countries to the extension of such controls is not likely to render the controls ineffective in achieving the intended foreign policy objective or be counterproductive to U.S. foreign policy interests;

    5. The comparative benefits to U.S. foreign policy objectives versus the effect of the controls on the export performance of the United States, the competitive position of the United States in the international economy, the international reputation of the United States as a supplier of goods and technology; and

    6. The ability of the United States to effectively enforce the controls.

    BIS is particularly interested in receiving comments on the economic impact of proliferation controls. BIS is also interested in industry information relating to the following:

    1. Information on the effect of foreign policy-based export controls on sales of U.S. products to third countries (i.e., those countries not targeted by sanctions), including the views of foreign purchasers or prospective customers regarding U.S. foreign policy-based export controls.

    2. Information on controls maintained by U.S. trade partners. For example, to what extent do U.S. trade partners have similar controls on goods and technology on a worldwide basis or to specific destinations?

    3. Information on licensing policies or practices by our foreign trade partners that are similar to U.S. foreign policy based export controls, including license review criteria, use of conditions, and requirements for pre- and post-shipment verifications (preferably supported by examples of approvals, denials and foreign regulations).

    4. Suggestions for bringing foreign policy-based export controls more into line with multilateral practice.

    5. Comments or suggestions to make multilateral controls more effective.

    6. Information that illustrates the effect of foreign policy-based export controls on trade or acquisitions by intended targets of the controls.

    7. Data or other information on the effect of foreign policy-based export controls on overall trade at the level of individual industrial sectors.

    8. Suggestions for measuring the effect of foreign policy-based export controls on trade.

    9. Information on the use of foreign policy-based export controls on targeted countries, entities, or individuals. BIS is also interested in comments relating generally to the extension or revision of existing foreign policy-based export controls.

    Parties submitting comments are asked to be as specific as possible. All comments received before the close of the comment period will be considered by BIS in reviewing the controls and in developing the report to Congress. All comments received in response to this notice will be displayed on BIS's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Web site at http://efoia.bis.doc.gov/ and on the Federal e-Rulemaking portal at www.Regulations.gov. All comments will also be included in a report to Congress, as required by section 6 of the EAA, which directs that BIS report to Congress the results of its consultations with industry on the effects of foreign policy-based controls.

    Dated: September 1, 2016. Kevin J. Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21542 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-813] Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On March 9, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the 2014-2015 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India. The review covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise: Himalya International, Ltd. (Himalya). Based on our analysis of the comments received, as well as our findings at verification, we recalculated the weighted-average dumping margin for Himalya. The final weighted-average dumping margin for Himalya is listed below in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective September 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kate Johnson or Terre Keaton Stefanova, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4929 or (202) 482-1280, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On March 9, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Results. 1 On June 15, 2016, the Department postponed the final results by 60 days.2 We invited parties to comment on the preliminary results of the review and we received a case brief from Himalya on June 21, 2016.3 The Department conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

    1See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 12463 (March 9, 2016) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying Decision Memorandum entitled “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India; 2014-2015” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    2See the June 15, 2016, memorandum entitled “Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.”

    3 The petitioner, Monterey Mushrooms Inc., did not file a case or rebuttal brief.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is certain preserved mushrooms from India. The product is currently classified under subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153, 0711.51.0000, 0711.90.4000, 2003.10.0027, 2003.10.0031, 2003.10.0037, 2003.10.0043 and 2003.10.0047 of the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of merchandise subject to the scope is dispositive.4

    4 A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the memorandum entitled “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2014-2015 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India” (Issues and Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with these results and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Period of Review

    The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2014, through January 31, 2015.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's AD and Countervailing Duty (CVD) Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, from April 4 through 8, 2016, we verified the sales and cost information submitted by Himalya for use in our final results. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by Himalya.5

    5See Memorandum to the File entitled “Verification of the Sales and Cost Responses of Himalya International Limited in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India,” dated June 9, 2016.

    Final Results of the Review

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for Himalya. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    As a result of this review, the Department determines that a weighted-average dumping margin of 6.61 percent exists for Himalya for the period February 1, 2014, through January 31, 2015.

    Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Assessment Rates

    The Department determines, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.6 We calculated importer-or customer-specific per-unit duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if the importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis.

    6See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a previous review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 11.30 percent, the all-others rate made effective by the LTFV investigation.7 These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.

    7See Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India, 64 FR 8311 (February 19, 1999).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    This administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.

    Dated: August 31, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Margin Calculations V. Discussion of the Issues 1. Allocation of Costs on a Fresh Mushroom Equivalent Basis 2. Adjustment to Ocean Freight Expense 3. Exclusion of U.S. Sales of Non-Prime Merchandise From Margin Calculations VI. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-21634 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-890] Wooden Bedroom Furniture, From the People's Republic of China: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective September 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick O'Connor, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-0989.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On January 4, 2005, the Department of Commerce (Department) published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China (PRC).1 On January 4, 2016, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the Order.2 The Department received multiple timely requests for an administrative review of the Order. On March 3, 2016, in accordance with section 751(a) of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of the initiation of an administrative review of the Order.3 The administrative review was initiated with respect to 141 companies or groups of companies, and covers the period from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015. The requesting parties have subsequently timely withdrawn all review requests for 123 of the 141 companies or groups of companies for which the Department initiated a review, as discussed below.

    1See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005) (“Order”).

    2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 81 FR 67 (January 4, 2016).

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 11179 (March 3, 2016) (“Initiation Notice”).

    Rescission of Review, in Part

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. All requesting parties withdrew their respective requests for an administrative review of the companies or groups of companies listed in the Appendix to this notice within 90 days of the date of publication of the Initiation Notice. Accordingly, the Department is rescinding this review, in part, with respect to these companies, in accordance with our practice 4 and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).5 The administrative review will continue with respect to all other firms for which a review was requested and initiated.

    4See, e.g., Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Notice of Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2014, 81 FR 7082 (February 10, 2016).

    5See Appendix. As stated in Change in Practice in NME Reviews, the Department will no longer consider the non-market economy (“NME”) entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews. See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013) (“Change in Practice in NME Reviews”). The PRC-wide entity is not subject to this administrative review because no interested party requested a review of the entity. See Initiation Notice.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as the only reminder to importers whose entries will be liquidated as a result of this rescission notice, of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's assumption that the reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: August 31, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. Appendix • Ace Furniture & Crafts Ltd. • Always Loyal International • Art Heritage International, Ltd. • Artwork Metal & Plastic Co., Ltd. • Baigou Crafts Factory of Fengkai. • Beautter Furniture Mfg. Co. • Best Beauty Furniture Co. Ltd. • Billionworth Enterprises Ltd. • Brittomart Inc. • C.F. Kent Co., Inc. • C.F. Kent Hospitality, Inc. • Century Distribution Systems, Inc. • Changshu HTC Import & Export Co., Ltd. • Cheng Meng Decoration & Furniture (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. • Cheng Meng Furniture (PTE) Ltd. • Chuan Fa Furniture Factory • Classic Furniture Global Co., Ltd. • Dalian Guangming Furniture Co., Ltd. • Dalian Huafeng Furniture Co., Ltd. • Dalian Huafeng Furniture Group Co., Ltd. • Der Cheng Furniture Co., Ltd. • Der Cheng Wooden Works Of Factory • Dongguan Bon Ten Furniture Co., Ltd. • Dongguan Chengcheng Furniture Co., Ltd. • Dongguan Dong He Furniture Co., Ltd. • Dongguan Fortune Furniture Ltd. • Dongguan Grand Style Furniture Co., Ltd. • Dongguan Jinfeng Creative Furniture • Dongguan Kingstone Furniture Co., Ltd., Kingstone Furniture Co., Ltd. • Dongguan Lung Dong Furniture Co., Ltd. • Dongguan Mingsheng Furniture Co., Ltd. • Dongguan Mu Si Furniture Co., Ltd. • Dongguan Nova Furniture Co., Ltd. • Dongguan Sunshine Furniture Co., Ltd. • Dongguan Yujia Furniture Co., Ltd. • Dongguan Zhisheng Furniture Co., Ltd. • Dongying Huanghekou Furniture Industry Co., Ltd. • Dorbest Ltd., Rui Feng Woodwork Co., Ltd. Aka Rui Feng Woodwork (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., Rui Feng Lumber Development Co., Ltd. Aka Rui Feng Lumber Development (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. • Dream Rooms Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. • Evergo Furniture Manufacturing Co., Ltd. • Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd. • Fleetwood Fine Furniture LP • Fortune Furniture Ltd. • Fortune Glory Industrial Ltd. (H.K. Ltd.), Tradewinds Furniture Ltd. • Foshan Bailan Imp. & Exp. Ltd. • Foshan Shunde Longjiang Zhishang Furniture Factory. • Fuijian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd. aka Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc. • Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd. • Guangdong New Four Seas Furniture Manufacturing Ltd. • Guangzhou Lucky Furniture Co., Ltd. • Guangzhou Maria Yee Furnishings Ltd., Pyla HK Ltd., Maria Yee, Inc. • Hainan Jong Bao Lumber Co., Ltd. • Haining Kareno Furniture Co., Ltd. • Hang Hai Woodcraft's Art Factory. • Hangzhou Jason Outdoor Furniture Co., Ltd. • Hong Kong Da Zhi Furniture Co., Ltd. • Hualing Furniture (China) Co., Ltd., Tony House Manufacture (China) Co., Ltd., Buysell Investments Ltd., Tony House Industries Co., Ltd. • Hung Fai Wood Products Factory Ltd. • Jasonwood Industrial Co., Ltd. S.A. • Jiangmen Kinwai Furniture Decoration Co., Ltd. • Jiangmen Kinwai International Furniture Co., Ltd. • Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd. • Jiangsu Xiangsheng Bedtime Furniture Co., Ltd. • Jiangsu Yuexing Furniture Group Co., Ltd. • Jiashan Zhenxuan Furniture Co., Ltd. • Jibbon Enterprise Co., Ltd. • Jibson Industries Ltd. • Jiedong Lehouse Furniture Co., Ltd. • King's Way Furniture Industries Co., Ltd. • Kingsyear Ltd. • Kunshan Summit Furniture Co., Ltd. • Liang Huang (Jiaxing) Enterprise Co., Ltd. • Nantong Yangzi Furniture Co., Ltd. • Nathan International Ltd., Nathan Rattan Factory. • Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. • Perfect Line Furniture Co., Ltd. • Prime Best Factory. • Prime Best International Co., Ltd. • Prime Wood International Co., Ltd. • Putian Jinggong Furniture Co., Ltd. • Qingdao Beiyuan Industry Trading Co., Ltd. • Qingdao Beiyuan Shengli Furniture Co., Ltd. • Qingdao Liangmu Co., Ltd. • Qingdao Shengchang Wooden Co., Ltd. • Restonic (Dongguan) Furniture Ltd., Restonic Far East (Samoa) Ltd. • Sen Yeong International Co., Ltd. • Shanghai Maoji Imp And Exp Co., Ltd. • Sheh Hau International Trading Ltd. • Shenzhen Diamond Furniture Co., Ltd. • Shenzhen Forest Furniture Co., Ltd. • Shenzhen Jiafa High Grade Furniture Co., Ltd., Golden Lion International Trading Ltd. • Shenzhen New Fudu Furniture Co., Ltd. • Shenzhen Wonderful Furniture Co., Ltd. • Shenzhen Xingli Furniture Co., Ltd. • Shing Mark Enterprise Co., Ltd., Carven Industries Limited (BVI), Carven Industries Limited (HK), Dongguan Zhenxin Furniture Co., Ltd., Dongguan Yongpeng Furniture Co., Ltd. • Songgang Jasonwood Furniture Factory. • Starwood Industries Ltd. • Strongson (HK) Co. • Strongson Furniture (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. • Strongson Furniture Co., Ltd. • Sunforce Furniture (Hui-Yang) Co., Ltd., Sun Fung Wooden Factory, Sun Fung Co., Shin Feng Furniture Co., Ltd., Stupendous International Co., Ltd. • Super Art Furniture Co., Ltd. • Superwood Co., Ltd., Lianjiang Zongyu Art Products Co., Ltd. • Teamway Furniture (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd. • Techniwood Industries Ltd., Ningbo Furniture Industries Ltd., Ningbo Hengrun Furniture Co., Ltd. • Tube-Smith Enterprise (Haimen) Co., Ltd. • Tube-Smith Enterprise (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd. • U-Rich Furniture (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd., U-Rich Furniture Ltd. • Weimei Furniture Co., Ltd. • Wuxi Yushea Furniture Co., Ltd. • Xiamen Yongquan Sci-Tech Development Co., Ltd. • Xilinmen Group Co., Ltd. • Yichun Guangming Furniture Co., Ltd. • Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd., Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd. • Zhang Zhou Sanlong Wood Product Co., Ltd. • Zhangjiagang Daye Hotel Furniture Co., Ltd. • Zhangjiang Sunwin Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd. • Zhangzhou Guohui Industrial & Trade Co., Ltd. • Zhong Shan Fullwin Furniture Co., Ltd. • Zhong Shun Wood Art Co. • Zhongshan Fookyik Furniture Co., Ltd. • Zhongshan Golden King Furniture Industrial Co., Ltd. • Zhoushan For-Strong Wood Co., Ltd.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21631 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-046] Countervailing Duty Investigation of 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid (“HEDP”) from the People's Republic of China (the “PRC”). We invite interested parties to comment on this preliminary determination.

