Federal Register Vol. 81, No.43,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 43 (March 4, 2016)

Page Range11407-11658
FR Document

81_FR_43
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 11657 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to ZimbabwePDF
81 FR 11655 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to UkrainePDF
81 FR 11653 - Read Across America Day, 2016PDF
81 FR 11429 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Extension of Temporary Placement of 10 Synthetic Cathinones in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances ActPDF
81 FR 11479 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of 10 Synthetic Cathinones Into Schedule IPDF
81 FR 11605 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 11531 - Sunshine Act NoticePDF
81 FR 11558 - Flubendiamide; Notice of Intent To Cancel Pesticide RegistrationsPDF
81 FR 11561 - Proposed Cercla Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement: Former Athol Rod and Gun Club Superfund Site, Athol, MassachusettsPDF
81 FR 11556 - Central Valley Project, California-Oregon Transmission Project, Pacific Alternating Current Intertie, Third-Party Transmission Service; and Information on the Path 15 Transmission Upgrade-Rate Order No. WAPA-173PDF
81 FR 11454 - Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products and Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Supplemental Proposed Determination of Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products as Covered ProductsPDF
81 FR 11447 - Eligibility in the States, District of Columbia, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American SamoaPDF
81 FR 11549 - President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology MeetingPDF
81 FR 11552 - Biological and Environmental Research Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 11532 - Applications for New Awards; Hispanic-Serving Institutions STEM and Articulation ProgramPDF
81 FR 11539 - Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities; Personnel Development To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities; and Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals With Disabilities Programs-Postsecondary Education Center for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of HearingPDF
81 FR 11635 - California Disaster #CA-00245 Declaration of Economic InjuryPDF
81 FR 11600 - SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc.; SHINE Medical Isotope FacilityPDF
81 FR 11597 - Department of the Air Force; Hill Air Force Base, UtahPDF
81 FR 11645 - BMW of North America, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
81 FR 11571 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 11521 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
81 FR 11519 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 11518 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public HearingsPDF
81 FR 11638 - Request for Comments and Notice of Public Hearing Concerning Policy Recommendations on the Global Steel Industry Situation and Impact on U.S. Steel Industry and MarketPDF
81 FR 11595 - Calendar Year (CY) 2015 Cost of Outpatient Medical, Dental, and Cosmetic Surgery Services Furnished by Department of Defense Medical Treatment Facilities; Certain Rates Regarding Recovery From Tortiously Liable Third PersonsPDF
81 FR 11552 - Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 11606 - Duke Energy Progress; Combined License Application for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plants Units 2 and 3PDF
81 FR 11640 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at the McKinney National Airport in McKinney, TexasPDF
81 FR 11601 - Duke Energy Progress; Combined License Applications for Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant Units 2 and 3PDF
81 FR 11639 - Notice of Meeting of the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group Aviation Rulemaking CommitteePDF
81 FR 11640 - Eighth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (230) Airborne Weather Detection Systems (Joint With EUROCAE WG-95)PDF
81 FR 11513 - Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 182, (Expansion of Service Area), Under Alternative Site Framework; Fort Wayne, IndianaPDF
81 FR 11512 - Foreign-Trade Zone 230-Piedmont Triad Area, North Carolina; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; United Chemi-Con, Inc.; Subzone 230A (Aluminum Electrolytic Capacitors); Lansing, North CarolinaPDF
81 FR 11516 - Calcium Hypochlorite From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty New Shipper Review; 2014-2015PDF
81 FR 11517 - Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific InstrumentsPDF
81 FR 11569 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 11563 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
81 FR 11562 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
81 FR 11500 - International Settlements Policy ReformPDF
81 FR 11637 - Wichita, Tillman & Jackson Railway Company-Lease Exemption Containing Interchange Commitment-Union Pacific Railroad CompanyPDF
81 FR 11637 - Brandon Railroad, L.L.C.-Abandonment Exemption-in Douglas County, NEPDF
81 FR 11557 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 11528 - Privacy Act of 1974; Notice of a Computer Matching ProgramPDF
81 FR 11511 - Notice of Availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Non-Contiguous Region of the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network and Notice of Public MeetingsPDF
81 FR 11434 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Victoria Barge Canal, Bloomington, TXPDF
81 FR 11437 - Safety Zone, Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, and Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, ILPDF
81 FR 11435 - Safety Zone; Little Calumet River, Chicago, ILPDF
81 FR 11509 - Notice of Proposed Changes to the National Handbook of Conservation Practices for the Natural Resources Conservation ServicePDF
81 FR 11524 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
81 FR 11566 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Unmodified Qualified Trust Model Certificates and Model Trust DocumentsPDF
81 FR 11649 - Study on the Overall Effectiveness of the Terrorism Risk Insurance ProgramPDF
81 FR 11590 - Certain Hospital Beds, and Components Thereof Institution of InvestigationPDF
81 FR 11564 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 11564 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMBPDF
81 FR 11432 - Conduct on Bureau of Engraving and Printing PropertyPDF
81 FR 11562 - Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board; Regular MeetingPDF
81 FR 11579 - Announcement of Requirements and Registration for the Opioid Overdose Prevention ChallengePDF
81 FR 11520 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection 3038-0107, Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service DeliveryPDF
81 FR 11519 - Procurement List; AdditionPDF
81 FR 11520 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and DeletionsPDF
81 FR 11452 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Vessels Using Jig Gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of AlaskaPDF
81 FR 11502 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 35PDF
81 FR 11589 - Notice of Realty Action: Recreation and Public Purposes Lease (N-93838), Transfer of Interest and Change of Use of Public Lands in Clark County, NVPDF
81 FR 11586 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Marigold Mine Plan of Operations-Mackay Optimization Project Amendment, Humboldt County, NVPDF
81 FR 11587 - Notice of Intent To Amend the Resource Management Plan for the Tres Rios Field Office and Prepare an Associated Environmental Assessment, ColoradoPDF
81 FR 11565 - Submission for OMB Review; Public Buildings Service; Art-in-Architecture Program National Artist Registry, GSA Form 7437PDF
81 FR 11647 - Agency Request for Emergency Approval of an Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 11642 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
81 FR 11415 - Use of Electronic Cigarettes on AircraftPDF
81 FR 11451 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Trip Limit IncreasePDF
81 FR 11636 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 11568 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
81 FR 11586 - Trinity River Adaptive Management Working Group; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 11624 - Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc., et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 11518 - Endangered Species Act; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 11575 - Intent to Review a Nonclinical Study Data Reviewer's Guide TemplatePDF
81 FR 11577 - Labeling for Permanent Hysteroscopically-Placed Tubal Implants Intended for Sterilization, Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 11508 - Black Hills National Forest Advisory BoardPDF
81 FR 11511 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 11509 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 11449 - Medicare Program; Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Payment Model for Acute Care Hospitals Furnishing Lower Extremity Joint Replacement Services; Corrections and Correcting AmendmentsPDF
81 FR 11447 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health Record Initiative Program-Stage 3 and Modifications to Meaningful Use in 2015 Through 2017; Corrections and Correcting AmendmentPDF
81 FR 11613 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
81 FR 11614 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
81 FR 11613 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
81 FR 11508 - Olympic Peninsula Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 11584 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Border Community Capital Initiative and Semi-Annual ReportingPDF
81 FR 11584 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Public Housing Agency (PHA) Lease and Grievance RequirementsPDF
81 FR 11496 - Financial Crimes Enforcement Network; Withdrawal of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Banca Privada d'AndorraPDF
81 FR 11648 - Financial Crimes Enforcement Network; Withdrawal of Finding Regarding Banca Privada d'AndorraPDF
81 FR 11529 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the San Francisco Bay to Stockton (John F. Baldwin and Stockton Ship Channels) Navigation Improvement Study, San Francisco Bay, CAPDF
81 FR 11497 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alaska: Updates to Incorporation by Reference and Miscellaneous RevisionsPDF
81 FR 11603 - Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2 and 3; Independent Spent Fuel Storage InstallationPDF
81 FR 11438 - Air Plan Disapproval; Georgia: Disapproval of Automatic Rescission ClausePDF
81 FR 11414 - Amendment of United States Area Navigation (RNAV) Route Q-35; Western United StatesPDF
81 FR 11550 - Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal of Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) Low-Level Radioactive Waste and GTCC-Like WastePDF
81 FR 11445 - Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Regional Haze Glatfelter BART SIP RevisionPDF
81 FR 11513 - Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015PDF
81 FR 11611 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 11608 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 11609 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 11610 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 11616 - CLS Investments, LLC, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 11591 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air ActPDF
81 FR 11486 - Consistent Basis Reporting Between Estate and Person Acquiring Property From DecedentPDF
81 FR 11431 - Consistent Basis Reporting Between Estate and Person Acquiring Property From DecedentPDF
81 FR 11567 - Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BSC, NIOSH)PDF
81 FR 11572 - Risk Assessment of Foodborne Illness Associated With Pathogens From Produce Grown in Fields Amended With Untreated Biological Soil Amendments of Animal Origin; Request for Scientific Data, Information, and CommentsPDF
81 FR 11634 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend BX Options Chapter VII, Section 6PDF
81 FR 11614 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX Options Fee SchedulePDF
81 FR 11428 - Unique Device Identification System; Editorial Provisions; Technical AmendmentPDF
81 FR 11526 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
81 FR 11596 - Notice of Intent To Grant a Partially Exclusive LicensePDF
81 FR 11576 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Medical Device User Fee Small Business Qualification and CertificationPDF
81 FR 11575 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Registration and Product Listing for Owners and Operators of Domestic Tobacco Product Establishments and Listing of Ingredients in Tobacco ProductsPDF
81 FR 11591 - Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products From ChinaPDF
81 FR 11477 - Refurbishing, Reconditioning, Rebuilding, Remarketing, Remanufacturing, and Servicing of Medical Devices Performed by Third-Party Entities and Original Equipment Manufacturers; Request for CommentsPDF
81 FR 11644 - Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
81 FR 11554 - Ever Better Hydro Power, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing ApplicationsPDF
81 FR 11554 - Pine Creek Mine, LLC; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final AmendmentsPDF
81 FR 11553 - Greenleaf Energy Unit 1 LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 11553 - Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of FilingPDF
81 FR 11555 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 11592 - Comment Request for Information Collection for Confidentiality and Disclosure of State Unemployment Compensation Information and State Income and Eligibility Verification Provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act, Extension Without ChangePDF
81 FR 11612 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 11594 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangement Administrative Law Judge Administrative Hearing ProceduresPDF
81 FR 11593 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Annual Report for Multiple Employer Welfare ArrangementsPDF
81 FR 11592 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Notice of Special Enrollment Rights Under Group Health PlansPDF
81 FR 11467 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 11407 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters (Previously Eurocopter France) HelicoptersPDF
81 FR 11469 - Airworthiness Directives; M7 Aerospace LLCPDF
81 FR 11475 - Airworthiness Directives; EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. GlidersPDF
81 FR 11471 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 11641 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in Washington, District of ColumbiaPDF
81 FR 11465 - Airworthiness Directives; EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. GlidersPDF
81 FR 11473 - Airworthiness Directives; Blanik Limited GlidersPDF
81 FR 11583 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
81 FR 11596 - National Environmental Policy Act; Center Master Plan Update; Kennedy Space CenterPDF
81 FR 11413 - Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following North Dakota Towns; Harvey, ND, and Rolla, NDPDF
81 FR 11409 - Airworthiness Directives; M7 Aerospace LLC AirplanesPDF

Issue

81 43 Friday, March 4, 2016 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Forest Service

See

National Agricultural Statistics Service

See

Natural Resources Conservation Service

See

Rural Utilities Service

Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 11568-11569 2016-04796 Meetings: Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 11567-11568 2016-04713 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services RULES Eligibility in the States, District of Columbia, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa; CFR Correction, 11447 2016-04872 Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Electronic Health Record Initiative Program Stage 3 and Modifications to Meaningful Use in 2015 through 2017; Corrections and Correcting Amendment, 11447-11449 2016-04785 Medicare Program: Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Payment Model for Acute Care Hospitals Furnishing Lower Extremity Joint Replacement Services; Corrections and Correcting Amendments, 11449-11451 2016-04786 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 11569-11572 2016-04841 2016-04861 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Victoria Barge Canal, Bloomington, TX, 11434-11435 2016-04827 Safety Zones: Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, and Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, 11437-11438 2016-04826 Little Calumet River, Chicago, IL, 11435-11437 2016-04825 Commerce Commerce Department See

First Responder Network Authority

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 11519-11520 2016-04810 2016-04811 Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, 11520-11521 2016-04812 Defense Department Defense Department See

Engineers Corps

NOTICES Arms Sales, 11521-11528 2016-04706 2016-04823 2016-04860 Privacy Act; Computer Matching Program, 11528-11529 2016-04832
Defense Nuclear Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 11531-11532 2016-04928 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration RULES Schedules of Controlled Substances: Extension of Temporary Placement of 10 Synthetic Cathinones into Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, 11429-11431 2016-05004 PROPOSED RULES Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of 10 Synthetic Cathinones into Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, 11479-11486 2016-05002 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Applications for New Awards: Hispanic-Serving Institutions STEM and Articulation Program, 11532-11539 2016-04868 Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities; etc., 11539-11549 2016-04867 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Confidentiality and Disclosure of State Unemployment Compensation Information and State Income and Eligibility Verification Provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act, 11592 2016-04691 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

See

Western Area Power Administration

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products and Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Supplemental Proposed Determination of Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products as Covered Products, 11454-11465 2016-04874 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Disposal of Greater-Than-Class C Low-Level Radioactive Waste and GTCC-Like Waste, 11550-11552 2016-04731 Meetings: Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee, 11552 2016-04854 Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee, 11552-11553 2016-04869 President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 11549-11550 2016-04870
Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: San Francisco Bay to Stockton (John F. Baldwin and Stockton Ship Channels) Navigation Improvement Study, San Francisco Bay, CA, 11529-11531 2016-04758 Engraving Engraving and Printing Bureau RULES Conduct on Bureau of Engraving and Printing Property, 11432-11434 2016-04817 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Plan Disapprovals: Georgia: Disapproval of Automatic Rescission Clause, 11438-11445 2016-04746 Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Ohio; Regional Haze Glatfelter BART SIP Revision, 11445-11447 2016-04730 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Alaska: Updates to Incorporation by Reference and Miscellaneous Revisions, 11497-11500 2016-04753 NOTICES CERCLA Administrative Cost Recovery Settlements: Former Athol Rod and Gun Club Superfund Site, Athol, MA, 11561-11562 2016-04903 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc., 11557-11558 2016-04833 Pesticide Registrations: Flubendiamide; Cancellation, 11558-11561 2016-04905 Farm Credit System Insurance Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation NOTICES Meetings: Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board, 11562 2016-04816 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Helicopters (Previously Eurocopter France) Helicopters, 11407-11409 2016-04678 M7 Aerospace LLC Airplanes, 11409-11413 2016-03171 Amendment of Class E Airspace: Harvey, ND, and Rolla, ND, 11413-11414 2016-04202 Amendment of United States Area Navigation Route Q-35: Western United States, 11414-11415 2016-04739 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: BLANIK LIMITED Gliders, 11473-11475 2016-04542 Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 11467-11469, 11471-11473 2016-04561 2016-04680 EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Gliders, 11465-11467, 11475-11477 2016-04543 2016-04573 M7 Aerospace, LLC, 11469-11471 2016-04677 NOTICES Meetings: National Parks Overflights Advisory Group Aviation Rulemaking Committee, 11639-11640 2016-04849 RTCA Special Committee Airborne Weather Detection Systems; Joint with EUROCAE WG-95, 11640 2016-04847 Requests to Release Airport Property: Mckinney National Airport, McKinney, TX, 11640-11641 2016-04851 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES International Settlements Policy Reform, 11500-11502 2016-04837 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 11562-11564 2016-04839 2016-04840 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: Pine Creek Mine, LLC, 11554-11555 2016-04696 Combined Filings, 11555-11556 2016-04693 Filings: Hoosier Energy Rural Electric; Cooperative, Inc., 11553-11554 2016-04694 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Greenleaf Energy Unit 1, LLC, 11553 2016-04695 Preliminary Permit Applications: Ever Better Hydro Power, LLC, 11554 2016-04697 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Final Federal Agency Actions: Proposed Highway, Washington, District of Columbia, 11641-11642 2016-04546 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Vision, 11642-11644 2016-04801 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 11564-11565 2016-04818 Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 11564 2016-04819 Financial Crimes Financial Crimes Enforcement Network PROPOSED RULES Imposition of Special Measures: Banca Privada d'Andorra; Withdrawal, 11496-11497 2016-04768 NOTICES Withdrawal of Finding Regarding Banca Privada d'Andorra, 11648-11649 2016-04767 FIRSTNET First Responder Network Authority NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Non-Contiguous Region of the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network; Public Meeting, 11511-11512 2016-04830 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Meetings: Trinity River Adaptive Management Working Group, 11586 2016-04795 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Unique Device Identification System: Editorial Provisions; Technical Amendment, 11428-11429 2016-04707 PROPOSED RULES Medical Devices: Refurbishing, Reconditioning, Rebuilding, Remarketing, Remanufacturing, and Servicing Performed by Third-Party Entities and Original Equipment Manufacturers, 11477-11479 2016-04700 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Medical Device User Fee Small Business Qualification and Certification, 11576-11577 2016-04704 Registration and Product Listing for Owners and Operators of Domestic Tobacco Product Establishments and Listing of Ingredients in Tobacco Products, 11575 2016-04703 Guidance: Labeling for Permanent Hysteroscopically-Placed Tubal Implants Intended for Sterilization, 11577-11579 2016-04790 Nonclinical Study Data Reviewer's Guide Template, 11575-11576 2016-04791 Requests for Information: Risk Assessment of Foodborne Illness Associated With Pathogens From Produce Grown in Fields Amended With Untreated Biological Soil Amendments of Animal Origin, 11572-11574 2016-04712 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Proposed Production Activities: United Chemi-Con, Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 230, Piedmont Triad Area, NC, 11512-11513 2016-04845 Reorganizations under Alternative Site Framework: Foreign-Trade Zone 182, Fort Wayne, IN, 11513 2016-04846 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board, 11508 2016-04789 Olympic Peninsula Resource Advisory Committee, 11508-11509 2016-04778 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Public Buildings Service—Art-in-Architecture Program National Artist Registry, 11565-11566 2016-04803 Government Ethics Government Ethics Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 11566-11567 2016-04822 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

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Border Community Capital Initiative and Semi-Annual Reporting, 11584-11585 2016-04777 Public Housing Agency Lease and Grievance Requirements, 11584 2016-04776 Federal Properties Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 11583-11584 2016-04497 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Consistent Basis Reporting Between Estate and Person Acquiring Property from Decedent, 11431-11432 2016-04716 PROPOSED RULES Consistent Basis Reporting Between Estate and Person Acquiring Property from Decedent, 11486-11496 2016-04718 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Calcium Hypochlorite from the People's Republic of China, 11516-11517 2016-04844 Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China, 11513-11515 2016-04729 Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments, 11517-11518 2016-04843 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products from China, 11591 2016-04701 Certain Hospital Beds, and Components Thereof, 11590-11591 2016-04820 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees under the Clean Air Act, 11591-11592 2016-04721
Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Annual Report for Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements, 11593-11594 2016-04686 Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangement Administrative Law Judge Administrative Hearing Procedures, 11594-11595 2016-04687 Notice of Special Enrollment Rights under Group Health Plans, 11592-11593 2016-04685
Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Tres Rios Field Office; Resource Management Plan, 11587-11589 2016-04805 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Marigold Mine Plan of Operations—Mackay Optimization Project Amendment, Humboldt County, NV, 11586-11587 2016-04806 Realty Actions: Recreation and Public Purposes Lease, Transfer of Interest and Change of Use of Public Lands in Clark County, NV, 11589-11590 2016-04807 Management Management and Budget Office NOTICES Calendar Year 2015 Cost of Outpatient Medical, Dental, and Cosmetic Surgery Services Furnished by Department of Defense Medical Treatment Facilities: Certain Rates Regarding Recovery from Tortiously Liable Third Persons, 11595 2016-04856 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Center Master Plan Update, Kennedy Space Center, Titusville, FL, 11596-11597 2016-04454 Partially Exclusive Licenses, 11596 2016-04705 National Agricultural National Agricultural Statistics Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 11509 2016-04787 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Petitions for Decisions of Inconsequential Noncompliance: BMW of North America, LLC, 11645-11647 2016-04862 Cooper Tire & Rubber Company; Approval, 11644-11645 2016-04698 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Trip Limit Increase, 11451-11452 2016-04798 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Pacific Cod by Vessels Using Jig Gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska, 11452-11453 2016-04809 PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Snapper-Grouper Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 35, 11502-11507 2016-04808 NOTICES Meetings: Endangered Species Act, 11518 2016-04793 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 11518-11519 2016-04858 New England Fishery Management Council, 11519 2016-04859 National Telecommunications National Telecommunications and Information Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Non-Contiguous Region of the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network; Public Meeting, 11511-11512 2016-04830 National Resources Natural Resources Conservation Service NOTICES Proposed Changes to the National Handbook of Conservation Practices for the Natural Resources Conservation Service, 11509-11510 2016-04824 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Department of the Air Force; Hill Air Force Base, UT, 11597-11600 2016-04863 Exelon Generation Co., LLC, Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3; Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 11603-11605 2016-04750 Exemptions: Duke Energy Progress; Combined License Application for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plants Units 2 and 3, 11606-11608 2016-04852 Duke Energy Progress; Combined License Applications for Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant Units 2 and 3, 11601-11603 2016-04850 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 11605-11606 2016-04996 Permits: SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc.; SHINE Medical Isotope Facility, 11600-11601 2016-04864 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 11608-11613 2016-04688 2016-04689 2016-04690 2016-04723 2016-04724 2016-04725 2016-04726 2016-04727 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement, 11613-11614 2016-04784 Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service Agreement, 11614 2016-04783 Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 11613 2016-04779 2016-04780 2016-04781 2016-04782 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: Read Across America Day (Proc. 9403), 11651-11654 2016-05068 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Ukraine; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of March 2, 2016), 11655-11656 2016-05071 Zimbabwe; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of March 2, 2016), 11657-11658 2016-05072 Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 11511 2016-04788 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc., et al., 11624-11634 2016-04794 CLS Investments, LLC, et al., 11616-11624 2016-04722 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, 11614-11616 2016-04708 NASDAQ BX, Inc., 11634-11635 2016-04709 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: California, 11635-11636 2016-04866 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 11636-11637 2016-04797 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Opioid Overdose Prevention Challenge; Requirements and Registration, 11579-11583 2016-04815 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Abandonment Exemptions: Brandon Railroad, LLC, Douglas County, NE, 11637 2016-04835 Lease Exemption Containing Interchange Commitments: Wichita, Tillman and Jackson Railway Co.; Union Pacific Railroad Co., 11637-11638 2016-04836 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES Public Hearings: Policy Recommendations on the Global Steel Industry Situation and Impact on U.S. Steel Industry and Market, 11638-11639 2016-04857 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RULES Use of Electronic Cigarettes on Aircraft, 11415-11428 2016-04799 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 11647-11648 2016-04802
Treasury Treasury Department See

Engraving and Printing Bureau

See

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

See

Internal Revenue Service

NOTICES Study on the Overall Effectiveness of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, 11649-11650 2016-04821
Western Western Area Power Administration NOTICES Rate Orders: Central Valley Project, California-Oregon Transmission Project, Pacific Alternating Current Intertie, etc., 11556-11557 2016-04876 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Presidential Documents, 11651-11658 2016-05068 2016-05071 2016-05072 Reader Aids

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

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

81 43 Friday, March 4, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-2568; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-026-AD; Amendment 39-18424; AD 2016-05-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters (Previously Eurocopter France) Helicopters AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-07-52 for certain Airbus Helicopters (previously Eurocopter France) Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters. AD 2014-07-52 required repetitively inspecting certain reinforcement angles of the rear structure to tailboom junction frame (reinforcement angles) for a crack at 10 hour time-in-service (TIS) intervals, repairing any cracked reinforcement angle, and allowed an optional repetitive inspection with a 165 hour TIS inspection interval as a terminating action for the 10 hour TIS inspections. This AD retains the inspection requirements of AD 2014-07-52 and requires the inspection of the area around each reinforcement angle screw hole as terminating action to the 10 hour TIS inspections. We are issuing this AD to detect a crack in the reinforcement angle, which if not corrected, could result in loss of the tailboom and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES:

This AD is effective April 8, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of June 25, 2014 (79 FR 33054, June 10, 2014).

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

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-2015-2568; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any incorporated-by-reference service information, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Grant, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to remove AD 2014-07-52, Amendment 39-17858 (79 FR 33054, June 10, 2014) and add a new AD. AD 2014-07-52 applied to Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters with Modification (MOD) 07 3215 or with a reinforcement angle part number (P/N) 350A08.2493.21 or P/N 350A08.2493.23 installed. AD 2014-07-52 required, for helicopters with 640 or more hours TIS, repetitively inspecting each reinforcement angle for a crack every 10 hours TIS. As an optional action, AD 2014-07-52 allowed a repetitive 165 hour TIS inspection of the reinforcement angle under each attaching screw for a crack. AD 2014-07-52 was prompted by Emergency AD No. 2014-0076-E, dated March 25, 2014, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA advises that during the inspection of several AS355 helicopters, cracks found in the reinforcement angles had initiated on the non-visible surface of the angle, and that this condition, if not corrected, could lead to further crack propagation and subsequent loss of the tailboom, resulting in loss of control of the helicopter. The EASA AD requires repetitive inspections of the reinforcement angles, and states that a terminating action is under investigation.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2015 (80 FR 43645). The NPRM proposed to retain the 10 hour TIS repetitive inspections of the reinforcement angle and require (instead of allow as an option) the 165 hour TIS inspection of the junction frame bores as terminating action for the 10 hour TIS inspections. The NPRM also proposed to revise the applicability to only include helicopters with reinforcement angle P/N 350A08.2493.21 and P/N 350A08.2493.23, and not include helicopters with MOD 07 3215. Since MOD 07 3215 installed reinforcement angle P/N 350A08.2493.21 and P/N 350A08.2493.23, AD 2014-07-52 was written to apply to helicopters with either the reinforcement angle P/Ns or with MOD 07 3215, so that operators could more easily determine whether AD 2014-07-52 applied to their aircraft. Airbus Helicopters then developed MOD 07 3232, which removes reinforcement angle P/N 350A08.2493.21 and P/N 350A08.2493.23. We removed MOD 07 3215 from the applicability because we did not want the AD to apply to a helicopter with both MOD 07 3215 and MOD 07 3232 in its aircraft records, as it would not have reinforcement angle P/N 350A08.2493.21 or P/N 350A08.2493.23 installed. The proposed requirements were intended to detect a crack in the reinforcement angle, which if not corrected, could result in loss of the tailboom and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Since the NPRM was issued, a group email address has been established for requesting an FAA alternative method of compliance for a helicopter of foreign design. We have revised this contact information in this final rule to reflect the new email address.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (79 FR 33054, June 10, 2014).

FAA's Determination

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

Interim Action

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

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

This AD is not applicable to the AS350BB as that model is not type certificated in the U.S. This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS350C and AS350D1 helicopters because these helicopters have a similar design. Finally, the EASA AD requires operators to contact Airbus Helicopters if there is a crack, and this AD does not, however it does require repairing the crack before further flight.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Airbus Helicopters issued Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 05.00.70 for Model AS350B, BA, BB, Bl, B2, B3, and D helicopters, and EASB No. 05.00.62 for Model AS355E, F, F1, F2, N, and NP helicopters, both Revision 0 and dated March 24, 2014. EASB No. 05.00.70 and EASB No. 05.00.62 describe procedures for inspecting the angle reinforcements for a crack. 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 822 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, inspecting the reinforcement angles for a crack without removing the screws requires 1.0 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of $85 and a total cost of $69,870 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle. Removing the screws and inspecting the reinforcement angle requires 2 work-hours, for a cost per helicopter of $170 and a total cost of $139,740 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle. If required, repairing a cracked reinforcement angle requires about 10 work-hours, and required parts cost about $300, for a total cost per helicopter of $1,150.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-07-52, Amendment 39-17858 (79 FR 33054, June 10, 2014), and adding the following new AD: 2016-05-06 Airbus Helicopters (previously Eurocopter France): Amendment 39-18424; Docket No. FAA-2015-2568; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-026-AD. (a) Applicability

This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters, with a reinforcement angle part number (P/N) 350A08.2493.21 or P/N 350A08.2493.23 installed, certificated in any category.

Note 1 to paragraph (a) of this AD:

Helicopters with Modification (MOD) 073232 do not have P/N 350A08.2493.21 or P/N 350A08.2493.23 installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in a rear structure to tailboom junction frame reinforcement angle (reinforcement angle), which if not detected could result in loss of the tail boom and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

This AD supersedes AD 2014-07-52, Amendment 39-17858 (79 FR 33054, June 10, 2014).

(d) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective April 8, 2016.

(e) Compliance

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

(f) Required Actions

(1) For helicopters with 640 or more hours time-in-service (TIS) since installation of MOD 073215 or since installation of an applicable reinforcement angle, within 10 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 10 hours TIS, inspect each reinforcement angle for a crack as depicted in Figure 1 of Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.00.70 for Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350C, AS350D, and AS350D1 helicopters and Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.00.62 for AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters, both Revision 0 and dated March 24, 2014.

(2) If there is a crack, before further flight, repair the reinforcement angle in a manner approved by the manager listed in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.

(3) Within 165 hours TIS after the first inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 165 hours TIS, remove screw No. 5 from the reinforcement angle, thoroughly clean the area around the hole and inspect the reinforcement angle for a crack. If there is not a crack, reinstall the screw. Sequentially repeat the steps required by this paragraph for screws No. 6 through No. 12. If there is a crack, comply with paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. Accomplishment of the inspection required by this paragraph terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

(g) Special Flight Permits

Special flight permits are prohibited.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

(3) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2014-07-52, Amendment 39-17858 (79 FR 33054, June 10, 2014) are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this AD.

(i) Additional Information

The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2014-0076-E, dated March 25, 2014. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2015-2568.

(j) Subject

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

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on June 25, 2014 (79 FR 33054, June 10, 2014).

(i) Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 05.00.62, Revision 0, dated March 24, 2014.

(ii) Airbus Helicopters EASB No. 05.00.70, Revision 0, dated March 24, 2014.

Note 2 to paragraph (k)(3):

Airbus Helicopters EASB No. 05.00.62 and EASB No. 05.00.70, both Revision 0 and dated March 24, 2014, are co-published as one document along with Airbus Helicopters EASB No. 05.00.45 and EASB No. 05.00.41, both Revision 0 and dated March 24, 2014, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.

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

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

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

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 25, 2016. Scott A. Horn, Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-04678 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3607; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-010-AD; Amendment 39-18398; AD 2016-04-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; M7 Aerospace LLC Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all M7 Aerospace LLC Models SA26-AT, SA226-T(B), SA226-AT, SA226-T, SA226-TC, SA227-AC (C-26A), SA227-AT, SA227-BC (C-26A), SA227-CC, SA227-DC (C-26B), and SA227-TT airplanes. This AD was prompted by information that the airplane flight manual (AFM) does not provide adequate guidance in the handling of engine failures, which may lead to reliance on the negative torque system (NTS) for reducing drag. This condition could lead the pilot to not fully feather the propeller with consequent loss of control. This AD requires inserting updates into the airplane flight manual (AFM) and/or the pilot operating handbook (POH) that will clearly establish that the NTS is not designed to automatically feather the propeller but only to provide drag protection. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective April 8, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 8, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this AD, contact M7 Aerospace LLC, 10823 NE Entrance Road, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone: (210) 824-9421; fax: (210) 804-7766; Internet: http://www.elbitsystems-us.com; email: [email protected] You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 816-329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3607.

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-2015-3607; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Heusser, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76177; telephone: (817) 222-5038; fax: (817) 222-5960; 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 all M7 Aerospace LLC Models SA26-AT, SA226-T(B), SA226-AT, SA226-T, SA226-TC, SA227-AC (C-26A), SA227-AT, SA227-BC (C-26A), SA227-CC, SA227-DC (C-26B), and SA227-TT airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 25, 2015 (80 FR 51495). The NPRM was prompted by a report of an accident where an M7 Aerospace LLC Model SA227-AC airplane experienced left engine power loss and consequent loss of control. Training manuals provide descriptions of the negative torque system (NTS), which provides partial anti-drag protection if a negative torque condition is sensed. This feature might cause pilots to assume the system automatically provides full anti-drag protection in the event of an engine failure or power loss. The pilot must also take prompt action to fully feather the propeller on the failed engine to reduce drag. A pilot's sole reliance on the NTS for reducing drag in the event of engine power loss may result in the pilot's failure to initiate the Engine Failure Inflight checklist and feather the propellers in time.

The NPRM proposed to require inserting updates into the airplane flight manual (AFM) and/or the pilot operating handbook (POH) that will clearly establish that the NTS is not designed to automatically feather the propeller but only to provide drag protection. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 51495, August 25, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 51495, August 25, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 51495, August 25, 2015).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed the following M7 Aerospace LLC service information:

• M7 Aerospace LLC Merlin SA26-AT Dash One Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), Revision, section III, pages III-1 through III-6, revised May 14, 2015; and pages III-7 through III-8, FAA Approved May 14, 2015;

• M7 Aerospace LLC Merlin SA26-AT Dash Two, AFM, Revision, section III, pages III-1 through III-6, revised May 14, 2015, and pages III-7 through III-8, FAA Approved May 14, 2015;

• M7 Aerospace LLC Swearingen Merlin SA226-T AFM, Revision A-29, section III, pages III-2 though III-25, revised November 14, 2014, and page III-26, FAA Approved November 14, 2014;

• M7 Aerospace LLC Swearingen Merlin SA226-AT AFM, Revision B-33, section III, pages III-2 through III-24, revised November 14, 2014, and pages III-25 through III-30, FAA approved November 14, 2014;

• M7 Aerospace LLC Merlin IIIB SA226-T(B) AFM, Revision B-29, section 3, pages 3-2 through page 3-20, revised November 14, 2014; and pages 3-21 through 3-24, issued November 14, 2014;

• M7 Aerospace LLC Swearingen Metro SA226-TC AFM, Revision A-43, section III, pages III-2 through page III-24, revised November 14, 2014; and pages III-25 through III-32, FAA Approved November 14, 2014;

• M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC (4AC) Metro III AFM, Revision B-11, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-30, revised November 14, 2014;

• M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC (4MC) Metro III AFM, Revision A-12, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised November 14, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-36, FAA Approved November 14, 2014;

• M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC (6AC) Metro III AFM, Revision A-16, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-20, revised November 14, 2014;

• M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC (7AC) Metro III AFM, Revision B-19, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;

• M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-AC (7MC) Metro III AFM, Revision A-13, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;

• M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-AC (8AC) Metro III AFM, Revision A-15, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;

• M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-AT (4AT) Merlin IVC, Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH)/AFM, Revision A-12, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised November 14, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved November 14, 2014;

• M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-AT (6AT) Merlin IVC POH/AFM, Revision 13, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised November 14, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-36, FAA Approved November 14, 2014;

• M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-AT (7AT) Merlin IVC POH/AFM, Revision B-12, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014, and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;

• M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-AT (8AT) Merlin IVC POH/AFM, Revision 13, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;

• M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-BC (6BC) AFM, Revision 21, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-36, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;

• M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-CC (6CC) AFM, Revision 17, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-24, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-25 through 3-30, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;

• M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-DC (6DC) AFM, Revision 34, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-26, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-27 through 3-32, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;

• M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-DC (8DC) AFM, Revision 8, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-26, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-27 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;

• M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild 300 Aircraft SA227-TT POH/AFM, Revision 15, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;

• M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild 300 Aircraft SA227-TT (312) POH/AFM, Revision 13, section 3, page 3-3 and pages 3-5 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014, and pages 3-31 through 3-32, FAA Approved December 9, 2014; and

• M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Model SA227-TT Merlin IIIC Aircraft POH/AFM, Revision 29, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-24, revised December 9, 2014, and pages 3-25 through 3-32, issued December 9, 2014.

These revisions to the AFM and POH clearly establish that the NTS is not designed to automatically feather the propeller but only to provide drag protection. 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 360 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
  • Insert revision into the appropriate AFM describing action to take when feathering propellers in the event of engine failure .5 work-hour × $85 per hour = $42.50 * NA $42.50 $15,300 * Not applicable.
    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): 2016-04-04 M7 Aerospace LLC: Amendment 39-18398; Docket No. FAA-2015-3607; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-010-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 8, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to M7 Aerospace LLC Models SA26-AT, SA226-T(B), SA226-AT, SA226-T, SA226-TC, SA227-AC (C-26A), SA227-AT, SA227-BC (C-26A), SA227-CC, SA227-DC (C-26B), and SA227-TT airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 01, Operations Information.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by information that a pilot's sole reliance on the negative torque system (NTS) for reducing drag in the event of engine power loss may result in the pilot's failure to initiate the Engine Failure Inflight checklist and feather the propellers in time. This could lead the pilot to not fully feather the propeller with consequent loss of control. We are issuing this AD to add information to the airplane flight manual (AFM) and/or Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH) that reliance on the NTS to reduce drag during an engine failure could lead the pilot to not fully feather the propeller with consequent loss of control.

    (f) Compliance

    Unless already done, within the next 30 days after April 8, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), do the actions in paragraph (g) of this AD, as applicable, including all subparagraphs.

    (g) Actions

    Incorporate the applicable M7 Aerospace LLC AFM revisions as listed in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(12) of this AD:

    (1) For Model SA26-AT Dash One airplanes: Insert section III, pages III-1 through III-6, revised May 14, 2015; and pages III-7 through III-8, FAA Approved May 14, 2015; into the Merlin Model SA-26AT Dash One AFM, Revision.

    (2) For Model SA26-AT Dash Two airplanes: Insert section III, pages III-1 through III-6, revised May 14, 2015; and pages III-7 through III-8, FAA Approved May 14, 2015; into the Merlin Model SA-26AT Dash Two AFM, Revision.

    (3) For Model SA226-T airplanes: Insert section III, pages III-2 though III-25, revised November 14, 2014, and page III-26, FAA approved November 14, 2014, into the Swearingen Merlin SA226-T AFM, Reissue A, dated June 28, 1976.

    (4) For Model SA226-AT airplanes: Insert section III, pages III-2 through III-24, revised November 14, 2014, and pages III-25 through III-30, FAA approved November 14, 2014, into the Merlin SA226-AT AFM, Reissue B, dated May 6, 1977.

    (5) For Model SA226-T(B) airplanes: Insert section 3, pages 3-2, through page 3-20, revised November 14, 2014; and pages 3-21 through 3-24, issued November 14, 2014; into the Merlin IIB SA226-T(B) AFM, Reissue B, dated November 2, 1979.

    (6) For Model SA226-TC airplanes: Insert section III, pages III-2 through page III-24, revised November 14, 2014; and pages III-25 through III-32, FAA Approved November 14, 2014; into the Swearingen Metro SA226-TC AFM, Reissue A, dated December 1, 1976.

    (7) For Model SA227-AT airplanes:

    (i) Model 4AT: Insert section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised November 14, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved November 14, 2014; into the Model SA227-AT (4AT) Merlin IVC POH/AFM, Reissue A, dated November 30, 1988;

    (ii) Model 6AT: Insert section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised November 14, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-36, FAA Approved November 14, 2014 into the SA227-AT (6AT) Merlin IVC POH/AFM, dated May 13, 1987.

    (iii) Model 7AT: Insert section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014, and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014, into the SA227-AT (7AT) Merlin IVC POH/AFM, Reissue B, dated November 30, 1988.

    (iv) Model 8AT: Insert section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014; into the SA227-AT (8AT) Merlin IVC POH/AFM, dated May 13, 1987.

    (8) For Model SA227-TT Fairchild 300 airplanes: Insert section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014; into the SA227-TT Fairchild 300 POH/AFM, Reissue A, dated August 7, 1981.

    (9) For Model SA227-TT Fairchild 312 airplanes: Insert section 3, page 3-3 and pages 3-5 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-32, FAA Approved December 9, 2014; into the Model SA227-TT Fairchild 300 (312) 12,500 LBS POH/AFM, dated October 4, 1981.

    (10) For Model SA227-TT Fairchild Merlin IIIC airplanes: Insert section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-24, revised December 9, 2014, and pages 3-25 through 3-32, issued December 9, 2014; into the SA227-TT Merlin IIIC POH/AFM, Reissue A, dated August 7, 1981.

    (11) For Model SA227-AC (C-26A) airplanes:

    (i) Model 4AC: Insert section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-30, revised November 14, 2014; into the Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC Metro III AFM, Reissue B, dated November 7, 1990.

    (ii) Model 4MC: Insert section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised November 14, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-36, FAA Approved November 14, 2014, into the Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC Metro III AFM, Reissue A, dated May 22, 1989.

    (iii) Model 7AC: Insert section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014, into the Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC Metro III AFM, Reissue B, dated April 2, 1986.

    (iv) Model 7MC: Insert section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014, into the Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC Metro III AFM, Reissue A, dated May 22, 1989.

    (v) Model 8AC: Insert section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014, into the Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC Metro III AFM, Reissue A, dated May 22, 1989.

    (vi) Model 6AC: Insert section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-20, revised November 14, 2014; into the Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC Metro III AFM, Reissue A, dated May 22, 1989.

    (12) For Model SA227-BC (6BC) airplanes: Insert section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-36, FAA Approved December 9, 2014, into the Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-BC AFM, dated September 25, 1989.

    (13) For Model SA227-DC (C-26B) airplanes:

    (i) Model (6DC): Insert section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-26, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-27 through 3-32, FAA Approved December 9, 2014, into the Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-DC AFM, dated August 23, 1991.

    (ii) Model (8DC): Insert section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-31, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-32 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014; into the Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-DC AFM.

    (14) For Model SA227-CC (6CC) airplanes: Insert section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-24, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-25 through 3-30, FAA Approved December 9, 2014; into the Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-CC AFM, dated December 11, 1992.

    (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Fort Worth 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 (i)(1) of this AD.

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

    (i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Michael Heusser, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76177; telephone: (817) 222-5038; fax: (817) 222-5960; email: [email protected]

    (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 the AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) M7 Aerospace LLC Merlin SA26-AT Dash One Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), Revision, section III, pages III-1 through III-6, revised May 14, 2015; and pages III-7 through III-8, FAA Approved May 14, 2015;

    (ii) M7 Aerospace LLC Merlin SA26-AT Dash Two, AFM, Revision, section III, pages III-1 through III-6, revised May 14, 2015, and pages III-7 through III-8, FAA Approved May 14, 2015;

    (iii) M7 Aerospace LLC Swearingen Merlin SA226-T AFM, Revision A-29, section III, pages III-2 though III-25, revised November 14, 2014, and page III-26, FAA Approved November 14, 2014;

    (iv) M7 Aerospace LLC Swearingen Merlin SA226-AT AFM, Revision B-33, section III, pages III-2 through III-24, revised November 14, 2014, and pages III-25 through III-30, FAA November 14, 2014;

    (v) M7 Aerospace LLC Merlin IIIB SA226-T(B) AFM, Revision B-29, section 3, pages 3-2 through page 3-20, revised November 14, 2014; and pages 3-21 through 3-24, issued November 14, 2014;

    (vi) M7 Aerospace LLC Swearingen Metro SA226-TC AFM, Revision A-43, section III, pages III-2 through page III-24, revised November 14, 2014; and pages III-25 through III-32, FAA Approved November 14, 2014;

    (vii) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC (4AC) Metro III AFM, Revision B-11, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-30, revised November 14, 2014;

    (viii) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC (4MC) Metro III AFM, Revision A-12, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised November 14, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-36, FAA Approved November 14, 2014;

    Note 1 to paragraph (j)(2)(viii):

    The list of effective pages for this manual on page 0-iv incorrectly identifies the effective date for page 3-4 as October 17, 1994. The correct date is November 14, 2014.

    (ix) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC (6AC) Metro III AFM, Revision A-16, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-20, revised November 14, 2014;

    (x) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC (7AC) Metro III AFM, Revision B-19, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;

    (xi) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-AC (7MC) Metro III AFM, Revision A-13, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;

    (xii) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-AC (8AC) Metro III AFM, Revision A-15, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;

    (xiii) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-AT (4AT) Merlin IVC, Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH)/AFM, Revision A-12, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised November 14, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved November 14, 2014;

    (xiv) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-AT (6AT) Merlin IVC POH/AFM, Revision 13, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised November 14, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-36, FAA Approved November 14, 2014;

    (xv) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-AT (7AT) Merlin IVC POH/AFM, Revision B-12, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014, and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;

    (xvi) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-AT (8AT) Merlin IVC POH/AFM, Revision 13, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;

    (xvii) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-BC (6BC) AFM, Revision 21, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-36, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;

    (xviii) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-CC (6CC) AFM, Revision 17, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-24, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-25 through 3-30, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;

    (xix) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-DC (6DC) AFM, Revision 34, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-26, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-27 through 3-32, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;

    (xx) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-DC (8DC) AFM, Revision 8, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-26, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-27 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;

    (xxi) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild 300 Aircraft SA227-TT POH/AFM, Revision 15, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;

    (xxii) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild 300 Aircraft SA227-TT (312) POH/AFM, Revision 13, section 3, page 3-3 and pages 3-5 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014, and pages 3-31 through 3-32, FAA Approved December 9, 2014; and

    (xxiii) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Model SA227-TT Merlin IIIC Aircraft POH/AFM, Revision 29, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-24, revised December 9, 2014, and pages 3-25 through 3-32, issued December 9, 2014.

    Note 2 to paragraph (j)(2) of this AD:

    While not specifically identified on the manuals, paragraphs (j)(2)(vii) through (j)(2)(xii) apply to the military version C-26A, and paragraphs (j)(2)(xix) and (j)(2)(xx) apply to the military version C-26B of these airplanes.

    (3) For M7 Aerospace LLC service information identified in this AD, contact M7 Aerospace LLC, 10823 NE Entrance Road, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone: (210) 824-9421; fax: (210) 804-7766; Internet: http://www.elbitsystems-us.com; email: [email protected]

    (4) You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 816-329-4148.

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

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 10, 2016. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-03171 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-3695; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-5] Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following North Dakota Towns; Harvey, ND, and Rolla, ND AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action amends Class E airspace by updating the geographic coordinates at Harvey Municipal Airport, Harvey, ND; and Rolla Municipal Airport, Rolla, ND. The coordinates for Minot AFB and the Devils Lake VHF Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) are also updated to coincide with the FAA's database.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, May 26, 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 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 29591; 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 amends controlled airspace at Harvey Municipal Airport, Harvey, ND; and Rolla Municipal Airport, Rolla, ND.

    History

    In a review of the airspace, the FAA found the airspace for Harvey Municipal Airport, Harvey, ND; and Rolla Municipal Airport, Rolla, ND, as published in FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, required the geographic coordinates of the above airports, Minot AFB, Minot, ND; and the Devil's Lake VOR/DME to be updated. This is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries or operating requirements of the above airports.

    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.

    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 action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71, updating the geographic coordinates for Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Harvey Municipal Airport, Harvey, ND; Rolla Municipal Airport, Rolla, ND; Minot AFB, Minot ND; and the Devils Lake VOR/DME to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    This is an administrative change amending the description for Harvey Municipal Airport and Rolla Municipal Airport to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database, and does not affect the boundaries, or operating requirements of the airspace; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

    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 exist 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. AGL ND E5 Harvey, ND [Amended] Harvey Municipal Airport, ND (Lat. 47°47′28″ N., long 99°55′54″ W.) Minot AFB, ND (Lat. 48°24′57″ N., long. 101°21′29″ W.) Bismarck VOR/DME (Lat. 46°45′42″ N., long. 100°39′55″ W.) Devils Lake VOR/DME (Lat. 48°06′55″ N., long. 98°54′45″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Harvey Municipal Airport; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded on the north by V-430, on the west by the 47-mile radius of Minot AFB, on the southwest by V-15, on the south by the Bismarck VOR/DME 36-mile radius, on the southeast by V-169, and on the east by the Devils Lake VOR/DME 22-mile radius; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded on the northwest by V-169, on the south by latitude 47°30′00″ N., and on the east by longitude 99°19′00″ W., excluding all Federal airways.

    AGL ND E5 Rolla, ND [Amended] Rolla Municipal Airport, ND (Lat. 48°53′04″ N., long. 99°37′15″ W.) Devils Lake VOR/DME (Lat. 48°06′55″ N., long. 98°54′45″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.3-mile radius of Rolla Municipal Airport, excluding that airspace north of lat. 49°00′00″ N.; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within an area bounded on the north by lat. 49°00′00″ N., on the east by long. 99°00′00″ W., on the southeast by the 22-mile arc of the Devils Lake VOR/DME, on the south by V-430, on the southwest by the Rugby, ND, Class E airspace area, and on the west by long. 99°49′00″ W.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 19, 2016. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04202 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-6001; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-10] RIN 2120-AA66 Amendment of United States Area Navigation (RNAV) Route Q-35; Western United States AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This action corrects the FAA docket number of a final rule published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2016, amending the legal description of RNAV Route Q-35 in the Western United States. In that rule, the FAA docket number was incorrectly published as FAA-2013-6001, instead of FAA-2015-6001.

    DATES:

    Effective date 0901 UTC, March 31, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR 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 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jason Stahl, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    A final rule was published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2016 (81 FR 1877), FR Doc. 2015-33095, that reversed the order of points listed in the legal description of RNAV Route Q-35 as published in FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points. Subsequent to publication, the FAA found that the FAA docket number for this document was inadvertently mistyped. This action corrects the FAA docket number.

    Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the Federal Register of January 14, 2016 (81 FR 1877), the docket number, as published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2016 (81 FR 1877), FR Doc. 2015-33095, amending the legal description of RNAV Route Q-35, is corrected as follows:

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    On page 1877, column 1, line 4, Remove “Docket No. FAA-2013-6001” and add in its place “Docket No. FAA-2015-6001.
    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 25, 2016. Kenneth Ready, Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04739 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary 14 CFR Part 252 [Docket No. DOT-OST-2011-0044] RIN 2105-AE06 Use of Electronic Cigarettes on Aircraft AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Transportation is issuing a final rule to extend the smoking ban in DOT's regulation to include all charter (i.e., nonscheduled) flights where a flight attendant is a required crewmember. The revised regulation would comport with 49 U.S.C. 41706, which was revised in 2012, to ban smoking on charter flights where a flight attendant is a required crewmember. This final rule also explicitly bans the use of electronic cigarettes (“e-cigarettes”) on all flights where smoking is banned. The Department interprets the existing regulation to prohibit e-cigarette use, but is codifying this interpretation.

    DATES:

    The rule is effective April 4, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert M. Gorman, Senior Trial Attorney, or Blane A. Workie, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-9342, 202-366-7152 (fax), [email protected] or [email protected] (email).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (Pub. L. 106-181) was signed into law on April 5, 2000. Section 708 of this statute, “Prohibitions Against Smoking on Scheduled Flights” (codified as 49 U.S.C. 41706), banned passengers from smoking on all flights in scheduled passenger interstate and intrastate air transportation, and directed the Secretary of Transportation to prohibit smoking in foreign air transportation (with an exception process for foreign carriers). Shortly thereafter, the Department of Transportation (“DOT,” or “the Department”) amended its rule on smoking aboard aircraft, 14 CFR part 252, to implement section 41706. Under part 252, the smoking of tobacco products is banned on all scheduled passenger flights of air carriers, and on all scheduled passenger flight segments of foreign air carriers between points in the United States and between the United States and foreign points. Under part 252, foreign governments may request and obtain a waiver from DOT provided that an alternative smoking prohibition resulting from bilateral negotiations is in effect. Further, part 252 was amended to permit carriers operating single-entity charters to allow smoking throughout the aircraft, but also required a no-smoking section for each class of service (e.g., first class) on other charter flights where smoking is not banned.

    Throughout this preamble, we use the terms “air carrier” and “foreign air carrier” as defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102, in which an “air carrier” is a citizen of the United States undertaking to provide air transportation, and a “foreign air carrier” is a person, not a citizen of the United States, undertaking to provide foreign air transportation.

    The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Electronic Cigarettes and Other Nicotine Delivery Systems

    On September 15, 2011, the Department published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in which it proposed to amend its existing smoking rule (part 252) to explicitly ban the use of e-cigarettes on all flights covered by that rule (i.e., all flights of U.S. air carriers in scheduled passenger interstate, intrastate and foreign air transportation and all scheduled flight segments of foreign air carriers in, to, or from the United States).1 E-cigarettes typically contain a cartridge or chamber, which contain an atomizer or heating element, a battery and a liquid solution. Most often e-cigarettes contain liquid nicotine but they may contain other chemicals. When a user inhales, the heating element aerosolizes the liquid solution. This produces an aerosol,2 which requires an inhalation and exhalation similar to smoking cigarettes. In addition to nicotine, e-cigarette aerosol can contain heavy metals, ultrafine particulates that can be inhaled deep into the lungs, and cancer-causing agents like acrolein. Secondhand aerosol that is exhaled by users may reduce air quality and is potentially harmful to health. Sometimes e-cigarettes are designed to look like traditional cigarettes, but at times they are also made to look like cigars, pipes, and even everyday products such as pens.

    1Smoking of Electronic Cigarettes on Aircraft, Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, 14 CFR part 252, [Docket No. DOT-OST-2011-0044], RIN 2105-AE06, 76 FR 57008 (Sept. 15. 2011).

    2 Our NPRM and many commenters referred to the exhaled product of e-cigarettes as a “vapor.” It is more accurate to refer to the product as an aerosol. See Grana et al., E-Cigarettes: A Scientific Review, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4018182/. Products that create both vapors and aerosols are included in the Department's definition of “smoking.”

    The increased promotion and availability of e-cigarettes raised the issue of whether the statutory ban on smoking on scheduled passenger flights in section 41706 and the existing regulatory prohibition on the smoking of tobacco products in part 252 applied to e-cigarettes. In the NPRM, we explained that the Department views the existing statutory and regulatory framework to be sufficiently broad to include the use of e-cigarettes; however, the purpose of the proposal was to clarify and codify this position. In addition to relying on section 41706 as our statutory authority for the rule, we also relied on 49 U.S.C. 41702, which requires air carriers to provide safe and adequate interstate air transportation. Another Federal statute, 49 U.S.C. 41712, which prohibits airlines from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices or unfair methods of competition in air transportation or the sale of air transportation, provides additional support for the e-cigarette rule. (See “Authority to Regulate E-Cigarettes under 49 U.S.C. 41712,” below).

    The NPRM stated our position that the reasons supporting the statutory and regulatory ban on smoking also apply to a ban on e-cigarettes: Improving air quality within the aircraft, reducing the risk of adverse health effects on passengers and crewmembers, and enhancing aviation safety and passenger comfort. We also discussed Sottera, Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration, 627 F.3d 891 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 7, 2010), in which the court held that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could not regulate “customarily marketed” electronic cigarettes as drugs or devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), but that the FDA could regulate the e-cigarettes at issue as tobacco products under the FDCA as amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Act of 2009 (Tobacco Control Act).

    The FDA has express authority under the Tobacco Control Act to regulate only the following tobacco products at this time: cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. The Tobacco Control Act permits the FDA to extend its tobacco products authority to other types of tobacco products by issuing regulations. On April 25, 2014, the FDA issued a proposed rule to extend FDA's tobacco product authorities to include e-cigarettes and other types of tobacco products.3

    3Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act; Regulations on the Sale and Distribution of Tobacco Products and Required Warning Statements for Tobacco Products, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 14 CFR parts 1100, 1140, and 1143, [Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0189], RIN 0910-AG38, 79 FR 23142 (April 25, 2014).

    Similarly, in our NPRM, we proposed to amend DOT's smoking rule so it clearly covers e-cigarettes by including a definition of smoking. For purposes of this rule, we proposed to define smoking as: “the smoking of tobacco products or use of electronic cigarettes and similar products designed to deliver nicotine or other substances to a user in the form of a vapor,” with an exemption for “the use of a device such as a nebulizer that delivers a medically beneficial substance to a user in the form of a vapor.”

    In the NPRM, the Department sought comment on: (1) Whether the definition of “smoking” in the proposed rule text was so broad that it might unintentionally include otherwise permissible medical devices that produce a vapor; (2) concerns over, and benefits of, the proposal to clarify the prohibition in part 252 to explicitly cover e-cigarettes; and (3) any other information or data relevant to the Department's decision.

    Charter (Nonscheduled) Passenger Flights

    In addition, the NPRM also stated the Department's intent to consider whether to extend the ban on smoking, including e-cigarettes, to charter flights with aircraft that have a seating capacity of 19 or more passenger seats—i.e., those flights that generally require a flight attendant.4 The Department proposed banning smoking on charter flights with 19 or more passenger seats, citing public health concerns for flight attendants who may be subject to secondhand smoke on board such charter flights. Thus, the Department sought comment on the benefits and drawbacks of extending the smoking ban to charter flights that have a seating capacity of 19 or more passenger seats.

    4 Generally, pursuant to FAA regulations, a flight attendant is a required crewmember for Part 121, 125, and 135 operations where the aircraft has a seating capacity of more than nineteen. See 14 CFR 121.391, 125.269, 135.107. A flight attendant is also a required crewmember for Part 121 operations with airplanes that have a maximum payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds and a seating capacity of more than nine. 14 CFR 121.269(a)(1).

    A ban on smoking on charter flights where a flight attendant is a required crewmember was enacted into law on February 14, 2012, in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112-95. Section 401 of the Act amended section 41706, the existing smoking statute, by broadening the smoking prohibition to include aircraft in nonscheduled passenger interstate, intrastate and foreign air transportation, if a flight attendant is a required crewmember on the aircraft (as determined by the Federal Aviation Administration or a foreign government).

    Discussion of Comments Overview

    In response to the NPRM, the Department received over 1000 comments, the majority of which were in response to the e-cigarette issue. A majority of the comments received on the NPRM were from individuals. In addition, the Department received comments from the following entities: U.S. carrier and foreign carrier associations, members of Congress, pilot associations, flight attendant associations, consumer organizations, advocacy and special interest organizations, local governments, and medical associations.

    The Department has carefully reviewed and considered the comments received. The commenters' positions are summarized below.

    Definition of “Smoking”

    In the NPRM, we asked whether the definition of “Smoking” in the proposed rule text is too broad in that it may unintentionally include otherwise permissible medical devices that produce a vapor. We proposed the following definition:

    Smoking means the smoking of tobacco products or use of electronic cigarettes and similar products designed to deliver nicotine or other substances to a user in the form of a vapor. It does not include the use of a device such as a nebulizer that delivers a medically beneficial substance to a user in the form of a vapor.

    The Air Transport Association of America (now Airlines for America (A4A)), International Air Transport Association (IATA), Regional Airline Association (RAA), and Air Carrier Association of America (ACAA) filed a joint comment stating their view that the proposed definition was adequate as written, and that it would not unintentionally include otherwise permissible medical devices. Also, the American Thoracic Society suggested that the Department consider explicitly stating in its definition that FDA-approved medical devices, such as nebulizers, metered dose inhalers, ventilators, supplemental oxygen and other respiratory assistive devices meeting Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements, are not covered by the definition of smoking.

    With respect to comments received from individuals, there was a concern raised by some that the definition could include all inhalers, asthma inhalers, or permissible nicotine replacement products. Some suggested that “medically beneficial” is too broad because in some cases, nicotine may be medically beneficial. Therefore, the commenters suggest changing the language to “medically necessary substances,” “FDA-approved devices,” or “prescription drugs.” One commenter stated that the definition is circular because it uses “smoking” in the definition of “smoking.” In addition, some commenters suggested it would be clearer to add the word “harmful” before “vapor.”

    Finally, one commenter suggested the following definition as an alternative to the proposed rule text: “any inhalation or exhalation of a tobacco product, electronic cigarette, or similar products that emits a smoke, mist, vapor, etc., with the exception of medical devices such as nebulizers.”

    DOT Response

    Based on the comments received, we have decided to edit our proposed definition of smoking to read as follows:

    Smoking means the use of a tobacco product, electronic cigarettes whether or not they are a tobacco product, or similar products that produce a smoke, mist, vapor, or aerosol, with the exception of products (other than electronic cigarettes) which meet the definition of a medical device in section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, such as nebulizers.

    We feel this change more succinctly addresses our targeted prohibition and makes clear that products which meet the definition of a medical device (other than electronic cigarettes) in section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, such as nebulizers, are exempt. The use of electronic cigarettes would fall within the smoking ban even if electronic cigarettes were to meet the definition of a medical device.

    Coverage of E-Cigarettes

    In the NPRM, we explained that we interpret the existing part 252 to ban the use of e-cigarettes on all flights and that we were seeking to codify this interpretation. We solicited comments about the potential benefits or harm of this proposal.

    In their joint comment, A4A, IATA, RAA, and ACAA stated their support for the proposed ban, arguing that e-cigarettes should be treated the same as other tobacco products. These organizations voiced concern over the ingredients in e-cigarettes, which could possibly cause airway irritation for users and others nearby. They also named design flaws, inadequate labeling, quality control, and health issues as concerns. Further, the commenters stated, “in fact, all carriers already prohibit e-cigarette use in the cabin for the same reasons the Department provided.”

    The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) stated its belief that the proposed rule would prevent degradation of the air quality onboard aircraft, and asserted that the health risks for human use need to be more thoroughly understood for both users and non-users who are subjected to “secondhand smoke.” ALPA also noted the possibility of passenger and crewmember confusion in differentiating e-cigarettes from tobacco cigarettes, as the two products can be difficult to distinguish from each other.

    The Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) reported that it has received occasional reports of in-flight passenger use of the devices and some confusion among travelers regarding airline policies. AFA stated its support for treating the devices the same as traditional cigarettes. AFA believes that DOT is appropriately applying a precautionary principle because the toxicity of e-cigarettes is not well understood. In addition, the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, representing flight attendants for American Airlines, submitted a comment stating that American Airlines currently bans e-cigarettes, but nonetheless still urged DOT to promulgate a final rule to create consistency across the industry. The Association further noted that the science behind the effects that e-cigarettes may have on third parties is, at best, inconclusive, and that they adamantly advocate for a healthy environment for all flight attendants.

    The Independent Pilots Association, the bargaining unit for the pilots of United Parcel Service, stated its support for the rule on safety grounds (based on the inherent dangers of using lithium battery powered e-cigarettes onboard aircraft). However, it also expressed the view that DOT has created a double standard of safety regulations by carving out less safe standards for cargo aircraft operations, and urged that the rule be applied to all aircraft.

    We received comments from a number of medical associations, each voicing their support for the proposed ban. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) commented that it was unaware of any data which would suggest that it is safe for children as passengers in aircraft to be in close proximity to exhaled “vapors” from e-cigarettes. Further, the AAP noted that FDA data demonstrate that e-cigarette vapor includes known toxicants, carcinogens, and irritants of the respiratory tract. The American Thoracic Society (ATS) commented that while e-cigarette manufacturers claim that the devices are a reduced-risk product, there is little evidence to support this claim, and that the limited research on these products has found significant variation between manufacturers' attestations and the actual dose of nicotine delivered by the products. ATS further stated that it is not aware of any studies that suggest exhaled e-cigarette vapors are risk-free and that the use of these devices in the confined space of an airline cabin should be viewed with extreme caution. The California Medical Association (CMA) stated its support for the prohibition of the use of any nicotine delivery devices not approved by the FDA in places where smoking is already prohibited by law. CMA also noted that several local and State governments have banned e-cigarettes in indoor public spaces and workplaces. The Oncology Nursing Society expressed its support for the ban, citing evidence for the presence of toxic chemicals in e-cigarette aerosol.

    The Department also received a letter of support for the proposed rule signed by seven members of the U.S. Senate.5 The Senators urged a strong final rule, and stated that the devices raise significant public health concerns. They also expressed concern with respect to the manufacturing and quality control of e-cigarettes. In sum, the Senators stated that the proposed rule recognizes the rights of airline passengers to a safe travel environment and promotes public health.

    5 Letter from Senators Barbara Boxer, Richard J. Durbin, Tom Harkin, Richard Blumenthal, Jack Reed, and Edward J. Markey to Secretary Anthony Foxx (June 10, 2014) (available in the public docket).

    In addition, we received two comments from local governments. The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) submitted a comment stating its concern that e-cigarettes are not FDA-approved and may contain chemicals that could harm users or those around them, especially in confined spaces such as aircraft. DOHMH noted that the proposed rule would make enforcement of the existing smoking ban easier, as e-cigarettes can be difficult to distinguish from traditional cigarettes. Seattle and King County, Washington, which passed a regulation prohibiting the use of e-cigarette devices in places where smoking is prohibited by law, commented that a precautionary approach is warranted as the products are relatively new to the market and research has not conclusively identified the components of the vapor that are exhaled.

    We received several comments from other advocacy organizations. The American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and Legacy submitted a joint comment in support of the proposed rule, stating that in the context of smoking prohibitions on aircraft, e-cigarettes should be considered the same as traditional cigarettes. The organizations commented that the health consequences of e-cigarette use are unknown, and therefore restrictions on their use inside aircraft are appropriate until it can be shown with a high degree of certainty that they pose no harm to non-users. The organizations also argued that allowing the use of e-cigarettes on aircraft would create significant confusion for passengers and enforcement challenges for airline personnel, citing an incident on a Southwest Airlines flight on July 13, 2011, where a man was arrested for pelting a flight attendant with peanuts and pretzels after being asked to put away his e-cigarette upon attempting to smoke the device. The organizations also argued that DOT's proposed rule is consistent with the decision in Sottera. Finally, the organizations argued that prohibiting e-cigarette use on aircraft promotes the health goal of reducing the use of tobacco products through the promotion of non-smoking environments.

    Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights (ANR) submitted a comment in support of the proposed rule, stating its belief that e-cigarettes should be prohibited in all places where the smoking of tobacco products is prohibited. ANR stated that its primary reason for supporting the ban is that the devices' components raise significant health concerns. ANR also asserted that e-cigarettes can undermine and cause confusion over compliance with smoke-free rules when used on airplanes. Finally, ANR noted that there are at least 25 municipalities that define “smoking” to include the use of e-cigarettes and prohibit their use in workplaces and public places. Arizonans for Nonsmokers' Rights expressed the view that e-cigarettes posed respiratory hazards to non-users, and that permitting e-cigarettes aboard aircraft may infringe on the rights of individuals with respiratory disabilities.

    The Kentucky Center for Smoke-free Policy submitted a comment strongly in support of the proposed ban, stating that although there is a need for rigorous scientific study of e-cigarettes, it is known that the vapor emitted from the devices contains several volatile organic compounds (e.g., acetone, styrene, and ethyl alcohol acetaldehyde) that can cause negative health effects. The Kentucky Center also commented that the use of e-cigarettes on aircraft may lead people to believe that smoking is permitted, and may undermine smoke-free policies. The Tobacco Free Coalition of Pinellas County (FL) expressed similar health concerns.

    FlyersRights.org, a non-profit airline passenger rights advocacy organization, conducted a survey of its members to gauge public opinion on the proposed rule. The survey garnered 987 responses, and those who responded voted overwhelmingly (81.4%) in favor of the NPRM. Support was generally based on the grounds of public health or cabin comfort. Those opposing the ban were almost evenly divided in their reasoning, with some doubting that the e-cigarettes pose any risk, others believing that current research is insufficient to support the regulation, and still others objecting generally to the proposed ban.

    The following organizations submitted comments in opposition to the proposed rule. Smokin' Vapor LLC submitted a comment in opposition stating that e-cigarettes do not burn any matter, and that their ingredients (water, flavorings, nicotine—when chosen—and propylene glycol) are safe, and even beneficial to users in some instances. The National Vapers Club submitted a comment stating that e-cigarettes do not produce smoke and therefore do not create the byproducts of combustion. National Vapers stated that banning e-cigarettes is akin to banning the use of Nicotrol inhalers. The organization added that e-cigarettes have not been shown to cause any harm to bystanders; until such harm is proven, the club believes that the ban is unfounded. National Vapers also asserted that it is the responsibility of airlines to explain the use of e-cigarettes to those who are uncomfortable with them, and to alleviate the concerns of those who are not familiar with the products. In addition, Smokers Fighting Discrimination, Inc., submitted a comment in opposition to the proposed ban, stating that e-cigarettes emit water vapor, but not smoke.