    DATES:

    Effective September 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Javier Barrientos or Andrew Devine, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 202.482.2243 or 202.482.0238, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation includes all grades of aqueous acidic (non-neutralized) concentrations of HEDP, also referred to as hydroxyethylidenendiphosphonic acid, hydroxyethanediphosphonic acid, acetodiphosphonic acid, and etidronic acid. The Chemical Abstract Service (“CAS”) registry number for HEDP is 2809-21-4.

    The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheading 2931.90.9043. It may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 281.19.6090 and 2931.90.9041. While HTSUS subheadings and the CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes only, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”). For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memo.1 The Preliminary Decision Memo is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement & Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”).2 ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://trade.gov/enforcement/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memo and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memo are identical in content.

    1See Memorandum from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Countervailing Duty Investigation of 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From the People's Republic of China: Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination,” dated concurrently with this notice (“Preliminary Decision Memo”).

    2 On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and Compliance changed the name of Enforcement and Compliance's AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”) to AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). The Web site location was changed from http://iaaccess.trade.gov to http://access.trade.gov. The Final Rule changing the references to the Regulations can be found at 79 FR 69046.

    In making these findings, we relied, in part, on facts available and, because one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.3 For further information, see “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the Preliminary Decision Memo.

    3See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

    Alignment

    In accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), we are aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty (“AD”) investigation of HEDP from the PRC.4 Consequently, the final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued no later than January 10, 2017, unless postponed. See Preliminary Decision Memo.

    4See 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-

    Than-Fair-Value Investigation, 81 FR 25377 (April 28, 2016).

    Preliminary Determination and Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated an estimated individual countervailable subsidy rate for each producer/exporter of the subject merchandise individually investigated. We preliminarily determine these rates to be:

    5 Including Jianghai Environmental Protection Co., Ltd.

    Company Subsidy rate Shandong Taihe Chemicals Co., Ltd. (“Taihe Chemicals”) and Shandong Taihe Water Treatment Technologies Co., Ltd. (“Taihe Technologies”) 2.37 Nanjing University of Chemical Technology Changzhou Wujin Water Quality Stabilizer Factory (“Wujin Water”) 1.04 All Others 5 1.71 * Changzhou Kewei Fine Chemicals Co., Ltd 36.33 * Hebei Longke Water Treatment Co., Ltd 36.33 * Shandong Huayou Chemistry Co., Ltd 36.33 * Shandong Xintai Water Treatment Technology 36.33 * Zaozhuang Fuxing Water Treatment Technology 36.33 * Zaozhuang YouBang Chemicals Co., Ltd 36.33 * Zouping Dongfang Chemical Industry Co., Ltd 36.33 * Non-cooperative company to which an adverse facts available rate is being applied. See “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” section in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of all entries of HEDP from the PRC that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above.

    In accordance with sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, for companies not investigated, we apply an “all-others” rate, which is normally calculated by weighting the subsidy rates of the individual companies selected as mandatory respondents by those companies' exports of the subject merchandise to the United States. Under section 705(c)(5)(i) of the Act, the all-others rate should exclude zero and de minimis rates calculated for the exporters and producers individually investigated as well as rates based entirely on facts otherwise available. Notwithstanding the language of section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we have not calculated the “all-others” rate by weight averaging the rates of the two individually investigated respondents, because doing so risks disclosure of proprietary information. Therefore, for the “all-others” rate, we calculated a simple average of the two responding firms' rates.

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department will disclose calculations performed for this preliminary determination to the parties within five days of the date of public announcement of this determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Case briefs or other written comments for all non-scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.6 A table of contents, list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.

    6See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.7 Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number; the number of participants; and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a date, time and location to be determined. Parties will be notified of the date, time and location of any hearing.

    7See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

    In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: August 29, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memo I. Summary II. Background III. Alignment IV. Scope Comments V. Scope of the Investigation VI. Respondent Selection VII. Injury Test VIII. Application of CVD Law to Imports From the PRC IX. Subsidies Valuation X. Benchmarks XI. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences XII. Analysis of Programs XIII. Verification XIV. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2016-21483 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset Reviews AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    Background

    Every five years, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission automatically initiate and conduct a review to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 of the Act would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury.

    Upcoming Sunset Reviews for October 2016

    The following Sunset Reviews are scheduled for initiation in October 2016 and will appear in that month's Notice of Initiation of Five-Year Sunset Review (“Sunset Review”).

    Department contact Antidumping Duty Proceedings Artist Canvas from China (A-570-899) (2nd Review) David Goldberger (202) 482-4136. Pure Magnesium from China (A-570-832) (4th Review) David Goldberger (202) 482-4136. Countervailing Duty Proceedings

    No Sunset Review of countervailing duty orders is scheduled for initiation in October 2016.

    Suspended Investigations

    No Sunset Review of suspended investigations is scheduled for initiation in October 2016.

    The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. The Notice of Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews provides further information regarding what is required of all parties to participate in Sunset Reviews.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the Department will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact the Department in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.

    Please note that if the Department receives a Notice of Intent to Participate from a member of the domestic industry within 15 days of the date of initiation, the review will continue. Thereafter, any interested party wishing to participate in the Sunset Review must provide substantive comments in response to the notice of initiation no later than 30 days after the date of initiation.

    This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

    Dated: August 25, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21662 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-810] Stainless Steel Bar From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On March 10, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar (SSB) from India. The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2014, through January 31, 2015. Based on comments received from interested parties, we have made changes to the preliminary results. The final dumping margin for this review is listed in the “Final Results of the Review” section below.

    DATES:

    Effective September 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joseph Shuler, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1293.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Following the Preliminary Results, 1 the Department issued an additional supplemental questionnaire to Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. (Bhansali) on March 20, 2015, and received a response on April 2, 2015.2 We received timely filed case and rebuttal briefs from Bhansali and North American Stainless and Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. (the petitioners) and a case brief from Ambica Steels Limited (Ambica).3

    1See Stainless Steel Bar From India: Preliminary Results, and Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 12694 (March 10, 2016) (Preliminary Results).

    2See Letter from the Department to Bhansali, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Bar from India: Second Section D Supplemental Questionnaire,” dated March 25, 2016; see also Letter from Bhansali, “Bhansali Bright Bars Private Limited 2nd Supplemental Response to Section D of Antidumping Duty Questionnaire,” dated April 8, 2016.

    3See Letter from the petitioners to the Department, “Petitioners' Case Brief,” (Petitioner's CB), April 14, 2016; see also, letter from Bhansali to the Department, “Certain Stainless Steel Bar Product from India: Bhansali's Case Brief,” (Bhansali's CB), April 14, 2016; see also, letter from Ambica to the Department, “Stainless Steel Bar from India: Ambica Steels Ltd Case Brief,” (Ambica's CB), April 14, 2016; see also letter from the petitioners to the Department, “Petitioners' Rebuttal Brief,” (Petitioners' RB), April 25, 2016; see also, letter from Bhansali to the Department, “Stainless Steel Bar from India: Bhansali Bright Bars Private Limited's (Bhansali) Rebuttal Brief dated May 11, 2015,” (Bhansali's RB), April 28, 2016.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is SSB. The SSB subject to the order is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.10.00, 7222.11.00, 7222.19.00, 7222.20.00, 7222.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description is dispositive.4

    4 For a full description of the scope of the order, see the memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Bar from India” dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is incorporated herein by reference. A list of the issues which parties raised, and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov/login.aspx, and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes since the Preliminary Results. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Final Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we determine the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the respondents for the period February 1, 2014, through January 31, 2015.

    Producer/exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd 0.00 Ambica Steels Limited 0.00
    Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). The respondents' weighted-average dumping margin in these final results is zero percent. Therefore, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. The Department intends to issue the appropriate assessment instructions for Ambica and Bhansali to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results.

    The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Ambica and Bhansali for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate companies involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for Ambica and Bhansali will be the rates established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 12.45 percent, the “all others” rate established in the order.5 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    5See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 59 FR 66915, 66921 (December 28, 1994).

    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these final results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Notifications

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    These final results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 1, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Issues Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Changes Since the Preliminary Results IV. Scope of the Order V. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Whether to Name Respondents' Customers in Final Liquidation Instructions Comment 2: Whether Bhansali is an Uncooperative Respondent Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Accept Bhansali's Sales and Cost Data Comment 4: Whether the Department Properly Handled the Billing Adjustments in the Preliminary Results VI. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-21656 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-904] Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    For the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain activated carbon from the People's Republic of China, we find that sales were made at less than normal value. The period of review is April 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015. Based upon our analysis of the comments received, we made changes to the margin calculations for these final results of the antidumping duty administrative review. The final weighted-average dumping margins are listed below in the “Final Results of the Review” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective September 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bob Palmer or Frances Veith, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-9068, or (202) 482-4295, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the Preliminary Results1 on March 4, 2016. For events subsequent to the Preliminary Results, see the Department's final Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 On June 13, 2016,3 in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”), the Department extended the deadline for issuing the final results by 60 days. The deadline for the final results is August 31, 2016.

    1See Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 11513 (March 4, 2016), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (“Preliminary Results”).

    2See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, regarding “Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Eighth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,” dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice, (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”).

    3See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary, through James C. Doyle, Director, Office V, from Bob Palmer International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office V, regarding “Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of 2014-2015 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,” dated June 13, 2016.

    Verification

    Pursuant to section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), and 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), we conducted verification of Jacobi's U.S. sales from March 29-30, 2016.4

    4See Memorandum to the File, through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office V, from Bob Palmer and Ryan Mullen, International Trade Compliance Analysts, Office V, “Verification of the Constructed Export Price (“CEP”) Sales Response of Jacobi Carbons AB in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China,” dated April 5, 2016.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the Order5 is certain activated carbon. The products are currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheading 3802.1000. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order remains dispositive.6

    5See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 20988 (April 27, 2007) (“Order”).

    6See Issues and Decision Memorandum for a complete description of the Scope of the Order.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    In the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we addressed all issues raised in parties' case and rebuttal briefs. In Appendix I to this notice, we have provided a list of the issues raised by parties. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building, as well as electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and it is available to all parties in the CRU. In addition, parties can directly access a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we have made certain revisions to the margin calculations for Jacobi, Datong Juqiang, and the non-examined, separate rate respondents.7 Further, the Surrogate Values Memo 8 contains descriptions of our changes to the surrogate values.

    7See Issues and Decision Memorandum and the company-specific analysis memoranda for further explanation regarding these changes.

    8See Memorandum to the File, through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office V, from Bob Palmer, Case Analyst, Office V, Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”): Surrogate Values for the Final Results,” dated concurrently with this notice (“Surrogate Values Memo”).

    Final Determination of No Shipments

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily determined that Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. Ltd. had no shipments during the period of review (“POR”).9 We have received no information to contradict this determination. Therefore, the Department continues to determine that Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. Ltd. had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, and will issue appropriate liquidation instructions that are consistent with our “automatic assessment” clarification, for these final results.10

    9See Preliminary Determination at 11513.

    10See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 4, 2011) (“Assessment Practice Refinement”).

    Separate Rate Respondents

    In our Preliminary Results, we determined that the following companies (including both mandatory respondents) met the criteria for separate rate status:

    • Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd.11

    11 In the first administrative review, the Department found Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd., Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., and Guanghua are a single entity and there is no information on the record to indicate the facts have changed. Therefore, we continue to treat these companies as a single entity. See Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Extension of Time Limits for the Final Results, 74 FR 21317 (May 7, 2009), unchanged in First Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 57995 (November 10, 2009) (“AR1 Carbon”); AR5 PRC Carbon Final, 78 FR at 70535; Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 70163, 70165 (November 26, 2013) at footnote 33.

    • Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.;

    • Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.;

    • Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.;

    • Jacobi Carbons AB; Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd.;

    • Ningxia Guanghua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (“Guanghua”);

    • Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.;

    • Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.;

    • Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Limited;

    • Shanxi Dapu International Trade Co., Ltd.;

    • Shanxi DMD Corporation;

    • Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd.;

    • Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd.;

    • Shanxi Tianxi Purification Filter Co., Ltd.;

    • Sinoacarbon International Trading Co., Ltd.;

    • Tancarb Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.;

    • Tianjin Channel Filters Co., Ltd.; and

    • Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd.12

    12See Preliminary Results, 81 FR 11514; Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 6-11.

    We have received no comments or argument since the issuance of the Preliminary Results that provides a basis for reconsideration of these determinations. Therefore, the Department continues to find that the companies listed above meet the criteria for a separate rate.

    Rate for Non-Examined Separate Rate Respondents

    In the Preliminary Results, 13 and consistent with the Department's practice,14 we assigned the non-examined, separate rate companies a rate equal to the weighted average of the calculated weighted-average dumping margins for the mandatory respondents that are not zero, de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent) or based entirely on facts available, weighted by the total U.S. sales quantities from the public version of the submissions from the mandatory respondents.15 No parties commented on the methodology for calculating this separate rate. For the final results, we continue to apply this approach, as it is consistent with the intent of section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act and our use of section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act.16

    13See Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 10-11.

    14See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 56158, 56160 (September 12, 2011) (“Vietnam Shrimp”).

    15See Jacobi's public version of its supplemental Section A questionnaire response, dated July 31, 2015, at Exhibit A-1; see also Datong Juqiang's Public Version of Exhibit A-1 for the Section A Response, dated July 20, 2015.

    16See Vietnam Shrimp, 76 FR at 56160.

    Final Results of the Review

    For companies subject to this review, which established their eligibility for a separate rate, the Department determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR from April 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015:

    Exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (USD/kg) 17
  • Jacobi Carbons AB 18 1.756 Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 0.020 Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd 1.357 Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 1.357 Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd 1.357 Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 19 1.357 Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 1.357 Ningxia Mineral and Chemical Limited 1.357 Shanxi DMD Corporation 1.357 Shanxi Dapu International Trade Co., Ltd 1.357 Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd 1.357 Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd 1.357 Shanxi Tianxi Purification Filter Co., Ltd 1.357 Sinoacarbon International Trading Co., Ltd 1.357 Tancarb Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 1.357 Tianjin Channel Filters Co., Ltd 1.357 Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd 1.357

    The Department finds that 181 companies for which a review was requested did not establish eligibility for a separate rate because they either failed to provide a timely response to a separate rate application (“SRA”), to a supplemental questionnaire, or did not file a SRA or a separate rate certification (“SRC”).20 As such, we determine these companies, listed in Appendix II of this notice, to be part of the PRC-wide entity. Because no party requested a review of the PRC-wide entity and the Department no longer considers the PRC-wide entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews,21 we did not conduct a review of the PRC-wide entity. Thus, the weighted-average dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity (i.e., 2.42 USD/kg) 22 is not subject to change as a result of this review.

    17 In the second administrative review of the Order, the Department determined that it would calculate per-unit weighted-average dumping margins and assessment rates for all future reviews. See Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 70208, 70211 (November 17, 2010).

    18 In the third administrative review of the Order, the Department found that Jacobi Carbons AB, Tianjin Jacobi International Trading Co. Ltd., and Jacobi Carbons Industry (Tianjin) are a single entity and, because there were no changes to the facts which supported that decision since that determination was made, we continue to find that these companies are part of a single entity for this administrative review. See Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 67142 (October 31, 2011); Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China; 2010-2011; Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China; 2010-2011; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 67337, 67338 (November 9, 2012); Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China; 2011-2012; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 78 FR 70533, 70535 (November 26, 2013); Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 70163, 70165 (November 25, 2014). Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 67337, 67338 (November 9, 2012); Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China; 2011-2012; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 78 FR 70533, 70535 (November 26, 2013); Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 70163, 70165 (November 25, 2014), and; Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 80 FR 61172 (October 9, 2015) (“AR5 Final”). See also Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    19 In the first administrative review of the Order, the Department found that Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd., Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., and Ningxia Guanghua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. are a single entity and, because there were no changes to the facts which supported that decision since that determination, we continue to find that these companies are part of a single entity for this administrative review. See Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Extension of Time Limits for the Final Results, 74 FR 21317 (May 7, 2009), unchanged in First Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 57995 (November 10, 2009); and Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 2011-2012, 78 FR 70533 (November 26, 2013) at footnote 33; Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 70163, 70165 (November 25, 2014), and AR5 Final. See also Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    20 Two companies, Beijing Embrace Technology Co. Ltd. (“Beijing Embrace”) and Shanxi Carbon Industry Co., Ltd. (“Shanxi Carbon”), did not establish eligibility for a separate rate because Beijing Embrace and Shanxi Carbon failed to provide a timely response to a separate rate application (“SRA”) or to a supplemental questionnaire and 179 companies did not establish eligibility for a separate rate because they did not provide the Department with a response to a SRA or a separate rate certification (“SRC”). See Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 9.

    21See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963, 65969-70 (November 4, 2013).

    22See Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 70163, 70165 (November 25, 2014).

    Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of these final results of this review.

    For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is above the de minimis threshold (i.e., 0.50 percent), the Department will calculate importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales and the total entered value of sales. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

    As the Department stated in the most recent administrative review,23 we will continue to direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates 24 based on per-unit (i.e., per-kilogram) rates. Specifically, we calculated importer-specific, antidumping duty assessment rates on a per-unit rate basis by dividing the total amount of dumping for each importer by the total sales quantity of subject merchandise sold to that importer during the POR.

    23See Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 80 FR 61172, 61175 (October 9, 2015).

    24See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    Pursuant to a refinement in the Department's non-market economy (“NME”) practice, for sales that were not reported in the U.S. sales data submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries associated with those sales at the rate for the PRC-wide entity. In addition, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's cash deposit rate) will be liquidated at the rate for the PRC-wide entity.25

    25 For a full discussion of this practice, see Assessment Practice Refinement, 76 FR at 65694.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following per-unit cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Jacobi, Datong, and the non-examined, separate rate respondents, the cash deposit rate will be equal to their weighted-average dumping margins established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which they were reviewed; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity (i.e., 2.42 USD/kg); and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These per-unit cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Notification to Importers Regarding the Reimbursement of Duties