    Smokefree Pennsylvania submitted a comment that outlined several reasons for its opposition to the proposed ban. The organization challenged the Department's statutory authority to promulgate the rule under 49 U.S.C. 41706. The organization reasoned that the statute does not authorize the ban of e-cigarettes because vapor does not involve combustion, and thus is vastly different from tobacco smoke. Smokefree Pennsylvania stated that the Department falsely alleged that using an e-cigarette is the same as smoking. The organization also challenged the Department's statutory authority under 49 U.S.C. 41702, stating that there is no evidence that e-cigarettes have harmed anyone or that they pose any health or safety risks to users or non-users. The organization alleged that the NPRM deceives the public into believing that e-cigarettes emit smoke and pose health risks to users and non-users similar to those posed by cigarette smoke. Furthermore, it argued that none of the studies cited by the Department had found any hazardous levels of chemicals in e-cigarettes. The organization also asserted that the proposal is unenforceable, as e-cigarette consumers can use the products discreetly without anyone noticing because the vapor that is emitted is not visible. As evidence of this assertion, the organization stated that there have been no citations issued for violating indoor e-cigarette usage bans in New Jersey, Seattle, or other jurisdictions where e-cigarettes have been banned. Finally, the organization noted that violators of the Department's proposed rule would face a $3,300 fine, which the organization claimed is excessive and may violate the 8th Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

    The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association (CASAA) and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) submitted a comment urging the Department to withdraw its proposed ban, and cited reasons for its opposition similar to those offered by Smokefree Pennsylvania. CASAA and CEI challenged the Department's statutory authority, arguing that the statutory ban on in-flight smoking, 49 U.S.C. 41706, does not extend to smoke-free products such as e-cigarettes. Also, these organizations argued that the Department's reliance on 49 U.S.C § 41702 is misplaced, as there is no research indicating that e-cigarette vapor, with or without nicotine, is harmful to users or bystanders. The organizations cited a Health New Zealand report where e-cigarette mist was tested for over 50 cigarette smoke toxicants, and no such toxicants were found. CASAA and CEI additionally argued that the Department has failed to perform a cost-benefit analysis and has not demonstrated that the ban would produce any benefits; the American Aviation Institute echoed this view. Lastly, CASAA and CEI stated that the possible civil penalty of $3,300 for violating part 252 is not justified, as e-cigarettes would not impair cabin air quality or cause damage to aircraft seats or carpeting.

    We now turn to comments received from the public. By the end of the comment period on November 15, 2011, the Department received approximately 700 total comments; approximately 500 of those were from individuals opposed to the proposed ban. (Many of the comments received in opposition to the proposed rule were identical.) The purported lack of DOT jurisdictional authority to create the proposed rule and lack of research, data, evidence, or proof to support the rule were common themes. Many felt that the Department was overstepping its statutory authority, and argued that e-cigarettes are not smoked, but “vaped” (producing water vapor), and as such do not fall within the smoking statute, section 41706. Also, many felt that the Department failed to justify the proposed ban under section 41702 because it did not provide any evidence that e-cigarettes are harmful to bystanders. Some individuals asserted that there have not been any reported health issues with respect to the devices and stated that lack of evidence cannot be the basis for a rule. Many argued that the proposed rule was an example of unnecessary government regulation, and that the better approach would be to allow the industry to devise its own rules for the products. It was also argued that the proposed regulation would be unenforceable because users can easily hide their use of e-cigarettes. Finally, some argued that the civil penalty associated with a violation of the proposed rule is excessive and illegal under the 8th Amendment.

    Supporters of the rule generally viewed the Department as having the appropriate authority and stated that the unknown risk and potential harmful effects justified the ban. Many voiced concern over the air quality aboard aircraft, stating that the rights and public health concerns of passengers who are not e-cigarette users should be protected, as these people do not have the option of leaving the space. Supporters also raised the point that potentially vulnerable passengers, such as children, the elderly, and people with asthma should be protected from the effects of e-cigarette vapor. Another reason cited in support of the rule was the elimination of potential passenger and crew confusion; supporters argued that a ban on both traditional cigarettes and e-cigarettes would make enforcement of the smoking regulation easier for crewmembers, because e-cigarettes resemble traditional cigarettes. It was also stated that this proposed rule would create only minimal inconvenience for smokers and “vapers,” as the existing smoking ban on aircraft has been in place since 2000.

    In more recent years, the Department has noted a substantial increase in individual comments supporting the ban. Of the approximately 350 additional individual comments received after the close of the comment period, approximately 60 opposed the ban while approximately 290 supported it. Most commenters supporting the ban cited health concerns, and expressed the view that e-cigarette aerosol was either already demonstrated to be harmful, or should be banned unless it is proven to be safe. A number of individuals expressed impatience at the Department's slow progress in implementing the ban.

    We note that several commenters, both organizations and individuals, cited safety reasons as additional grounds for supporting the proposed ban (e.g., potential fire concerns and hazards associated with the lithium batteries that power the devices).

    DOT Response

    After fully considering the comments received, the Department has decided to amend its existing smoking rule to explicitly ban the use of e-cigarettes on all flights in passenger interstate, intrastate and foreign air transportation where other forms of smoking are banned. We are primarily concerned with the potential adverse health effects of secondhand exposure to aerosols generated by e-cigarettes, particularly in the unique environment of an aircraft cabin. We further believe that the ban on the use of e-cigarettes fulfills the statutory mandates of sections 41706, 41702, and 41712. We do not address in this rulemaking any safety-related issues that may exist with regard to the use of e-cigarettes aboard aircraft. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) regulates hazardous materials safety 6 and the FAA regulates smoking aboard aircraft under its safety mandate. See 14 CFR 121.317, 129.29, 135.127.

    6 With respect to the Independent Pilots Association's comment that DOT should expand the ban on e-cigarettes to include cargo flights, we note that the Association's concern appears to be largely on the safety hazards of transporting lithium batteries. On August 6, 2014, PHMSA issued a final rule addressing this issue. See 79 FR 46011 (August 6, 2014); PHMSA-2009-0095 (HM-224F).

    Authority To Regulate E-Cigarettes Under 49 U.S.C. 41706

    We begin with section 41706, the statutory smoking ban. With respect to domestic air transportation, section 41706(a) provides that “an individual may not smoke in an aircraft in scheduled passenger interstate or intrastate air transportation; or in an aircraft in nonscheduled passenger interstate or intrastate air transportation if a flight attendant is a required crewmember on the aircraft.” Similarly, with respect to foreign air transportation, section 41706(b) provides that “the Secretary of Transportation shall require all air carriers and foreign air carriers to prohibit smoking in an aircraft in scheduled passenger foreign air transportation; and in an aircraft in nonscheduled passenger foreign air transportation, if a flight attendant is a required crewmember on the aircraft.”

    While section 41706 does not define `smoking,” nothing in the text of section 41706 suggests that the definition of “smoking” should be limited to the combustion of traditional tobacco products. Instead, Congress vested broad authority in the Department to implement the statutory smoking ban. Specifically, section 41706(d) states that “the Secretary shall provide such regulations as are necessary to carry out this section.” We interpret section 41706 as a whole as vesting the Department with the authority to define the term “smoking,” and to refine that definition as necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute while adapting to new technologies and passenger behavior. Like section 41706, the Department's regulation in 14 CFR part 252 did not contain a definition of “smoking” prior to the issuance of this final rule. However, the Department has previously taken the position that the prohibition against smoking in 49 U.S.C. 41706 and 14 CFR part 252 should be read to ban the use of electronic cigarettes on U.S. air carrier and foreign air carrier flights in scheduled intrastate, interstate and foreign air transportation, a position that was noted in connection with a June 17, 2010 hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. This final rule formalizes the Department's interpretation by defining smoking to explicitly include the use of e-cigarettes.

    Some commenters contend that section 41706 cannot be relied upon to reach this result because it prohibits smoking, and e-cigarettes are “vaped” and produce a vapor. Although e-cigarettes typically do not undergo combustion, they do produce an aerosol of chemicals and require an inhalation and exhalation action similar to that which is required when smoking traditional cigarettes. E-cigarettes are generally designed to look like and be used in the same manner as conventional cigarettes. Further, the purpose behind the statutory ban on smoking aboard aircraft in section 41706 and the regulatory ban on smoking tobacco products in part 252 were to improve cabin air quality, reduce the risk of adverse health effects on passengers and crewmembers, and enhance passenger comfort. The in-cabin dynamics of e-cigarette use are similar enough to traditional smoking to necessitate including e-cigarette use within the definition of “smoking.” Like traditional smoking, e-cigarette use introduces a cloud of chemicals into the air that may be harmful to passengers who are confined in a narrow area within the aircraft cabin without the ability to avoid those chemicals.

    A recent study published in the journal Nicotine & Tobacco Research found that e-cigarettes are a source of secondhand exposure to nicotine but not to combustion toxicants.7 The conclusions of the study were that using e-cigarettes in indoor environments may involuntarily expose non-users to nicotine, and that more research is needed to evaluate the health consequences of secondhand exposure to nicotine, especially among vulnerable populations such as children, pregnant women, and people with cardiovascular conditions. More recent research has determined that persistent residual nicotine on indoor surfaces from e-cigarettes can lead to third hand exposure through the skin, inhalation, and ingestion long after the air itself has cleared.8

    7 Jan Czogala et al., Secondhand Exposure to Vapors From Electronic Cigarettes, 16 Nicotine & Tobacco Research 655 (2014), doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntt203.

    8 ML Goniewicz & L Lee, Electronic Cigarettes Are a Source of Thirdhand Exposure to Nicotine, Nicotine Tob Res. 2014 Aug 30. pii:ntu152. [Epub ahead of print]; see also WG Kuschner et al., Electronic Cigarettes and Thirdhand Tobacco Smoke: Two Emerging Health Care Challenges for the Primary Care Provider, 4 Int J Gen Med. 115 (2011), doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S16908.

    Additionally, we find it significant that the three medical associations that submitted comments cited the unknown health risks of exposure to e-cigarette aerosol in a confined space as a reason for concern. Also citing public health concerns were the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and Legacy. In addition, each comment received from the airline industry voiced strong support for the rule, based on the unknown ingredients in the devices and their possible health consequences.

    While the specific hazards of e-cigarette aerosol have not yet been fully identified, the Department does not believe that it would be appropriate to exempt e-cigarettes from the ban for now, pending a more definitive catalog of those hazards. Since the NPRM was issued, research continues to undermine claims that the use of e-cigarettes would have no adverse health implications on users or others who are nearby. Research has detected toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in the aerosol from certain e-cigarettes.9 The aerosol was also found to contain acrolein, which can cause irritation to the nasal cavity and damage to the lining of the lungs, and may contribute to cardiovascular disease in cigarette smokers.10 Another study identified 22 chemical elements in e-cigarette aerosol, including lead, nickel, and chromium, among others that can cause adverse health effects in the respiratory and nervous systems.11

    9 Goniewicz, M. L., J. Knysak, M. Gawron, et al., Levels of Selected Carcinogens and Toxicants in Vapour From Electronic Cigarettes, 23 Tobacco Control 133 (2013), doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859.

    10 Goniewicz, M. L., J. Knysak, M. Gawron, et al., Levels of Selected Carcinogens and Toxicants in Vapour From Electronic Cigarettes, 23 Tobacco Control 133 (2013), doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859.

    11 Williams, M., A. Villarreal, K. Bozhilov, et al., Metal and Silicate Particles Including Nanoparticles Are Present in Electronic Cigarette Cartomizer Fluid and Aerosol, 8 Public Library of Science One e57987 (2013), doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057987.

    Some studies have found that lower levels of toxicants are observed in e-cigarette aerosols than in combusted tobacco smoke.12 However, research on near real-use conditions of e-cigarettes has found increased indoor air levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; 1,2-propanediol; 1,2,3-propanetriol; glycerine; nicotine; fine particles; ultrafine particles; particle number concentrations; and aluminum, all of which raise health concerns.13 We recognize that the aerosol that is exhaled by users of some e-cigarettes and similar electronic apparatus may not pose as much harm as smoke emitted from combusted tobacco products. However, given that studies do indicate that both nicotine and other toxicants are found in the exhaled aerosol, limiting exposures must be considered. Because the potential for harm to consumers from second hand aerosol is even greater in the closed environment of an aircraft, we believe a precautionary approach is warranted. In sum, releasing an aerosol that may contain harmful substances or respiratory irritants in a confined space, especially when those who are at a higher risk are present, is contrary to the statutory ban on smoking aboard aircraft.

    12 Goniewicz, M., et al., “Levels of Selected Carcinogens and Toxicants in Vapour from Electronic Cigarettes,” Tobacco Control, 23(2):133-139, 2014.

    13 Schober, W., et al., Use of Electronic Cigarettes (E-Cigarettes) Impairs Indoor Air Quality and Increases FeNO Levels of E-Cigarette Consumers, 217 Int J Hyg Environ Health 628 (2014), doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2013.11.003; Schripp T., D. Markewitz, E. Uhde, and T. Salthammer, Does E-Cigarette Consumption Cause Passive Vaping?, 23 Indoor Air 25 (2013), doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2012.00792.x.

    Authority To Regulate E-Cigarettes Under 49 U.S.C. 41702

    We also find an independent source of authority for this rulemaking in section 41702, which mandates safe and adequate interstate air transportation. The Department's predecessor, the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), relied upon section 404(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (subsequently re-codified as 41702), requiring air carriers “to provide safe and adequate service, equipment and facilities,” as authority to adopt its first regulation restricting smoking on air carrier flights (ER-800, 38 FR 12207, May 10, 1973). At that time, CAB issued a “smoking rule” under its economic regulations titled, “Part 252—Provision of Designated `No Smoking' Areas Aboard Aircraft Operated by Certificated Air Carriers,” which mandated designated “no smoking” areas on commercial flights. See 38 FR 12207 (May 10, 1973). The rule predated a Congressional ban on smoking on scheduled flights. In the preamble to the 1973 rule, the CAB cited a joint study by the FAA and the then Department of Health, Education, and Welfare that concluded that the low levels of contaminants in tobacco smoke did not represent a health hazard to nonsmoking passengers on aircraft; however, the study found that a significant portion of the nonsmokers stated that they were bothered by tobacco smoke. The CAB stated, “unlike persons in public buildings, nonsmoking passengers on aircraft may be assigned to a seat next to, or otherwise in close proximity to, persons who smoke and cannot escape this environment until the end of the flight.” The principal basis for the 1973 smoking rule was passenger discomfort issues. Just as the CAB relied on the “adequate” prong of the predecessor to section 41702 to adopt a smoking ban in 1973, the Department believes that it has the authority today to ban the use of e-cigarettes under section 41702 to ensure “adequate” service by reducing a similar kind of passenger discomfort. In our view, passenger discomfort arises from at least two aspects of e-cigarette aerosol exposure. First, the non-user passenger may feel the direct effects of inhaling the aerosol, which, as noted above, has been shown to contain respiratory irritants. More broadly, passengers may reasonably be concerned that they are inhaling unknown quantities of harmful chemicals, and that they will not be able to avoid the exposure for the duration of the flight.

    Authority To Regulate E-Cigarettes Under 49 U.S.C. 41712

    In addition to the Department's authority under sections 41716 and 41702, the Department has the authority and responsibility to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive practices in air transportation under 49 U.S.C. 41712. Using this authority, the Department has found practices to be “unfair” if they are harmful to passengers but could not be reasonably avoided by them. For example, the Department relied upon section 41712 and its “unfair” practice component when promulgating the “Tarmac Delay Rule,” 14 in which the Department addressed problems consumers face when aircraft sit for hours on the airport tarmac. In doing so, the Department considered the harm to the consumer and the fact that the harm was unavoidable. The Department concluded that regulatory action was necessary and that a three-hour time limit is the maximum time after which passengers must be permitted to deplane from domestic flights given the cramped, close conditions in aircraft and the inability of passengers to avoid lengthy tarmac delays. Here, as with the tarmac delay rule, the Department believes that the practice of allowing use of e-cigarettes onboard aircraft would be potentially harmful to passengers and there is no way for the passenger to reasonably avoid the harm. The harms include the potential for decreased cabin air quality, confusion about whether the passenger is being exposed to traditional cigarette smoke, and possible health risks arising from exposure to the chemicals contained in e-cigarette aerosol. These harms are unavoidable because passengers who do not wish to be exposed to e-cigarette aerosol cannot escape this environment until the end of the flight.

    14 See 74 FR 68983 (December 30, 2009) and 76 FR 23110 (April 25, 2011).

    In sum, we are amending our existing smoking regulation to explicitly ban the use of e-cigarettes because we view the ban to be consistent with the statutory mandates of sections 41706, 41702 and 41712. We do not believe that it is appropriate, as some commenters have suggested, to allow the airline industry to adopt its own standards with respect to the inclusion of electronic cigarettes within the prohibition on smoking. We recognize that the industry has generally banned the use of electronic cigarettes on flights, either as a matter of preference or in recognition of the Department's well-publicized enforcement policy. On the other hand, we believe that without a clear, uniform regulation, some carriers may feel free to adopt policies that allow the use of e-cigarettes onboard aircraft. In light of the potential health hazards posed to flight attendants and fellow passengers, as well as the potential diminution in air cabin quality posed by the use of electronic cigarettes in an aircraft cabin, we do not believe that a free-market approach is appropriate or desirable.

    An additional benefit of this rule is that it eliminates passenger or crewmember confusion with regard to the permissibility of e-cigarettes by creating an explicit ban. In our notice, we stated that through Congressional correspondence, anecdotal evidence, and online sources, including blogs, we were made aware that some passengers have attempted to use e-cigarettes onboard aircraft. The Association of Flight Attendants also stated in comments submitted to the Department that it receives occasional reports of in-flight passenger use and confusion among travelers regarding airline policies. In the absence of regulation, e-cigarette users may believe that an airline's policy banning e-cigarettes is merely a preference, and that they may continue to use such devices because they are not prohibited by federal law. This rule would eliminate any such arguments with respect to the use of e-cigarettes, and provide flight crew with the clear message that e-cigarettes are placed firmly on the same footing as traditional tobacco products. The traveling public would also have the benefit of knowing with certainty that e-cigarettes are prohibited onboard aircraft, Moreover, to the extent that carriers may be inclined to permit e-cigarettes on the ground that the Department's enforcement policy is not consistent with the regulatory text, this rule would preclude that option.

    Charter (Non-Scheduled) Flights

    Section 401 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 prohibited smoking on domestic nonscheduled (charter) passenger flights that require a flight attendant, and directed the Department to prohibit smoking on nonscheduled (charter) passenger flights in foreign air transportation that require a flight attendant. In the NPRM in this proceeding, we sought comment on the issue of banning smoking on most charter flights. We received few comments on this issue; however, those that did comment overwhelmingly supported the proposal. The Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) stated its support for the ban, claiming that it would be beneficial to the occupational health of flight attendants and the health of the traveling public. AFA stated that there is virtually universal agreement that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is harmful to health, and requested that DOT acknowledge these findings and expand the smoking ban to all charter operations.

    The Association of Professional Flight Attendants, representing American Airlines flight attendants, stated its support of the ban to create consistency across the industry and argued that no flight attendant should be subjected to cigarette smoke on an airplane, given what is known about secondhand smoke.

    The American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and Legacy stated that the health effects of secondhand smoke are well established in scientific literature. The organizations argued that charter flight staff should not be exposed at their workplace to secondhand smoke, which has been shown to increase risk of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. These organizations expressed their concern that charter flight passengers are potentially exposed to secondhand smoke for extended periods of time in a confined space. The organizations argued that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke, regardless of the type of plane or flight one takes, and that the current regulations do not effectively protect public health. We received a few comments from the public on this issue, with most stating their support for the proposal and some suggesting extending the ban to all flights.

    DOT Response

    We are amending the rule text of part 252 to implement section 401 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act. Section 401 requires U.S. and foreign air carriers to ban smoking in nonscheduled passenger interstate, intrastate, and foreign air transportation where a flight attendant is a required crewmember. The amendment to part 252 is necessary to harmonize the Departmental regulation with the new statutory requirement.15 The 2011 NPRM sought comment on banning smoking on charter flights that use aircraft with 19 or more passenger seats. In view of the statutory smoking ban in section 401 that was signed into law in 2012, this final rule conforms part 252 to the requirement in the statute. Consequently, this new rule bans smoking on all nonscheduled passenger air transportation where a flight attendant is a required crewmember of the aircraft.

    15 For the reasons discussed in the prior section, this ban will include the use of e-cigarettes.

    The rule also continues a ban on smoking on nonscheduled passenger air transportation where a flight attendant is not a required crewmember of the aircraft, except for single entity charters and on-demand services of air taxi operators. Under the existing sections 252.2 and 252.13, U.S. carriers are required to ban smoking on all flights (scheduled and charter) that use aircraft with 30 or fewer passenger seats except for the on-demand services of air taxi operators. Section 252.19 of the existing rule permits smoking on single-entity charter flights of U.S. air carriers. In other words, under the existing rule, smoking is allowed on single-entity charter flights and on-demand services of air taxi operators regardless of aircraft size. For U.S. carriers, smoking is prohibited on all other charter flights that use aircraft with 30 or fewer passenger seats.

    If an aircraft has more than 30 seats, under section 252.7 of the existing rule the air carrier operating the charter flight (other than single-entity charters or on-demand services of air taxi operators) must establish a non-smoking section for each class of service. As an organizational matter, we are eliminating this section as it is no longer needed because section 401 bans smoking on charter flights where a flight attendant is a required crewmember. All charter flights covered under section 252.7 would require a flight attendant as that section only applies to aircraft with more than 30 seats.

    The only change that is not directly required by the statute is eliminating the requirement in the existing rule for carriers to give notice to each passenger on a single-entity charter of the smoking procedures for that flight. It would be of limited usefulness to have such a requirement where smoking on single-entity charters would not be banned by this rule (i.e., on aircraft where a flight attendant is not a required crewmember, which essentially means aircraft with 19 seats or less).

    Regulatory Analysis and Notices A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This final rule has been determined to be significant under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. It has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) and is consistent with the requirements in both orders.

    The Final Regulatory Evaluation, included in this section, qualitatively evaluates the benefits and costs of the final rule. Both benefits and costs are expected to be very small because the final rule only represents a modest change, if any, to existing industry practice. Nonetheless, the Department believes that the rule is necessary for the reasons noted below. As discussed below, DOT was unable to find any airline that explicitly states that it allows smoking of any type or includes accommodating smokers in its business plan, including e-cigarettes and their users, and as such, would be affected by this rule. In fact, the overwhelming majority of passenger seats are on scheduled flights where smoking traditional cigarettes is already banned. Moreover and again as discussed below, commercial airlines have interpreted the existing DOT smoking ban to cover e-cigarettes and do not allow their use. Due to the inability to identify any specific airlines that would have to change their policies in response to the final rule, it was not possible to quantify benefits or costs. However, DOT does not rule out the possibility that a few airlines may at times provide services that could be affected by the rule, and therefore provides a qualitative analysis of potential benefits and costs for those situations.

    The Final Regulatory Evaluation Introduction

    In April 2000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (Pub. L. 106-181) was signed into law. Section 708 of the Act amended 49 U.S.C. 41706 to impose a ban on smoking on all scheduled passenger interstate, intrastate, and foreign air transportation. DOT subsequently incorporated this ban in its rule on smoking on commercial airline flights. Because of confusion as to whether the use of e-cigarettes was allowed on aircraft, in September 2011, DOT issued a NPRM (see 79 FR 57008), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 252 to explicitly include the use of e-cigarettes in the smoking ban. Specifically, the NPRM proposed to define smoking as, “the smoking of tobacco products or use of electronic cigarettes and similar products designed to deliver nicotine or other substances to a user in the form of vapor.” The NPRM also considered whether to extend the smoking ban (including e-cigarettes) to nonscheduled passenger flights or air carriers and foreign air carriers between points in the United States and between the United States and any foreign point with aircraft that have a designed seating capacity of 19 or more passenger seats.

    In February 2012, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95) (the Act) was signed into law. Section 401 of the Act amended 49 U.S.C. 41706 to extend the smoking prohibition to aircraft in nonscheduled passenger interstate, intrastate, and foreign air transportation, offered by both U.S. and foreign carriers, if a flight attendant is a required crewmember.

    This final rule primarily makes two regulatory changes. First, it amends the existing smoking ban in 14 CFR part 252 to explicitly ban the use of e-cigarettes whenever smoking is banned by revising the definition of smoking to cover the use of e-cigarettes. Second, the rule amends 14 CFR part 252 to implement section 401 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act and extends the smoking ban to flights in nonscheduled interstate, intrastate, and foreign passenger air transportation where a flight attendant is required.

    Current Industry Practice/Regulatory Baseline

    In 2014, there were a total of 104 U.S. carriers and 151 foreign air carriers providing service in the United States. About 75 percent of these carriers provided scheduled service and the remaining 25 percent provided only charter service. However, the overwhelming majority of air passenger service is provided by the 75 percent of scheduled service carriers; in 2014, roughly 99 percent of U.S. passenger enplanements were associated with scheduled flights.16 Table A.1 provides an overview of the carriers providing service in the United States in 2014.

    16 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market and Segment (http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/data_and_statistics/by_mode/airline_and_airports/airline_passengers.html).

    Table A.1—Carriers Operating in the U.S. Market by Size and Type of Service Seats on
  • largest
  • aircraft
  • Total carriers Charter only Scheduled service
    U.S. Carriers >60 41 13 28 30-60 15 2 13 <30 48 11 37 U.S. Carrier Total 104 26 78 Foreign Carriers >60 123 12 111 30-60 2 0 2 <30 26 25 1 Foreign Carrier Total 151 37 114 Source: DOT contractor estimates based on 2014 T-100 segment database, 2013 B-43 aircraft inventory, Regional Airline Association 2014 Annual Report and review of carrier Web sites.

    14 CFR part 252 currently bans smoking on all scheduled passenger interstate, intrastate, and foreign air transportation. Thus, as noted above, the overwhelming majority of flights are covered by the general smoking ban (75 percent of carriers representing 99 percent of passenger enplanements). No regulatory definition of “smoking” is included in the existing Part 252, and questions have emerged regarding its applicability to e-cigarettes. DOT has stated that e-cigarettes are covered by its existing smoking rule, part 252.17 Based upon DOT review of individual Web sites, U.S. and foreign carriers generally appear to be in compliance with this interpretation and do not allow their use. While some carriers provide no explanation for their interpretation, some airlines cite a “nuisance factor,” concerns for triggering smoke detection equipment, and concerns for other passengers' health. Exhibit A.1 lists some typical examples of e-cigarette policies taken from a select number of the 104 individual U.S. carrier and 151 foreign carrier Web sites.

    17 See https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/PolicyOnECigarettes.pdf.

    Exhibit A.1—Electronic Cigarette Policies for Selected Carriers AirTran Airways—“In addition to smoking, the use of chewing tobacco and electronic cigarettes are not permitted onboard any scheduled or private charter AirTran Airways flight.” Alaska Airlines—“Smoking, chewing tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and the use of electronic smoking devices are not permitted on any Alaska Airlines flight.” American—“You can travel with electronic cigarettes in your carry-on baggage, but you are not allowed to use them onboard at any time.” Delta—“E-cigarettes cannot be operated at any time on a Delta or Delta Connection Aircraft.” JetBlue—“While the majority of electronic cigarettes may be non-hazardous, JetBlue does NOT allow the USE of them on any of our flights, but will allow them in checked or carry-on baggage. It is considered a nuisance item as small amounts of vapor are expelled from the cigarette.” Southwest—“Electronic Cigarettes and Smoking Devices” are “never permitted” for use on board. United—“The use of electronic, simulated smoking materials (such as electronic cigarettes, pipes or cigars) is prohibited on United Airlines.” Air France—“Use of e-cigarettes is prohibited on all Air France flights. The vapor emitted by these devices may trigger the cabin smoke detectors.” Air New Zealand—“The use and charging of electronic cigarettes (eCigarettes) is also not permitted as the vapour may contain levels of nicotine that are unacceptable to other passengers.” British Airways—“We have a no smoking policy on board all our aircraft and in our airport lounges. This includes electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), as they emit a small amount of mist which can make it appear that a customer is actually smoking.” KLM—“All KLM flights are non-smoking flights. Smoking is not permitted at any place or at any time on board our aircraft. This also applies to artificial cigarettes.” Lufthansa—“Please note, however, that you are not permitted to smoke electronic cigarettes on board Lufthansa flights.” Source: Individual carrier Web sites.

    For the remaining 25 percent of carriers providing only charter service (representing about one percent of passenger enplanements), smoking is not prohibited by law in all cases. On flights where smoking is not banned by law, airlines must have a non-smoking section and must accommodate in that section every passenger who has complied with the airline's check-in deadline and who wishes to be seated there.

    Apparently, however, charter airlines have taken a direction similar to rental car companies and hotels, where nonsmoking policies are now the norm.18 Finding a charter that allows in-flight smoking or guarantees a smoker's right to engage in the activity has become difficult, if not impossible. According to one Web site that assists in booking charters:

    18http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/hotels/2008-11-17-smoke-free-hotels-no-smoking_N.htm; http://consumertraveler.com/today/still-smoking-be-careful-before-you-rent-a-car/.

    “. . . some charter operators such as GlobeAir have a strict no-smoking policy across their fleet. `It got to the point where we felt that smoking on board not only posed a health hazard but also increases the risk of fire,' says Bernhard Fragner, CEO.” 19

    19http://corporatejetinvestor.com/articles/how-to-charter-private-jet-503/.

    And another:

    “Alot (sic) of the air charter aircraft are now non-smoking due to fact that all airline flights are now non-smoking flights. Charter operators complain that the tobacco smell from smoking gets into the fabric of their airplanes and bothers the next passenger(s).” 20

    20http://www.usskylink.com/resource/air-charter-faq-details.asp?fldNAME=Air%20Charter%20Flights.

    And, according to a charter company: 21

    21 A few other examples of explicit smoking prohibitions are as follows: Charter Air Transport, Inc. states “Smoking is prohibited on all flights. . . . NOTE: This includes electronic cigarettes” (see http://www.charterairtransport.com/); Avjet Corporation indicates that their entire charter fleet is nonsmoking (http://www.avjet.com/); Atlas Air's policy is that “Smoking is prohibited on our Flights (www.atlasair.com/aa/); and Dynamic Airways conditions of service include “Dynamic flights are non-smoking. Smoking cigarettes, regular and electronic, is not allowed onboard our aircraft, but chewing tobacco is allowed” (https://www.airdynamic.com) . Interestingly one carrier addresses e-cigarette use with no reference to traditional smoking, “You're not allowed to use electronic cigarettes on the plane” (http://www.thomson.co.uk/flight/0.

    “All Skyward Aviation aircraft prohibit smoking to ensure the complete safety of passengers and flight crew members.” 22

    22http://www.skywardaviation.com/76/FAQ.html.

    While some charters address the use of e-cigarettes and include them in their smoking prohibitions, it is unknown whether this is standard practice.

    There are incentives for charter airlines to voluntarily adopt smoking bans despite the lack of a legal requirement. In the case of domestic charters, assuring the accommodation of nonsmoking passengers in a nonsmoking section in accordance with the law could create some planning difficulties unless a service provider knows in advance the smoking status of each passenger; it is easier and requires less planning to simply disallow the activity. Moreover, to attract customers, many of these carriers advertise receipt of various safety certifications (e.g., the FAA's Diamond Award of Excellence, Argus rated, AACA Medallion) as part of their marketing strategy. Permitting passengers to smoke onboard would be at odds with the standards of the certifying organizations. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it is more costly to operate aircraft where smoking is permitted. Smoking increases hardware costs since cabin air filters have to be changed more frequently and avionics need to be cleaned more often. The higher expense associated with maintenance of aircraft in which smoking is allowed deters carriers from allowing the activity, unless of course, the increase in expense is justified by a net increase in demand from smokers (and thus revenues) to cover these costs.23 It is unclear whether these incentives apply to e-cigarettes.

    23 The increase would need to be net of the reduction in demand from passengers with an aversion to smoking.

    An internet search yields a few anecdotes suggesting some smokers have been frustrated by the lack of options for those who wish to smoke during flight, which is a further indication that the industry norm has tended toward smoking prohibition, at least for traditional cigarettes. There have been some limited attempts to market flights for smokers or create a “smokers airline” which would allow or even encourage passengers to smoke during flight. However, none of these efforts have been successful to date.24 This probably reflects that a consumer's decision regarding which flight to purchase is complicated, involving price, availability, safety record or perceptions, and multiple other attributes. The ability to smoke on a flight would only be one aspect, and probably a very small one, in the overall decision. In addition, one would expect that at least some customers would purposely avoid flights that allowed smoking. Due to relative importance of other attributes (i.e. price), there are limits to how successful carriers who focus exclusively on attracting smokers can be.

    24 The names of these airlines were: Great American Smokers' Club, Smokers Express, Freedom Air, and Smintair. None ever commenced commercial operation (see, for example, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Smokers_Express_Airlines; http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-10-03/travel/9310030004_1_flights-american-trans-air-smokers; http:///articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-10-03/travel/9310030027_1_freedom-air-smokers-passengers; http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/03/business/worldbusiness/03iht-smoke.2683305.html)

    In sum, at least 99 percent of passenger enplanements occur on flights that prohibit smoking of any type, including both traditional cigarettes and e-cigarettes. The remaining one percent of enplanements appears to be on charter flights that largely prohibit smoking of traditional cigarettes. Some of the charter companies also extend the prohibition to e-cigarettes, but the extent of that practice is unknown.

    Need for the Rule

    The involuntary exposure to second-hand smoke or e-cigarette aerosol in an airplane cabin represents one classic example of a market failure, an externality; the smoker (of either traditional or electronic cigarettes) does not bear the full cost of the activity. Part of the cost of smoking in an airplane cabin is borne by nearby passengers or flight crew who are unable to regulate their exposure. The costs of involuntary exposure to smoke or aerosol are in the form of actual adverse health consequences, perception and fear of adverse health consequences and annoyance or irritation regarding undesirable odors. Even if a carrier were to disclose that it allowed smoking (of either traditional cigarettes or e-cigarettes), patrons may not receive this information prior to departure or in the case of some smaller markets, they may not have a convenient option to avoid exposure by choosing an airline that disallowed use (which could represent another type of market failure, but not one that is the primary concern of this regulatory action).

    Regarding e-cigarettes specifically, they typically do not involve combustion. However, they require an inhalation and exhalation action similar to smoking traditional cigarettes and they produce a cloud of aerosol which can be mistaken for smoke. E-cigarettes are generally designed to look like and be used in the same manner as conventional cigarettes. Passengers who do not engage in or understand the process of e-cigarette use can easily mistake the act for traditional smoking. Thus, even if second-hand exposure to e-cigarette aerosol were ever determined to not lead to the same type of health consequences as exposure to tobacco smoke, nearby passengers may still experience discomfort, stress or some in cases display aggression or fear because they believe their health is threatened. Currently, the state of knowledge regarding the effects of secondhand exposure to e-cigarette aerosol does not rule out the possibility of actual adverse health effects to nearby individuals who do not directly choose to engage in this activity. In fact, some research supports the case that bystanders incur actual adverse health effects when exposed to secondhand e-cigarette aerosol.

    In the absence of a rule, carriers are free to make their own determinations regarding the use of e-cigarettes. Charter operations have historically had additional flexibility regarding smoking in general, as long as they accommodate nonsmoking patrons in accordance with the law (e.g., no-smoking sections). Scheduled service providers have chosen to prohibit e-cigarette use and charters typically do not allow smoking of traditional cigarettes (some charters also prohibit e-cigarettes but the degree to which this is standard practice is unknown). Without this rule, it is possible that some airlines could relax their current policies, which would increase passenger and flight crew secondhand exposure to aerosols and quite possibly, traditional tobacco smoke in the case of some charters.

    Impacts, Benefits and Costs of the Final Rule

    In general, the impacts of the rule will be very modest, and generate little in terms of measurable benefits and costs. There will probably be no change to the current baseline for scheduled passenger operations. The existing regulation prohibits smoking on such flights and as described above, airlines that provide scheduled passenger service treat the smoking ban as covering e-cigarettes. Scheduled operations represent roughly 99 percent of passenger enplanements and thus, the rule can do little to impact current industry practice overall.

    For charter (nonscheduled) flight operations, the impacts should also be small. Based upon review of carrier Web sites and their advertisements, charter companies appear to prohibit smoking of traditional cigarettes. Operating a nonsmoking airline is less costly, makes accommodating non-smoking patrons in accordance with the law easier, and assists in the receipt of certain safety certifications and perhaps the award of government contracts that may serve as useful marketing tools. While it is not known with any certainty whether the prohibitions apply to e-cigarette use, the widespread and seamless adoption of e-cigarette bans in the scheduled service component of the industry suggests that extending the prohibitions to e-cigarettes can be accomplished without too much difficulty or cost.

    Including E-Cigarettes in the General Smoking Ban: Benefits and Costs

    As noted above, the inclusion of e-cigarettes in the general smoking ban will not affect, but will simply reinforce, current industry practice in the scheduled service segment of the airline industry. Consequently, the final rule probably will produce close to zero benefits and zero costs over the current baseline when considering impacts solely to and resulting from scheduled service providers. The inclusion of e-cigarettes may potentially have greater impact on nonscheduled or charter service and these potential impacts, as well as benefits and costs, are discussed below.

    Conversely, if DOT were to determine that e-cigarettes were not covered under the ban, the current industry environment could be affected, more so than would be expected under this final rule. First, some carriers could incur new costs relative to the baseline due to the need to more actively enforce their prohibitions. This could occur if some consumers mistakenly interpret DOT's failure to enact a federal prohibition as ensuring their right to engage in e-cigarette use in an airplane cabin. Alternatively, some carriers might lift their prohibitions, which could reduce the burden on the minority of the population that uses e-cigarettes and whose activities are now restricted. However, removing e-cigarette restrictions would reduce benefits relative to the current baseline by exposing other passengers and flight crew to secondhand aerosols. Additionally, airlines would probably need to offer additional training to crew members and the pre-flight briefing would have to be longer, to educate and explain what, when and where particular smoking products may and may not be used.

    The nonscheduled segment of the industry could potentially experience greater impact than the scheduled service segment, because while some charter airlines explicitly prohibit e-cigarette use, the extent to which this practice is standard or typical is unknown. However, the widespread adoption of an e-cigarette ban on the part of scheduled service airlines suggests that implementing an e-cigarette prohibition is not particularly costly, at least when a general smoking ban is already in place. To the extent that e-cigarette use is allowed on charter flights, a ban will add a burden to smoking patrons who will no longer be able to engage in the activity while in flight. The burden to smoking patrons will probably constitute the primary burden of the rule with respect to e-cigarettes. However, benefits will accrue to nearby passengers and crew who no longer are exposed to secondhand aerosol.

    Implementation of Section 401 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act: Benefits and Costs

    The rule amends 14 CFR part 252 to implement section 401 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act and extends the general smoking ban to nonscheduled interstate, intrastate, and foreign passenger air transportation when a flight attendant is required. To the extent that charter airlines allow smoking, the final rule will produce benefits in terms of reduced secondhand exposure to tobacco smoke, and the resulting positive health effects to nonsmoking passengers and flight crew. Again based upon a review of charter airline Web sites, most already prohibit smoking on their flights so the benefits of this nature are expected to be small.

    There is no cost to operators for hardware related to smoking bans. In fact, smoking bans reduce hardware costs as cabin air filters do not have to be changed as frequently and avionics do not have to be cleaned as often, which is one reason that charter flights have opted to prohibit smoking, even when allowed by law. The American Aviation Institute, in its comments on the NPRM, raised the issue of additional costs due to new placards and notification lights, and re-printing of airline manuals.25 These should not be significant costs associated with this final rule since all aircraft are already required to be equipped with no-smoking signs and lights. Some operators may feel the need to update documents used to communicate to passengers and employees the activities prohibited by law. However, such document update is not a direct requirement of the final rule and would be voluntary on the part of affected airlines. The costs of updating such materials should be small since most charter flights already do not allow smoking and probably have developed documents in support of their policies. In addition, such documents are routinely updated since laws regarding prohibited behaviors and security concerns are constantly evolving. An operator could reduce the costs of updating documents to reflect changes as they pertain to smoking by waiting until there is a more general need for updating.

    25 Comments of the American Aviation Institute in the Matter of Smoking of Electronic Cigarettes on Aircraft, Docket DOT-OST-2011-0044, September 26, 2011.

    To the extent that the rule, in effect, expands the existing ban on smoking (for traditional tobacco products and its extension to electronic cigarettes), there could be a cost to operators in the form of lost revenue or profits due to a reduction in demand for flights from customers who would wish to smoke on those flights. Such costs are largely speculative since they would apply to operators who allow smoking and consumers who chose their particular flights based primarily on the ability to smoke; DOT was unable to identify any businesses, successful or otherwise, operating under this model. Given that smokers will not have a smoking flight alternative (except perhaps chartering their own private flight where a flight attendant is not required), they will need to choose another transportation mode such as driving to their destination or if an alternative mode is not feasible, they would need to choose to not travel at all, if the ability to smoke was the primary consideration in their decision-making process. Or they might choose alternate nicotine delivery systems, such as patches and gum. The lack of flight alternatives coupled with the presence of alternative nicotine delivery systems will likely limit the reduction in demand that the small number of operators who would allow smoking could experience. In addition, any reduction in demand from smokers may, to some extent, be offset by increased demand from non-smokers.

    Comparison of Costs to Benefits

    Due to the inability to identify any specific carrier that would need to change its current practices significantly, DOT was unable to quantify the costs and the benefits of the rule, but believes both are probably very small. The overwhelming majority of passengers travel on scheduled service where smoking, including the use of e-cigarettes, is already prohibited. If smoking were to be allowed on nonscheduled flights, benefits of a ban would include reductions in potential exposure to secondhand smoke for passengers and crewmembers. Expanding the ban on smoking to cover e-cigarettes could reduce health hazards related to secondhand exposure to exhaled aerosols. The costs to operators should be minimal, but some passengers could experience some costs due to a reduced opportunity to smoke.

    The risks and resulting adverse health consequences associated with secondhand exposure to tobacco smoke are well-documented.26 Existing evidence indicates that e-cigarettes may also have adverse health impacts, not just for users, but for those nearby. Those seated next to users may not want to expose themselves (or their babies or older children) to the risks of these adverse health impacts and at least some crewmembers may prefer to work in an environment free of these risks since they fly far more frequently than most passengers. Due to the involuntary nature of the risk of secondhand exposure, the Department believes that it is prudent to give greater weight to the potential benefits of the rule than to the inconvenience costs incurred by smoking passengers or any small incremental costs incurred by airline operators.

    26 See, for example: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects// ; http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/health-effects-of-secondhand-smoke.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

    Alternatives

    DOT has identified only one viable regulatory alternative: A final rule that is limited in scope to solely to implementing Section 401 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act. Such a rule would not alter the definition of smoking to cover e-cigarettes. DOT has determined that the alternative of “no regulatory action” (i.e. the status quo) is not viable since the Department is required to implement Section 401 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, at a minimum.

    Restricting the rule to Section 401 implementation would represent the minimum regulatory action that the Department could undertake. To the extent that smoking of traditional cigarettes is occurring on nonscheduled interstate, intrastate, and foreign passenger air transportation when a flight attendant is a required crew member, there would still be some benefits related to reduced secondhand smoke exposure from traditional cigarettes.

    This alternative would continue to allow airlines to develop their own policies regarding use of e-cigarettes, allowing them to change their current policies if they desire. If a carrier chose to change its policy, this would expose passengers and crewmembers to potentially harmful health risks. Also, any change in policy to allow for the use of e-cigarettes would require flight attendants to distinguish among various cigarettes and devices to determine which are acceptable. For example, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) noted in their comments the possibility of passenger and crewmember confusion in differentiating e-cigarettes from tobacco cigarettes, as the two products can be difficult to distinguish from each other. In addition, carriers that do not change their policies could incur new costs due to the need to more actively enforce their prohibitions. This could occur if some consumers mistakenly interpret the lack of a federal prohibition as ensuring their right to engage in e-cigarette use in an airplane cabin. For these reasons, DOT rejected this alternative.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    DOT has examined the economic implications of this final rule for small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Unless an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the agency to analyze regulatory options that would lessen the economic effect of the rule on small entities. As discussed below, DOT finds that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    For purposes of rules promulgated by the Office of the Secretary of Transportation regarding aviation economic and consumer matters, an airline is a small entity for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act if it provides air transportation only with aircraft having 60 or fewer seats and no more than 18,000 pounds payload capacity. Referring to Table A.1, this final rule applies to 63 (15 + 48) small U.S. carriers.27 Of these small carriers, 50 (13 + 37), or about 79 percent, provide scheduled service and are subject to the general smoking ban. As noted above, scheduled service providers have overwhelmingly adopted prohibitions on e-cigarette use. DOT is unaware of any small scheduled service carrier that would need to change its e-cigarette policy in response to this final rule. In addition, the widespread industry ban on e-cigarettes suggests that it is quite easy to cover e-cigarettes once a smoking ban is in place. Thus, it is expected that the typical small scheduled service airline will experience no impacts due to this rule.

    27 RFA analysis is typically limited to domestic firms because SBA guidelines and definitions pertain to U.S.-based entities.

    The remaining 13 (2 + 11) small airlines, or roughly 21 percent, provide nonscheduled or charter services. Based upon a review of their individual Web sites, none of these carriers cater their businesses to smoking patrons (smokers of either traditional or e-cigarettes). As noted above, providers of charter airplane service have several incentives to prohibit smoking of traditional cigarettes, including lower operating costs, ease of accommodating nonsmoking patrons, and meeting the standards necessary for receipt of safety certifications and government contracts. In addition, several of the small charter airlines have fleets that consist of extremely small aircraft (i.e. Cessnas or other planes that seat fewer than 10 passengers), and smoking is already banned on these aircraft (see existing section 252.13). Moreover, some of these companies provide medical transportation services, which is likely at odds with a permissive smoking policy. While it is not known with any certainty whether these factors also represent incentives to restrict e-cigarette use, the swift adoption of e-cigarette bans in the scheduled service component of the industry suggests that extending the prohibitions to e-cigarettes can be accomplished without too much difficulty or cost once a ban on smoking is already in place.

    For the reasons described about, the final rule is unlikely to produce a significant financial impact on any small carrier, and probably will not affect their operations in any meaningful way. Therefore, the Secretary of Transportation certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This regulation has no substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. It does not contain any provision that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. It does not contain any provision that preempts state law, because states are already preempted from regulating in this area under the Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. 41713. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

    D. Executive Order 13084

    This rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because none of the measures in the rule will significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on them, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.

    E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must publish a document in the Federal Register providing notice of and a 60-day comment period on, and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning, each proposed collection of information. This rule imposes no new information reporting or record keeping necessitating clearance by the Office of Management and Budget.

    F. National Environmental Policy Act

    The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this final rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined that it is categorically excluded pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1C, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (44 FR 56420, Oct. 1, 1979). Categorical exclusions are actions identified in an agency's NEPA implementing procedures that do not normally have a significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See 40 CFR 1508.4. In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. Id. Paragraph 3.c.6.i of DOT Order 5610.1C categorically excludes “[a]ctions relating to consumer protection, including regulations.” The purpose of this rulemaking is to extend the smoking ban in 14 CFR part 252 to include all charter flights where a flight attendant is a required crewmember and to ban the use of e-cigarettes. The Department does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

    G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Department analyzed the final rule under the factors in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. The Department considered whether the rule includes a federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. The Department has determined that this final rule will not result in such expenditures. Accordingly, this final rule is not subject to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 252

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Consumer protection, Smoking.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 19, 2016 under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.27(n). Kathryn B. Thomson, General Counsel.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Office of the Secretary of Transportation amends 14 CFR part 252 as set forth below:

    PART 252—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 252 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    Pub. L. 101-164; 49 U.S.C. 40102, 40109, 40113, 41701, 41702, 41706 as amended by section 708 of Pub. L. 106-181 and section 401 of Pub. L. 112-95, 41711, and 46301.

    2. Section 252.1 is revised to read as follows:
    § 252.1 Purpose.

    This part implements a ban on smoking as defined in § 252.3, including the use of electronic cigarettes and certain other devices, on flights by air carriers and foreign air carriers.

    3. Section 252.2 is revised to read as follows:
    § 252.2 Applicability.

    This part applies to operations of air carriers engaged in interstate, intrastate and foreign air transportation and to foreign air carriers engaged in foreign air transportation.

    4. Section 252.3 is revised to read as follows:
    § 252.3 Definitions.

    As used in this part:

    Air carrier means a carrier that is a citizen of the United States undertaking to provide air transportation as defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102.

    Foreign air carrier means a carrier that is not a citizen of the United States undertaking to provide foreign air transportation as defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102.

    Smoking means the use of a tobacco product, electronic cigarettes whether or not they are a tobacco product, or similar products that produce a smoke, mist, vapor, or aerosol, with the exception of products (other than electronic cigarettes) which meet the definition of a medical device in section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, such as nebulizers.

    5. Section 252.4 is added to read as follows:
    § 252.4 Smoking ban: air carriers.

    Air carriers shall prohibit smoking on the following flights:

    (a) Scheduled passenger flights.

    (b) Nonscheduled passenger flights, except for the following flights where a flight attendant is not a required crewmember on the aircraft as determined by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration:

    (1) Single entity charters.

    (2) On-demand services of air taxi operators.

    (c) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to require air carriers to permit smoking aboard aircraft.

    6. Section 252.5 is revised to read as follows:
    § 252.5 Smoking ban: foreign air carriers.

    (a)(1) Foreign air carriers shall prohibit smoking on flight segments that occur between points in the United States, and between the United States and any foreign point, in the following types of operations:

    (i) Scheduled passenger foreign air transportation.

    (ii) Nonscheduled passenger foreign air transportation, if a flight attendant is a required crewmember on the aircraft as determined by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration or a foreign carrier's government.

    (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to require foreign air carriers to permit smoking aboard aircraft.

    (b) A foreign government objecting to the application of paragraph (a) of this section on the basis that paragraph (a) provides for extraterritorial application of the laws of the United States may request and obtain a waiver of paragraph (a) from the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, provided that an alternative smoking prohibition resulting from bilateral negotiations is in effect.

    § 252.7 [Removed]
    7. Section 252.7 is removed.
    8. Section 252.8 is revised to read as follows:
    § 252.8 Extent of smoking restrictions.

    The restrictions on smoking described in §§ 252.4 and 252.5 shall apply to all locations within the aircraft.

    §§ 252.13 and 253.15 [Removed]
    9. Sections 252.13 and 253.15 are removed.
    10. Section 252.17 is revised to read as follows:
    § 252.17 Enforcement.

    Air carriers and foreign air carriers shall take such action as is necessary to ensure that smoking by passengers or crew is not permitted where smoking is prohibited by this part, including but not limited to aircraft lavatories.

    § 252.19 [Removed]
    11. Section 252.19 is removed.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04799 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 801 and 830 [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0090] Unique Device Identification System; Editorial Provisions; Technical Amendment AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; technical amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is amending the Unique Device Identification (UDI) System regulation to make editorial changes. This technical amendment updates the email address associated with FDA's UDI system, which allows FDA to obtain information and offer support and assistance on medical devices through their distribution and use, ensuring consistency with the requirements in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act). This change is necessary to ensure that the UDI team continues to maintain regular email communications with device labelers.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective March 4, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Adaeze Teme, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5574, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-0768.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    FDA is updating the UDI email address in the following regulations that set forth the procedures for notifying the Agency when: (1) Requesting an exception from or alternative to a unique device identifier requirement (§ 801.55 (21 CFR 801.55)); (2) requesting continued use of legacy FDA identification numbers assigned to devices (§ 801.57 (21 CFR 801.57)); and (3) applying for accreditation as an issuing Agency (§ 830.110 (21 CFR 830.110)).

    Specifically, the Agency is removing an old email address and replacing it with a new one, thereby maintaining consistency with the requirements of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321 et seq.).

    In the Federal Register of September 24, 2013 (78 FR 58786), FDA issued a final rule to establish a system to adequately identify devices through distribution and use. The rule required the label of medical devices to include a UDI, except where an exception or alternative applies. The labeler must submit product information concerning devices to FDA's Global Unique Device Identification Database (GUDID). The final rule incorporated a direct avenue for the labeler to communicate with FDA's GUDID via a UDI email address. This rule updates §§ 801.55(b)(2), 801.57(c)(2), and 830.110(a) by replacing the old email address with a new one.

    List of Subjects 21 CFR Part 801

    Labeling, Medical devices, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    21 CFR Part 830

    Administrative practice and procedure, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Medical devices, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR parts 801and 830 are amended as follows:

    PART 801—LABELING 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 801 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 360i, 360j, 371, 374.

    2. In § 801.55, revise paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
    § 801.55 Request for an exception from or alternative to a unique device identifier requirement.

    (b) * * *

    (2) In all other cases, by email to: [email protected], or by correspondence to: UDI Regulatory Policy Support, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 3303, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.

    3. In § 801.57, revise the second sentence of paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:
    § 801.57 Discontinuation of legacy FDA identification numbers assigned to devices.

    (c) * * *

    (2) * * * * A request for continued use of an assigned labeler code must be submitted by email to: [email protected], or by correspondence to: UDI Regulatory Policy Support, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 3303, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.

    PART 830—UNIQUE DEVICE IDENTIFICATION 4. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 830 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 352, 353, 360, 360d, 360i, 360j, 371.

    5. In § 830.110, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
    § 830.110 Application for accreditation as an issuing agency.

    (a) * * * (1) An applicant seeking initial FDA accreditation as an issuing agency shall notify FDA of its desire to be accredited by sending a notification by email to: [email protected], or by correspondence to: UDI Regulatory Policy Support, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 3303, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.

    Dated: February 29, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04707 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration 21 CFR Part 1308 [Docket No. DEA-386] Schedules of Controlled Substances: Extension of Temporary Placement of 10 Synthetic Cathinones in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act AGENCY:

    Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Final order.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is issuing this final order to extend the temporary schedule I status of 10 synthetic cathinones pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of the Controlled Substances Act. The 10 substances are: 4-methyl-N-ethylcathinone (4-MEC); 4-methyl-alpha-pyrrolidinopropiophenone (4-MePPP); alpha-pyrrolidinopentiophenone (α-PVP); 1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-(methylamino)butan-1-one (butylone); 2-(methylamino)-1-phenylpentan-1-one (pentedrone); 1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-(methylamino)pentan-1-one (pentylone); 4-fluoro-N-methylcathinone (4-FMC); 3-fluoro-N-methylcathinone (3-FMC); 1-(naphthalen-2-yl)-2-(pyrrolidin-1-yl)pentan-1-one (naphyrone); and alpha-pyrrolidinobutiophenone (α-PBP) [hereinafter 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP, respectively], including their optical, positional, and geometric isomers, salts, and salts of isomers. The current final order temporarily placing 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP into schedule I is in effect through March 6, 2016. This final order will extend the temporary scheduling of 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP for one year, or until the permanent scheduling action for these 10 substances is completed, whichever occurs first.

    DATES:

    This final order is effective March 4, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barbara J. Boockholdt, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Legal Authority

    The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, and are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for purpose of this action. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. The DEA published the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II.

    The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while ensuring an adequate supply is available for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.

    Under the CSA, every controlled substance is classified into one of five schedules based upon its potential for abuse, its currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and the degree of dependence the drug or other substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The initial schedules of controlled substances established by Congress are found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), and the current list of all scheduled substances is published at 21 CFR part 1308.

    Section 201 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811) provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily place a substance into schedule I of the CSA for two years without regard to the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) if she finds that such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). In addition, if proceedings to control a substance are initiated under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), the Attorney General may extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2).

    Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under section 202 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 812) or if there is no exemption or approval in effect for the substance under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 355. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). The Attorney General has delegated her scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100.

    Background

    On March 7, 2014, the DEA published a final order in the Federal Register amending 21 CFR 1308.11(h) to temporarily place the 10 synthetic cathinones 4-methyl-N-ethylcathinone (4-MEC); 4-methyl-alpha-pyrrolidinopropiophenone (4-MePPP); alpha-pyrrolidinopentiophenone (α-PVP); 1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-(methylamino)butan-1-one (butylone); 2-(methylamino)-1-phenylpentan-1-one (pentedrone); 1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-(methylamino)pentan-1-one (pentylone); 4-fluoro-N-methylcathinone (4-FMC); 3-fluoro-N-methylcathinone (3-FMC); 1-(naphthalen-2-yl)-2-(pyrrolidin-1-yl)pentan-1-one (naphyrone); and alpha-pyrrolidinobutiophenone (α-PBP) into schedule I of the CSA pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(h). 79 FR 12938. That final order was effective on the date of publication, and was based on findings by the Deputy Administrator of the DEA that the temporary scheduling of these ten synthetic cathinones was necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). Section 201(h)(2) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2)) requires that the temporary control of these substances expires two years from the effective date of the scheduling order, or on March 6, 2016. However, the CSA also provides that during the pendency of proceedings under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) with respect to the substance, the temporary scheduling of that substance could be extended for up to one year. Proceedings for the permanent scheduling of a substance under 21 U.S.C. 811(a) may be initiated by the Attorney General (delegated to the Administrator of the DEA pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100) on his or her own motion, at the request of the Secretary of Health and Human Services,1 or on the petition of any interested party.

    1 Because the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services has delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Health of the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to make domestic drug scheduling recommendations, for purposes of this final order, all subsequent references to “Secretary” have been replaced with “Assistant Secretary.”

    The Administrator of the DEA, on his own motion pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), has initiated proceedings under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) to permanently schedule 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP. The DEA has gathered and reviewed the available information regarding the pharmacology, chemistry, trafficking, actual abuse, pattern of abuse, and the relative potential for abuse for these 10 synthetic cathinones. On December 30, 2014, the DEA submitted a request to the HHS to provide the DEA with a scientific and medical evaluation of available information and a scheduling recommendation for 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP, in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811 (b) and (c). Upon evaluating the scientific and medical evidence, on March 2, 2016, the HHS submitted to the Administrator of the DEA its 10 scientific and medical evaluations for these substances. Upon receipt of the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendations from the HHS, the DEA reviewed the documents and all other relevant data, and conducted its own eight-factor analysis of the abuse potential of 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(c). The DEA has published a notice of proposed rulemaking for the placement of 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP into schedule I elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2), the Administrator of the DEA orders that the temporary scheduling of 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP, including their optical, positional, and geometric isomers, salts, and salts of isomers be extended for one year, or until the permanent scheduling proceeding is completed, whichever occurs first.

    In accordance with this final order, the schedule I requirements for handling 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, or α-PBP, including their optical, positional, and geometric isomers, salts, and salts of isomers, will remain in effect for one year, or until the permanent scheduling proceeding is completed, whichever occurs first.

    Regulatory Matters

    The CSA provides for an expedited temporary scheduling action where such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h). The Attorney General may, by order, schedule a substance in schedule I on a temporary basis. Id. 21 U.S.C. 811(h) also provides that the temporary scheduling of a substance shall expire at the end of two years from the date of the issuance of the order scheduling such substance, except that the Attorney General may, during the pendency of proceedings to permanently schedule the substance, extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year.

    To the extent that 21 U.S.C. 811(h) directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued and extended, the DEA believes that the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) do not apply to this extension of the temporary scheduling action. In the alternative, even assuming that this action might be subject to section 553 of the APA, the Administrator finds that there is good cause to forgo the notice and comment requirements of section 553, as any further delays in the process for extending the temporary scheduling order would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in view of the manifest urgency to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. Further, the DEA believes that this final order extending the temporary scheduling action is not a “rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and, accordingly, is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, the DEA is not required by section 553 of the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking.

    Additionally, this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    This action 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 (Federalism), it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

    As noted above, this action is an order, not a rule. Accordingly, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) is inapplicable, as it applies only to rules. It is in the public interest to maintain the temporary placement of 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP in schedule I because they pose a public health risk. The temporary scheduling action was taken pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h), which is specifically designed to enable the DEA to act in an expeditious manner to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. Under 21 U.S.C. 811(h), temporary scheduling orders are not subject to notice and comment rulemaking procedures. The DEA understands that the CSA frames temporary scheduling actions as orders rather than rules to ensure that the process moves swiftly, and this extension of the temporary scheduling order continues to serve that purpose. For the same reasons that underlie 21 U.S.C. 811(h), that is, the need to place these substances in schedule I because they pose an imminent hazard to public safety, it would be contrary to the public interest to delay implementation of this extension of the temporary scheduling order. Therefore, in accordance with section 808(2) of the CRA, this final order extending the temporary scheduling order shall take effect immediately upon its publication. The DEA has submitted a copy of this final order to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General, although such filing is not required under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional Review Act), 5 U.S.C. 801-808 because, as noted above, this action is an order, not a rule.

    Dated: March 2, 2016. Chuck Rosenberg, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05004 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9757] RIN 1545-BM98 Consistent Basis Reporting Between Estate and Person Acquiring Property From Decedent AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Temporary regulations.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains temporary regulations that provide transition rules providing that executors and other persons required to file or furnish a statement under section 6035(a)(1) or (a)(2) before March 31, 2016, need not do so until March 31, 2016. These temporary regulations are applicable to executors and other persons who file after July 31, 2015, returns required by section 6018(a) or (b).

    DATES:

    Effective date. These regulations are effective on March 4, 2016.

    Applicability dates: For date of applicability, see § 1.6035-2T(b).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Theresa Melchiorre (202) 317-6859 (not a toll-free number).

    Background

    On July 31, 2015, the President of the United States signed into law H.R. 3236, the Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-41, 129 Stat. 443 (Act). Section 2004 of the Act added new section 6035.

    Section 6035 imposes reporting requirements with regard to the value of property included in a decedent's gross estate for federal estate tax purposes. Section 6035(a)(1) provides that the executor of any estate required to file a return under section 6018(a) must furnish, both to the Secretary and to the person acquiring any interest in property included in the decedent's gross estate for federal estate tax purposes, a statement identifying the value of each interest in such property as reported on such return and such other information with respect to such interest as the Secretary may prescribe.

    Section 6035(a)(2) provides that each other person required to file a return under section 6018(b) must furnish, both to the Secretary and to each person who holds a legal or beneficial interest in the property to which such return relates, a statement identifying the same information described in section 6035(a)(1).

    Section 6035(a)(3)(A) provides that each statement required to be furnished under section 6035 (a)(1) or (2) is to be furnished at such time as the Secretary may prescribe, but in no case at a time later than the earlier of (i) the date which is 30 days after the date on which the return under section 6018 was required to be filed (including extensions, if any) or (ii) the date which is 30 days after the date such return is filed.

    On August 21, 2015, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued Notice 2015-57, 2015-36 IRB 294. Notice 2015-57 delays until February 29, 2016, the due date for any statements required by section 6035 that are due before that same date.

    On February 11, 2016, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued Notice 2016-19, 2016-09 IRB. That notice provides that executors or other persons required to file or furnish a statement under section 6035(a)(1) or (a)(2) before March 31, 2016, need not do so until March 31, 2016.

    Explanation of Provisions

    These temporary regulations reiterate that executors or other persons required to file or furnish a statement under section 6035(a)(1) or (a)(2) before March 31, 2016, need not do so until March 31, 2016. The text of these temporary regulations also serves as the text of the proposed regulations under § 1.6035-2 in the related notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-127923-15) in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register. These temporary regulations are issued within 18 months of the date of the enactment of the statutory provisions to which the temporary regulations relate and, as authorized by section 7805(b)(2), are effective/applicable to executors and other persons who file a return required by section 6018(a) or (b) after July 31, 2015.

    Statement of Availability of IRS Documents

    IRS Revenue Procedures, Revenue Rulings notices, notices and other guidance cited in this preamble are published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (or Cumulative Bulletin) and are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting the IRS Web site at http://www.irs.gov.

    Special Analyses

    Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. In addition, section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations because they are excepted from the notice and comment requirements of section 553(b) and (c) of the Administrative Procedure Act under the interpretative rule and good cause exceptions provided by section 553(b)(3)(A) and (B) of that Act. The Act included an immediate effective date, thus making the first required statements due 30 days after enactment. It is necessary to provide more time to provide the statements required by section 6035(a) to allow the Treasury Department and the IRS sufficient time to issue both substantive and procedural guidance on how to comply with the section 6035(a) requirement and to provide executors and other affected persons the opportunity to review this guidance before preparing the required statements. These regulations reiterate the relief in Notice 2016-19 and, because of the immediate need to provide relief, notice and public comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (c) is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. For the applicability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), please refer to the Special Analyses section of the preamble to the cross-referenced notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the Federal Register. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.

    Drafting Information

    The principal author of these temporary regulations is Theresa Melchiorre, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). Other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Temporary Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

    PART 1—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 is amended by adding an entry in numerical order to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U. S. C. 7805 * * *

    Section 1.6035-2T also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6035.

    Par. 2. Section 1.6035-2T is added to read as follows:
    § 1.6035-2T Transitional relief.

    (a) Statements due before March 31, 2016. Executors and other persons required to file or furnish a statement under section 6035(a)(1) or (a)(2) before March 31, 2016, need not do so until March 31, 2016.

    (b) Effective/applicability date. This section is effective/applicable to executors and other persons who file a return required by section 6018(a) or (b) after July 31, 2015.

    John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement, Approved: January 22, 2016. Mark J. Mazur, Assistant Secretary of Treasury (Tax Policy).
    [FR Doc. 2016-04716 Filed 3-2-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Bureau of Engraving and Printing 31 CFR Part 605 Conduct on Bureau of Engraving and Printing Property AGENCY:

    Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP or Bureau) is amending its regulations in order to remove certain obsolete language, clarify the rules of conduct on the property, and increase the maximum penalty amount permitted for violations to $5,000 in accordance with the United States Code.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective April 4, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Hoggan, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, by phone at (202) 874-2500.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The mission of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing is to develop and produce United States currency notes, trusted worldwide. BEP prints billions of dollars in currency—referred to as Federal Reserve notes—each year for delivery to the Federal Reserve System. Due to the sensitive nature of currency production operations, the Bureau is generally closed to the public. Limited areas of the Bureau, however, are accessible for public tours during certain authorized dates and times. Any individual entering, exiting, or on the Bureau's property is subject to the rules of conduct as prescribed within the regulations, and violations may result in criminal prosecution. The BEP has a high degree of security due to producing United States currency notes, and individuals entering, exiting, and on the property are placed on notice that they are subject to search and inspection of their person, personal items and property while entering, exiting, and on the property.

    This final rule updates the Bureau's 1994 (59 FR 41978) regulations that concern conduct on BEP property. The final rule removes certain obsolete language, clarifies the rules of conduct on the property, and increases the maximum penalty amount permitted for violations to $5,000 in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571. The final rule also omits the term Special as used in the previous regulations when referring to the BEP Police. The term Special was unnecessary and could lead to potential confusion. This change has no effect on the legal authority and jurisdiction of the BEP Police. The rights and responsibilities of the BEP Police remain unchanged.

    The notice of proposed rulemaking was published on December 10, 2015, and provided a 60-day comment period, which ended on February 8, 2016. No comments were received. Based on the rationale set forth in the Supplementary Information to the notice of proposed rulemaking and in this final rule, the BEP is adopting the proposed rule as a final rule with the slight modifications of adding the words “search or” before the word “inspection” in paragraphs (b)(6), (b)(7), and (b)(8) to ensure clarity and consistency between related provisions.

    II. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 601 et seq.), the Bureau certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because this final rule primarily affects individuals accessing BEP property and is not likely to affect any small businesses.

    III. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Bureau certifies that no actions were deemed necessary under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Furthermore, this final rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

    IV. Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    This final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13563 calls for public participation and an open exchange of ideas in the regulatory process and seeks regulations that are accessible, consistent, written in plain language, and easy to understand. The Bureau has developed this final rule in a manner consistent with these principles.

    List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 605

    Federal buildings and facilities.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing amends 31 CFR part 605 to read as follows:

    PART 605—REGULATIONS GOVERNING CONDUCT IN BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING BUILDINGS AND ON THE GROUNDS OF WASHINGTON, DC AND FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1. The authority citation for part 605 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; Delegation, Administrator, General Services, dated December 3, 1992; Treasury Delegation, Assistant Secretary (Management), dated February 4, 1993.