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: August 31, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Issues and Decision Memorandum Summary Background Scope of the Order Changes Since the Preliminary Results Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Value Added Tax (“VAT”) and Entered Value Comment 2: Surrogate Country Selection Comment 3: Anthracite Coal Surrogate Value Comment 4: Whether to Account for In-Bound Freight for the Anthracite Coal Surrogate Value Comment 5: Carbonized Material Surrogate Value Comment 6: Hydrochloric Acid (“HCl”) Surrogate Value Comment 7: Labor Comment 8: Coal Tar Surrogate Value Comment 9: Brokerage and Handling Surrogate Value Comment 10: Financial Statements Selection Comment 11: Whether the Department Should Treat Sales Through Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon USA LLC (“DJAC USA”) as Export Price (“EP”) Sales Comment 12: The Proper Basis for the Calculation of U.S. Duty Expenses Comment 13: U.S. CBP Entries Incorrectly Attributed to Datong Juqiang Comment 14: Whether Jacobi's Purchased Carbonized Materials are Correctly Valued Comment 15: Whether to Cap Jacobi's U.S. Freight Revenue Recommendation Appendix II Companies Not Establishing Eligibility for a Separate Rate and Treated as Part of PRC-Wide Entity Company name 1  AmeriAsia Advanced Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd. 2  Anhui Handfull International Trading (Group) Co., Ltd. 3  Anhui Hengyuan Trade Co. Ltd. 4  Anyang Sino-Shon International Trading Co., Ltd. 5  Baoding Activated Carbon Factory. 6  Beijing Broad Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 7  Beijing Embrace Technology Co. Ltd. 8  Beijing Haijian Jiechang Environmental Protection Chemicals. 9  Beijing Hibridge Trading Co., Ltd. 10  Bengbu Jiuton Trade Co. Ltd. 11  Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd. 12  Changji Hongke Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 13  Chengde Jiayu Activated Carbon Factory. 14  China National Building Materials and Equipment Import and Export Corp. 15  China National Nuclear General Company Ningxia Activated Carbon Factory. 16  China Nuclear Ningxia Activated Carbon Plant. 17  China SDIC International Trade Co., Ltd. 18  Da Neng Zheng Da Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 19  Datong Carbon Corporation. 20  Datong Changtai Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 21  Datong City Zuoyun County Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 22  Datong Fenghua Activated Carbon. 23  Datong Forward Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 24  Datong Fuping Activated Carbon Co. Ltd. 25  Datong Guanghua Activated Co., Ltd. 26  Datong Hongtai Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 27  Datong Huanqing Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 28  Datong Huaxin Activated Carbon. 29  Datong Huibao Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 30  Datong Huibao Active Carbon Co., Ltd. 31  Datong Huiyuan Cooperative Activated Carbon Plant. 32  Datong Kaneng Carbon Co. Ltd. 33  Datong Locomotive Coal & Chemicals Co., Ltd. 34  Datong Tianzhao Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 35  DaTong Tri-Star & Power Carbon Plant. 36  Datong Weidu Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 37  Datong Xuanyang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 38  Datong Zuoyun Biyun Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 39  Datong Zuoyun Fu Ping Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 40  Dongguan Baofu Activated Carbon. 41  Dongguan SYS Hitek Co., Ltd. 42  Dushanzi Chemical Factory. 43  Fijian Zhixing Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 44  Fu Yuan Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 45  Fujian Jianyang Carbon Plant. 46  Fujian Nanping Yuanli Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 47  Fujian Xinsen Carbon Co., Ltd. 48  Fujian Yuanli Active Carbon Co., Ltd. 49  Fuzhou Taking Chemical. 50  Fuzhou Yihuan Carbon. 51  Great Bright Industrial. 52  Hangzhou Hengxing Activated Carbon. 53  Hangzhou Hengxing Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 54  Hangzhou Linan Tianbo Material (HSLATB). 55  Hangzhou Nature Technology. 56  Hangzhou Waterland Environment Technologies Co., Ltd. 57  Hebei Foreign Trade and Advertising Corporation. 58  Hebei Shenglun Import & Export Group Company. 59  Hegongye Ninxia Activated Carbon Factory. 60  Heilongjiang Provincial Hechang Import & Export Co., Ltd. 61  Hongke Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 62  Huaibei Environment Protection Material Plant. 63  Huairen Huanyu Purification Material Co., Ltd. 64  Huairen Jinbei Chemical Co., Ltd. 65  Huaiyushan Activated Carbon Group. 66  Huatai Activated Carbon. 67  Huzhou Zhonglin Activated Carbon. 68  Inner Mongolia Taixi Coal Chemical Industry Limited Company. 69  Itigi Corp. Ltd. 70  J&D Activated Carbon Filter Co. Ltd. 71  Jiangle County Xinhua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 72  Jiangsu Taixing Yixin Activated Carbon Technology Co., Ltd. 73  Jiangxi Hanson Import Export Co. 74  Jiangxi Huaiyushan Activated Carbon. 75  Jiangxi Huaiyushan Activated Carbon Group Co. 76  Jiangxi Huaiyushan Suntar Active Carbon Co., Ltd. 77  Jiangxi Jinma Carbon. 78  Jiangxi Yuanli Huaiyushan Active Carbon Co., Ltd. 79  Jianou Zhixing Activated Carbon. 80  Jiaocheng Xinxin Purification Material Co., Ltd. 81  Jilin Province Bright Future Industry and Commerce Co., Ltd. 82  Jing Mao (Dongguan) Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 83  Kaihua Xingda Chemical Co., Ltd. 84  Kemflo (Nanjing) Environmental Tech. 85  Keyun Shipping (Tianjin) Agency Co., Ltd. 86  Kunshan Actview Carbon Technology Co., Ltd. 87  Langfang Winfield Filtration Co. 88  Link Shipping Limited. 89  Longyan Wanan Activated Carbon. 90  Meadwestvaco (China) Holding Co., Ltd. 91  Mindong Lianyi Group. 92  Nanjing Mulinsen Charcoal. 93  Nantong Ameriasia Advanced Activated Carbon Product Co., Ltd. 94  Ningxi Baiyun Carbon Co., Ltd. 95  Ningxia Baota Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 96  Ningxia Baota Active Carbon Plant. 97  Ningxia Blue-White-Black Activated Carbon (BWB). 98  Ningxia Fengyuan Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 99  Ningxia Guanghua Chemical Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 100  Ningxia Haoqing Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 101  Ningxia Henghui Activated Carbon. 102  Ningxia Honghua Carbon Industrial Corporation. 103  Ningxia Huinong Xingsheng Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 104  Ningxia Jirui Activated Carbon. 105  Ningxia Lingzhou Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. 106  Ningxia Luyuangheng Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 107  Ningxia Pingluo County Yaofu Activated Carbon Plant. 108  Ningxia Pingluo Xuanzhong Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 109  Ningxia Pingluo Yaofu Activated Carbon Factory. 110  Ningxia Taixi Activated Carbon. 111  Ningxia Tianfu Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 112  Ningxia Weining Active Carbon Co., Ltd. 113  Ningxia Xingsheng Coal and Active Carbon Co., Ltd. 114  Ningxia Xingsheng Coke & Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 115  Ningxia Yinchuan Lanqiya Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 116  Ningxia Yirong Alloy Iron Co., Ltd. 117  Ningxia Zhengyuan Activated. 118  Ningzxia Guanghua A/C Co., Ltd. 119  Ninxia Tongfu Coking Co., Ltd. 120  Nuclear Ningxia Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 121  OEC Logistic Qingdao Co., Ltd. 122  OEC Logistics Co., Ltd. (Tianjin). 123  Panshan Import and Export Corporation. 124  Pingluo Xuanzhong Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 125  Pingluo Yu Yang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 126  Shanghai Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 127  Shanghai Astronautical Science Technology Development Corporation. 128  Shanghai Coking and Chemical Corporation. 129  Shanghai Goldenbridge International. 130  Shanghai Jiayu International Trading (Dezhou Jiayu and Chengde Jiayu). 131  Shanghai Jinhu Activated Carbon (Xingan Shenxin and Jiangle Xinhua). 132  Shanghai Light Industry and Textile Import & Export Co., Ltd. 133  Shanghai Mebao Activated Carbon. 134  Shanghai Xingchang Activated Carbon. 135  Shanxi Blue Sky Purification Material Co., Ltd. 136  Shanxi Carbon Industry Co., Ltd. 137  Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd. 138  Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation. 139  Shanxi Qixian Hongkai Active Carbon Goods. 140  Shanxi Supply and Marketing Cooperative. 141  Shanxi Tianli Ruihai Enterprise Co. 142  Shanxi U Rely International Trade. 143  Shanxi Xiaoyi Huanyu Chemicals Co., Ltd. 144  Shanxi Xinhua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 145  Shanxi Xinhua Chemical Co., Ltd. (formerly Shanxi Xinhua Chemical Factory). 146  Shanxi Xinhua Protective Equipment. 147  Shanxi Xinshidai Import Export Co., Ltd. 148  Shanxi Xuanzhong Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. 149  Shanxi Zuoyun Yunpeng Coal Chemistry. 150  Shenzhen Sihaiweilong Technology Co. 151  Shijiazhuang Xinshuang Trade Co., Ltd. 152  Sincere Carbon Industrial Co. Ltd. 153  Taining Jinhu Carbon. 154  Taiyuan Hengxinda Trade Co., Ltd. 155  Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd. 156  Tianchang (Tianjin) Activated Carbon. 157  Tianjin Century Promote International Trade Co., Ltd. 158  Tonghua Bright Future Activated Carbon Plant. 159  Tonghua Xinpeng Activated Carbon Factory. 160  Top One International Trading Co., Ltd. 161  Triple Eagle Container Line. 162  Uniclear New-Material Co., Ltd. 163  United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd. 164  Valqua Seal Products (Shanghai) Co. 165  VitaPac (HK) Industrial Ltd. 166  Wellink Chemical Industry. 167  Xi Li Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 168  Xi'an Shuntong International Trade & Industrials Co., Ltd. 169  Xiamen All Carbon Corporation. 170  Xingan County Shenxin Activated Carbon Factory. 171  Xinhua Chemical Company Ltd. 172  Xuanzhong Chemical Industry. 173  Yangyuan Hengchang Active Carbon. 174  Yicheng Logistics. 175  Yinchuan Lanqiya Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 176  Zhejiang Quizhou Zhongsen Carbon. 177  Zhejiang Topc Chemical Industry Co. 178  Zhejiang Xingda Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 179  Zhejiang Yun He Tang Co., Ltd. 180  Zhuxi Activated Carbon. 181  Zuoyun Bright Future Activated Carbon Plant.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21660 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-821-809] Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From the Russian Federation: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective September 8, 2016.

    SUMMARY:

    As a result of this sunset review, the Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products (hot-rolled steel) from the Russian Federation (Russia) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the rates identified in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Dena Crossland, AD/CVD Operations, Offices VII and VI, respectively, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5255 and (202) 482-3362, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Department published the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Russia on December 24, 2014.1 On May 2, 2016, the Department initiated a sunset review of the Russia Order in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2 On May 16, 2016, and May 17, 2016, the Department received notices of intent to participate from United States Steel Corporation, SSAB Enterprises LLC, Steel Dynamics, Inc., ArcelorMittal USA, LLC, AK Steel Corporation, and Nucor Corporation (collectively, domestic interested parties), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). Domestic interested parties are manufacturers of a domestic like product in the United States and, accordingly, are domestic interested parties pursuant to section 771(9)(C) of the Act.

    1See Termination of the Suspension Agreement on Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From the Russian Federation, Rescission of 2013-2014 Administrative Review, and Issuance of Antidumping Duty Order, 79 FR 77455 (December 24, 2014) (Russia Order).

    2See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 81 FR 26209 (May 2, 2016).

    On June 1, 2016, the Department received an adequate substantive response to the notice of initiation from domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department did not receive any responses from the respondent interested parties, i.e., hot-rolled steel producers and exporters from Russia. On the basis of the notices of intent to participate and adequate substantive responses filed by the domestic interested parties and no response from any respondent interested party, the Department conducted an expedited sunset review of the Russia Order pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C).

    Scope of the Order

    For the purposes of this order, “hot-rolled steel” means certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness.

    Universal mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this order.

    Specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum.

    Steel products to be included in the scope of this order, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions, are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.012 percent of boron, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium.

    All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this order:

    —Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including e.g., ASTM specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, and A506). —SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and higher. —Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS. —Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS. —Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 1.50 percent. —ASTM specifications A710 and A736. —USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500). —Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications: C Mn P S Si Cr Cu Ni 0.10-0.14% 0.90% Max 0.025% Max 0.005% Max 0.30-0.50% 0.50-.70% 0.20-0.40% 0.20% Max. Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.063-0.198 inches; Yield Strength = 50,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 70,000-88,000 psi. —Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications: C Mn P S Si Cr Cu Ni Mo 0.10-0.16% 0.70%-0.90% 0.25%Max 0.006% Max 0.30-0.50% 0.50-0.70% 0.25% Max 0.20% Max 0.21% Max. Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi Aim. —Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications: C Mn P S Si Cr Cu Ni V
  • (wt.)
  • Cb
    0.10-0.14% 1.30-1.80% 0.025% Max 0.005% Max 0.30-0.50% 0.50-0.70% 0.20-0.40% 0.20% Max. 0.10 Max 0.08% Max. Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi Aim.
    —Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications: C Mn P S Si Cr Cu Ni Nb Ca A1 0.15% Max. 1.40% Max 0.025% Max 0.010% Max 0.50% Max 1.00% Max 0.50% Max 0.20% Max 0.005% Nax Treated 0.001-0.07%. Width = 39.37 inches; Thickness = 0.181 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 70,000 psi minimum for thicknesses ≤ 0.148 inches and 65,000 psi minimum for thicknesses >0.148 inches; Tensile Strength = 80,000 psi minimum. —Hot-rolled dual phase steel, phase-hardened, primarily with a ferritic-martensitic microstructure, contains 0.9 percent up to and including 1.5 percent silicon by weight, further characterized by either (i) tensile strength between 540 N/mm2 and 640 N/mm2 and an elongation percentage 26 percent for thicknesses of 2 mm and above, or (ii) a tensile strength between 590 N/mm2 and 690 N/mm2 and an elongation percentage 25 percent for thicknesses of 2 mm and above. —Hot-rolled bearing quality steel, SAE grade 1050, in coils, with an inclusion rating of 1.0 maximum per ASTM E 45, Method A, with excellent surface quality and chemistry restrictions as follows: —0.012 percent maximum phosphorus, 0.015 percent maximum sulfur, and 0.20 percent maximum residuals including 0.15 percent maximum chromium. —Grade ASTM A570-50 hot-rolled steel sheet in coils or cut lengths, width of 74 inches (nominal, within ASTM tolerances), thickness of 11 gauge (0.119 inch nominal), mill edge and skin passed, with a minimum copper content of 0.20 percent.

    The covered merchandise is classified in the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, 7211.19.75.90, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, 7212.50.00.00. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel covered include: Vacuum degassed, fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum 3 are the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping, and the magnitude of the margins of dumping likely to prevail if this order was revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in the Decision Memorandum which is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit in Room B8024 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://trade.gov/enforcement/. The signed Decision Memorandum and electronic versions of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    3See Department Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Flat Products from the Russian Federation; Final Results,” dated concurrently with this notice (Decision Memorandum).

    Final Results of Review

    Pursuant to sections 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the Russia Order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at weighted average margins up to the following:

    Exporter/producer Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • JSC Severstal 73.59 Russia-Wide Rate 184.56
    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return of destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    The Department is issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.

    Dated: August 30, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance/
    [FR Doc. 2016-21652 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.

    Background

    Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.

    All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.

    Respondent Selection

    In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Therefore, we encourage all parties interested in commenting on respondent selection to submit their APO applications on the date of publication of the initiation notice, or as soon thereafter as possible. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record of the review.

    In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

    In general, the Department finds that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, the Department will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of this review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this antidumping proceeding (i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to this review, if the Department determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, the Department will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, the Department will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Quantity and Value Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where the Department considered collapsing that entity, complete quantity and value data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

    Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that requests a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that, with regard to reviews requested on the basis of anniversary months on or after September 2016, the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    The Department is providing this notice on its Web site, as well as in its “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” notices, so that interested parties will be aware of the manner in which the Department intends to exercise its discretion in the future.

    Opportunity to Request a Review: Not later than the last day of September 2016,1 interested parties may request administrative review of the following orders, findings, or suspended investigations, with anniversary dates in September for the following periods:

    1 Or the next business day, if the deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday or any other day when the Department is closed.