    2. Revise § 605.1 to read as follows:
    § 605.1 Conduct on Bureau of Engraving and Printing property.

    (a) Applicability. These regulations apply to the buildings and grounds of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) located in Washington, DC, at 14th and C Streets SW., and in Fort Worth, Texas, at 9000 Blue Mound Road, and to all persons entering on such property. Unless otherwise stated, BEP buildings and grounds are referred to in these regulations as the “property.”

    (b) Limited access. (1) The property is a high-security facility and shall, in general, be closed to the public. Except as specified in this paragraph (b), access is limited to BEP employees and those persons having official business with BEP. Failure to comply with any regulations of this part may result in denial of access or removal from the property.

    (2) Public tours of limited areas of the property are available during such times as the Director may prescribe.

    (3) Limited areas of the property may be open to persons authorized by the Director or the Director's designee.

    (4) All persons entering and exiting the property may be required to present suitable identification and may be required to sign entry logs or registers.

    (5) All persons entering and exiting the property may be subject to screening devices and shall submit to screening upon request by BEP Police or authorized officials.

    (6) All persons entering and exiting the property may be subject to search or inspection of their person, handbags, briefcases, and other handheld articles by BEP Police or authorized officials. All persons on the property may be subject to additional search or inspection by BEP Police or authorized officials upon entry, exit, and request.

    (7) All motor vehicles entering, exiting, or located on the property are subject to search or inspection of the exterior and interior compartments by BEP Police or authorized officials at any time.

    (8) All lockers, cabinets, closets, desks or similar storage areas on the property are subject to search or inspection by BEP Police or authorized officials.

    (9) All computers, data storage devices, and data files owned or controlled by BEP are subject to search or inspection at any time.

    (10) Any entrance onto the property without official permission is prohibited.

    (c) Video monitoring. All persons entering, exiting, and on the property will be monitored by video. Most internal areas of the property, especially production areas, are continuously monitored by video. Any video image may be recorded.

    (d) Preservation of property. It shall be unlawful for any person, without proper authority, to willfully destroy, damage, deface, or remove property.

    (e) Compliance with instructions and signs. All persons on the property shall comply with the instructions of BEP Police, authorized officials, and posted signs or notices.

    (f) Nuisances. The use of loud, abusive, or profane language, loitering, unauthorized assembly, the creation of any hazard to persons or property, improper disposal of rubbish, spitting, prurient prying, the commission of any obscene or indecent act, or any other disorderly conduct on the property is prohibited. The throwing of any articles of any kind in, upon, or from the property and climbing upon any unauthorized portion of the property is prohibited.

    (g) Gambling. (1) Participation in games for money or other property, the operation of gambling devices, the conduct of a lottery or pool, the selling or purchasing of numbers, tickets, or any other gambling on the property is prohibited.

    (2) Possession on the property of any numbers slip or ticket, record, notation, receipt or other writing of a type ordinarily used in any illegal form of gambling, unless explained to the satisfaction of the Director or the Director's designee, shall be evidence of participation in an illegal form of gambling on the property.

    (h) Intoxicating substances, illegal narcotics, and other controlled substances. The possession, use, consumption, or being under the influence of intoxicating substances, illegal narcotics, and other controlled substances (see 21 CFR part 1308) while entering and on the property is prohibited. BEP Police may direct a person to complete a field sobriety test or breathalyzer test upon reasonable suspicion of intoxication or influence. The Director may authorize the possession, use, and consumption of alcoholic beverages on BEP property for infrequent, special occasions. Such authorization must be in writing.

    (i) Soliciting, vending, debt collection, and distribution of handbills. Fundraising for any cause other than the Combined Federal Campaign or other cause authorized by the Office of Personnel Management, the commercial soliciting and vending of all kinds, the display or distribution of commercial advertising, or the collecting of private debts other than as provided by law, in or on the property is prohibited. This rule does not apply to BEP concessions or notices posted by authorized employees on the bulletin boards. Distribution of material such as pamphlets, handbills, and flyers is prohibited without prior approval from the Director or the Director's designee.

    (j) Photographs and recordings. The taking of photographs on the property is prohibited without permission of the Director or the Director's designee. The taking of voice or video recordings on the property is prohibited without the permission of the Director or the Director's designee. Note: The property includes the Tour and Visitor Center and the limited areas accessible for public tour.

    (k) Animals. Animals, except service animals, shall not be brought on the property for other than official purposes.

    (l) Vehicular and pedestrian traffic. (1) Drivers of all vehicles on the property shall drive in a careful and safe manner at all times and shall comply with the signals and directions of BEP Police and all posted traffic signs. Drivers are subject to all applicable motor vehicle laws and regulations of the surrounding jurisdiction.

    (2) The blocking of entrances, driveways, walks, loading platforms, fire hydrants, or standpipes on the property is prohibited.

    (3) Parking on the property is not allowed without a permit or authority. Parking without a permit or authority, not in accordance with a permit or authority, or contrary to the direction of BEP Police, authorized officials, and posted signs or notices is prohibited.

    (m) Weapons and explosives. No person on the property shall carry firearms, explosives, or other dangerous or deadly weapons as defined by Title 18 United States Code, either openly or concealed, except for official purposes.

    (n) Smoking. Smoking on the property is not permitted except in designated smoking areas.

    (o) Penalties and other law. (1) Violations of this part shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000 or the maximum extent allowable under the United States Code, whichever is greater, or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both in accordance with 40 United States Code, Section 1315.

    (2) Violations of 18 United States Code, Section 930 (dangerous weapon clause) shall be punishable by a fine of $100,000 or imprisonment for not more than a year, or both, unless there is intent to commit a crime with the weapon, in which case the punishment shall be a fine of $250,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

    (3) Nothing contained in this part shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal, District of Columbia, or Texas law or regulations, or any Tarrant County ordinance applicable to the property.

    Dated: February 24, 2016. Leonard R. Olijar, Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04817 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4840-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2014-0952] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Victoria Barge Canal, Bloomington, TX AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is modifying the method of operation for the Victoria Barge Canal Railroad Bridge (“bridge”) across the Victoria Barge Canal, mile 29.4, at Bloomington, Victoria County, Texas. This final rule makes permanent the change in method of operation to allow the bridge owner to operate the bridge remotely from a dispatching center in Spring, Texas. This final rule increases the efficiency of operations while allowing for the safe navigation of vessels through the bridge.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective March 4, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type [USCG-2014-0952]. In the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Ms. Geri Robinson; Bridge Administration Branch, Coast Guard; telephone 504-671-2128, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive order FR Federal Register Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On December 30, 2014, we published a temporary deviation from regulations; request for comments (TD) entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Victoria Barge Canal, Bloomington, Texas” in the Federal Register (79 FR 78304). We received no comments on this temporary deviation. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. However, a contractor raised an issue regarding the requirements of dispatchers to contact the vessels when a vessel entered the two-mile bridge zone. In response to this concern, the Coast Guard decided that prior to issuance of a final rule, further comments would be accepted under an interim rule.

    On July 10, 2015, the Coast Guard published an interim rule with request for comments entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Victoria Barge Canal, Bloomington, Texas” in the Federal Register (80 FR 39683). The interim rule allowed mariners to continue transit while the bridge was being remotely operated and comment as to whether the proposed method of operation was sufficient to ensure the safety of vessels transiting the area. We did not receive any comments on the interim rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499. The bridge owner, the Victoria County Navigation District, in conjunction with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) requested permission to remotely operate the Victoria Barge Canal Railroad Bridge across the Victoria Barge Canal, mile 29.4 at Bloomington, Victoria County, Texas. Traffic on the waterway consists of commercial traffic—primarily vessels and tows providing services to the Port of Victoria, and no reported recreational traffic transits the waterway. The vertical lift bridge has a vertical clearance of 22 feet above high water in the closed-to-navigation position and 50 feet above high water in the open-to-navigation position.

    Presently, the bridge opens on signal for the passage of vessels in accordance with 33 CFR 117.991. Under the Temporary Deviation published on December 30, 2014, and the interim rule published on July 10, 2015, this bridge has been remotely operated for the past year and mariners will not notice any changes to the ongoing method of operation of the bridge.

    This final rule allows all vessels utilizing this stretch of the waterway to continue to transit the waterway unencumbered while providing for the bridge owner to operate the bridge from a remote location. Vessel operators should not see any changes in the efficiency of vessel movements as the bridge will still be required to open on signal for the passage of vessels.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    As discussed above, a temporary deviation was published on December 30, 2014, and an interim rule was published on July 10, 2015. The Coast Guard provided separate 60-day comment periods for the temporary deviation and the interim rule. No comments were received and no changes to the final rule have been made.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge. This final rule allows all vessels utilizing this stretch of the waterway to continue to transit the waterway unencumbered while providing for the bridge owner to operate the bridge from a remote location. Vessel operators should not see any changes in the efficiency of vessel movements as the bridge will still be required to open on signal for the passage of vessels.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The property owners, vessel operators and waterway users who wish to transit on Victoria Barge Canal daily. However, this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: A test deviation was conducted and an interim rule was published and no opposition in response to the test or interim rule was received by the Coast Guard Office of Bridge Administration. Further, through pre-coordination and consultation with property owners, vessel operators and waterway users, this operating schedule accommodates all waterway users with minimal impact.

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

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

    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the interim rule amending 33 CFR part 117 that published at 80 FR 39683 on July 10, 2015, is adopted as a final rule without change.

    Dated: February 19, 2016. David R. Callahan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04827 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0148] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Little Calumet River, Chicago, IL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Little Calumet River, Chicago, IL. This action is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States immediately prior to, during, and after a bridge demolition. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective without actual notice from March 4, 2016 to 1 p.m. on March 10, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. on February 29, 2016, or in the event of inclement weather or other unforeseen circumstances enforcement will take place on an alternate date from March 1, 2016 to March 10, 2016 from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0148 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Lindsay Cook, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (630) 986-2155, email [email protected]

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish a NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public and vessels from the hazards associated with a bridge demolition being conducted on February 29, 2016 or an alternate date from March 1, 2016 to March 10, 2016.

    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run would be impracticable.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    On February 29, 2016 or an alternate date from March 1, 2016 to March 10, 2016 a bridge demolition will take place on the Grand Calumet River at the junction with the Little Calumet River in Chicago, IL. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that the bridge demolition will pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include launched and falling debris.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of the public during a bridge demolition on the Grand Calumet River at the junction with the Little Calumet River. This safety zone will be enforced from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. on February 29, 2016 or an alternate date from March 1, 2016 to March 10, 2016. This zone will encompass all waters 1,500 feet in both directions on the Little Calumet River from the junction of the Little Calumet River and the Grand Calumet River.

    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or a designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or a designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced on February 29, 2016 or an alternate date from March 1, 2016 to March 10, 2016 from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this temporary rule on small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit on a portion of the Little Calumet River on February 29, 2016 or an alternate date from March 1, 2016 to March 10, 2016 from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m.

    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons cited in the Regulatory Planning and Review section. Additionally, before the enforcement of the zone, we will issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Public Notice of Safety Zone so vessel owners and operators can plan accordingly.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone for a bridge demolition on the Grand Calumet River at the junction with the Little Calumet River, Chicago, IL. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

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

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 165.T09-0148 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0148 Safety Zone; Little Calumet River, Chicago, IL.

    (a) Location. All waters 1,500 feet in both directions on the Little Calumet River from the junction of the Little Calumet River and the Grand Calumet River.

    (b) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced on February 29, 2016 or an alternate date from March 1, 2016 to March 10, 2016 from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative.

    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative.

    (3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to act on his or her behalf.

    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or an on-scene representative.

    Dated: February 24, 2016. A.B. Cocanour, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04825 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2011-0228] Safety Zone, Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, and Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of the Safety Zone; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, Calumet-Saganashkee Channel on all waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal between Mile Marker 296.1 to Mile Marker 296.7 at specified times from March 3, 2016 to March 11, 2016. This action is necessary to protect the waterway, waterway users, and vessels from the hazards associated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's underwater inspections of the electric dispersal system for invasive species.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 165.930 will be enforced from March 3, 2016 from 7 a.m. until 11 a.m. and then from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. In the event the work cannot be completed on March 3, 2016, the safety zone will be enforced on March 4, 2016 through March 11, 2016 from 7 a.m. until 11 a.m. and from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email LT Lindsay Cook, Waterways Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 630-986-2155, email address D09-DG-MSUCh[email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of the Safety Zone; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, listed in 33 CFR 165.930. Specifically, the Coast Guard will enforce this safety zone on all waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal between Mile Marker 296.1 to Mile Marker 296.7. Enforcement will occur on March 3, 2016 from 7 a.m. until 11 a.m. and from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. In the event the work cannot be completed on March 3, 2016 due to inclement weather or unforeseen circumstances this safety zone will be enforced on March 4, 2016 through March 11, 2016 from 7 a.m. until 11 a.m. and from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. During the enforcement period, no vessel may transit this regulated area without approval from the Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan (COTP) or a COTP designated representative.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under the authority of 33 CFR 165.930 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the Federal Register, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will also provide notice through other means, which may include

    Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, local news media, distribution in leaflet form, and on-scene oral notice. Additionally, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan may notify representatives from the maritime industry through telephonic and email notifications.

    Dated: February 24, 2016. A. B. Cocanour, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04826 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0816; FRL-9943-35-Region 4] Air Plan Disapproval; Georgia: Disapproval of Automatic Rescission Clause AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to disapprove a portion of a revision to the Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted through the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division (Georgia EPD), on January 13, 2011, that would allow for the automatic rescission of federal permitting-related requirements in certain circumstances. EPA is disapproving Georgia's automatic rescission clause because the Agency has determined that this provision is not consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) or federal regulations related to SIPs.

    DATES:

    This rule will be effective April 4, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0816. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sean Lakeman, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Lakeman can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9043 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On September 8, 2011, EPA took final action to approve portions of a requested revision to the Georgia SIP, submitted by Georgia EPD on January 13, 2011. See 76 FR 55572. Specifically, the portions of Georgia's January 13, 2011, SIP submittal that EPA approved incorporated two updates to the State's air quality regulations under Georgia's New Source Review (NSR) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. First, the SIP revision established emission thresholds for determining which new stationary sources and modification projects become subject to Georgia's PSD permitting requirements for their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Second, the SIP revision incorporated provisions for implementing the PSD program for the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA noted in its September 8, 2011 final rule approving portions of Georgia's January 13, 2011, SIP submittal that the Agency was still evaluating the portion of the SIP submittal related to a provision (at 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)(2)(iv)) that would automatically rescind portions of Georgia's SIP in the wake of certain court decisions or other triggering events (the automatic rescission clause), and consequently was not taking action on that provision in that final action. See 76 FR at 55573.

    Specifically, at 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)(2)(iv), Georgia's rules read as follows: “The definition and use of the term ‘subject to regulation’ in 40 CFR, part 52.21, as amended June 3, 2010, is hereby incorporated by reference; provided, however, that in the event all or any portion of 40 CFR 52.21 containing that term is: (i) Declared or adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional or stayed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit or for the District of Columbia Circuit; or (ii) withdrawn, repealed, revoked or otherwise rendered of no force and effect by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Congress, or Presidential Executive Order. [sic] Such action shall render the regulation as incorporated herein, or that portion thereof that may be affected by such action, as invalid, void, stayed, or otherwise without force and effect for purposes of this rule upon the date such action becomes final and effective; provided, further, that such declaration, adjudication, stay, or other action described herein shall not affect the remaining portions, if any, of the regulation as incorporated herein, which shall remain of full force and effect as if such portion so declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional or stayed or otherwise invalidated or effected were not originally a part of this rule. The Board declares that it would [not] have incorporated the remaining parts of the federal regulation if it had known that such portion thereof would be declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional or stayed or otherwise rendered of no force and effect.”

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) published on July 31, 2015, EPA proposed to disapprove the portion of Georgia's January 13, 2011, submittal that would add the automatic rescission clause at Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)(2)(iv) to the SIP. See 80 FR 45635. EPA is now taking final action to disapprove this portion of Georgia's submittal.

    In assessing the approvability of Georgia's proposed automatic rescission clause, EPA considered two key factors: (1) Whether the public will be given reasonable notice of any change to the SIP that occurs as a result of the automatic rescission clause; and (2) whether any future change to the SIP that occurs as a result of the automatic rescission clause would be consistent with EPA's interpretation of the effect of the triggering action (e.g., the extent of an administrative or judicial stay) on federal permitting requirements at 40 CFR 52.21. These criteria are derived from the SIP revision procedures set forth in the CAA and federal regulations.

    Regarding public notice, CAA section 110(l) provides that any revision to a SIP submitted by a State to EPA for approval “shall be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing.” See 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). Under Georgia's automatic rescission clause, the SIP would automatically be revised as a result of a triggering action without public notice. To the extent that there is any ambiguity regarding how a court order or other triggering action impacts the federal permitting requirements at 40 CFR 52.21, that ambiguity will lead to ambiguity regarding the extent to which the triggering action results in a SIP revision (and indeed, whether a particular court ruling or other action in fact triggers an automatic SIP revision under Georgia's automatic rescission clause). EPA concludes that Georgia's automatic rescission clause would not provide reasonable public notice of a SIP revision as required by CAA 110(l), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).

    EPA's consideration of whether any SIP change resulting from the automatic rescission clause would be consistent with EPA's interpretation of the effect of the triggering action on federal permitting requirements at 40 CFR 52.21 is based on 40 CFR 51.105. Under 40 CFR 51.105, “[r]evisions of a plan, or any portion thereof, will not be considered part of an applicable plan until such revisions have been approved by the Administrator in accordance with this part.” However, the Georgia automatic rescission clause takes effect immediately upon certain triggering actions without any EPA intervention. The effect of this is that EPA is not given the opportunity to determine the effect and extent of the triggering court order or federal law change on the federal permitting requirements at 40 CFR 52.21; instead, the SIP is modified without EPA's approval.

    Comments on the NPR were due on or before August 31, 2015. EPA received adverse comments on our proposed action, specifically on our proposed disapproval of the automatic rescission clause, from Georgia EPD. EPA also received comments from Georgia Industry Environmental Coalition, Inc. (GIEC). After considering the comments, EPA has decided to finalize our action as proposed. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses follow.

    II. Response to Comments

    Comment 1: Georgia EPD contends that the public notice, the comment period, and the public hearing held for the rule change that adopted the automatic rescission clause at Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)(2)(iv) satisfies CAA section 110(l) requirements. Specifically, Georgia EPD notes that it published public notices in several newspapers announcing an opportunity to comment on the proposed automatic rescission clause, held a public hearing, and addressed all comments received during the public comment period. According to Georgia EPD, Georgia's rescission clause already went through public notice and comment, and there is no reason to require another round of public notice and comment simply because the automatic rescission clause is triggered.

    GIEC likewise argues that Georgia EPD followed notice-and-comment procedures prior to the adoption of the automatic rescission clause that satisfy the requirements of CAA section 110(l). GIEC adds that the notice-and-comment procedures the Georgia EPD performed are indistinguishable from notice-and-comment procedures taken by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) and the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (LMAPCD) prior to enacting EPA-approved “automatic rescission” SIP provisions. GIEC contends that in approving the TDEC and LMAPCD provisions, EPA concluded that these agencies' respective prior notice-and-comment procedures satisfied CAA section 110(l) because they placed the public on notice that the respective SIPs would update automatically to reflect rescission-triggering actions. According to GIEC, because EPA concluded that TDEC and LMAPCD notice-and-comment procedures occurring prior to promulgation of their respective automatic rescission provisions satisfied CAA section 110(l), EPA cannot now conclude that the Georgia provision would not provide reasonable public notice under CAA section 110(l) when Georgia followed indistinguishable notice-and-comment procedures prior to promulgating that provision. GIEC contends that if EPA were to finally conclude in this rulemaking that the provision does not satisfy CAA section 110(l), such a conclusion would be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, beyond the Agency's statutory and Constitutional limits, and otherwise contrary to law in light of the Agency's final determinations concerning the TDEC and LMAPCD SIPs.

    Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenters' contention that the public notice and comment procedures associated with Georgia's adoption of the automatic rescission clause are sufficient to fulfill notice-and-comment requirements with respect to any future SIP revision resulting from the rescission clause's operation. While EPA does not dispute that Georgia EPD provided for public comment and a hearing when promulgating the automatic rescission clause at Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)(2)(iv), that public comment opportunity did not—and could not—satisfy CAA section 110(l)'s public-notice-and-comment requirement with respect to future SIP revisions that would occur in the wake of a triggering action if EPA were to approve the automatic rescission clause into Georgia's SIP.

    Contrary to the GIEC's suggestion, EPA's approval of the automatic rescission clauses adopted by TDEC and LMAPCD does not render EPA's disapproval of Georgia's automatic rescission clause unlawful or arbitrary and capricious. This is because Georgia's automatic rescission clause differs substantially from the automatic rescission clauses adopted by TDEC and LMAPCD. First, under the automatic rescission clauses adopted by TDEC and LMAPCD, no change to the SIP will occur until EPA publishes a Federal Register notice announcing that a portion of 40 CFR 52.21 has been stayed, vacated, or withdrawn. See 77 FR 12484 (March 1, 2012); 77 FR 62150 (October 12, 2012). As EPA explained in the final actions approving these clauses, because no change to the SIP will occur until EPA has published a Federal Register notice announcing the change in federal regulations, “the timing and extent of any future SIP change resulting from the automatic rescission clause will be clear to both the regulated community and the general public.” Id. Second, unlike Georgia's proposed rescission clause, the automatic rescission clauses adopted by TDEC and LMAPCD make it clear to the public in advance that any SIP change resulting from operation of the automatic rescission clause will be consistent with EPA's interpretation of how the triggering action impacted federal regulations.

    In sharp contrast, the SIP changes resulting from operation of Georgia's proposed automatic rescission clause would happen automatically upon a triggering event without any public notice or EPA involvement. To the extent that there is any ambiguity regarding how a court order or other triggering action impacts the federal permitting requirements at 40 CFR 52.21, that ambiguity would lead to ambiguity regarding the specific revision to Georgia's SIP resulting from the triggering action. Not only does the public have no assurance that changes resulting from operation of the rescission clause would be consistent with EPA's interpretation of the applicable federal regulations, but after a change occurs, the exact change may not be clear to the public.1 Furthermore, because ambiguity may exist regarding whether a particular court ruling or other action in fact triggers an automatic SIP revision under Georgia's automatic rescission clause, it may not be clear to the public whether the SIP has changed at all. Due to this ambiguity with respect to how the SIP might be revised under Georgia's proposed automatic rescission clause in the wake of a triggering action, EPA concludes that approval of the automatic rescission clause into Georgia's SIP would authorize future SIP revisions without reasonable public notice in violation of CAA section 110(l).

    1 Georgia's proposed automatic rescission clause would invalidate affected regulatory text, but would not actually remove the text from the regulation. Thus, if EPA were to approve Georgia's automatic rescission clause, it would be left up to the public, the regulated community, and ultimately, the courts, to determine whether and how a potential triggering action changed SIP requirements.

    Comment 2: Georgia EPD states that after the D.C. Circuit issued its Amended Judgment in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 606 Fed. Appx. 6; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11132 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (issued in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014)), EPA removed the affected portions of the federal PSD regulations without providing an opportunity for public comment because EPA deemed the action to be ministerial. See 80 FR 50199 (August 19, 2015). According to Georgia EPD, its rescission clause is no different than the process utilized by EPA in this rule to remove vacated permitting requirements from federal regulations following the Supreme Court's decision.

    Likewise, GIEC states that EPA's removal of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v) as a ministerial act performed without notice-and-comment establishes that Georgia's proposed automatic rescission clause, to the extent that it operates to invalidate Georgia's incorporation of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v), would not contravene the public notice requirements of CAA section 110(l). Quoting from EPA's Federal Register notice, GIEC points out that EPA characterized its removal of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v) from the CFR as a “necessary ministerial act” for which the Agency determined “it was not necessary to provide a public hearing or an opportunity for public comment.” GIEC further notes that EPA stated that “notice-and-comment would be contrary to the public interest because it would unnecessarily delay the removal from the CFR of the Tailoring Rule Step 2 PSD permitting provisions that the Supreme Court held were invalid.”

    Response 2: EPA disagrees with these comments. The April 2015 EPA rule referenced by the Commenter did not revise a SIP submitted by a state for EPA approval. Thus, EPA's rule was not subject to the procedures applicable to the revisions of SIPs. EPA's rule revised section 40 CFR 51.166, which governs the content of state SIP submissions. But the EPA rule did not revise any SIP submitted by a state.

    CAA section 110(l) requires without exception that “[e]ach revision” to a SIP submitted to EPA for approval be adopted by the state “after reasonable notice and public hearing.” See 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). Thus, there are no circumstances under which a state can revise its SIP without providing for public notice and comment on the revision.

    EPA's April 2015 action was not governed by section 110(l) of the CAA. That rule was promulgated under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Section 307(d) of the CAA says that the rulemaking procedures in that section “shall not apply in the case of any rule or circumstance referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection 553(b) of Title 5.” Subparagraph (B) of this section in the APA provides that an agency need not provide notice of proposed rulemaking or opportunity for public comment when the agency for good cause finds that it is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b). The APA does not address procedures for state actions to revise a SIP. Such actions are addressed in section 110(l) of the CAA.

    In addition, although EPA's rule was not subject to public comment under an exception in the APA, EPA's action provided notice to the public of the change in the law. Georgia's rescission clause provides no mechanism for informing the public of a change in state law.

    Moreover, EPA did not deem all of the regulatory revisions needed to implement the D.C. Circuit's April 10, 2015, Amended Judgment in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA to be ministerial. To the contrary, EPA explained in the final rule removing certain vacated elements from the federal PSD and title V regulations that the action did not fully address all of the revisions needed to implement the Amended Judgment because “[t]hose additional revisions to the PSD and title V regulations, although necessary to implement the Coalition Amended Judgment, are not purely ministerial in nature and will be addressed in [a] separate notice-and-comment rulemaking, which will give the public an opportunity to comment on how the EPA proposed to address those portions of the Coalition Amended Judgment.” See 80 FR 50199, 50200 (August 19, 2015) (emphasis added). It is unclear how these more complex regulatory changes would be handled under Georgia's proposed automatic rescission clause. In any event, even if Georgia had the authority to revise its SIP without providing for public notice and comment—which it does not—EPA's decision to provide public notice but no opportunity for public comment on certain regulatory changes that it considered to be ministerial in no way supports Georgia EPD's claim that it would be appropriate to deem all of the SIP revisions needed to remove vacated GHG permitting elements to be ministerial and to make such changes to Georgia's SIP without any public notice or opportunity for public comment.

    Finally, Georgia's proposed automatic rescission clause is not limited to GHG permitting requirements. Rather, the clause applies broadly to actions that affect “all or any portion of 40 CFR 52.21” that contain the term “subject to regulation.” See Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)(2)(iv). Thus, arguments regarding the alleged lack of ambiguity with respect to changes needed to address a triggering action pertaining to GHG permitting in particular are insufficient to support EPA's approval of Georgia's automatic rescission clause. Even if a ministerial change generally (or the particular change addressed in EPA's action) could be exempt from the requirements of 110(l), because of the broad reach of Georgia's rescission clause, it is impossible to conclude in advance that every automatic SIP change resulting from a triggering action would be ministerial.

    Comment 3: Georgia EPD states that the occurrence of a triggering action and the resulting rescission would not be a change to the SIP because the triggering action and rescission clause were already included in Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)(2)(iv). Thus, according to Georgia EPD, the SIP is not being revised and therefore does not require approval from the Administrator.

    Response 3: EPA disagrees with this comment. Georgia's proposed automatic rescission clause would automatically invalidate SIP language in response to a triggering action. Such a change would constitute a SIP revision.

    Comment 4: GIEC states that “EPA's preliminary conclusion that the [automatic rescission clause] is inconsistent with 40 CFR 51.105 is incorrect because EPA has been and will be afforded adequate opportunity under the CAA and through other proceedings to ensure that any SIP change resulting from the automatic operation of the [rescission clause] is consistent with EPA's interpretation of the effect of the triggering action on the permitting requirements at 40 CFR 52.21.” GIEC states that although the rescission clause is self-executing, “Georgia EPD would implement the effect of the provision's operation through permitting decisions that, under the Georgia SIP, are expressly subject to EPA notice, comment, and objection procedures.” Specifically, GIEC contends that the “permit notice, comment, and objection procedures running to EPA's benefit provide EPA with ample opportunity to convey its interpretation of (and ultimately object to) the effect of any [rescission clause] triggering action on the permitting requirements at 40 CFR 52.21 if EPA's interpretation of such an action conflicted with that of the Georgia EPD.”

    Response 4: EPA disagrees with this comment. The CAA's SIP revision procedures are distinct from the permit notice, comment, and EPA objection procedures. Indeed, section 110(i) of the Act specifically prohibits States and EPA, except in certain limited circumstances not applicable here, from taking any action to modify any requirement of a SIP with respect to any stationary source, except in compliance with the CAA's requirements for promulgation or revision of a state plan. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(i). Thus, contrary to the Commenter's contention, EPA's opportunity to object to a state permit cannot substitute for the state's compliance with the CAA's SIP revision requirements. Because Georgia's rescission clause would automatically revise the SIP in the wake of a triggering action, by the time EPA has the opportunity to review the permit for a particular source, it will be too late for EPA to “object” to a prior SIP revision brought about by a triggering action under Georgia's automatic rescission clause. Georgia cannot substitute permit review procedures for the procedural requirements governing SIP revisions at CAA section 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.105.

    Comment 5: GIEC states that it is “highly unlikely” that any action triggering the rescission clause's operation would be subject to interpretation because the provision is triggered by clear and unambiguous occurrences—the withdrawal, repeal, or revocation of all or part of the term “subject to regulation” in 40 CFR 52.21 by executive or congressional action or its invalidation or stay by the Eleventh Circuit or D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeal. GIEC further states that the triggering actions do not become operative until any such action is “final and effective.” GIEC comments that specifically with respect to GHG permitting requirements at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v), there was no ambiguity regarding the impact of the D.C. Circuit's Amended Judgment in Coalition for Responsible Regulation, which GIEC states would have been the “triggering action” if Georgia's automatic rescission clause had been approved by EPA.

    According to GIEC, EPA had (and took) several opportunities to interpret the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014), on the permitting requirements at 40 CFR 52.21. GIEC points to various memoranda issued by EPA after the Supreme Court's decision. GIEC also notes that as early as July 2014, EPA was on notice that the Georgia EPD construed Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA to invalidate 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v) and, accordingly, the SIP provision adopting that regulation was “no longer valid.” GIEC states that to its knowledge, EPA did not object to the Georgia EPD's construction of Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA or the Division's conclusions regarding the validity of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v) and the Georgia SIP provision incorporating it. GIEC concludes that in light of the straightforward and unambiguous manner in which Georgia's rescission clause automatically operated as a result of the issuance of the D.C. Circuit's Amended Judgment in Coalition for Responsible Regulation and the opportunities EPA had and took to determine the effect of Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA on the permitting requirements at 40 CFR 52.21, it is incorrect and appears somewhat disingenuous for EPA to preliminarily conclude that the rescission clause is inconsistent with 40 CFR 51.105.

    Response 5: EPA disagrees with this comment. Contrary to GIEC's contention, it is not “highly unlikely” that any action triggering operation of Georgia's automatic rescission clause would be subject to interpretation. Among other actions, the automatic rescission clause would be triggered by a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit or the District of Columbia Circuit that declares a portion of 40 CFR 52.21 to be “invalid.” It is sometimes the case that the precise regulatory changes needed to address a court decision involve more than simply removing the provision at issue. Under such circumstances, the exact changes to SIP requirements brought about by a triggering action under Georgia's automatic rescission clause would be unclear.

    Rather than support GIEC's argument, the D.C. Circuit's Amended Judgment in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 606 Fed. Appx. 6; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11132 (D.C. Cir. 2015) provides a useful example of a triggering action that involves some degree of ambiguity with respect to how it impacts regulatory requirements. The D.C. Circuit ordered, among other things, that “the regulations under review . . . be vacated to the extent they require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the only pollutant (i) that the source emissions or has the potential to emit above the applicable major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase from a modification.” 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11132, at 130-131. The Court further ordered “that EPA take steps to rescind and/or revise the applicable provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations as expeditiously as practicable to reflect the relief granted,” and “that EPA consider whether any further revisions to its regulations are appropriate” in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA. Id. at 131. As explained above, EPA subsequently published a final action removing some, but not all, of the regulatory provisions impacted by the D.C. Circuit's Amended Judgment. See 80 FR at 50199. EPA explained in that notice that some of the regulatory changes needed to address the Amended Judgment are not purely ministerial. Id. at 50200. Because those regulatory changes involve the exercise of EPA's discretion to some extent, EPA intends to publish a separate Federal Register notice proposing those changes and soliciting public comment. Id.

    Thus, contrary to GIEC's argument, it cannot be assumed that Georgia's automatic rescission clause would be triggered only by “clear and unambiguous occurrences.” Rather, as illustrated by EPA's efforts to respond to the D.C. Circuit's Amended Judgment in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, there may be ambiguity with respect to the precise change to the permitting requirements in Georgia's SIP that would result from a triggering action under the automatic rescission clause. Because Georgia's automatic rescission clause would automatically change Georgia's SIP without public notice or EPA approval, any ambiguity regarding the regulatory impact of the triggering action would lead to ambiguity for regulated entities and the general public regarding the applicable SIP permitting requirements. This is especially true because while the automatic rescission clause would render the affected SIP provisions “invalid,” the invalid text would not be removed or otherwise identified. Thus, it would not necessarily be clear to the public and regulated entities which SIP requirements remain in effect and which have been rendered invalid. Significantly, Georgia EPD (and Georgia courts) may disagree with EPA regarding the regulatory changes brought about by a triggering action under Georgia's automatic rescission clause. Thus, in the wake of a triggering action, Georgia's SIP may not be consistent with federal regulations. Given the uncertainty regarding what SIP revisions may result from the future operation of Georgia's automatic rescission clause, EPA cannot at this time “approve” such future SIP revisions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.105.

    Comment 6: Georgia EPD comments that the Supreme Court issued its decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA on June 23, 2014. Georgia EPD then states: “Ten months later, EPA still had not made any revisions to the federal PSD or Title V permitting requirements. As a result, on April 10, 2015, the D.C. Circuit Court issued an amended judgment in Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 606 Fed. Appx. 6; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11132, which vacated the Tailoring Rule to the extent that it requires sources to obtain PSD or Title V permits solely due to a potential to emit GHGs. This prompted EPA to remove portions of those regulations from the Federal Register that were initially promulgated in 2010.” According to Georgia EPD: “Because EPA did not publish the Final Rule in the Federal Register until August 2015, without an immediate rescission clause, facilities would have been required to continue to follow the provisions in the Tailoring Rule for an additional 14 months after the Court vacated the rule. The [Georgia] EPD automatic rescission clause immediately did what it took EPA fourteen (14) months to do.”

    Response 6: EPA disagrees with this comment. First, Georgia EPD's comment reflects some misconceptions regarding the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA. Contrary to Georgia EPD's suggestion, it was not EPA's delay in revising the federal permitting regulations that resulted in the D.C. Circuit issuing its Amended Judgment. Rather, the D.C. Circuit was acting in response to the Supreme Court's remand of the case back to the D.C. Circuit for issuance of an amended judgment and mandate consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. Consistent with standard judicial practice, following the Supreme Court's remand of the case to the D.C. Circuit, EPA briefed the D.C. Circuit on what the agency considered to be the appropriate relief and waited for the D.C. Circuit to issue its Amended Judgment and mandate before taking action to remove provisions from the federal PSD and title V regulations. Notably, the parties to the litigation had differing views as to how the Supreme Court's decision should impact the federal regulations. The D.C. Circuit issued its Amended Judgment on April 10, 2015, and EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register on August 19, 2015, removing those portions of the federal permitting regulations that the D.C. Circuit specifically identified as vacated. See 80 FR at 50199. However, as discussed above, EPA concluded that some of the regulatory changes needed to address the D.C. Circuit's Amended Judgment are not purely ministerial and therefore, EPA will address these changes in a separate notice-and-comment rulemaking. Id. at 50200.

    Georgia EPD's comment also reflects some confusion regarding how Georgia's automatic rescission clause operates. Specifically, Georgia EPD apparently believes that the Supreme Court's decision, itself, was the triggering action under the automatic rescission clause. See Georgia EPD Comments at 2-3. Industry commenters, on the other hand, take the position that it was the D.C. Circuit's Amended Judgment that served as the triggering action. See GIEC Comments at 5. This disagreement between Georgia EPD and industry commenters underscores EPA's statement in the NPR that in addition to ambiguity regarding how the SIP might be revised in the future by operation of the automatic rescission clause, there may also be confusion regarding “whether a court ruling or other action in fact triggers an automatic SIP revision under Georgia's automatic rescission clause.” See 80 FR at 45637. In contrast, when a SIP revision is made in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements, there is no ambiguity regarding how and when the SIP is changed.

    Regarding Georgia EPD's comment that without the automatic rescission clause, “facilities would have been required to continue to follow the provisions in the Tailoring Rule for an additional 14 months after the [Supreme] Court vacated the rule,” EPA notes that shortly after the Supreme Court issued its decision, EPA announced that it would no longer apply or enforce federal regulatory provisions or the EPA-approved PSD SIP provisions that require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the only pollutant: (i) That the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase from a modification (e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v)). Memorandum from Janet G. McCabe, Acting Asst. Adm'r, Office of Air & Radiation, to Regional Administrators, Regions 1-10, Next Steps and Preliminary Views on the Application of Clean Air Act Permitting Programs to Greenhouse Gases Following the Supreme Court's Decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (July 24, 2014), at 2 (available at http://www3.epa.gov/nsr/documents/20140724memo.pdf). EPA further announced that it did not intend to continue applying regulations that would require that states include in their SIP a requirement that such sources obtain PSD permits.” Id. Georgia can exercise this same discretion with respect to enforcement of state GHG permitting requirements affected by the Supreme Court's decision that the State has not yet had the opportunity to revise.

    EPA appreciates Georgia's desire to enable its SIP to automatically update to reflect actions that invalidate federal regulatory requirements. As Georgia EPD noted in its comments, there are some types of automatic updating provisions that EPA has found to be approvable. Specifically, EPA concluded that the automatic rescission clauses adopted by TDEC and LMAPCD were approvable because under those provisions, no change to the SIP will occur until EPA publishes a Federal Register document announcing that a portion of 40 CFR 52.21 has been stayed, vacated, or withdrawn. See 77 FR at 12485 (TDEC provision); 77 FR at 62153 (LMAPCD provision). Another acceptable approach would be to enable the SIP to automatically update to reflect revisions to 40 CFR 52.21.

    Comment 7: Georgia EPD states that EPA has itself adopted a similar automatic rescission clause in a note to paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(a) of 40 CFR 52.21, which states: “By court order on December 24, 2003, the second sentence of this paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(a) is stayed indefinitely. The stayed provisions will become effective immediately if the court terminates the stay.”

    Response 7: EPA disagrees with this comment. The language in 40 CFR 52.21 cited by Georgia EPD has no substantive effect on the regulations and therefore is not an automatic rescission clause. It was added by EPA to clarify for the public that paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(a) was stayed indefinitely by the D.C. Circuit in State of New York v. EPA, No. 03-1380 and consolidated cases. As EPA explained in the Federal Register notice promulgating this language, “this rule is merely a housekeeping measure that reflects the court order. The action does not have any substantive effect.” 69 FR 40274, 40275. In any event, as discussed above, EPA's procedural obligations derive from the APA, not the CAA. While the APA provides some exceptions from public notice requirements, CAA section 110(l) does not.

    Comment 8: GIEC states that EPA's August 19, 2015 promulgation of the Final Rule entitled “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: Removal of Certain Vacated Elements,” 80 FR 501999, compels the Agency to take final action to approve Georgia's rescission clause to the extent that it operates to invalidate Georgia's incorporation of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v) and to effectively remove the paragraph from the Georgia SIP. According to GIEC, the automatic operation of the rescission clause to invalidate Georgia's incorporation of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v) is functionally identical to, and cannot be distinguished from, the ministerial action EPA performed in its August 19, 2015 Final Rule. Accordingly, GIEC contends that EPA's August 19, 2015 Final Rule rendered moot any grounds on which EPA could rely to disapprove Georgia's automatic rescission clause to the extent it operates to invalidate Georgia's incorporation of now-vacated and removed 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v). GIEC further claims that EPA's final rule removing 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v) establishes that the rescission clause's invalidation of Georgia's incorporation of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v) would not contravene 40 CFR 51.105 because such invalidation is consistent with EPA's interpretation of the triggering action on federal permitting requirements at 40 CFR 52.21.

    Response 8: EPA disagrees with this comment. It is not possible for EPA to approve Georgia's automatic rescission clause only for the limited purpose of enabling the automatic rescission of Georgia's incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v). The plain language of the rescission clause extends well beyond the GHG permitting requirements to encompass “all of any portion of 40 CFR 52.21” that contains the term “subject to regulation” that is impacted by a triggering action. See Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)(2)(iv). As explained above, EPA concludes that it cannot approve this language into Georgia's SIP because it would allow for future automatic SIP revisions without reasonable public notice as required by CAA 110(l) and without EPA approval as required by 40 CFR 51.105.

    Comment 9: GIEC states that EPA's approval of the rescission clause to the extent that it operates to invalidate 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v) would avoid unnecessary delay in removal of this provision from the Georgia SIP, and that such delay could likely result in confusion on the part of the regulated industry about how the D.C. Circuit's Amended Judgment affects the PSD and Title V regulations and PSD permitting requirements administered by the Georgia EPD.

    Response 9: With respect to GIEC's concern that any delay in removing Georgia's incorporation of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v) into its SIP could likely result in confusion on the part of the regulated industry regarding applicable PSD permitting requirements, as acknowledged by the commenter, EPA has issued several memoranda explaining how EPA interprets the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on PSD permitting requirements, and these memoranda are available on EPA's Web site. Further information regarding EPA's interpretation of the impact of the Court's decision appears in the August 19, 2015, Federal Register notice removing certain vacated provisions from the CFR. See 80 FR at 50199. Finally, as discussed above, EPA has announced that it will no longer apply or enforce federal regulatory provisions or the EPA-approved PSD SIP provisions that require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase from a modification (e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v)). Georgia can exercise this same discretion with respect to enforcement of state GHG permitting requirements affected by the Supreme Court's decision (and the D.C. Circuit's subsequent Amended Judgment) that the State has not yet had the opportunity to revise. Regarding GIEC's concerns with respect to the Title V operating permit regulations, EPA notes that today's final action does not impact Georgia's approved Title V program because a state's title V regulations are not incorporated into the SIP and are not subject to SIP revision procedures.

    Comment 10: Georgia EPD states that “if the federal GHG rule (or part of the federal rule) is vacated and considered invalid or stayed by the Courts, it should be immediately removed from the Georgia SIP. The state rulemaking process can be time consuming and may not be capable of responding to judicial, executive (including EPA), or congressional action in time to allow the permitting process to remain consistent with federal requirements. Therefore, Georgia EPD created the rescission clause to ensure that Georgia's PSD rule will be consistent with federal requirements at all times.”

    Response 10: EPA appreciates Georgia's desire to ensure that the permitting requirements in its SIP remain consistent with federal requirements. However, Georgia's proposed automatic rescission clause would create the possibility that Georgia's SIP would be inconsistent with federal requirements in the wake of a triggering action. Specifically, Georgia's proposed rescission clause would revise Georgia's SIP automatically following a triggering action, without waiting for EPA's public notice explaining how exactly the triggering action impacts federal requirements. Georgia EPD (and Georgia courts) may disagree with EPA regarding the regulatory changes brought about by a triggering action under Georgia's automatic rescission clause, resulting in confusion for regulated entities and the general public. This possibility of inconsistency between the Georgia SIP and federal regulatory requirements, and the lack of public notice regarding such inconsistency, makes Georgia's proposed automatic SIP revision different from other automatic updating mechanisms that EPA has found to be approvable. For example, as Georgia EPD noted in its comments, EPA concluded that the automatic rescission clauses adopted by TDEC and LMAPCD were approvable because under those provisions, no change to the SIP will occur until EPA publishes a Federal Register notice announcing that a portion of 40 CFR 52.21 has been stayed, vacated, or withdrawn. See 77 FR at 12485; 77 FR at 62153. Another acceptable approach would be to enable the SIP to automatically update to reflect to the most recent version of 40 CFR 52.21, which is the approach that EPA takes with respect to Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) that apply 40 CFR 52.21 in states that have not adopted PSD permitting requirements into their SIP. Under these alternative approaches, regulated entities and the public can be certain that any changes to the SIP resulting from automatic updating will simply reflect express changes to the federal requirements in 40 CFR 52.21, and that there will be no inconsistency between the SIP and federal permitting regulations.

    Comment 11: Georgia EPD notes that EPA stated in its proposed action that disapproval of Georgia's proposed automatic rescission clause “does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law” and “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.).” However, Georgia EPD believes that requiring PSD permitting requirements for facilities that a court has vacated and considered invalid or stayed does impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law and does have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Response 11: EPA disagrees with this comment. EPA's disapproval of Georgia's automatic rescission clause does not itself impose any additional requirement on any regulated entity beyond those requirements imposed by state law. In particular, the rescission clause is merely a procedural mechanism by which requirements that EPA previously approved into Georgia's SIP at Georgia's request would be automatically invalidated in the wake of a triggering action. As discussed above, EPA has determined that it cannot approve this procedural mechanism because it contravenes CAA and regulatory requirements governing SIP revisions. This action does not impair Georgia's existing ability to request a SIP revision in accordance with the procedures set forth in the CAA and federal regulations. Because EPA's disapproval of Georgia's automatic rescission clause does not impose any additional requirement on any regulated entity, this final action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, EPA concludes pursuant to section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605, that a regulatory flexibility analysis is unnecessary.

    III. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to disapprove the provision in Georgia's January 13, 2011, SIP submittal (at Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)(2)(iv)) that would automatically rescind permitting-related federal requirements in certain circumstances. Previously, EPA approved the remainder of Georgia's January 13, 2011, SIP revision, which related to PSD requirements for GHG-emitting sources and for the PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR 55572 (September, 8, 2011). This action does not change what EPA previously approved. EPA notes that this disapproval action does not obligate Georgia in any way to make a new SIP submittal and does not create any potential for sanctions because this provision is not a required element of the SIP.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 3, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 23, 2016. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42.U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart L—Georgia 2. Amend § 52.572 by designating the existing undesignated paragraph as paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 52.572 Approval status.

    (b) Disapproval. Submittal from the State of Georgia, through the Georgia's Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division (EPD) on January 13, 2011, that would allow for the automatic rescission of federal permitting-related requirements in certain circumstances. EPA is disapproving a portion of the SIP submittal related to a provision (at 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)(2)(iv)) that would automatically rescind portions of Georgia's State Implementation Plan in the wake of certain court decisions or other triggering events (the automatic rescission clause).

    [FR Doc. 2016-04746 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0362; FRL-9943-29-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Regional Haze Glatfelter BART SIP Revision AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to extend the compliance date for the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) emission limits for sulfur dioxide (SO2) at the P.H. Glatfelter Company (Glatfelter) facility submitted as part of its State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision on April 14, 2014. Specifically, EPA is extending the compliance date for the SO2 emission limits applicable to Boilers No. 7 and No. 8 at Glatfelter by 25 months, from December 31, 2014, to January 31, 2017. We have reviewed this SIP revision and concluded that it meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act and the regional haze rule and because BART requirements continue to be met.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on April 4, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0362. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 886-6143 before visiting the Region 5 office.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6143, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

    I. What is the background for this action? II. What action is EPA taking? III. Final Action IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background for this action?

    On July 2, 2012, EPA approved Ohio's Regional Haze SIP (77 FR 39177). Ohio's Regional Haze SIP included the applicability of BART to the State's only non-utility BART source, Glatfelter, in Chillicothe, Ohio. The BART requirement specified that two of the coal-fired boilers at this facility, No. 7 and No. 8, install control technology to limit the amount of SO2 emissions from the boilers. The compliance date for BART emission reductions was scheduled to be December 31, 2014. The compliance date was aligned with Glatfelter's expected compliance date for the Industrial Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) requirements finalized by EPA in May, 2011 (76 FR 28862).

    On February 6, 2014, Ohio EPA received a request from Glatfelter to extend the original compliance date to January 31, 2017. The extension request is based on the litigation, revision and new compliance date associated with the Industrial Boiler MACT. Under EPA regulations (40 CFR 51.308(3)(1)(iv)), BART is to be implemented “as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than 5 years after approval of the implementation plan revision.” The required compliance date is July 2, 2017.

    This rulemaking addresses an April 14, 2014, submission supplemented on July 27, 2015, from the Ohio EPA to extend the compliance date from December 31, 2014, to January 31, 2017. One of the requests within the April 14, 2014, SIP revision includes “the requirement that P.H. Glatfelter submit an application for modification of the federally enforceable permit (that will include a compliance date outlining, at a minimum, the specific, selected control technologies and methods of compliance) from December 31, 2013, to requiring the submittal provide for sufficient time for Ohio EPA to include these requirements, along with any appropriate monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements, in the federally enforceable permit by no later than January 31, 2017.”

    Ohio EPA supplemented its original submittal on July 27, 2015, with a revised federally enforceable permit for Glatfelter that included the new compliance date. Ohio EPA made the federally enforceable permit available for public comment on June 6, 2015, and comments were accepted through July 7, 2015. The Ohio EPA consulted the Federal Land Managers and included them in the public comment process. Two comments were received and those comments, along with Ohio EPA's responses were included in the July 27, 2015, submittal.

    II. What action is EPA taking?

    The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule require BART controls to be installed as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than five years after approval of the Regional Haze implementation plan revision. The proposed rulemaking associated with this final action was published on December 9, 2015 (236 FR 76403), and EPA received no comments during the comment period, which ended on January 8, 2016. EPA is therefore taking final action to approve, as proposed, Ohio's submission.

    III. Final Action

    EPA is approving a revision to the Ohio SIP submitted by the State of Ohio on April 14, 2014, supplemented on July 27, 2015, related to BART requirements for Glatfelter. Specifically, EPA is extending the compliance date for the SO2 emission limits applicable to Boilers No. 7 and No. 8 at Glatfelter by 25 months from December 31, 2014, to January 31, 2017.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Ohio permit described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. 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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, 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 action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 3, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: February 22, 2016. Robert A. Kaplan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. In § 52.1870, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by revising the entry for “P.H. Glatfelter Co.—Chillicothe” to read as follows:
    § 52.1870 Identification of plan.

    (d) * * *

    EPA-Approved Ohio Source-Specific Provisions Name of source Number Ohio effective date EPA approval date Comments *         *         *         *         *         *         * P.H. Glatfelter Co.—Chillicothe P0118907 07/20/15 03/04/16, [Insert Federal Register citation] Regional haze BART emissions limits. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-04730 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Part 435 Eligibility in the States, District of Columbia, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa CFR Correction

    In Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 430 to 481, revised as of October 1, 2015, on page 161, in § 435.301, in paragraph (b)(2)(iii), remove the term “425.330.320” and add the term “425.320” in its place.

    [FR Doc. 2016-04872 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Part 495 [CMS-3310 & 3311-F2] RINs 0938-AS26 and AS58 Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health Record Initiative Program—Stage 3 and Modifications to Meaningful Use in 2015 Through 2017; Corrections and Correcting Amendment AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; corrections and correcting amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    This document corrects certain technical and typographical errors that appeared in the October 16, 2015 final rule with comment period titled “Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health Record Incentive Program—Stage 3 and Modifications to Meaningful Use in 2015 through 2017.”

    DATES:

    This document is effective on March 4, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kateisha Martin, (410) 786-4651.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In FR Doc. 2015-25595 of October 16, 2015 (80 FR 62762), in the final rule with comment period titled “Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health Record Incentive Program—Stage 3 and Modifications to Meaningful Use in 2015 through 2017” (hereafter referred to as the “2015 EHR Incentive Programs final rule with comment period”), there were a number of technical errors that are identified and corrected in this correcting amendment. The provisions in this document are treated as if they had been included in the 2015 EHR Incentive Programs final rule with comment period.

    In the 2015 EHR Incentive Programs final rule with comment period, we specified the requirements that eligible professionals (EPs), eligible hospitals, and critical access hospitals (CAHs) must meet in order to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs and successfully demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology. In addition, it changed the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs reporting period in 2015 to a 90-day period aligned with the calendar year. It also removed reporting requirements on measures that have become redundant, duplicative, or topped out from the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs. In addition, it established the requirements for Stage 3 of the program as optional in 2017 and required for all participants beginning in 2018. The final rule with comment period continues to encourage the electronic submission of clinical quality measure (CQM) data, establishes requirements to transition the program to a single stage, and aligns reporting for providers in the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs.

    II. Summary of Errors A. Summary of Errors in the Preamble

    On page 62767, in our discussion of certified EHR technology requirements for the EHR Incentive Program, we made a typographical error in the word “use” in the sentence specifying that providers may continue to use technology certified to the 2014 Edition until EHR technology certified to the 2015 Edition is required with an EHR reporting period beginning in 2018.

    On page 62801, in our response to the public comment regarding “Objective 4: Electronic Prescribing” we made a typographical error in the word “distinguish” in the sentence specifying that we will no longer distinguish between prescriptions for controlled substances.

    On page 62806, in our response to a public comment regarding “Objective 4: Electronic Prescribing” and the pathways acceptable for transmitting Summary of Care records, we inadvertently omitted the word “have” in the sentence specifying that to count in the numerator the sending provider must have reasonable certainty of receipt of the summary of care document. In addition, there is typographical error and the word “obtain” was omitted causing an incomplete sentence which reads “Instead, r the referring provider must confirmation”. This sentence is corrected to read “Instead, the referring provider must obtain confirmation”.

    On page 62819, we made a typographical error in our discussion regarding previous registrations with a public health agency or clinical data registry that occurred in a previous stage of meaningful use could count toward Active Engagement Option 1 for any of the EHR reporting periods in 2015, 2016 or 2017.

    On page 62825, in Table 6—PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTING OBJECTIVE MEASURES FOR EPs, ELIGIBLE HOSPITALS, AND CAHs IN 2015 THROUGH 2017, we inadvertently included the phrase “with a public health agency” in the description of the Measure 3 Specialized Registry Reporting “Measure Specification” in error.

    On page 62834, in our response to a public comment regarding the eventual progression toward universal inclusion of controlled substances in electronic prescribing as a desired goal, we made a grammatical error.

    On page 62868, in our response to a public comment regarding reporting to specialized registries, we made a typographical error in the cross-reference for the section outlining the Specialized Registry Reporting measure for 2015 through 2017.

    On page 62885, in Table 15—EP OBJECTIVES, MEASURES, AND CERTIFICATION CRITERIA FOR STAGE 3 IN 2018 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS, we made technical errors in the descriptions of Measures 1 and 2 of Objective 6—Coordination of Care through Patient Engagement where the table text does not match the correct text in the preamble and regulation text for the correct year.

    On page 62883, in TABLE 14—ELIGIBLE HOSPITAL/CAH OBJECTIVES, MEASURES, AND CERTIFICATION CRITERIA FOR STAGE 3 IN 2017, we made technical errors in the threshold description for Measures 1 and 2 of Objective 6 where the table text does not match the correct text in the preamble and regulation text for the correct year.

    On page 62928, in Table 25—ESTIMATED ANNUAL INFORMATION COLLECTION BURDEN, we made typographical errors in the regulatory citations listed in the first column of the table.

    B. Summary of Errors in the Regulations Text

    On page 62945, in § 495.22(e)(3)(ii)(C)(3), we erroneously stated that the alternate exclusion applies for only measure 3 for EPs scheduled to be in Stage 1 in 2016 instead of stating that the exclusion applies for both measures 2 and 3 for EPs scheduled to be in Stage 1 in 2016.

    On page 62948, in § 495.22(e)(10)(ii)(C)(3), we incorrectly referenced EPs instead of eligible hospitals or CAHs in specifying the exclusion for the immunization registry reporting measure.

    On page 62951, in § 495.24(d)(7)(i)(B)(3), we erroneously stated that the provider must implement clinical information reconciliation for “two of the following three” clinical information sets instead of stating that the provider must implement clinical information reconciliation for “the following three” clinical information sets, which is consistent with the proposed regulation text (80 FR 16800) and the description in the final rule preamble (80 FR 62862).

    On page 62952, in § 495.24(d)(7)(ii)(B)(3), we erroneously stated that the provider must implement clinical information reconciliation for “two of the following three” clinical information sets instead of stating that the provider must implement clinical information reconciliation for “the following three” clinical information sets, which is consistent with the proposed regulation text (80 FR 16801) and the description in the final rule preamble (80 FR 62862).

    III. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking, 60-Day Comment Period, and Delay in Effective Date

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the agency is required to publish a notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register before the provisions of a rule take effect. Similarly, section 1871(b)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary to provide for notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register and provide a period of not less than 60 days for public comment. In addition, section 553(d) of the APA, and section 1871(e)(1)(B)(i) of the Act mandate a 30-day delay in effective date after issuance or publication of a rule. Sections 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3) of the APA provide for exceptions from the notice and comment and delay in effective date APA requirements; in cases in which these exceptions apply, sections 1871(b)(2)(C) and 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act provide exceptions from the notice and 60-day comment period and delay in effective date requirements of the Act as well. Section 553(b)(B) of the APA and section 1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act authorize an agency to dispense with normal rulemaking requirements for good cause if the agency makes a finding that the notice and comment process are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. In addition, both section 553(d)(3) of the APA and section 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act allow the agency to avoid the 30-day delay in effective date where such delay is contrary to the public interest and an agency includes a statement of support.

    We believe that this document does not constitute a rulemaking that would be subject to these requirements. This document corrects technical and typographic errors in the preamble and regulation text included in the 2015 EHR Incentive Programs final rule with comment period. The corrections contained in this document are consistent with, and do not make substantive changes to, the policies that were adopted subject to notice and comment procedures in the final rule with comment period. As a result, the corrections made through this document are intended to ensure that the 2015 EHR Incentive Programs final rule with comment period accurately reflects the policies adopted in that rule. In addition, even if this were a rulemaking to which the notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the final rule with comment period or delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public's interest for eligible professionals, eligible hospitals, and critical access hospitals to be advised, in a timely manner, of the meaningful use criteria and EHR reporting periods that they must meet in order to qualify for Medicare and Medicaid electronic health record incentive payments and avoid payment reductions under Medicare, and to ensure that the final rule with comment period accurately reflects our policies as of the date they take effect and are applicable. Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not altering our policies; rather, we are simply implementing correctly the policies that we previously proposed, received comment on, and subsequently finalized. This correcting document is intended solely to ensure that the 2015 EHR Incentive Programs final rule with comment period accurately reflects these policies. Therefore, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment and effective date requirements.

    IV. Correction of Errors

    In FR Doc. 2015-25595 of October 16, 2015 (80 FR 62762), we are making the following corrections:

    1. On page 62767, first column, first full paragraph, line 16, the phrase “continue to usher” is corrected to read “continue to use”.

    2. On page 62801, second column, first full paragraph, line 32, the phrase “longer distinguishing between” is corrected to read “longer distinguish between”.

    3. On page 62806, third column, first paragraph—

    a. Lines 4 and 5, the phrase “must reasonable certainty” is corrected to read “must have reasonable certainty”.

    b. Line 9 and 10, the phrase “Instead, r the referring provider must confirmation” is corrected to read “Instead, the referring provider must obtain confirmation”.

    4. On page 62819, second column, last paragraph, line 12, the phrase “a previous stages” is corrected to read “a previous stage”.

    5. On page 62825, in TABLE 6—PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTING OBJECTIVE MEASURES FOR EPS, ELIGIBLE HOSPITALS, AND CAHS IN 2015 THROUGH 2017, second column (Measure specification column for Measure 3) lines 5 and 6, the phrase “The EP, eligible hospital, or CAH is in active engagement with a public health agency to submit data to a specialized registry” is corrected to read “The EP, eligible hospital, or CAH is in active engagement to submit data to a specialized registry”.

    6. On page 62834, first column, last paragraph, line 22, the phrase “distinguishing between” is corrected to read “distinguish between”.

    7. On page 62868, second column, first full paragraph, lines 39 and 40, the phrase “section aII.B.2.b.x for further information” is corrected to read “Objective 10 in section II.B.2.a. of this final rule for further information”.

    8. On page 62883, in Table 14—ELIGIBLE HOSPITAL/CAH OBJECTIVES, MEASURES, AND CERTIFICATION CRITERIA FOR STAGE 3 IN 2017—CONTINUED, second column—

    a. Second set of paragraphs, second paragraph (Measure 1 of Objective 6), line 2, the phrase “more than 10 percent” is corrected to read “more than 5 percent”.

    b. Third set of paragraphs, last paragraph (Measure 2 of Objective 6) line 1, the phrase “more than 25%” is corrected to read “more than 5%”.

    9. On page 62885, in TABLE 15—EP OBJECTIVES, MEASURES, AND CERTIFICATION CRITERIA FOR STAGE 3 IN 2018 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS, second column—

    a. Line 17 from the bottom of the column (Measure 1 of Objective 6), the phrase “Measure 1: For 2017, during the EHR reporting period” is corrected to read “Measure 1: During the EHR reporting period”.

    b. Line 6 from the bottom of the column (Measure 2 of Objective 6), the phrase “Measure 2: For 2017, more than 25%” is corrected to read “Measure 2: More than 25%”.

    10. On page 62928, in TABLE 25—ESTIMATED ANNUAL INFORMATION COLLECTION BURDEN, the first column (Reg. Section)—

    a. Line 1, the citation “§ 495.x” is corrected to read “§ 495.24”

    b. Line 3, the citation “§ 495.6” is corrected to read “§ 495.22”.

    List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 495

    Administrative practice and procedure, Electronic health records, Health facilities, Health professions, Health maintenance organizations (HMO), Medicaid, Medicare, Penalties, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    As noted in section II.B. of this document, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is making the following correcting amendments to 42 CFR part 495:

    PART 495—STANDARDS FOR THE ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD TECHNOLOGY INCENTIVE PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for part 495 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh).

    § 495.22 [Amended]
    2. Section 495.22 is amended as follows: a. In paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(C)(3) by removing the phrase “paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(A)(3) of this section in 2016” and adding in its place the phrase “paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(A)(2) and (e)(3)(ii)(A)(3) of this section in 2016.” b. In paragraph (e)(10)(ii)(C)(3) introductory text by removing the phrase “if the EP:” and adding in its place the phrase “if the eligible hospital or CAH:”.
    § 495.24 [Amended]
    3. Section 495.24 is amended as follows: a. In paragraph (d)(7)(i)(B)(3) introductory text by removing the phrase “for two of the following three clinical information sets:” and adding in its place the phrase “for the following three clinical information sets:”. b. In paragraph (d)(7)(ii)(B)(3) introductory text by removing the phrase “for two of the following three clinical information sets:” and adding in its place the phrase “for the following three clinical information sets:”.
    Dated: February 25, 2016. Wilma Robinson, Deputy Executive Secretary to the Department, Department of Health and Human Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04785 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Part 510 [CMS-5516-F2] RIN-0938-AS64 Medicare Program; Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Payment Model for Acute Care Hospitals Furnishing Lower Extremity Joint Replacement Services; Corrections and Correcting Amendments AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correction and correcting amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    In the November 24, 2015 Federal Register (80 FR 73274), we published a final rule to implement a new Medicare Part A and B payment model under section 1115A of the Social Security Act, called the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model, in which acute care hospitals in certain selected geographic areas will receive retrospective bundled payments for episodes of care for lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) or reattachment of a lower extremity. The effective date was January 15, 2016. This correcting amendment corrects a limited number of technical and typographical errors identified in the November 24, 2015 final rule.

    DATES:

    This correcting amendment is effective March 4, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Claire Schreiber, [email protected], (410) 786-8939.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In FR Doc. 2015-29438 of November 24, 2015 (80 FR 73274), the final rule entitled “Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Payment Model for Acute Care Hospitals Furnishing Lower Extremity Joint Replacement Services” there were a number of technical and typographical errors that are identified and corrected in this correcting amendment. The provisions in this correcting amendment are effective as if they had been included in the final rule appearing in the November 24, 2015 Federal Register.

    II. Summary of Errors A. Summary of Errors in the Preamble

    On pages 73274 and 73282, we made an error in identifying the acronym “MS-DRG”.

    On pages 73289, 73335, 73412, 73526, and 73528, we made inadvertent typographical errors which included the omission and addition of words, symbols, and lines of text.

    On pages 73324, 73381, and 73535, we made typographical errors in the Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) and National Quality Forum (NQF) numbers.

    On page 73324, we made typographical and grammatical errors when specifying several regulatory citations.

    On pages 73338, 73355, 73357, and 73358, in our discussion of the “Episode Price Setting Methodology”, we implied that the calculation of prospective target prices will incorporate the effective discount percentage determined by quality performance under the model. We clarify that target prices will be determined prospectively using a 3 percent discount percentage, and hospitals may experience a different effective discount percentage at reconciliation due to quality.

    On page 73362, in our discussion of the “Methodology To Determine Performance on the Quality Measures”, we made an error in the data submission requirements for the percentage of the eligible elective primary THA/TKA patients needed.

    B. Summary of Errors in the Regulations Text

    On page 73543, in the regulations text for § 510.300, we erroneously included a paragraph regarding adjustments for quality performance (paragraph (a)(4)). We note that as specified in the final rule, target prices will be determined prospectively using a 3 percent discount percentage, and hospitals may experience a different effective discount percentage at reconciliation due to quality. To correct this error, we have removed paragraph (a)(4) and renumbered the subsequent paragraph (that is, the current paragraph (a)(5)) .

    On page 73544, in the regulation text at § 510.300(c)(2) (Determination of episode target prices) we inadvertently omitted the discount factor for repayment amounts in program years (PYs) 4 and 5. To correct this error, we have added a paragraph (c)(2)(iii).

    On page 73549, in the regulation text at § 510.305, we made a cross-referencing error.

    The corrections to the errors summarized in this section appear in the regulations text of this correcting amendment.

    III. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking, 60-Day Comment Period, and Delay in Effective Date

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the agency is required to publish a notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register before the provisions of a rule take effect. Similarly, section 1871(b)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary to provide for notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register and provide a period of not less than 60 days for public comment. In addition, section 553(d) of the APA, and section 1871(e)(1)(B)(i) of the Act mandate a 30-day delay in effective date after issuance or publication of a rule. Sections 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3) of the APA provide for exceptions from the notice and comment and delay in effective date APA requirements; in cases in which these exceptions apply, sections 1871(b)(2)(C) and 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act provide exceptions from the notice and 60-day comment period and delay in effective date requirements of the Act as well. Section 553(b)(B) of the APA and section 1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act authorize an agency to dispense with normal rulemaking requirements for good cause if the agency makes a finding that the notice and comment process are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. In addition, both section 553(d)(3) of the APA and section 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act allow the agency to avoid the 30-day delay in effective date where such delay is contrary to the public interest and the agency includes a statement of support.

    We believe that this document does not constitute a rulemaking that would be subject to these requirements. This document corrects technical and typographic errors in the preamble and regulation text included in the Medicare Program; Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Payment Model for Acute Care Hospitals Furnishing Lower Extremity Joint Replacement Services (80 FR 73274). The corrections contained in this document are consistent with, and do not make substantive changes to, the policies that were adopted subject to notice and comment procedures in the final rule. As a result, the corrections made through this document are intended to ensure that the Medicare Program; Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Payment Model for Acute Care Hospitals Furnishing Lower Extremity Joint Replacement Services final rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in that rule. In addition, even if this were a rulemaking to which the notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the final rule or delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public's interest for the CJR model final rule to accurately reflect our policies as of the date they take effect and are applicable. Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not altering our policies; rather, we are simply implementing correctly the policies that we previously proposed, received comment on, and subsequently finalized. This correcting document is intended solely to ensure that the Medicare Program; Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Payment Model for Acute Care Hospitals Furnishing Lower Extremity Joint Replacement Services final rule accurately reflects these policies. Therefore, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment and effective date requirements.

    IV. Correction of Errors in the Preamble

    In FR Doc. 2015-29438 of November 24, 2015 (80 FR 73274), make the following corrections:

    1. On page 73274, third column, line 18, the phrase “MS-DRG Medical Severity Diagnosis-” is corrected to read “MS-DRG Medicare Severity Diagnosis-”.