    Period of review Antidumping Duty Proceedings Belarus: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars A-822-804 9/1/15-8/31/16 India: Lined Paper Products A-533-843 9/1/15-8/31/16 India: Oil Country Tubular Goods A-533-857 9/1/15-8/31/16 Indonesia: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars A-560-811 9/1/15-8/31/16 Japan: Stainless Steel Wire Rod A-588-843 9/1/15-8/31/16 Latvia: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars A-449-804 9/1/15-8/31/16 Mexico: Magnesia Carbon Bricks A-201-837 9/1/15-8/31/16 Moldova: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars -841-804 9/1/15-8/31/16 Poland: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars A-455-803 9/1/15-8/31/16 Republic of Korea: Oil Country Tubular Goods A-580-870 9/1/15-8/31/16 Republic of Korea: Stainless Steel Wire Rod A-580-829 9/1/15-8/31/16 Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Oil Country Tubular Goods A-552-817 9/1/15-8/31/16 Taiwan: Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge A-583-844 9/1/15-8/31/16 Taiwan: Oil Country Tubular Goods A-583-850 9/1/15-8/31/16 Taiwan: Raw Flexible Magnets A-583-842 9/1/15-8/31/16 Taiwan: Stainless Steel Wire Rod A-583-828 9/1/15-8/31/16 The People's Republic of China: Freshwater Crawfish Tailmeat A-570-848 9/1/15-8/31/16 The People's Republic of China: Foundry Coke A-570-862 9/1/15-8/31/16 The People's Republic of China: Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks A-570-941 9/1/15-8/31/16 The People's Republic of China: Lined Paper Products A-570-901 9/1/15-8/31/16 The People's Republic of China: Magnesia Carbon Bricks A-570-954 9/1/15-8/31/16 The People's Republic of China: Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge A-570-952 9/1/15-8/31/16 The People's Republic of China: New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires A-570-912 9/1/15-8/31/16 The People's Republic of China: Raw Flexible Magnets A-570-922 9/1/15-8/31/16 The People's Republic of China: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars A-570-860 9/1/15-8/31/16 Turkey: Oil Country Tubular Goods A-489-816 9/1/15-8/31/16 Ukraine: Solid Agricultural Grade Ammonium Nitrate A-823-810 9/1/15-8/31/16 Ukraine: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars A-823-809 9/1/15-8/31/16 Countervailing Duty Proceedings India: Lined Paper Products C-533-844 1/1/15-12/31/15 India: Oil Country Tubular Goods C-533-858 1/1/15-12/31/15 The People's Republic of China: Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks C-570-942 1/1/15-12/31/15 The People's Republic of China: Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge C-570-953 1/1/15-12/31/15 The People's Republic of China: New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires C-570-913 1/1/15-12/31/15 The People's Republic of China: Raw Flexible Magnets C-570-923 1/1/15-12/31/15 The People's Republic of China: Magnesia Carbon Bricks C-570-955 1/1/15-12/31/15 Turkey: Oil Country Tubular Goods C-489-817 1/1/15-12/31/15 Suspension agreements Argentina: Lemon Juice A-357-818 9/1/15-8/31/16

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review. In addition, a domestic interested party or an interested party described in section 771(9)(B) of the Act must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which was produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover.

    Note that, for any party the Department was unable to locate in prior segments, the Department will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).

    As explained in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), and Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) the Department clarified its practice with respect to the collection of final antidumping duties on imports of merchandise where intermediate firms are involved. The public should be aware of this clarification in determining whether to request an administrative review of merchandise subject to antidumping findings and orders.2

    2See also the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at http://trade.gov/enforcement/.

    Further, as explained in Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013), the Department clarified its practice with regard to the conditional review of the non-market economy (NME) entity in administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders. The Department will no longer consider the NME entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews. Accordingly, the NME entity will not be under review unless the Department specifically receives a request for, or self-initiates, a review of the NME entity.3 In administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders on merchandise from NME countries where a review of the NME entity has not been initiated, but where an individual exporter for which a review was initiated does not qualify for a separate rate, the Department will issue a final decision indicating that the company in question is part of the NME entity. However, in that situation, because no review of the NME entity was conducted, the NME entity's entries were not subject to the review and the rate for the NME entity is not subject to change as a result of that review (although the rate for the individual exporter may change as a function of the finding that the exporter is part of the NME entity). Following initiation of an antidumping administrative review when there is no review requested of the NME entity, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries for all exporters not named in the initiation notice, including those that were suspended at the NME entity rate.

    3 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), parties should specify that they are requesting a review of entries from exporters comprising the entity, and to the extent possible, include the names of such exporters in their request.

    All requests must be filed electronically in Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”) on Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS Web site at http://access.trade.gov. 4 Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(l)(i), a copy of each request must be served on the petitioner and each exporter or producer specified in the request.

    4See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of “Initiation of Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation” for requests received by the last day of September 2016. If the Department does not receive, by the last day of September 2016, a request for review of entries covered by an order, finding, or suspended investigation listed in this notice and for the period identified above, the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping or countervailing duties on those entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or bond for) estimated antidumping or countervailing duties required on those entries at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption and to continue to collect the cash deposit previously ordered.

    For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the period of review.

    This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

    Dated: August 25, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary, for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21659 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-533-872] Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From India: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective September 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Emily Maloof at (202) 482-5649, or Davina Friedmann at (202) 482-0698, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On July 20, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a countervailing duty investigation on finished carbon steel flanges from India.1 Currently, the preliminary determination is due no later than September 23, 2016.

    1See Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From India: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 81 FR 49625 (July 28, 2016).

    Postponement of the Preliminary Determinations

    Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a countervailing duty investigation within 65 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, if the petitioner makes a timely request for an extension in accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act allows the Department to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation.

    On August 24, 2016, Petitioners 2 submitted a timely request pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e) to postpone the preliminary determination.3 In its request, Petitioners state: “As the Department has not yet made a selection of mandatory respondents, Petitioners seek postponement of the preliminary determination to permit the Department sufficient time to receive, analyze, and comment on the questionnaire responses prior to the preliminary determination.” 4

    2 Weldbend Corporation (Weldbend) and Boltex Manufacturing Co., L.P. (Boltex) (collectively, Petitioners).

    3See Letter from Petitioners, “Re: Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from India: Request for the Postponement of the Preliminary Determination,” dated August 24, 2016.

    4Id., at 1-2.

    For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, the Department, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination to no later than 124 days after the day on which the investigation was initiated. As a result, the Department will issue its preliminary determination no later than November 21, 2016. In accordance with section 735(a)(1) of the Act, the deadline for the final determination of this investigation will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination, unless postponed at a later date.

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

    Dated: August 31, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21653 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology National Institute of Standards and Technology Performance Review Board Membership AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice lists the membership of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Performance Review Board (NIST PRB) and supersedes the list published on September 3, 2014.

    DATES:

    The changes to the NIST PRB membership list announced in this notice are effective September 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Didi Hanlein at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, (301) 975-3020 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology Performance Review Board (NIST PRB or Board) reviews performance appraisals, agreements, and recommended actions pertaining to employees in the Senior Executive Service and ST-3104 employees. The Board makes recommendations to the appropriate appointing authority concerning such matters so as to ensure the fair and equitable treatment of these individuals.

    This notice lists the membership of the NIST PRB and supersedes the list published in the Federal Register on September 3, 2014 (79 FR 52304).

    NIST PRB Members Robert Fangmeyer (C) (alternate), Director, Baldrige Performance Excellence Program, National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, Appointment Expires: 12/31/18. Richard Kayser, Jr. (C), Chief Safety Officer, National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, Appointment Expires: 12/31/16. James St. Pierre (C) (alternate), Deputy Director, Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, Appointment Expires: 12/31/18. Howard Harary (C), Director, Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, Appointment Expires: 12/31/18. Carroll Thomas (C) (alternate), Director, Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, Appointment Expires: 12/31/18. Angela Simpson (NC), Deputy Assistant Secretary, National Telecommunications & Information Administration, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, Appointment Expires: 12/31/16. Jennifer Ayers (C), Director, Office of the Secretary Financial Management, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, Appointment Expires: 12/31/18. Kevin Kimball, NIST Chief of Staff.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21538 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Membership of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Performance Review Board AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Membership of the NOAA Performance Review Board.

    SUMMARY:

    NOAA announces the appointment of members who will serve on the NOAA Performance Review Board (PRB). The NOAA PRB is responsible for reviewing performance appraisals and ratings of Senior Executive Service (SES), Senior Level (SL), and Scientific and Professional (ST) members and making written recommendations to the appointing authority on retention and compensation matters, including performance-based pay adjustments, awarding of bonuses, and reviewing recommendations for potential Presidential Rank Award nominees. The appointment of members to the NOAA PRB will be for a period of two (2) years.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: The effective date of service of the nine appointees to the NOAA Performance Review Board is September 30, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christine Nalli, Director, Executive Resources Division, Workforce Management Office, NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, (301) 713-6357.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The names and positions of the members for the 2016 NOAA PRB are set forth below:

    John D. Murphy, Chair: Chief Operating Officer National Weather Service RDML Anita L. Lopez, Co-Chair: Deputy Director for Operations, OMAO and Deputy Director, NOAA Corps, Office of Marine and Aviation Operations Jon Alexander: Deputy Director, Financial Management Systems, U.S. Department of Commerce Gordon T. Alston: Director, Financial Reporting And Internal Controls, U.S. Department of Commerce Christopher Cartwright: Chief Financial Officer/Chief Administrative Officer, National Ocean Service Ciaran M. Clayton: Director of Communications, Office of the Under Secretary Zachary G. Goldstein: Chief Information Officer and Director for High Performance Computing and Communications, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary Irene Parker: Assistant Chief Information Officer, National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service Russell F. Smith, III: Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Fisheries, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary Dated: August 19, 2016. Kathryn D. Sullivan, Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21478 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE869 Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting and hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its American Samoa Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) Advisory Panel (AP) and Hawaii Archipelago FEP AP to discuss and make recommendations on fishery management issues in the Western Pacific Region.

    DATES:

    The American Samoa Archipelago FEP AP will meet on Friday, September 23, 2016, between 4:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. and the Hawaii Archipelago FEP AP will meet on Thursday, September 29, 2016, between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. All times listed are local island times. For specific times and agendas, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The American Samoa Archipelago FEP AP will meet at the Pacific Petroleum Conference Room Utulei Village, American Samoa. The Hawaii Archipelago FEP AP will meet at the Council Office, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813 and by teleconference. The teleconference will be conducted by telephone. The teleconference numbers are: U.S. toll-free: 1-888-482-3560 or International Access: +1 647 723-3959, and Access Code: 5228220.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (808) 522-8220.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public comment periods will be provided in the agenda. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.

    Schedule and Agenda for the American Samoa Archipelago FEP AP Meeting Friday, September 23, 2016, 4:30 p.m.-6:30 p.m. 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Outstanding Council Action Items 3. Council Issues A. 2017 U.S. Territory Bigeye Tuna Limits B. Council Coral Reef Projects 4. Update on Council Projects in American Samoa A. Data Collection Projects B. Fishery Development Projects 5. American Samoa FEP Community Activities 6. American Samoa FEP AP Issues A. Report of the Subpanels i. Island Fisheries Subpanel ii. Pelagic Fisheries Subpanel iii. Ecosystems and Habitat Subpanel iv. Indigenous Fishing Rights Subpanel B. Other Issues 7. Public Comment 8. Discussion and Recommendations 9. Other Business Schedule and Agenda for the Hawaii Archipelago FEP AP Meeting Thursday, September 29, 2016, 9 a.m.-11 a.m. 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Outstanding Council Action Items 3. Council Issues A. 2017 U.S. Territory Bigeye Tuna Limits B. Council Coral Reef Projects C. Implementing the NWHI Monument Expansion 5. Hawaii FEP Community Activities 6. Hawaii FEP AP Issues A. Report of the Subpanels i. Island Fisheries Subpanel ii. Pelagic Fisheries Subpanel iii. Ecosystems and Habitat Subpanel iv. Indigenous Fishing Rights Subpanel B. Other Issues 7. Public Comment 8. Discussion and Recommendations 9. Other Business Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: September 2, 2016. Jeffrey N. Lonergan, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21613 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD990 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Essential Fish Habitat AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of Draft Environmental Assessment; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces the availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment for Amendment 10 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP).