    2. On page 73282, third column, last paragraph, lines 6 and 7, the phrase “Medical Severity Diagnosis-Related Group (MS-DRG)” is corrected to read “Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Group (MS-DRG)”.

    3. On page 73289, third column, sixth full paragraph, line 2, the phrase “that that” is corrected to read “that”.

    4. On page 73324—

    a. Second column, first full paragraph, lines 26 and 27, the phrase “MS-DRG 569” is corrected to read “MS-DRG 469”.

    b. Third column—

    (1) First partial paragraph, line 2, the phrase “§ 510.210(a)” is corrected to read “§ 510.210(a).”.

    (2) First full paragraph, line 3, the phrase “§ 510.2 and” is corrected to read “§ 510.210.”

    (3) After the first full paragraph, the reference “§ 510.210(a).” is corrected by removing the reference.

    5. On page 73335, first column, first paragraph, lines 4 and 5, the phrase “this final,” is corrected to read “this final rule,”.

    6. On page 73338—

    a. First column, last partial paragraph, lines 23 and 24, the phrase “will have 8 potential target prices” is corrected to read “will have potential target prices at reconciliation”.

    b. Second column, first partial paragraph,

    (1) Lines 3 through 5, the phrase “and between January 1 and September 30 vs. between October 1 and December 31 for performance years 2 through 5)” is corrected to read “and between January 1 and September 30 vs. between October 1 and December 31 for performance years 2 through 5), as well as different potential effective discount factors at reconciliation, which reflects quality performance, as discussed in section III.C.5.”.

    (2) Lines 6 through 16, the phrase “Each participant hospital in performance years 2 and 3 will have 16 target prices for the same combinations in performance years 1, 4, and 5, but with one group of 8 potential target prices for purposes of calculating reconciliation payments and another group of 8 potential target prices for purposes of determining hospital's responsibility for excess episode spending.” is corrected to read “Each participant hospital in performance years 2 and 3 will have target prices for the same combinations as in performance years 1, 4, and 5, but with the potential for additional effective discount factors at reconciliation that reflect the reduced discount percentage for purposes of determining a hospital's responsibility for excess episode spending.”

    7. On page 73355—

    a. First column, third full paragraph, lines 6 and 7, the phrase “used to calculate its target prices.” is corrected to read “experienced at reconciliation”.

    b. Third column, first full paragraph, lines 32 and 33, the phrase “discount factor for participant hospitals with” is corrected to read “effective discount factor at reconciliation for participant hospitals with”.

    8. On page 73357, third column, last bulleted paragraph, lines 4 through 7 and page 73358, first column, first partial paragraph, lines 1 through 4, the phrase ” the appropriate effective discount factor that incorporates any quality incentive payment, as briefly described in section III.C.4.b.(9) of this final rule and more specifically detailed in the response to comments in section III.C.5. of this final rule and Tables 19, 20, and 21.” is corrected to read “a 3-percent discount factor, as described in section III.C.4.b.(9). of this final rule.”.

    9. On page 73381, second column, first full paragraph, line 38, the reference “(NQF #0116)” is corrected to read “(NQF #0166)”.

    10. On page 73412, third column, first full paragraph, line 29, the phrase “only be only” is corrected to read “only be”.

    11. On page 73526, third column, first full paragraph, lines 27 and 28, the phrase “as well as- on other methods” is corrected to read “as well as other methods”.

    12. On page 73528, first column, second paragraph, line 1, the acronym “CJR” is corrected by removing the acronym.

    13. On page 73535, first column, fourth paragraph, line 14, the reference “(NQF #0116)” is corrected to read “(NQF #0166)”.

    List of Subjects for 42 CFR Part 510

    Administrative practice and procedure, Health facilities, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 42 CFR chapter IV is corrected by making the following correcting amendments to part 510:

    PART 510—COMPREHENSIVE CARE FOR JOINT REPLACEMENT MODEL 1. The authority citation for part 510 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 1102, 1115A, and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1315(a), and 1395hh).

    2. Section 510.300 is amended by— a. Removing paragraph (a)(4). b. Redesignating paragraph (a)(5) as new paragraph (a)(4). c. Adding paragraph (c)(2)(iii).

    The addition reads as follows:

    § 510.300 Determination of episode target prices.

    (c) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (iii) In performance years 4 and 5, 3.0 percent.

    § 510.305 [Amended]
    3. In § 510.305, paragraph (f)(1)(iii) is amended by removing the cross-reference “§ 510.410(b)(5)” and adding in its place the cross-reference “§ 510.410(b)”. Dated: February 24, 2016. Wilma Robinson, Deputy Executive, Secretary to the Department, Department of Health and Human Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04786 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 101206604-1758-02] RIN 0648-XE480 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Trip Limit Increase AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; inseason trip limit increase.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS increases the trip limit in the commercial sector for king mackerel in the Florida east coast subzone to 75 fish per day in or from the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). This trip limit increase is necessary to maximize the socioeconomic benefits associated with harvesting the king mackerel commercial quota.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, March 1, 2016, through March 31, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Gerhart, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: s[email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish (king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia) is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

    On January 30, 2012 (76 FR 82058, December 29, 2011), NMFS implemented a commercial quota of 1,102,896 lb (500,265 kg) for Gulf migratory group king mackerel in the Florida east coast subzone (50 CFR 622.384(b)(1)(i)(A)). From November 1 through March 31, the Florida east coast subzone encompasses an area of the EEZ south of a line extending due east of the boundary between Flagler and Volusia Counties, FL, and north of a line extending due east of the boundary between Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, FL. From November 1 through the end of February, king mackerel in or from the subzone may be possessed on board or landed from a permitted vessel in amounts not exceeding 50 fish per day (50 CFR 622.385(a)(2)(i)(A)).

    However, beginning on March 1, if less than 70 percent of the Florida east coast subzone king mackerel commercial quota has been harvested by that date, king mackerel in or from that subzone may be possessed on board or landed from a permitted vessel in amounts not exceeding 75 fish per day (50 CFR 622.385(a)(2)(i)(B)(2)).

    NMFS has determined that less than 70 percent of the quota for Gulf migratory group king mackerel in the Florida east coast subzone will be harvested by March 1, 2016. Accordingly, a 75-fish trip limit applies to vessels fishing for king mackerel in or from the EEZ in the Florida east coast subzone effective 12:01 a.m., local time, March 1, 2016. The 75-fish trip limit will remain in effect until the commercial quota is reached and the subzone closes, or until the end of the subzone's current fishing year on March 31, 2016.

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf migratory group king mackerel and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.385(a)(2)(i)(B)(2) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

    This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this commercial trip limit increase constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule establishing the trip limits has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the trip limit increase. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest, because prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time, thus delaying fishermen's ability to catch more king mackerel than the present trip limit allows and preventing fishermen from reaping the socioeconomic benefits associated with this increased trip limit.

    As this action allows fishermen to increase their harvest of king mackerel from 50 fish to 75 fish per day in or from the EEZ of the Florida east coast subzone, the AA finds it relieves a restriction and may go into effect without a 30-day delay in effectiveness, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 1, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04798 Filed 3-1-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 140918791-4999-02] RIN 0648-XE482 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Vessels Using Jig Gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by vessels using jig gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season allowance of the 2016 Pacific cod total allowable catch apportioned to vessels using jig gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA.

    DATES:

    Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 1, 2016, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., June 10, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Obren Davis, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. Regulations governing sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR part 680.

    The A season allowance of the 2016 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to vessels using jig gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 222 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (80 FR 10250, February 25, 2015) and inseason adjustment (81 FR 188, January 5, 2016).

    In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the A season allowance of the 2016 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to vessels using jig gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 217 mt and is setting aside the remaining 5 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by vessels using jig gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

    Classification

    This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the directed fishing closure of Pacific cod for vessels using jig gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of February 29, 2016.

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

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

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 1, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04809 Filed 3-1-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 43 Friday, March 4, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-DET-0072] RIN 1904-AC66 and 1904-AC51 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products and Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Supplemental Proposed Determination of Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products as Covered Products AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking; supplemental notice of proposed determination.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing to treat certain miscellaneous refrigeration products (MREFs), which include coolers and combination cooler refrigeration products, as covered products under Part A of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended. This supplemental proposed determination would modify DOE's initial proposed scope of those products that would be considered MREFs presented in its earlier proposed determinations. As part of this supplemental proposed determination, DOE is also proposing specific definitions of the product categories that would fall within the MREF product type. In addition, DOE is proposing to amend its current definitions for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers to help clarify the distinctions between the proposed covered product definitions for MREFs. The proposed amendments to these definitions (for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers) would not alter the scope or intent of the current definitions, other than for those products that would newly be covered as combination cooler refrigeration products.

    DATES:

    DOE will accept written comments, data, and information on this document, but no later than April 4, 2016.

    The coverage and definitions proposed in this document would be effective 30 days after publication of any final coverage determination in the Federal Register. After that date, products within the scope of MREF coverage would be subject to any applicable test procedures and energy conservation standards established for MREFs.

    ADDRESSES:

    This rulemaking can be identified by docket number EERE-2011-BT-DET-0072 and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1904-AC66 and 1904-AC51.

    Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number, EERE-2011-BT-DET-0072 by any of the following methods:

    Email: to [email protected] Include EERE-2011-BT-DET-0072 in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585- 0121. Phone: (202) 586-2945. Please submit one signed paper original.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 586-2945. Please submit one signed paper original.

    All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or RIN for this rulemaking.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to the U.S. Department of Energy, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 for additional information regarding visiting the Resource Room.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Joseph Hagerman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email: [email protected]

    In the Office of General Counsel, contact Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected]

    For further information on how to review public comments, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Statutory Authority II. Current Rulemaking Process III. Scope of Coverage IV. Evaluation of Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products as Covered Products A. Coverage Necessary or Appropriate To Carry Out Purposes of EPCA B. Energy Use Estimates 1. Coolers 2. Combination Cooler Refrigeration Products 3. Conclusions V. Product Definitions A. Coolers B. Combination Cooler Refrigeration Products C. Refrigerators, Refrigerator Freezers, and Freezers D. General Terms for the Groups of Products Addressed in This Document VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review VII. Public Participation A. Submission of Comments B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comments I. Statutory Authority

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA or the Act), as amended (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.), sets forth various provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) established the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles,” which covers consumer products and certain commercial products (hereafter referred to as “covered products”).1

    1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was re-designated Part A.

    EPCA specifies a list of covered consumer products that includes refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. Although EPCA did not define any of these products, it specified that the extent of DOE's coverage would apply to those refrigerator, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers that can be operated by alternating current (AC) electricity, are not designed to be used without doors, and include a compressor and condenser as an integral part of the cabinet assembly. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1)) EPCA did not preclude or otherwise foreclose the possibility that other consumer refrigeration products, such as those consumer refrigeration products addressed in this notice, could also be covered if they satisfy certain prerequisites. Those prerequisites, when met, permit the Secretary of Energy to classify additional types of consumer products as covered products. For a given product to be classified as a covered product, the Secretary must determine that:

    (1) Classifying the product as a covered product is necessary for the purposes of EPCA; and

    (2) the average annual per-household energy use by products of such type is likely to exceed 100 kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/yr). (42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1))

    When attempting to cover additional product types, DOE must first determine whether these criteria from 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1) are met. Once they have been satisfied, the Secretary may set standards for these additional products, subject to the provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p), provided that DOE determines the four criteria of 42 U.S.C. 6295(l) have been met. First, the average per household energy use within the United States by the products of such type (or class) exceeded 150 kilowatt-hours (kWh) (or its British thermal unit (Btu) equivalent) for any 12-month period ending before such determination. Second, the aggregate household energy use within the United States by products of such type (or class) exceeded 4,200,000,000 kWh (or its Btu equivalent) for any such 12-month period. Third, a substantial improvement in the energy efficiency of products of such type (or class) is technologically feasible. And fourth, the application of a labeling rule under 42 U.S.C. 6294 to such type (or class) is not likely to be sufficient to induce manufacturers to produce, and consumers and other persons to purchase, covered products of such type (or class) that achieve the maximum energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1)) This determination would be made prior to DOE's setting of energy conservation standards for the product at issue.

    In addition, if DOE issues a final determination that a given product—such as a miscellaneous refrigeration product or “MREF”—is a covered product, DOE will consider adopting test procedures to measure its energy efficiency and determine if the required criteria of 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1) are met prior to setting any energy conservation standards for that product. DOE has already started the rulemaking processes for both the test procedures and the standards for MREFs.2

    2 On www.regulations.gov, see docket ID EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043 for information regarding the energy conservation standards rulemaking and docket ID EERE-2013-BT-TP-0029 for information regarding the test procedure rulemaking.

    II. Current Rulemaking Process

    On November 8, 2011, DOE published a notice of proposed determination of coverage (NOPD) to address the potential coverage of consumer refrigeration products without compressors in anticipation of a rulemaking to address these and related consumer refrigeration products. 76 FR 69147.

    On February 23, 2012, DOE began a scoping process to set potential energy conservation standards and test procedures for wine chillers, consumer refrigeration products that operate without compressors, and consumer ice makers by publishing a notice of public meeting, and providing a framework document that addressed potential standards and test procedure rulemakings for these products. 77 FR 7547.

    On October 31, 2013, DOE published in the Federal Register a supplemental notice of proposed determination of coverage (“SNOPD”) in which it tentatively determined that MREFs, which at the time included wine chillers, non-compressor refrigeration products, hybrid products (i.e. refrigeration products that combine a wine chiller with a refrigerator and/or freezer), and consumer ice makers, would satisfy the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1). 78 FR 65223.

    DOE published a notice of public meeting that also announced the availability of a preliminary technical support document (“TSD”) for MREFs on December 3, 2014 (“Preliminary Analysis”). 79 FR 71705. This preliminary analysis considered potential standards for the products proposed for coverage as MREFs in the SNOPD. DOE held a public meeting to discuss and receive comments on the preliminary analysis, which covered the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE used to evaluate potential standards; the results of preliminary analyses performed by DOE for these products; the potential energy conservation standard levels derived from these analyses that DOE had been considering consistent with its obligations under EPCA; and all other issues raised issues that relevant to the development of energy conservation standards for the different classes of MREFs.

    DOE also published a test procedure notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) on December 16, 2014 (“Test Procedure NOPR”), that proposed establishing definitions and test procedures for MREFs, including the product categories proposed for coverage in the SNOPD. The proposed test procedures to be included at Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 430, subpart B, appendix A (“appendix A”) would measure the energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated annual operating cost of MREFs during a representative average use period and would not be unduly burdensome to conduct, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)). 79 FR 74894.

    After reviewing the comments received in response to both the Preliminary Analysis and the Test Procedure NOPR, DOE ultimately determined that its efforts at developing test procedures and potential energy conservation standards for these products would benefit from the direct and comprehensive input provided through the negotiated rulemaking process. On April 1, 2015, DOE published a notice of intent to establish a Working Group under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (“ASRAC”) that would use the negotiated rulemaking process to discuss and, if possible, reach consensus on the scope of coverage, definitions, test procedures, and proposed energy conservation standards for MREFs. 80 FR 17355. Subsequently, DOE formed a Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products Working Group (“MREF Working Group” or, in context, “the Working Group”) to address these issues. The Working Group consisted of 15 members, including two members from ASRAC and one DOE representative. The MREF Working Group met in-person during six sets of meetings held on May 4-5, June 11-12, July 15-16, August 11-12, September 16-17, and October 20.

    On August 11, 2015, the MREF Working Group reached consensus on a term sheet that recommended the relevant scope of coverage, definitions, and test procedures for MREFs. See public docket EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043-0113 (“Term Sheet #1”). On October 20, 2015, the MREF Working Group reached consensus on a term sheet to recommend energy conservation standards for coolers and combination cooler refrigeration products. See public docket EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043-0111 (“Term Sheet #2”). ASRAC approved the term sheets during open meetings on December 18, 2015, and January 20, 2016, and sent them to the Secretary of Energy.

    III. Scope of Coverage

    As discussed in the previous section, DOE's Test Procedure NOPR and Preliminary Analysis for MREFs were consistent with the scope of coverage outlined in the SNOPD.

    In response to the feedback received from interested parties on the Preliminary Analysis and Test Procedure NOPR, the MREF Working Group was tasked with recommending a scope of coverage for MREFs. To this end, the Working Group's Term Sheet recommended that DOE drop two product categories that DOE had initially included in its scope—non-compressor refrigerators and ice makers. For non-compressor refrigerators, the Working Group members were unaware of the existence of such products and concluded that the non-compressor products that do exist would be considered coolers (formerly “cooled cabinets”) under the definitions recommended by the MREF Working Group. Accordingly, it recommended dropping the non-compressor refrigerator product category since they would already be covered as coolers. For ice makers, the Working Group made two observations. First, the Working Group noted that ice makers are fundamentally different from the other product categories considered as MREFs, as emphasized by DOE's proposal to create a separate test procedure for them. Second, the Working Group noted that ice makers are currently covered as commercial equipment and there is no clear differentiation between consumer and commercial ice makers. See Term Sheet #1.

    Based on feedback from interested parties and recommendations from the MREF Working Group, DOE is proposing that MREF coverage would apply only to coolers (formerly cooled cabinets) and combination cooler refrigeration products (formerly hybrid refrigeration products). DOE is also proposing definitions for these product categories.

    IV. Evaluation of Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products as Covered Products

    Determining whether to treat MREFs as a covered product requires satisfying certain statutory criteria. As stated in section I of this notice, DOE may classify a consumer product as a covered product if (1) classifying products of such type as covered products is necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA; and (2) the average annual per household energy use by products of such type is likely to exceed 100 kWh (or its Btu equivalent) per year. (42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1)) Additionally, to set standards for any newly covered product, the average per household energy use must exceed 150 kWh (or its British thermal unit (Btu) equivalent) for any 12-month period, and the aggregate household energy use must exceed 4.2 terawatt-hours (TWh) (or its Btu equivalent) for any such 12-month period. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1))

    A. Coverage Necessary or Appropriate To Carry Out Purposes of EPCA

    In this document, DOE has tentatively determined that the coverage of MREFs is both necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA. MREFs, which comprise a small but significant and growing sector of the consumer refrigeration market, consume energy generated from limited energy supplies and regulating their energy efficiency would be likely to help conserve these limited energy supplies. Accordingly, establishing standards for these products falls squarely within EPCA's purposes to: (1) Conserve energy supplies through energy conservation programs; and (2) provide for improved energy efficiency of major appliances and certain other consumer products. (42 U.S.C. 6201)

    B. Energy Use Estimates

    DOE estimated the average household energy use for MREFs—coolers and combination cooler refrigeration products—to determine if the average annual per-household energy use of these products exceeds the 100 kWh/yr required for coverage under EPCA. For this analysis, DOE used the SNOPD analysis as a starting point and made improvements based on more recent or newly gathered data.

    1. Coolers

    DOE used market data, engineering models, and feedback from manufacturers received under non-disclosure agreements and during the MREF Working Group meetings to improve the estimates of average household energy use for coolers as determined in the SNOPD.

    While the SNOPD considered different product categories based on both compartment temperatures (e.g., cooler, refrigerator, or freezer) and refrigeration type (e.g., vapor-compression, thermoelectric, etc.), DOE has reorganized the analysis for consistency with the scope of coverage and product definitions recommended by the MREF Working Group, as described in sections III and VI of this notice, respectively. For coolers, the definition would incorporate products regardless of refrigeration system under the same product definition. However, to better account for the energy use characteristics of these products, the updated analysis separates coolers into four product categories based on refrigerated volume and installation type.

    DOE has updated several components of its energy use estimates since the SNOPD. DOE surveyed product owners to improve its estimate of market saturation rates.3 DOE has also revised its estimates of product lifetimes based on recommendations from the MREF Working Group. Finally, DOE updated its estimates of energy consumption per unit through feedback from manufacturers, the MREF Working Group, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers,4 as well as product information available on manufacturer and retailer Web sites.

    3 See J. B. Greenblatt et al. U.S. Residential Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products: Results from Amazon Mechanical Turk Surveys. 2014. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA. (Report No. LBNL-6537E) and S. M. Donovan, S. J. Young and J. B. Greenblatt. Ice-Making in the U.S.: Results from an Amazon Mechanical Turk Survey. 2015. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA. (Report No. LBNL-183899).

    4 See Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043-0106.

    Table IV.1 shows the estimated annual energy use for each type of cooler. DOE found that across all cooler product types, coolers have an average lifetime of over 10 years, and an average annual energy consumption of 440 kWh per household.

    Table IV.1—Coolers Estimated Annual Energy Use Units Product type Compact FS * Compact BI * FS * BI * Totals or
  • averages
  • Average Energy Consumption (per unit) kWh/year 450 250 370 340 440 Stock Units, 2014 14,500,000 55,000 610,000 120,000 15,300,000 National Energy Consumption TWh/year 6.5 0.014 0.23 0.042 6.8 Average Lifetime years 10.3 10.3 17.4 17.4 10.6 Annual Sales Units, 2014 1,400,000 5,400 35,000 7,100 1,460,000 Saturation % 12.6 0.05 0.5 0.1 * FS = Freestanding, BI = Built-in.
    2. Combination Cooler Refrigeration Products

    DOE used market data, engineering models, and feedback from manufacturers received under non-disclosure agreements and during the MREF Working Group meetings to improve the estimates of average household energy use for combination cooler refrigeration products as determined in the SNOPD.

    Similar to the updated coolers analysis in this notice, DOE revised its combination cooler refrigeration product analysis consistent with the scope of coverage and product definitions recommended by the MREF Working Group, as described in sections III and VI of this notice, respectively. The updated combination cooler refrigeration product definition removes the 50-percent cooler compartment volume requirement that was needed for a product to be considered a combination cooler refrigeration product in the SNOPD. The updated analysis reflects additional products being included under the “combination cooler refrigeration products” definition.

    DOE has updated several components of its combination cooler refrigeration product energy use estimates since publication of the SNOPD. DOE updated its estimate of annual shipments based on manufacturer feedback. DOE has also revised its estimates of product lifetimes based on recommendations from the MREF Working Group. Finally, DOE updated its estimates of energy consumption per unit through manufacturer and MREF Working Group-member feedback and an examination of more recent product information available on manufacturer and retailer Web sites.

    Table IV.2 shows the estimated annual energy use for each type of combination cooler refrigeration product. DOE found that across product types, these products have an average lifetime of about 12.6 years, and an average annual energy consumption of 222 kWh per household.

    Table IV.2—Combination Cooler Refrigeration Products Annual Energy Use Units Product type * C3A-BI C9-BI C13A C13A-BI Totals or
  • averages
  • Average Energy Consumption (per unit) kWh/year 210 280 210 220 220 Stock Units, 2014 70,000 70,000 160,000 120,000 430,000 National Energy Consumption TWh/year 0.015 0.019 0.035 0.027 0.095 Average Lifetime years 17.4 17.4 10.3 10.3 12.6 Annual Sales Units, 2014 4,000 4,000 16,000 12,000 36,000 Saturation 0.06% 0.06% 0.14% 0.11% Product types for combination cooler refrigeration products are based on the product class of refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer that the product would be categorized under if it did not have a cooler compartment.
    3. Conclusions

    Based upon its evaluations of coolers and combination cooler refrigeration products, DOE has developed estimates of their annual energy use. These estimates indicate that these products, on average, consume significantly more than 100 kWh annually. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that the average annual per household energy use for MREFs is likely to exceed the 100 kWh/yr threshold set by EPCA needed to classify a product as covered. Moreover, DOE has determined that MREFs on average consume more than 150 kWh/yr, and that the aggregate annual national energy use of these products is 6.9 TWh, which exceeds the 4.2 TWh minimum threshold. Accordingly, these data indicate that MREFs appear to satisfy at least two of the four criteria required by EPCA in order to establish energy conservation standards for a product that the Secretary chooses to add for regulatory coverage. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1)(A)-(D).

    V. Product Definitions

    Consistent with the SNOPD, the Test Procedure NOPR laid out potential definitions for the following four product categories that DOE indicated would be considered as MREFs: Cooled cabinets, non-compressor refrigerators, hybrid refrigerators, and ice makers. DOE proposed to define “cooled cabinets” as products that maintain internal temperatures warmer than refrigerators; “non-compressor refrigerators” as products that otherwise meet the existing refrigerator definition, but do not use vapor-compression refrigeration; “hybrid refrigeration products” as products with a warm-temperature (i.e. a temperature lower than the ambient, but warmer than that which is used to safely store fresh food) compartment (e.g., a wine chiller) combined with a fresh food and/or freezer compartment, with the warm-temperature compartment comprising at least 50 percent of the product's total refrigerated volume; and “ice makers” as consumer products designed to automatically produce and harvest ice that would not be considered any of the other consumer refrigeration products (e.g., refrigerator-freezer or freezer). DOE also proposed amending the existing “refrigerator,” “refrigerator-freezer,” and “freezer” product definitions for consistency and to improve their clarity when viewed in conjunction with the proposed MREF definitions. 79 FR 74894, 74899-74904 (Dec. 16, 2014).

    The MREF Working Group subsequently discussed how and whether to define the various terms related to MREFs. The Working Group ultimately reached a consensus that is reflected in Term Sheet #1's recommendations, which included dropping DOE's proposed definitions for non-compressor refrigerators and ice makers, updating the terms used to describe the covered MREF product categories based on the discussions and analyses conducted during the Working Group meetings, revising the proposed MREF product definitions, and amending the existing definitions for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers to ensure consistency with the recommended MREF definitions. See Term Sheet #1.

    Consistent with these recommendations, DOE is proposing new or amended definitions for the relevant product definitions that would be added to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 10 CFR 430.2. DOE is proposing new definitions for MREFs to clearly delineate which products would fall within the scope of coverage for MREFs and within which MREF product categories. DOE is also proposing similar conforming amendments to the existing definitions for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers for consistency with the proposed MREF definitions. The proposed amendments are intended to eliminate confusion with the proposed MREF definitions, and would not affect the scope of coverage under the existing refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer definitions, other than for those products that would be covered under DOE's proposed determination as combination cooler refrigeration products.

    A. Coolers

    In the Test Procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to define a “cooled cabinet” as a product operating using only electric energy input but is not a “refrigerator” because its compartment temperatures are warmer than the 39 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) threshold established for refrigerators, as determined in a 72 °F ambient temperature. 79 FR 74894, 74901-74902 (Dec. 16, 2014). This proposal was based on the premise that such a product would adequately capture items such as beverage centers and wine coolers, which typically operate above these temperatures.

    The MREF Working Group term sheet (i.e., Term Sheet #1) contained a recommendation that DOE revise this term from “cooled cabinet” to “cooler” and incorporate a number of other changes to the proposed definition. The Working Group recommended that compartment temperatures be determined during operation in a 90 °F ambient temperature to maintain consistency with the test conditions used for other refrigeration products. The Working Group also recommended excluding products designed to be used without doors, consistent with the exclusions DOE had proposed for the refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer definitions in the Test Procedure NOPR. See 79 FR 74894 at 74900 (Dec. 16, 2014). The purpose of the exclusion would be to differentiate between consumer products and commercial equipment (i.e., products designed for use without doors are commercial equipment rather than consumer products, consistent with the statutory coverage of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers). The Working Group further recommended the requirement that coolers operate on single-phase, alternating current rather than simply specifying operation with electric energy input. This approach would exclude those products designed for direct current or 3-phase power supplies, which would likely apply to products intended for use in mobile or commercial applications, respectively. See Term Sheet #1.

    Consistent with this approach, DOE is proposing to define cooler using the definition for cooled cabinet proposed in the Test Procedure NOPR—but updated to reflect the Working Group's recommendations.

    In response to the definitions proposed in the Test Procedure NOPR, Felix Storch, Inc. (“FSI”) commented that it is not aware of any non-compressor freezers, but it is aware of non-compressor refrigerators that are able to have a very small portion of their volume at a temperature cold enough to freeze ice cubes. (FSI, No. 15 at p. 1) 5 FSI also commented that the proposed category for non-compressor refrigerators was overly-broad. It stressed that there are two main purposes for non-compressor units: One is to serve as a low-price compact wine cellar or dormitory cooler, and the other is for use in special markets such as camping or truck refrigerators. It noted that these units should not have the same regulations as currently in effect for compressor units and instead, any thermoelectric product with a volume less than 1 cubic foot should be exempt from regulation so that these products can continue to be marketed. Also, FSI stated that DOE should exempt units without permanently attached power cords for 110-volt operation—such as car or truck refrigerators—that use a 12-volt default power cord. (FSI, No. 15 at pp. 4-5)

    5 A notation in the form “FSI, No. 15 at p. 1” identifies a written comment: (1) Made by Felix Storch, Inc. (FSI); (2) recorded in document number 15 that is filed in the docket of the test procedure rulemaking for miscellaneous refrigeration products (Docket No. EERE-2013- BT-TP-0029) and available for review at www.regulations.gov; and (3) which appears on page 1 of document number 15.

    As described in section III of this document, DOE is not proposing separate coverage for non-compressor freezers or non-compressor refrigerators as MREFs. DOE does not agree with FSI's characterization above. Further, DOE is unaware of any non-compressor products capable of maintaining refrigerator or freezer compartment temperatures as proposed in this document (i.e., the compartment temperatures determined during operation in a 90 °F ambient temperature as measured by appendix A). DOE expects that the products FSI identified as capable of freezing ice cubes do so either during operation at lower ambient temperatures or in a localized portion of the refrigerated compartment while the overall average compartment temperature would be higher than the range required to be considered a refrigerator. If true, DOE expects these products to fall under the cooler definition as proposed in this document instead of the refrigerator or freezer definitions because those products would need to be capable of achieving the compartment temperatures as measured by appendix A.

    Rather, all non-compressor products would be considered coolers under the proposed definitions in this document. Further, DOE is proposing that the cooler definition include the Working Group's recommended requirement that coolers operate on single-phase, alternating current, which would exclude products designed for direct current power supplies, such as those mobile products equipped with a 12-volt power cord. DOE also notes that non-compressor refrigeration products would not be subject to the current energy conservation standards in place for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or freezers because the coverage of those products applies to products equipped with a compressor and condenser-based refrigeration system.

    In addition, FSI argued that absorption refrigerators should not be regulated. In its view, regulating these products may make them too expensive for hotels to afford them and leave them with no viable option. FSI also argued that the absorption refrigeration product market is so small that DOE should conduct an additional DOE survey to determine if these products have a market large enough to warrant regulation. (FSI, No. 15 at p. 5) Because DOE is no longer proposing a separate definition for non-compressor refrigerators, absorption refrigerators would not be separately regulated as non-compressor refrigerators under the proposed MREF coverage. However, they likely would fall under the proposed cooler definition, and, if so, would be subject to any future energy conservation standards established for coolers.

    In addition to the cooler definition recommended in Term Sheet #1, the MREF Working Group recommended that DOE establish definitions within the cooler product category based on total refrigerated volume and installation type. The Working Group recommended a “compact” designation for products with total refrigerated volumes of less than 7.75 cubic feet. The Working Group also recommended that DOE differentiate “built-in” from “freestanding products” by using definitions based on those already in place for built-in refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. See Term Sheet #1.

    Consistent with these recommendations, DOE is proposing definitions within the cooler definition based on refrigerated volume and configuration, consistent with the same requirements and definitions currently in place for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.

    B. Combination Cooler Refrigeration Products

    In the Test Procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that the term “hybrid refrigeration product” would refer to products equipped with a warm-temperature compartment (e.g., a wine chiller), making up at least 50 percent of a product's volume, combined with a fresh food and/or freezer compartment. 79 FR 74894, 74903-74904 (Dec. 16, 2014).

    The MREF Working Group discussed the proposed definition and recommended that DOE revise the term from “hybrid refrigeration product” to “combination cooler refrigeration product,” noting that this term more clearly describes the product category. The Working Group also recommended that DOE refer to the warmer compartment within combination cooler refrigeration products as a “cooler compartment,” defined by the same temperature ranges as recommended for coolers described in section V.A of this document. The MREF Working Group recommended that DOE remove its proposed approach, which followed DOE's guidance that cooler compartments must make up at least 50 percent of a combination cooler refrigeration product's total volume. The Working Group noted that all products with cooler compartments would likely be used in the same way, and that the 50-percent threshold was an arbitrary cutoff. The Working Group further recommended that DOE exclude products designed for use without doors from the combination cooler refrigeration product definitions for the same reasons discussed for coolers (i.e., differentiating between commercial equipment and consumer products). See Term Sheet #1.

    DOE agrees with the MREF Working Group recommendations and the Working Group's reasoning behind each of them and is proposing to incorporate the suggested changes into the combination cooler refrigeration product definitions.

    In response to the Test Procedure NOPR, FSI commented on the proposed definition of a hybrid product, stating that for compact units, if there is no freezer or ice cube section, then the entire product should be treated as a wine cellar. (FSI, No. 15 at p. 3) DOE notes that a product with a single compartment that is not a freezer would be classified as either a cooler or refrigerator, depending on what compartment temperatures the product maintains, rather than a combination cooler refrigeration product based on the definitions proposed in this document.

    In addition to the general combination cooler refrigeration product requirements, the MREF Working Group recommended that DOE define four product categories of combination cooler refrigeration products, including: “cooler-refrigerator,” “cooler-refrigerator-freezer,” and “cooler-freezer.” The Working Group recommended definitions for these products that are consistent with the non-combination cooler product definitions (e.g., refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, etc.) with the additional requirement that they include multiple compartments, at least one of which is a cooler compartment. The Working Group also recommended that the combination cooler refrigeration product definitions not exclude non-compressor products. See Term Sheet #1.

    DOE agrees with the recommendations made by the MREF Working Group, since the four product categories offer specific and unique consumer utility. In contrast, in DOE's view, refrigeration technology (compressor-based or non-compressor) alone does not appear to offer any special utility to consumers that would affect their interaction with the product when using it for its intended purpose (e.g., cool storage of beverages). Therefore, DOE is proposing definitions for “combination cooler refrigeration product,” “cooler-refrigerator,” “cooler-refrigerator-freezer,” and “cooler-freezer” consistent with the definitions recommended in the Working Group's term sheet. Although DOE is not currently aware of any non-compressor combination cooler refrigeration products currently available on the market, DOE is proposing that non-compressor products would be covered under the combination cooler refrigeration product definitions to ensure that if any become available on the market in the future, they would be considered covered products, consistent with the Working Group's recommendation.