    NMFS finalized the most recent Atlantic HMS Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 5-Year Review on July 1, 2015 and determined that updates to Atlantic HMS EFH were warranted. NMFS also determined that modifications to current Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) for bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) and sandbar shark (Carcharhimus plumbeus) and the consideration of new HAPCs for lemon sharks (Negaprion brevisostris) and sand tiger sharks (Carcharias taurus) may be warranted.

    The purpose of this Draft Amendment is to update Atlantic HMS EFH with recent information following the EFH delineation methodology established in Amendment 1 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP (Amendment 1); update and consider new HAPCs for Atlantic HMS based on recent information, as warranted; minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing and non-fishing activities on EFH, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of EFH.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received by December 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic copies of Draft Amendment 10 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP may also be obtained on the internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/documents/fmp/am10/index.html.

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0117, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov, enter NOAA-NMFS-2016-0117 into the search box, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Jennifer Cudney, National Marine Fisheries Service, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, 263 13th Ave., Saint Petersburg, FL 33701.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Cudney or Randy Blankinship by phone at (727) 824-5399.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (“Magnuson-Stevens Act”) includes provisions concerning the identification and conservation of EFH (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). EFH is defined in 50 CFR 600.10 as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” NMFS must identify and describe EFH, minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on EFH, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of EFH (§ 600.815(a)). Federal agencies that authorize, fund, or undertake actions that may adversely affect EFH must consult with NMFS, and NMFS must provide conservation recommendations to Federal and state agencies regarding any such actions. § 600.815(a)(9). Specifically, a consultation is required if a Federal agency has authorized, funded, or undertaken part or all of a proposed activity. For example, if a project proposed by a Federal or state agency or an individual requires a Federal permit, then the Federal agency authorizing the project through the issuance of a permit must consult with NMFS. A consultation is required if the action will “adversely” affect EFH. An adverse effect is defined as any impact that reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH. This includes direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, or reduction of the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects may result from actions occurring within EFH or outside of EFH. If a federal agency determines that an action will not adversely affect EFH, no consultation is required. Private landowners and state agencies are not required to consult with NMFS.

    In addition to identifying and describing EFH for managed fish species, a review of EFH must be completed every 5 years, and EFH provisions must be revised or amended, as warranted, based on the best available scientific information. NMFS announced the initiation of this review and solicited information for this review from the public in a Federal Register notice on March 24, 2014 (79 FR 15959). The initial public review/submission period ended on May 23, 2014. The Draft Atlantic HMS EFH 5-Year Review was made available on March 5, 2015 (80 FR 11981), and the public comment period ended on April 6, 2015. NMFS analyzed the information gathered through the EFH review process, and the Notice of Availability for the Final Atlantic HMS EFH 5-Year Review was published on July 1, 2015 (80 FR 37598) (“5-Year Review”).

    The 5-Year Review considered data regarding Atlantic HMS and their habitats that have become available since 2009 that were not included in EFH updates finalized in Amendment 1 (June 1, 2010, 75 FR 30484); Final Environmental Impact Statement for Amendment 3 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (Amendment 3) (June 1, 2010, 75 FR 30484); and the interpretive rule that described EFH for roundscale spearfish (September 22, 2010, 75 FR 57698). NMFS also determined in the 5-Year Review that the methodology used in Amendment 1 to delineate Atlantic HMS EFH was still the best approach to update EFH delineations in Amendment 10 because it infers habitat use and EFH from available point data, allows for the incorporation of multiple complex datasets into the analysis, is transparent, and is easily reproducible.

    As a result of this review, NMFS determined that a revision of HMS EFH was warranted, and that an amendment to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP would be developed as Amendment 10. In addition to the literature informing the 5-year Review and the subsequent proposed amendment, NMFS indicated that it would also incorporate all newly available data collected prior to January 1, 2015, to ensure that the best available data would be analyzed for Draft Amendment 10, and EFH geographic boundaries would be re-evaluated, even for species where there were limited or no new EFH data found in the literature review. Consultation with the Atlantic HMS Advisory Panel and the public did not yield additional suggestions for NMFS to consider on EFH delineation methods for Atlantic HMS during the EFH 5-Year Review process. Therefore, NMFS determined that the current HMS EFH delineation methodology could be used for the analyses in Draft Amendment 10.

    Where appropriate, NMFS may designate HAPCs, which are intended to focus conservation efforts on localized areas within EFH that are vulnerable to degradation or are especially important ecologically for managed species. EFH regulatory guidelines encourage the Regional Fishery Management Councils and NMFS to identify HAPCs based on one or more of the following considerations (§ 600.815(a)(8)):

    • The importance of the ecological function provided by the habitat;

    • the extent to which the habitat is sensitive to human-induced environmental degradation;

    • whether, and to what extent, development activities are, or will be, stressing the habitat type; and/or,

    • the rarity of the habitat type.

    After reviewing the new information that has become available for Atlantic HMS since the last updates to EFH were completed, and based on analyses of new data, NMFS is considering modifications to current HAPCs for bluefin tuna and sandbar sharks, and the creation of new HAPCs for lemon sharks and sand tiger sharks.

    The purpose of the amendment would be to update EFH for Atlantic HMS with recent information following the EFH delineation methodology established in Amendment 1; minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing and non-fishing activities on EFH; and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of EFH. Specific actions would include the update and revision of existing HMS EFH, as necessary; modification of existing HAPCs or designation of new HAPCs for bluefin tuna, and sandbar, lemon, and sand tiger sharks, as necessary; and analysis of fishing and non-fishing impacts on EFH by considering environmental and management changes and new information since 2009.

    Essential Fish Habitat Updates

    Preferred Alternative 2 would update all Atlantic HMS EFH designations with new data collected since 2009, using the methodology established under Amendment 1. The incorporation of new information and data into EFH analyses, and subsequent adjustment of Atlantic HMS EFH, is expected to result in neutral cumulative and direct and indirect, short-term ecological, social, and economic impacts on the natural and human environment. This alternative is also expected to result in neutral long-term direct ecological, social, and economic impacts on the natural and human environment. The primary effect of updating Atlantic HMS EFH would be a change in the areas that are subject to consultation with NMFS under the EFH regulations. Updating Atlantic HMS EFH ensures that any management consultations subsequently completed by the NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation, and resulting conservation recommendations, are based on the best available scientific information considering EFH designation. These future consultations through the Habitat Consultation process could, among other things, focus conservation efforts and avoid potential adverse impacts from Federal actions in areas designated as EFH. Thus, NMFS expects that long-term cumulative and indirect impacts of Alternative 2 would be minor and beneficial, as the consultation process and resulting conservation recommendations could reduce any potential adverse impacts to EFH from future federal actions. This could result in an overall positive conservation benefit.

    Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs)

    The preferred alternatives concerning HAPCs would modify or create new HAPCs for several HMS.

    Preferred alternative 3b would modify the current HAPC for the spawning, eggs, and larvae life stages for bluefin tuna. Specifically, NMFS would change the boundary of the existing bluefin tuna HAPC to encompass a larger area within the Gulf of Mexico. Recent literature suggests the potential for spawning bluefin tuna, eggs, and larvae to be concentrated in areas of the eastern Gulf of Mexico not encompassed by the current HAPC in response to variability in oceanographic conditions associated with the Loop Current, which moves through regions that are to the east of the current HAPC. NMFS would extend the HAPC in the Gulf of Mexico from its current extent eastward to the 82° West longitude line. The seaward boundary of the HAPC would continue to be the U.S. EEZ, while the shoreward extent of the HAPC would be restricted at the 100m bathymetric line per recommendations from the NMFS scientists.

    Preferred alternative 4b would modify the current HAPC for sandbar shark along the Atlantic coast (specifically off the coast of the Outer Banks (NC), in Chesapeake Bay (VA), Delaware Bay (DE) and in the Mullica River-Great Bay system (NJ)). Modification would include changing the boundary of the existing HAPC to encompass different areas, consistent with the updated Atlantic HMS EFH designations. The current sandbar shark HAPC does not overlap with the currently-designated sandbar shark EFH as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act implementing regulations, which specify FMPs “identify specific types or areas of habitat within EFH as habitat areas of particular concern” (emphasis added) (§ 600.815(a)(8)). Thus, NMFS is proposing to adjust the boundaries of the HAPC so that it is contained within the updated sandbar shark EFH. These changes include incorporation of additional area in Delaware Bay and Chesapeake Bay to reflect updated EFH designations, and adjustment of the HAPC around the Outer Banks of North Carolina. The updated areas identified as HAPCs are still considered to be important pupping and nursery grounds for sandbar shark. Delaware Bay and Chesapeake Bay are the largest nursery grounds for sandbar shark in the mid-Atlantic, and there is evidence of high inter-annual site fidelity for up to five years following birth to these nursery grounds.

    Preferred Alternative 5b would designate a new HAPC for lemon sharks between Jupiter Inlet, FL, and Cape Canaveral, FL. Information analyzed in the 5-year review suggests that areas off south central and south eastern Florida may provide important nursery grounds and aggregation sites for multiple life stages. Aggregations of juvenile lemon sharks have appeared annually since 2003 within sheltered alongshore troughs and shallow open surf zones adjacent to Cape Canaveral from November through February. Adult lemon sharks have also been observed to annually form large aggregations off Jupiter Inlet between December and April. Geophysical and oceanographic conditions in the Cape Canaveral and Jupiter inlet regions may generate a climatic transition zone that may create a temperature barrier to northward and southward migration. A new HAPC would be created to encompass both areas and presumed migratory corridors between them and extend from shore to 12 km from the beach. These habitats occur near a heavily populated area of southeastern Florida, are subjected to military use and/or are easily accessible to the public, and both appear to be discrete aggregation areas for lemon sharks.

    Preferred Alternative 6b would designate two new HAPCs for sand tiger sharks in Delaware Bay and in coastal Massachusetts. Recently, new research and information has become available which suggests that Delaware Bay might provide important seasonal (summertime) habitat for all life stages of sand tiger shark. The first HAPC would reflect the distribution of known data points in Delaware Bay. The second HAPC would be established in the Plymouth, Kingston, Duxbury (PKD) Bay system in coastal Massachusetts for juveniles and neonate sand tiger in the Cape Cod region. Tagging data suggest that tagged neonates and juveniles are seasonally distributed within the estuary (June through October); consistently used habitats for extended periods of time; and exhibited inter-annual site fidelity for the PKD Bay system.

    NMFS expects that the short-term direct and indirect ecological, social and economic effects of revising current HAPCs for bluefin tuna spawning, eggs, and larvae in the Gulf of Mexico and for sandbar shark in the Mid-Atlantic, and creating new HAPCs for lemon sharks off southeastern Florida and for sand tiger sharks in Delaware Bay and in the PKD Bay system of Massachusetts would be neutral, as this process only designates habitat and there are no additional associated management measures under evaluation in Draft Amendment 10 for these HAPCs. Similarly, NMFS expects that the long-term direct ecological, social and economic effects of modifying and creating these HAPCs would be neutral. However, NMFS expects that the long-term indirect ecological, social, and economic effects of Alternatives 3b, 4b, 5b, and 6b would be minor and beneficial as a result of any future consultations as the Habitat Consultation process and resulting conservation recommendations could reduce any potential adverse impacts to HAPCs from future federal actions. This could result in an overall positive conservation benefit. These preferred alternatives would permit the incorporation and consideration of the best available scientific information in considering an HAPC designation for, among other things, purposes of focusing conservation efforts and avoiding adverse impacts through the Habitat Consultation process, inform the public of areas that could receive additional scrutiny from NMFS with regards to EFH impacts, and/or promote additional area-based research, as necessary.

    Fishing and Non-Fishing Impacts and Conservation Recommendations

    As analyzed in Amendment 1, since nearly all HMS EFH is comprised of open water habitat, all HMS fishing gears but bottom longline and shrimp trawl do not have an effect on EFH. For some shark species, EFH includes benthic habitat types such as mud or sandy bottom that might be affected by fishing gears. NMFS has determined that bottom tending gears such as bottom longline and shrimp trawls, which are the two gears most likely to impact EFH, have a minimal and only temporary effect on EFH. There is no new information that has become available since Amendment 1 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP that would alter this conclusion. As a result, NMFS is not proposing any measures or alternatives to minimize fishing impacts on these habitats.

    However, although adverse effects are not anticipated, NMFS has provided an example list of conservation recommendations in Chapter 5 of Draft Amendment 10 that could address shark bottom longline fishing impacts; these recommendations could apply to all areas designated as either EFH or HAPCs. This section is included to satisfy the EFH provisions concerning mandatory contents of FMPs, specifically the Conservation and Enhancement requirements at § 600.815(a)(6). This amendment similarly evaluates the potential adverse effects of fishing with all HMS gear types on designated and proposed EFH and HAPCs in Chapter 5 and provides conservation recommendations, as necessary.

    Opportunities for Public Comment

    NMFS will conduct public hearing conference calls and webinars to allow for opportunities for interested members of the public from all geographic areas to submit verbal comments on Draft Amendment 10. These will be announced at a later date and in the Federal Register. NMFS has also requested time on the meeting agendas of the relevant Regional Fishery Management Councils (i.e., the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and New England Fishery Management Councils) to present information on Draft Amendment 10. Information on the date and time of those presentations will be provided on the appropriate council agendas.

    The webinar presentation and conference call transcripts will be made available at this Web site: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/documents/fmp/am10/index.html. Transcripts from Council meetings may be provided by the Councils on respective Web sites.

    Public Hearing Code of Conduct

    The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at public hearings and council meetings to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of each meeting, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules (e.g., all comments are to be directed to the agency on the proposed action; attendees will be called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; attendees may not interrupt one another; etc.). NMFS representative(s) will structure the meeting so that all attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject(s). Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and those that do not may be asked to leave the meeting.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 971 et seq., and 1801 et seq.

    Dated: September 2, 2016, Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21621 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy Notice of Meeting; Cancellation AGENCY:

    U.S. Air Force Academy Board of Visitors, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Quarterly meeting notice; cancellation.

    SUMMARY:

    On Friday, August 19, 2016, (81 FR 55454), the Department of Defense published in the Federal Register, a notice to announce the quarterly meeting of the United States Air Force Academy Board of Visitors on September 7 & 8, 2016. The meeting was cancelled due to last-minute circumstances indicating there would not be a quorum for the meeting.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The next scheduled USAFA BoV meeting has not been established, but will be published in the Federal Register at least 15 days prior to the meeting.

    For additional information or to attend this BoV meeting, contact Major James Kuchta, Accessions and Training Division, AF/A1PT, 1040 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330, (703) 695-4066, [email protected]

    Meeting Announcement: The Department of Defense had to cancel the United States Air Force Academy Board of Visitors meeting on September 7 & 8, 2016 because last-minute circumstances indicated there would not be a quorum for the meeting. Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Department of Defense, the Board of Visitors U.S. Air Force Academy was unable to provide public notification of its cancellation of its previously announced meeting on September 7th and 8th, 2016, as required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

    Henry Williams, Acting Air Force Federal Register Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21624 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Vietnam War Commemoration Advisory Committee; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    DoD.

    ACTION:

    Meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Vietnam War Commemoration Advisory Committee. This meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The public meeting of the Vietnam War Commemoration Advisory Committee (hereafter referred to as “the Committee”) will be held on Monday, September 19, 2016. The meeting will begin at 1:00 p.m. and end at 4:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    U.S. Access Board Conference Room, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Committee's Designated Federal Officer: The committee's Designated Federal Officer is Mr. Michael Gable, Vietnam War Commemoration Advisory Committee, 241 18th Street South, Arlington, VA 22202, [email protected], 703-697-4811. For meeting information please contact Mr. Michael Gable, [email protected], 703-697-4811; Mr. Mark Franklin, [email protected], 703-697-4849; or Ms. Scherry Chewning, [email protected], 703-697-4908.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Department of Defense, the Vietnam War Commemoration Advisory Committee was unable to provide public notification of its meeting of September 19, 2016, as required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement. This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: At this meeting, the Committee will convene and receive a presentation on the Certificate of Honor Program. The committee will also receive a briefing from the Communications Working Group on recommendations to expand our national voice. Following this briefing, the Committee will deliberate and vote on those recommendations. The mission of the Committee is to provide the Secretary of Defense, through the Deputy Chief Management Officer, independent advice and recommendations regarding major events and priority of efforts during the commemorative program for the 50th Anniversary of the Vietnam War, in order to achieve the objectives for the Commemorative Program.

    Availability of Materials for the Meeting: A copy of the agenda for the Committee may be obtained from the Committee's Web site at http://vietnamwar50th.com. Copies will also be available at the meeting.

    Meeting Agenda 1:00 p.m.-1:10 p.m. Convene with Committee Chairman Remarks 1:10 p.m.-4:30 p.m. Committee Meeting/Agenda items • Certificate of Honor Program • Communications Working Group Recommendations Briefing • Committee Members' Deliberation and vote on Communications Working Group Recommendations • Closing remarks 4:30 p.m. Adjourn

    Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. All members of the public who wish to attend the public meeting must contact Mr. Michael Gable, Mr. Mark Franklin or Ms. Scherry Chewning at the number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Special Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact Mr. Michael Gable, Mr. Mark Franklin or Ms. Scherry Chewning at the number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Procedures for Providing Public Comments

    Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments to the Committee about its mission and topics pertaining to this public meeting.

    Written comments should be received by the DFO at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the Committee for their consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments should be submitted via email to the address for the DFO given in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section in either Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word format. Please note that since the Committee operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all submitted comments and public presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection, including, but not limited to, being posted on the Committee's Web site.

    Dated: September 2, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21580 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel (Judicial Proceedings Panel); Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel (“the Judicial Proceedings Panel” or “the Panel”). The meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    A meeting of the Judicial Proceedings Panel will be held on Friday, September 23, 2016. The public session will begin at 9:00 a.m. and end at 4:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Judicial Proceedings Panel, One Liberty Center, 875 N. Randolph Street, Conference Room, 14th Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Julie Carson, Judicial Proceedings Panel, One Liberty Center, 875 N. Randolph Street, Suite 150, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Email: whs.pentagon.em.mbx. [email protected] Phone: (703) 693-3849. Web site: http://jpp.whs.mil.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This public meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: In Section 576(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239), as amended, Congress tasked the Judicial Proceedings Panel to conduct an independent review and assessment of judicial proceedings conducted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) involving adult sexual assault and related offenses since the amendments made to the UCMJ by section 541 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81; 125 Stat. 1404), for the purpose of developing recommendations for improvements to such proceedings. At this meeting, the Panel will receive testimony from retired military appellate judges and from active duty military appellate counsel on their perspectives regarding sexual assault victims' appellate rights.

    Agenda —8:30-9:00 Administrative Work (41 CFR 102-3.160, not subject to notice & open meeting requirements) —9:00-9:15 Welcome and Introduction (public meeting begins) —9:15-12:00 Military Judges' Perspectives on Victims' Appellate Rights —Judge James Baker, Former Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces —Rear Admiral (Retired) Christian Reismeier, Former Chief Judge of the Navy —Colonel (Retired) William Orr, Former Chief Judge, Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals —Colonel (Retired) Denise R. Lind, Former Senior Appellate Judge, United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals —12:00-1:00 Lunch —1:00-2:30 Service Defense Appellate Divisions' Perspectives on Victims' Appellate Rights —Army Defense Appellate Division Counsel —Air Force Defense Appellate Division Counsel —Navy-Marine Corps Defense Appellate Division Counsel —Coast Guard Defense Appellate Division Counsel —2:30-4:00 Service Government Appellate Divisions' Perspectives on Victims' Appellate Rights —Army Government Appellate Division Counsel —Air Force Government Appellate Division Counsel —Navy-Marine Corps Government Appellate Division Counsel —Coast Guard Government Appellate Division Counsel —4:00-4:30 Public Comment —4:30 Meeting Adjourned

    Availability of Materials for the Meeting: A copy of the September 23, 2016 public meeting agenda and any updates or changes to the agenda, including individual speakers not identified at the time of this notice, as well as other materials provided to Panel members for use at the public meeting, may be obtained at the meeting or from the Panel's Web site at http://jpp.whs.mil.

    Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis. Visitors are required to sign in at the One Liberty Center security desk and must leave a government-issued photo identification on file while in the building. Department of Defense Common Access Card (CAC) holders who do not have authorized access to One Liberty Center must provide an alternate form of government-issued photo identification to leave on file with security while in the building. All visitors must pass through a metal detection security screening.

    Special Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact the Judicial Proceedings Panel at [email protected] at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Procedures for Providing Public Comments: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments to the Panel about its mission and topics pertaining to this public session. Written comments must be received by the JPP at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting date so that they may be made available to the Judicial Proceedings Panel for their consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments should be submitted via email to the Judicial Proceedings Panel at [email protected] in the following formats: Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word. Please note that since the Judicial Proceedings Panel operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection. If members of the public are interested in making an oral statement pertaining to the agenda for that public meeting, a written statement must be submitted as above along with a request to provide an oral statement. After reviewing the written comments and the oral statement, the Chairperson and the Designated Federal Officer will determine who of the requesting persons will be able to make an oral presentation of their issue during the public comment portion of this meeting. Determination of who will be making an oral presentation is at the sole discretion of the Committee Chair and the Designated Federal Officer and will depend on time available and relevance to the Panel's activities for that meeting, and on a first-come basis. When approved in advance, oral presentations by members of the public will be permitted from 4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on September 23, 2016 in front of the Panel members.

    Committee's Designated Federal Officer: The Panel's Designated Federal Officer is Ms. Maria Fried, Department of Defense, Office of the General Counsel, 1600 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B747, Washington, DC 20301-1600.

    Dated: September 2, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21611 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Dam Safety Modification Report, Bluestone Dam, Hinton, Summers County, WV AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement—public and agency comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Huntington District prepared a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) to disclose potential impacts to the natural, physical, and human environment resulting from modifications to Bluestone Dam. The original EIS was published in 1998 and a Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in 1999 concluding the NEPA process allowing the Corps to initiate implementation of the Bluestone Dam Safety Assurance (DSA) Project. When completed, the current modifications under construction will strengthen the dam's stability and allow for increased discharge capacity through the use of hydropower penstocks substantially reducing risk. However, physical modeling and expert analysis conducted during project construction indicated the downstream bedrock is vulnerable to an unacceptable degree of erosion during high flow events. The Corps has also recognized potential for unacceptable erosion associated with overtopping of areas of the dam not designed to be overtopped. After a full consideration of alternatives to achieve acceptable risk levels, this SDEIS recommends implementing modifications to the existing stilling basin to prevent scour that could result in spillway instability and thus dam failure. Modification may include alteration to the existing stilling basin to include installation of a concrete apron, larger baffles, and would also include non-structural risk management measures. This SDEIS also addresses the prolonged construction duration of modification features described in the original EIS and ROD.

    DATES:

    The review period will be open from September 1, 2016 to October 17, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments and suggestions concerning this proposed project to Rebecca Rutherford, Chief, Environmental Analysis Section, Planning Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District, 502 Eighth Street, Huntington, WV 25701-2070. Telephone: 304-399-5924. Electronic mail: [email protected]. Requests to be placed on the mailing list should also be sent to this address.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    1. Authority: Bluestone Dam and Reservoir was authorized by Executive Order (E.O.) 7183 in 1935 and the Flood Control Acts of 1936 and 1938 for the purposes of flood control, low flow augmentation, and hydroelectric power development. The purposes were later expanded to include recreational activities under the Flood Control Act of 1944 and fish and wildlife enhancement under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) of 1958.

    2. Background: a. Guidance for this study is provided in USACE Engineer Regulation (ER) 1110-2-1156 (October 2011). This guidance details agency policy and procedures for the study and implementation process addressing dam safety issues.

    b. Bluestone Lake is a multipurpose component of the Kanawha River basin system which provides for flood control, recreation, power development, low flow augmentation, and fish and wildlife enhancement. The project began operation in 1949 and helps control a 4,565 square mile drainage area.

    c. The ROD, signed in 1999, completed the NEPA process for the DSA project permitting the Huntington District to begin detailed design and subsequent construction of the recommended alternative which included a 13 foot cantilever wall on top of the dam, an additional concrete monolith on the east abutment, a floodgate closure across WV Rt. 20, removable closures at each end of the spillway, high strength anchors placed into the dam itself, massive concrete blocks placed against the downstream face of the dam, and a pavement for scour protection downstream of the hydropower penstocks. The majority of the ongoing construction on these measures will continue through the year 2019. The ROD for this work anticipated construction would be completed 2005.

    d. Physical modeling and expert analysis conducted during project construction has shown the downstream bedrock is vulnerable to erosion during high flow events as a result of deficiencies with the current stilling basin configuration. This potential erosion creates an unacceptable level of risk according to guidelines established in ER 1110-2-1156, under which this study is being conducted.

    e. The SDEIS and Dam Safety Modification report (DSMR) will consider the structural integrity of the dam, its ability to accommodate flood waters as well as transportation, noise, terrestrial, aquatic, economic, environmental justice and cultural resource issues associated with the performance of the dam. The SDEIS and DSMR will recommend any modifications necessary to ensure the long-term safe performance of the structure as originally intended.

    f. Modifications to meet current acceptable risk guidelines per ER 1110-2-1156 may include, modification of the existing stilling basin, modification of other dam components, construction of an alternative/auxiliary stilling basin, construction of an alternative/auxiliary spillway and non-structural measures or other actions to prevent overtopping. The No Action alternative will also be considered. As required by NEPA and Corps planning guidance, the No Action alternative will form a benchmark from which alternatives are evaluated and compared.

    3. Public Participation: a. The SDEIS will be made available to the public in the affected area for forty-five (45) days for review and comment. A Notice of Availability will be advertised in affected area newspapers informing the general public about the SDEIS public review period. The SDEIS and draft ROD can be viewed at: http://www.lrh.usace.army.mil/Missions/PublicReview.aspx. Copies of the SDEIS and draft ROD may be obtained by contacting the Huntington District Office of the Corps of Engineers at (304) 399-5924 (See ADDRESSES). All persons and organizations that have an interest in the Bluestone Dam Project are urged to participate in this SDEIS review and comment period. Upon the close of the comment period, USACE will consider all comments and if necessary conduct further analysis.

    Additionally, the Corps will conduct public meetings to gain input from interested agencies, organizations, and the general public concerning the content, issues, and impacts of the SDEIS, a separate Notice of Intent will be published in the Federal Register for this action. Prior to the meeting, a public notice will be distributed to agencies, organizations, and the general public, informing interested parties of the date and location for the public meeting. The Corps invites full public participation to promote open communication and better decision-making.

    4. Schedule: The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is scheduled to be released for public review and comment on or about September 1, 2016. The Final Report and Final Supplemental EIS are tentatively scheduled to be completed in May 2017.

    Rebecca A. Rutherford, Chief, Environmental Analysis Section, Planning Branch.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21570 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Notice of Intent To Prepare a Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Lower Elkhorn Basin Levee Setback Project, Yolo County, CA AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Sacramento District, as the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), will prepare a joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Lower Elkhorn Setback Levee Project. DWR is the project proponent and may be referred to as the Applicant or Requester.

    The EIS/EIR will analyze DWR's proposed action to implement a flood risk management project in the Lower Elkhorn Basin in Yolo County, California. Because the proposed action would alter Federal levees, permission from USACE is required under Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (Section 408) (33 U.S.C. 408). The proposed action would also affect waters of the United States and require a permit from USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).

    DATES:

    Submit written comments by October 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and suggestions concerning the scope and content of the environmental information may be submitted to Mr. Tyler Stalker, email at [email protected]; or surface mail at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Attn: Public Affairs Office (CESPK-PAO), 1325 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814-2922. Requests to be placed on the electronic or surface mail notification lists should also be sent to this address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Tanis Toland at (916) 557-6717, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    1. Proposed Action. The proposed Lower Elkhorn Basin Levee Setback Project would include levee setbacks to widen portions of the Yolo and Sacramento Bypasses to increase conveyance capacity and reduce flood risk. The project would be part of a series of proposed flood risk management improvements contemplated under DWR's Central Valley Flood Protection Plan and its related Sacramento Basin-Wide Feasibility Report. The project is located in Yolo County and is bounded by the Sacramento River on the east, the Tule Canal and Yolo Bypass on the west, the Sacramento Bypass on the south, and Interstate 5 on the north. The project would include the following elements: (1) Widening the Yolo Bypass by constructing a setback levee east of the Tule Canal in the Lower Elkhorn Basin, (2) widening the Sacramento Bypass by constructing a setback levee north of the existing levee, and (3) implementing improvements in the Lower Elkhorn Basin and Sacramento Bypass to mitigate project impacts. Widening of the Sacramento Bypass, per number (2) of the Proposed Action, is also a recommended feature of the American River Common Features GRR, for which a general reevaluation was completed in 2016, although it is not yet congressionally authorized. The proposed Lower Elkhorn Basin Levee Setback Project is not intended to duplicate this recommended feature, rather it offers DWR a potential alternative means to construct this key feature should the project not be authorized prior to USACE's decision on DWR's request under Section 408.

    2. Alternatives. A number of project alternatives, including the no action alternative and the Requester's/Applicant's preferred alternative will be evaluated in the EIS/EIR in accordance with NEPA (33 CFR part 230 (USACE NEPA Regulations) and 33 CFR part 325, Appendix B (NEPA Implementation Procedures for USACE Regulatory Projects).

    3. Scoping Process.

    a. A public scoping meeting will be held on Thursday, September 15, 2016, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., West Sacramento Civic Center, 1110 West Capitol Avenue, West Sacramento, CA 95691 to present information to the public and to receive comments from the public on the project and the scope of the environmental analysis. Affected Federal, State, regional, and local agencies; Native American Tribes; other interested private organizations; and the general public are invited to participate.

    b. The EIS/EIR will analyze the environmental effects of construction, operations, and maintenance of the project. Potentially significant issues to be analyzed in depth include loss of waters of the United States (including wetlands), cultural resources, biological resources, special status species, air quality, hydrology and water quality, land use, Prime and Unique Farmlands, noise, traffic, aesthetics, utilities and service systems, and socioeconomic effects.

    c. USACE will consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer and with Native American Tribes to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act, and with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to comply with the Endangered Species Act. USACE will also coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to comply with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.

    d. A 45-day NEPA public review period will be provided for all interested parties, individuals, and agencies to review and comment on the draft EIS/EIR. All interested parties are encouraged to respond to this notice and provide a current address if they wish to be notified of the draft EIS/EIR circulation.

    4. Availability. The draft EIS/EIR is scheduled to be available for public review and comment in November 2017.

    Dated: August 28, 2016. David G. Ray, Colonel, U.S. Army, District Commander.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21578 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Inland Waterways Users Board Meeting Notice AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open Federal advisory committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Inland Waterways Users Board (Board). This meeting is open to the public. For additional information about the Board, please visit the committee's Web site at http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/InlandWaterways UsersBoard.aspx.

    DATES:

    The Army Corps of Engineers, Inland Waterways Users Board will meet from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on October 5, 2016. Public registration will begin at 8:15 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Board meeting will be conducted at the Holiday Inn Hotel Chicago—Tinley Park—Convention Center, 18501 Convention Center Drive, Tinley Park, IL 60477, 708-444-1100.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Mark R. Pointon, the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the committee, in writing at the Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CEIWR-GM, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Alexandria, VA 22315-3868; by telephone at 703-428-6438; and by email at [email protected] Alternatively, contact Mr. Kenneth E. Lichtman, the Alternate Designated Federal Officer (ADFO), in writing at the Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CEIWR-GW, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Alexandria, VA 22315-3868; by telephone at 703-428-8083; and by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The committee meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The Board is chartered to provide independent advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Army on construction and rehabilitation project investments on the commercial navigation features of the inland waterways system of the United States. At this meeting, the Board will receive briefings and presentations regarding the investments, projects and status of the inland waterways system of the United States and conduct discussions and deliberations on those matters. The Board is interested in written and verbal comments from the public relevant to these purposes.

    Proposed Agenda: At this meeting the agenda will include the status of funding for inland navigation projects and studies budgeted in FY 2017; the status of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and comparison of revenues; the status of the Olmsted Locks and Dam Project, and the Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4 on the Monongahela River Project; update of Kentucky Lock and Chickamauga Lock economics information; basic Economic Analysis by the Corps; and status of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock General Re-evaluation Report.

    Availability of Materials for the Meeting. A copy of the agenda or any updates to the agenda for the October 5, 2016 meeting. The final version will be provided at the meeting. All materials will be posted to the Web site after the meeting.

    Public Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.1 65, and subject to the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Registration of members of the public who wish to attend the meeting will begin at 8:15 a.m. on the day of the meeting. Seating is limited and is on a first-to-arrive basis. Attendees will be asked to provide their name, title, affiliation, and contact information to include email address and daytime telephone number at registration. Any interested person may attend the meeting, file written comments or statements with the committee, or make verbal comments from the floor during the public meeting, at the times, and in the manner, permitted by the committee, as set forth below.

    Special Accommodations: The meeting venue is fully handicap accessible, with wheelchair access. Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting or seeking additional information about public access procedures, should contact Mr. Pointon, the committee DFO, or Mr. Lichtman, the ADFO, at the email addresses or telephone numbers listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Written Comments or Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the Board about its mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Mr. Pointon, the committee DFO, or Mr. Lichtman, the committee ADFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the addresses listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section in the following formats: Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word. The comment or statement must include the author's name, title, affiliation, address, and daytime telephone number. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the committee DFO or ADFO at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that they may be made available to the Board for its consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the Board until its next meeting. Please note that because the Board operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection.

    Verbal Comments: Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the Board meeting only at the time and in the manner allowed herein. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least three business (3) days in advance to the committee DFO or ADFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the addresses listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The committee DFO and ADFO will log each request to make a comment, in the order received, and determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the Board's mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A 15-minute period near the end of the meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described above, will be allotted no more than three (3) minutes during this period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the DFO and ADFO.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21569 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.421B.] Applications for New Awards; Rehabilitation Services Administration—Disability Innovation Fund—Transition Work-Based Learning Model Demonstrations; Correction AGENCY:

    Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    On August 1, 2016, we published in the Federal Register (81 FR 50485) a notice inviting applications (NIA) for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2016 for the Rehabilitation Services Administration—Disability Innovation Fund—Transition Work-Based Learning Model Demonstrations. The NIA incorrectly cites “34 CFR part 386,” which implements the Rehabilitation Long-term Training Program, as applicable regulations. Those regulations, do not apply to this NIA. This document corrects the error.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Roseann Ashby, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5057, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-7258 or by email: [email protected]

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document deletes the reference to 34 CFR 386 under “Applicable Regulations” because these regulations do not apply to this notice. All other requirements and conditions stated in the NIA remain the same.

    Corrections

    In the Federal Register of August 1, 2016 (81 FR 50485), on page 50487, in the middle column, we revise the section “Applicable Regulations” to read as follows: “Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Department and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The NFP for this competition, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.”

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: September 1, 2016. Sue Swenson, Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21608 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0097] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Student Assistance General Provisions—Subpart E—Verification of Student Aid Application Information AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2016-ICCD-0097. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E-343, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Student Assistance General Provisions—Subpart E—Verification of Student Aid Application Information.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0041.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Individuals or Households; Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 31,005,627.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 3,751,254.

    Abstract: This request is for a revision of the information collection supporting the policies and reporting requirements contained in subpart E of part 668—Verification and Updating of Student Aid Application Information. Sections 668.53, 668.54, 668.55, 668.56, 668.57, 668.59 and 668.61 contain information collection requirements (OMB control number 1845-0041). This subpart governs the verification and updating of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid used to calculate an applicant's Expected Family Contribution for purposes of determining an applicant's need for student financial assistance under title IV of Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. The collection of this documentation helps ensure that students (and parents in the case of PLUS loans) receive the correct amount of title IV program assistance by providing accurate information to calculate an applicant's expected family contribution.

    Dated: September 2, 2016. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21565 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [FE Docket No. 16-108-LNG] Freeport LNG Expansion, L.P., FLNG Liquefacti