    In this document, DOE also refers to the term “cooler compartment.” DOE intends to define this term as part of the separate MREF test procedure rulemaking.

    C. Refrigerators, Refrigerator Freezers, and Freezers

    As discussed in the Test Procedure NOPR, DOE proposed amendments to the refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer product definitions to create a consistent structure with the proposed MREF definitions and to improve the clarity of the distinctions among the different definitions. 79 FR 74894, 74899-74901 (Dec. 16, 2014). DOE did not propose to redefine the scope of coverage for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, or to amend the definitions in a manner that would affect how a currently covered product would be classified (other than for coverage of combination cooler refrigeration products as MREFs). The proposed amendments to the definitions for these products would establish consistency with the proposed MREF definitions and were intended to improve the definitions' clarity and ensure no potential overlap between the definitions of these products and MREFs.

    In response to the Test Procedure NOPR, FSI commented that it would remove confusion to categorize all-refrigerators with absolutely no freezer compartments as cooled cabinets. (FSI, No. 15 at pp. 2-3) Based on the proposed definitions for coolers discussed in section V.A of this notice, and the proposed definition of refrigerator described below, DOE notes that a product without a freezer compartment would be classified as either a cooler or refrigerator based on its compartment operating temperature. Because refrigerators and coolers offer different product utilities (i.e., different storage temperatures) that affect energy consumption, DOE believes separate product definitions and coverage are appropriate.

    FSI also commented that the definition for a refrigerator should be changed to “all-refrigerator” to specify that the product has no freezer compartment and the definition for refrigerator-freezer should be “any cabinet that has a separate compartment for fresh food (39 °F or colder) and frozen food or ice, whether or not there is a single door or multiple doors.” (FSI, No. 15 at pp.4-5) As described earlier in this section, the proposed amendments to the refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer definitions were not intended to change the scope of coverage for those products, other than for combination cooler refrigeration products, but were intended to improve clarity. The recommended amendment would have the potential to change the classification of certain other products currently covered as refrigerators.

    The MREF Working Group generally agreed with the revisions proposed in the Test Procedure NOPR, but recommended that compartment temperatures be determined during operation in a 90 °F ambient instead of 72 °F, as discussed for coolers in section V.A of this notice. The Working Group also recommended that DOE remove the proposed exclusion for products certified to American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/NSF International (NSF) 7-2009 International Standard for Food Equipment—Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers or ANSI/UL LLC (UL) 471-2006 Standard for Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers, noting that these certifications do not necessarily provide a clear distinction between consumer and commercial products. See Term Sheet #1.

    After further examining this issue, DOE is proposing the following changes to the existing definitions for refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer.

    First, DOE is proposing to revise the current definitions for “refrigerator” and “refrigerator-freezer” and to eliminate the redundant terms “electric refrigerator” and “electric refrigerator-freezer” from 10 CFR 430.2.

    Second, DOE is proposing to remove the phrase, “designed to be capable of achieving [the specified temperature],” with “capable of maintaining compartment temperatures at [the specified temperature],” and that this temperature condition would be based on operation in a 90 °F ambient temperature. As described in the Test Procedure NOPR, this change would help ensure that product classification would be definitively determined through testing and would rely on the product's actual capability to serve its intended purpose rather than relying on the design intent of the manufacturer.

    Third, DOE is proposing to remove the current reference to the “storage of food” and “freezing and storage of food” from the product definitions to ensure accurate product classification and more effective enforcement of energy conservation standards. Similarly, and consistent with the proposed change described in the previous paragraph, DOE is proposing to amend the references to freezer compartments within the refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer definitions. The current definitions describe a freezer compartment as a compartment designed for the freezing and storage of food at temperatures below 8 °F which may be adjusted by the user to a temperature of 0 °F or below. DOE is proposing to amend the definitions to refer only to a compartment capable of maintaining compartment temperatures of 0 °F or below to limit any ambiguity regarding what would be considered a freezer compartment. DOE notes that the MREF Working Group's definitions recommended in Term Sheet #1 included the reference to 8 °F; however, DOE expects that its proposal to eliminate this reference is consistent with the Working Group's intent for the product definitions.

    Fourth, DOE is proposing to treat products designed to be used without doors, and/or that do not include a compressor and condenser unit as an integral part of the cabinet assembly, as commercial equipment and, therefore, would be excluded from these product definitions. As discussed in section V.A of this notice for coolers, the exclusion for products designed to be used without doors is intended to differentiate between consumer products and commercial equipment (i.e., products designed to be used without doors would be commercial). DOE's proposed approach would clarify that products without a compressor and condenser unit would be excluded from the refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer definitions because this exclusion is included in the EPCA provisions that establish coverage for these products. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1))

    Finally, DOE notes that the definition for refrigerator-freezer requires that at least one compartment has attributes consistent with a fresh food compartment and that at least one compartment has attributes consistent with a freezer compartment. DOE is proposing to clarify that the same compartment could not satisfy both of these requirements in a refrigerator-freezer.

    Similar to the intent of the Test Procedure NOPR, with the exception of those products that would be covered as combination cooler refrigeration products under this proposal, DOE is not proposing to redefine the scope of coverage for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, or to amend the definitions in a manner that would affect how a currently covered product would be classified. The proposed amendments to the definitions for these products would establish a similar structure with the proposed MREF definitions. The proposed definitions are intended to improve clarity and ensure no potential overlap between the definitions of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, and MREFs.

    D. General Terms for the Groups of Products Addressed in This Document

    In the Test Procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to define “miscellaneous refrigeration product” as a consumer refrigeration product other than a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer, which includes hybrid refrigeration products, cooled cabinets, non-compressor refrigerators, and ice makers. DOE also proposed to define “consumer refrigeration product” as a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, freezer, or miscellaneous refrigeration product. 79 FR 74894, 74904 (Dec. 16, 2014).

    FSI stated that DOE could easily clarify a consumer refrigeration product based on the norms it can easily verify, such as the fact 90 percent of the refrigerator-freezers sold in the U.S. have a volume of 14 cubic feet or more, with the remainder mostly made up of dormitory (5 percent) or apartment (4 percent) sizes. It stated that a simple definition would allow DOE to cover 98 to 99 percent of the market and allow special markets to have suitable products. (FSI, No. 15 at p. 1)

    DOE notes that its definitions are intended to provide clear differentiation while avoiding subjective determinations for what would be covered. Although the product types mentioned in the FSI comment make up most of the consumer refrigeration market, there are no established definitions for each subset of products that would fall under the proposed consumer refrigeration product definition, leaving DOE in the position of developing more specific definitions. DOE has already established detailed definitions to address refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, and is proposing additional definitions for coolers and combination cooler refrigeration products. DOE is proposing to refer to these products collectively as consumer refrigeration products.

    The MREF Working Group recommended that DOE maintain the definitions for miscellaneous refrigeration product and consumer refrigeration product, but to update them to reflect the more current product terminology and to remove references to non-compressor refrigerators and ice makers. See Term Sheet #1.

    DOE is proposing to define the terms “miscellaneous refrigeration product” and “consumer refrigeration product” consistent with the recommended updates from the MREF Working Group. In DOE's view, these proposed changes will better reflect the recommended approach detailed in the Working Group's recommendations to help ensure their clarity with respect to the other proposed definitions discussed in this document.

    VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

    DOE has reviewed its supplemental proposed determination of coverage for MREFs under the following executive orders and acts.

    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that coverage determination rulemakings do not constitute “significant regulatory actions” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Additionally, the definitions proposed in this document would clarify the definitions of certain specific products already regulated by DOE and those products that are under consideration for potential regulatory coverage. No new requirements would result from the proposals contained in this document. Accordingly, this proposed action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB.

    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996) requires preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that, by law, must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis examines the impact of the rule on small entities and considers alternative ways of reducing negative effects. Also, as required by E.O. 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking” 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003 to ensure that the potential impact of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990 (Feb. 19, 2003). DOE makes its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's Web site at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.

    DOE reviewed this proposed determination and proposal under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February 19, 2003. If adopted, this proposed determination and proposal would set no standards; it would only positively determine that future standards may be warranted and should be explored in an energy conservation standards and test procedure rulemaking. Economic impacts on small entities would be considered in the context of such rulemakings. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies that the proposed determination, if adopted, has no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this proposed determination and proposal. DOE will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This proposed determination that MREFs meet the criteria for a covered product for which the Secretary may prescribe an energy conservation standard, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p), imposes no new information or record-keeping requirements. Neither would any aspect of the proposal impose such requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this notice, DOE proposes to positively determine that MREFs (as proposed to be defined in this document) meet the criteria for classification as covered products and that future energy conservation standards may be warranted to regulate their energy usage. Should DOE pursue that option, the relevant environmental impacts would be explored as part of that rulemaking. As a result, DOE has determined that this proposed action falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this proposed action would establish a class of products (MREFs) for which energy conservation standards would be appropriate. However, this proposed action would not establish energy conservation standards, and, therefore, would not result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this action is covered by Categorical Exclusion A6 “Procedural rulemakings” under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, “Federalism” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to assess carefully the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in developing regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process that it will follow in developing such regulations. 65 FR 13735 (Mar. 14, 2000). DOE has examined this proposed determination and proposal. On the basis of this examination, DOE concludes that the action proposed in this document would not preempt State law or have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the product that is the subject of this proposed determination and proposal. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent permitted, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further action is required by E.O. 13132.

    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the duty to: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation specifies the following: (1) The preemptive effect, if any; (2) any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) the retroactive effect, if any; (5) definitions of key terms; and (6) other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether these standards are met, or whether it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed determination and proposal meet the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.

    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4, codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. For regulatory actions likely to result in a rule that may cause expenditures by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any 1 year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a) and (b)) UMRA requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate.” UMRA also requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to small governments that may be potentially affected before establishing any requirement that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820 (Mar. 18, 1997). (This policy also is available at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE reviewed this proposed determination pursuant to these existing authorities and its policy statement and determined that the proposed determination and proposal contain neither an intergovernmental mandate nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so the UMRA requirements do not apply.

    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This proposed determination and proposal would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    Pursuant to E.O. 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 1988), DOE determined that this proposed determination and proposal would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001

    The Treasury and General Government Appropriation Act of 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) requires agencies to review most disseminations of information they make to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by the OMB. The OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this proposed determination and proposal under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that they are consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    E.O. 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates a final rule or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use if the proposal is implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.

    DOE has concluded that this regulatory action proposing to establish or amend certain definitions and to determine that MREFs meet the criteria for a covered product for which the Secretary may prescribe an energy conservation standard pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p) would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action is also not a significant regulatory action for purposes of E.O. 12866, and the OIRA Administrator has not designated this determination as a significant energy action under E.O. 12866 or any successor order. Therefore, this proposed determination and proposal do not comprise a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

    L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

    On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the Federal government, including influential scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of the Government's scientific information. DOE has determined that the analyses conducted for the regulatory action discussed in this document do not constitute “influential scientific information,” which the Bulletin defines as “scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions.” 70 FR 2667 (Jan. 14, 2005). The analyses were subject to pre-dissemination review prior to issuance of this rulemaking.

    DOE will determine the appropriate level of review that would apply to any future rulemaking to establish energy conservation standards for MREFs.

    VII. Public Participation A. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice of proposed determination no later than the date provided at the beginning of this notice. After the close of the comment period, DOE will review the comments received and determine whether miscellaneous refrigeration products are covered products under EPCA.

    Comments, data, and information submitted to DOE's email address for this proposed determination should be provided in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format. Submissions should avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption, and wherever possible comments should include the electronic signature of the author. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

    According to 10 CFR part 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two copies: One copy of the document should have all the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination as to the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known or available from public sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligations concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting persons which would result from public disclosure; (6) a date after which such information might no longer be considered confidential; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.

    B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comments

    DOE welcomes comments on all aspects of this proposed determination. DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments from interested parties on the following issues related to the proposed determination for MREFs detailed in this document:

    (1) The proposed scope of coverage for MREFs;

    (2) The proposed definitions for MREFs and the various individual product categories;

    (3) The calculations and accompanying values for household and national energy consumption of the products that would be covered on which DOE is relying in determining coverage; and

    (4) The availability or lack of availability of technologies for improving the energy efficiency of MREFs as DOE is proposing to define them.

    The Department is interested in receiving views concerning other relevant issues that participants believe would affect DOE's ability to establish test procedures and energy conservation standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products. The Department invites all interested parties to submit in writing by April 4, 2016, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice and on other matters relevant to consideration of a determination for miscellaneous refrigeration products.

    After the expiration of the period for submitting written statements, the Department will consider all comments and additional information that is obtained from interested parties or through further analyses, and it will prepare a final determination. If DOE determines that MREFs qualify as covered products, DOE will consider the development of a test procedure and energy conservation standards for MREFs. In this regard, DOE notes that it has already proposed a test procedure that would address these products and completed a substantial amount of work related to potential energy conservation standards for them. Members of the public will be given an opportunity to submit written and oral comments on any proposed test procedure and standards.

    List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 26, 2016. David T. Danielson, Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 430 of chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

    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.

    2. Amend § 430.2 by: a. Adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for “built-in compact cooler,” “built-in cooler,” “combination cooler refrigeration product,” “consumer refrigeration product,” “cooler,” “cooler-freezer,” “cooler-refrigerator,” “cooler-refrigerator-freezer,” “freestanding compact cooler,” “freestanding cooler,” and “miscellaneous refrigeration product”; b. Revising the definitions for “freezer,” “refrigerator,” and “refrigerator-freezer”; and c. Removing the definitions for “electric refrigerator” and “electric refrigerator-freezer.”

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 430.2 Definitions.

    Built-in compact cooler means any cooler with a total refrigerated volume less than 7.75 cubic feet and no more than 24 inches in depth, excluding doors, handles, and custom front panels, that is designed, intended, and marketed exclusively to be:

    (1) Installed totally encased by cabinetry or panels that are attached during installation;

    (2) Securely fastened to adjacent cabinetry, walls or floor,

    (3) Equipped with unfinished sides that are not visible after installation, and

    (4) Equipped with an integral factory-finished face or built to accept a custom front panel.

    Built-in cooler means any cooler with a total refrigerated volume of 7.75 cubic feet or greater and no more than 24 inches in depth, excluding doors, handles, and custom front panels; that is designed, intended, and marketed exclusively to be:

    (1) Installed totally encased by cabinetry or panels that are attached during installation;

    (2) Securely fastened to adjacent cabinetry, walls or floor;

    (3) Equipped with unfinished sides that are not visible after installation; and

    (4) Equipped with an integral factory-finished face or built to accept a custom front panel.

    Combination cooler refrigeration product means any cooler-refrigerator, cooler-refrigerator-freezer, or cooler-freezer.

    Consumer refrigeration product means a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, freezer, or miscellaneous refrigeration product.

    Cooler means a cabinet, used with one or more doors, that has a source of refrigeration capable of operating on single-phase, alternating current and is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures either:

    (1) No lower than 39 °F (3.9 °C), or

    (2) In a range that extends no lower than 37 °F (2.8 °C) but at least as high as 60 °F (15.6 °C) as determined according to the applicable provisions in § 429.61(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)].

    Cooler-freezer is a cabinet, used with one or more doors, that has a source of refrigeration that requires single-phase, alternating current electric energy input only, and consists of two or more compartments, including at least one cooler compartment as defined in appendix A of subpart B of this part, where the remaining compartment(s) are capable of maintaining compartment temperatures at 0 °F (-17.8 °C) or below as determined according to the provisions in § 429.61(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)].

    Cooler-refrigerator is a cabinet, used with one or more doors, that has a source of refrigeration that requires single-phase, alternating current electric energy input only, and consists of two or more compartments, including at least one cooler compartment as defined in appendix A of subpart B of this part, where:

    (1) At least one of the remaining compartments is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures above 32 °F (0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9 °C) as determined according to § 429.61(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)];

    (2) The cabinet may also include a compartment capable of maintaining compartment temperatures below 32 °F (0 °C) as determined according to § 429.61(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)]; but

    (3) The cabinet does not provide a separate low temperature compartment capable of maintaining compartment temperatures below 0 °F (−13.3 °C) as determined according to § 429.61(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)].

    Cooler-refrigerator-freezer is a cabinet, used with one or more doors, that has a source of refrigeration that requires single-phase, alternating current electric energy input only, and consists of three or more compartments, including at least one cooler compartment as defined in appendix A of subpart B of this part, where:

    (1) At least one of the remaining compartments is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures above 32 °F (0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9 °C) as determined according § 429.61(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)], and

    (2) At least one other compartment is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures of 0 °F (−17.8 °C) or below as determined according to § 429.61(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)].

    Freestanding compact cooler means any cooler, excluding built-in compact coolers, with a total refrigerated volume less than 7.75 cubic feet.

    Freestanding cooler means any cooler, excluding built-in coolers, with a total refrigerated volume of 7.75 cubic feet or greater.

    Freezer means a cabinet, used with one or more doors, that has a source of refrigeration that requires single-phase, alternating current electric energy input only and is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures of 0 °F (−17.8 °C) or below as determined according to the provisions in § 429.14(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)]. It does not include any refrigerated cabinet that consists solely of an automatic ice maker and an ice storage bin arranged so that operation of the automatic icemaker fills the bin to its capacity. However, the term does not include any product that does not include a compressor and condenser unit as an integral part of the cabinet assembly.

    Miscellaneous refrigeration product means a consumer refrigeration product other than a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer, which includes coolers and combination cooler refrigeration products.

    Refrigerator means a cabinet, used with one or more doors, that has a source of refrigeration that requires single-phase, alternating current electric energy input only and is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures above 32 °F (0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9 °C) as determined according to § 429.14(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)]. A refrigerator may include a compartment capable of maintaining compartment temperatures below 32 °F (0 °C), but does not provide a separate low temperature compartment capable of maintaining compartment temperatures below 0 °F (−13.3 °C) as determined according to § 429.14(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)]. However, the term does not include any product that does not include a compressor and condenser unit as an integral part of the cabinet assembly.

    Refrigerator-freezer means a cabinet, used with one or more doors, that has a source of refrigeration that requires single-phase, alternating current electric energy input only and consists of two or more compartments where at least one of the compartments is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures above 32 °F (0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9 °C) as determined according to § 429.14(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)], and at least one other compartment is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures of 0 °F (−17.8 °C) or below as determined according to § 429.14(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)]. However, the term does not include any cabinet that does not include a compressor and condenser unit as an integral part of the cabinet assembly.

    [FR Doc. 2016-04874 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-4230; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-041-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Gliders 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 EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders (type certificate previously held by AEROTECHNIK s.r.o.) that would supersede AD 2000-20-12. 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 insufficient material strength of the tail-fuselage attachment fitting. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 18, 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 EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o, Letecka 1008, 686 04 Kunovice, Czech Republic; phone: +420 572 537 428; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.evektor.cz/en/sales-and-support. You may review copies of the 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-2016-4230; 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-2016-4230; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-041-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

    On September 28, 2000, we issued AD 2000-20-12, Amendment 39-11923 (65 FR 61262; October 17, 2000) (“AD 2000-20-12”). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Model L 13 SEH VIVAT gliders and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by the Civil Aviation Authority, which is the aviation authority for the Czech Republic. That MCAI (AD CAA-AD-T-112/1999R1, dated November 23, 1999), was issued to correct an unsafe condition for EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders and BLANIK LIMITED Models L-13 Blanik and L-13 AC Blanik gliders. The MCAI states:

    To prevent destruction of tail-fuselage attachment fitting which can lead to loss of control of the sailplane. This destruction could be caused due to lower strength of the material used during production.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-4230.

    A review of records since issuance of AD 2000-20-12 revealed that the FAA inadvertently did not address this MCAI for the EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Model L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders and the BLANIK LIMITED Model L-13 AC Blanik gliders. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2000-20-12 to add the EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Model L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders to the applicability of the AD.

    The FAA will address the BLANIK LIMITED Model L-13 AC Blanik gliders in another AD action.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    AEROTECHNIK CZ s.r.o. issued Mandatory Service Bulletin SEH 13-005a, dated November 18, 1999. The service information describes procedures for testing the material strength of attachment fitting part number A 102 021N and instructions for contacting the manufacturer for replacement information if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section 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 9 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $340 per product.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $3,060, or $340 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 16 work-hours and require parts costing $500, for a cost of $1,860 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-11923 (65 FR 61262; October 17, 2000), and adding the following new AD: EVECTOR, spol. S.r.o.: Docket No. FAA-2016-4230; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-041-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 18, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2000-20-12, Amendment 39-11923 (65 FR 61262; October 17, 2000) (“AD 2000-20-12”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders (type certificate previously held by AEROTECHNIK s.r.o.), all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

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

    (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 insufficient material strength of the tail-fuselage attachment fitting. We are issuing this proposed AD to detect and correct tail-fuselage fittings with insufficient material strength, which if left uncorrected could result in detachment of the tail from the fuselage with consequent loss of control.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, including all subparagraphs:

    (1) Model L 13 SEH VIVAT gliders:

    (i) Within the next 60 days after November 27, 2000 (the effective date retained from AD 2000-20-12), inspect the tail-fuselage attachment fitting, part number (P/N) A 102 021N, for damage and material hardness following the procedures in AEROTECHNIK CZ s.r.o. Mandatory Service Bulletin SEH 13-005a, dated November 18, 1999.

    (ii) If you find the tail-fuselage attachment fitting is damaged or the material does not meet the hardness requirements specified in the service bulletin during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD, before further flight, you must contact the manufacturer to obtain an FAA-approved replacement part for P/N A 102 021N and FAA-approved installation instructions and install the replacement part. Use the contact information found in paragraph (h) to contact the manufacturer.

    (iii) As of November 27, 2000 (the effective date retained from AD 2000-20-12), do not install, on any glider, a P/N A 102 021N attachment fitting that has not passed the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD.

    (2) Model L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders:

    (i) Within the next 60 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the tail-fuselage attachment fitting, part number (P/N) A 102 021N, for damage and material hardness following the procedures in AEROTECHNIK CZ s.r.o. Mandatory Service Bulletin SEH 13-005a, dated November 18, 1999.

    (ii) If you find the tail-fuselage attachment fitting is damaged or the material does not meet the hardness requirements specified in the service bulletin during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD, before further flight, you must contact the manufacturer to obtain an FAA-approved replacement part for P/N A 102 021N and FAA-approved installation instructions and install the replacement part. Use the contact information found in paragraph (h) to contact the manufacturer.

    (iii) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install, on any glider, a P/N A 102 021N attachment fitting that has not passed the inspection required in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD.

    (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, 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 Civil Aviation Authority AD CAA-AD-T-112/1999R1, dated November 23, 1999, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-4230. For service information related to this AD, contact EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o, Letecka 1008, 686 04 Kunovice, Czech Republic; phone: +420 572 537 428; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.evektor.cz/en/sales-and-support. You may review copies of the 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 February 24, 2016. Robert P. Busto, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04543 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-3990; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-153-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by two in-service incidents reported on Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes regarding a loss of all air data information in the flight deck. This proposed AD would require revision of the airplane flight manual (AFM) to provide procedures to guide the crew to stabilize the airplane's airspeed and attitude for continued safe flight. We are proposing this AD to prevent loss of air data information that may affect continued safe flight.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone: 514-855-5000; fax: 514-855-7401; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-3990; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Services Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7301; fax: 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-3990; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-153-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2015-08, dated April 28, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Two in-service incidents have been reported on CL-600-2C10 aeroplanes regarding a loss of all air data information in the cockpit. The air data information was recovered as the aeroplane descended to lower altitudes. An investigation determined that the root cause in both events was high altitude icing (ice crystal contamination). If not addressed, this condition may affect continued safe flight.

    Due to similarities in the air data systems, such events could happen on all Bombardier CRJ models, CL-600-2B19, CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2E25. Therefore, the corrective actions for these models will be mandated once their respective Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) revisions become available.

    This [Canadian] AD mandates the incorporation of AFM procedures to guide the crew to stabilize the aeroplanes airspeed and attitude for continued safe flight.

    Required actions in this NPRM apply only to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes; we may consider issuing further rulemaking on the other Bombardier airplane models identified previously. 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-2016-3990.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued Emergency Procedure 1; Unreliable Airspeed, of Section 03-19, Emergency Procedures—Unreliable Airspeed, of Chapter 3, Emergency Procedures, in Volume 1 of the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-2D15 and CL-600-2D24 Airplane Flight Manual CSP C-012, Revision 11A, dated May 25, 2015. The service information describes procedures to guide the crew to stabilize the airplane's airspeed and attitude for continued safe flight. 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.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 230 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $19,550, or $85 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2016-3990; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-153-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 18, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of two in-service incidents on Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes regarding a loss of all air data information in the flight deck. We are issuing this AD to prevent air data information loss that may affect continued safe flight.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Airplane Flight Manual Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise Emergency Procedure Section 03-19-1 of the airplane flight manual (AFM) to include the information in Emergency Procedure 1; Unreliable Airspeed, of Section 03-19, Emergency Procedures—Unreliable Airspeed, of Chapter 3, Emergency Procedures, in Volume 1 of the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-2D15 and CL-600-2D24 Airplane Flight Manual CSP C-012, Revision 11A, dated May 25, 2015.

    (h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Services Branch, ANE 172, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone: 516-228-7301; fax: 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2015-08, dated 28 April, 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-2016-3990.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone: 514-855-5000; fax: 514-855-7401; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 23, 2016. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04680 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-4256; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-002-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; M7 Aerospace LLC AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all M7 Aerospace LLC Models SA226-AT, SA226-T, SA226-T(B), SA226-TC, SA227-AC (C-26A), SA227-AT, SA227-BC (C-26A), SA227-CC, SA227-DC (C-26B), and SA227-TT airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of failed elevator control rod ends due to corrosion and lack of lubrication. This proposed AD would require initial and repetitive inspections and lubrication of the elevator control rod ends and bearings with replacement as necessary. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact M7 Aerospace LLC, 10823 NE Entrance Road, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone: (210) 824-9421; fax: (210) 804-7766; Internet: http://www.elbitsystems-us.com; email: [email protected] You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 816-329-4148.

    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-2016-4256; 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:

    Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ASW-143 (c/o San Antonio MIDO), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone: (210) 308-3365; fax: (210) 308-3370; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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-2016-4256; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-002-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

    The FAA received reports of broken elevator control rod link assemblies between the elevator torque tube and the elevator quadrant due to corrosion and lack of lubrication on M7 Aerospace SA26, SA226, and SA227 airplanes.

    This condition, if not corrected, could result in increased friction and partial or complete loss of elevator control resulting in loss of pitch control.

    Relevant Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed M7 Aerospace LLC Service Bulletin (SB) 226-27-080 R1, M7 Aerospace LLC SB 227-27-060 R1, and M7 Aerospace LLC SB CC7-27-032 R1, all Issued: November 5, 2015 and Revised: February 23, 2016. The service information describes procedures for inspection of the elevator control link assemblies between the elevator torque tubes and the elevator quadrant for frozen (stiff, hard to move) bearings or broken/cracked links (rod ends) with instructions for lubrication and replacement if necessary. All of the related service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination

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

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require initial and repetitive inspections of the elevator control rod ends and bearings with replacement as necessary.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 350 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 and lubrication 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 *NA $170 $59,500 * Not applicable

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

    On-condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replace Rod End 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 $30 $370
    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: M7 Aerospace LLC: Docket No. FAA-2016-4256; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-002-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 18, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to M7 Aerospace LLC Models SA226-AT, SA226-T, SA226-T(B), SA226-TC, SA227-AC (C-26A), SA227-AT, SA227-BC (C-26A), SA227-CC, SA227-DC (C-26B), and SA227-TT airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 2730, Elevator Control System.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of failed elevator control rod ends due to corrosion and lack of lubrication. We are issuing this AD to require initial and repetitive inspections and lubrication of the elevator control rod ends and bearings with replacement as necessary. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD using the following service bulletins within the compliance times specified, unless already done:

    (1) For Models SA226-AT, SA226-T, SA226-T(B), and SA226-TC: M7 Aerospace LLC Service Bulletin (SB) 226-27-080 R1, Issued: November 5, 2015 and Revised: February 23, 2016;

    (2) For Models SA227-AC (C-26A), SA227-AT, SA227-BC (C-26A), and SA227-TT: M7 Aerospace LLC SB 227-27-060 R1, Issued: November 5, 2015 and Revised: February 23, 2016; or

    (3) For Models SA227-CC and SA227-DC (C-26B): M7 Aerospace LLC SB CC7-27-032 R1, Issued: November 5, 2015 and Revised: February 23, 2016.

    (g) Actions

    (1) If abnormally high resistance is reported when operating the elevators, before further flight after the effective date of this AD, inspect and lubricate installed elevator control links following paragraph 2.A. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletins identified in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), or (f)(3) of this AD, as applicable.

    (2) Remove the elevator control links and inspect following paragraph 2.B. (and 2.C. when applicable) and lubricate the bearings following paragraph 2.E. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletins identified in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), or (f)(3) of this AD, as applicable, at whichever of the following occurs first:

    (i) At the next Zone related Phase or Letter Check inspection after the effective date of this AD or within the next 600 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later; or

    (ii) Within the next 6 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (3) Repetitively remove and inspect the elevator control links not to exceed every 12 months following any inspection required in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD following paragraph 2.B. (and 2.C. when applicable) and lubricate the bearings following paragraph 2.E. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletins identified in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), or (f)(3) of this AD, as applicable.

    (4) If during any inspection required in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2) or (g)(3) of this AD, any link assemblies between the elevator torque tubes and the elevator quadrant are found to have frozen (stiff, hard to move) bearings or broken/cracked links (rod ends), before further flight, replace the rod ends following paragraph 2.D. and lubricate the bearings following with paragraph 2.E. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletins identified in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), or (f)(3) of this AD, as applicable.

    (5) Repetitively lubricate the rod end bearings (male and female) on both elevator control link assemblies following the time limits in paragraph 1.D.4) of the applicable SB, but not to exceed every 6 months, and following the procedures in paragraph 2.E. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletins identified in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), or (f)(3) of this AD, as applicable.

    (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane 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 (i) 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.

    (i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ASW-143 (c/o San Antonio MIDO), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone: (210) 308-3365; fax: (210) 308-3370; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact M7 Aerospace LLC, 10823 NE Entrance Road, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone: (210) 824-9421; fax: (210) 804-7766; Internet: http://www.elbitsystems-us.com; email: [email protected] You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 816-329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 25, 2016. Robert P. Busto, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04677 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-3989; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-220-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by in-service reports of passenger door tensator spring failures, and qualification testing that determined that non-conforming tensator springs could be susceptible to failure prior to reaching their safe-life limit. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate certain temporary revisions, and replacing the passenger door tensator springs with new springs. We are proposing this AD to prevent tensator spring failure, resulting in the inability to open the main passenger door, which could impede evacuation in the event of an emergency.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone: 514-855-5000; fax: 514-855-7401; email: [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-3989; 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:

    Fabio Buttitta, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7303; fax: 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-3989; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-220-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-39, dated November 4, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Following the issuance of [Canadian] AD CF-2010-14 [http://wwwapps3.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/cawis-swimn/awd-display-cs2101-wnd.asp?rand=&vMode=0&showPdf=False&ovid=CF_CF-2010-14_0], additional qualification testing of the passenger door tensator spring, Part Number (P/N) GS321-0580-1, determined that the tensator springs could be susceptible to failure prior to reaching the life limit mandated by [Canadian] AD CF-2010-14.

    In addition, there have been in-service reports of passenger door tensator spring failures. Investigation determined that the material used to manufacture the tensator springs [was] improperly heat treated.

    The passenger door assembly is installed with four tensator springs that assist the door actuator in opening and closing the door. In-service experience has shown that a failed tensator spring could uncoil and foul up the rotating tensator spools, resulting in the inability to open the main passenger door. The inability to open the main passenger door could impede evacuation in the event of an emergency.

    This [Canadian] AD mandates the revision to the approved maintenance schedule to reduce the repetitive discard task interval and mandates the replacement of non-conforming tensator springs.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-3989.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following Bombardier, Inc. service information:

    • Bombardier Global 5000 Service Bulletin 700-1A11-52-023, dated October 4, 2013.

    • Bombardier Global Express/Global Express XRS Service Bulletin 700-52-046, dated October 4, 2013.

    • Temporary Revision (TR) 5-2-7, dated June 4, 2014, to Part 2, Section 5-10-11, of Bombardier Global Express XRS BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

    • TR 5-2-10, dated September 9, 2014, to Part 2, Section 5-10-11, of Bombardier Global 6000 GL 6000 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

    • TR 5-2-13, dated June 4, 2014, to Part 2, Section 5-10-11, of Bombardier Global 5000 BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

    • TR 5-2-44, dated June 4, 2014, to Part 2, Section 5-10-11, of Bombardier Global Express BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

    The service information describes procedures for replacing passenger door tensator springs with new springs. 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.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 60 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 40 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $204,000, or $3,400 per product.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2016-3989; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-220-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 18, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 9002 and subsequent.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by in-service reports of passenger door tensator spring failures, and qualification testing that determined that incorrect tensator springs could be susceptible to failure prior to reaching their safe-life limit. We are issuing this AD to prevent tensator spring failure, resulting in the inability to open the main passenger door, which could impede evacuation in the event of an emergency.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the task specified in the Temporary Revisions (TRs) identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD. The compliance time for doing the initial replacement of the passenger door tensator springs with new springs is at the times specified in the applicable TR specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (1) TR 5-2-7, dated June 4, 2014, to Part 2, Section 5-10-11, of Bombardier Global Express XRS BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).

    (2) TR 5-2-10, dated September 9, 2014, to Part 2, Section 5-10-11, of Bombardier Global 6000 GL 6000 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (for Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).

    (3) TR 5-2-13, dated June 4, 2014, to Part 2, Section 5-10-11, of Bombardier Global 5000 BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (for Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).

    (4) TR 5-2-44, dated June 4, 2014, to Part 2, Section 5-10-11, of Bombardier Global Express BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).

    (h) No Alternative Actions and Intervals

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

    (i) Replacement

    For airplanes identified in section 1.A. “Effectivity,” of Bombardier Global 5000 Service Bulletin 700-1A11-52-023, dated October 4, 2013; or Bombardier Global Express/Global Express XRS Service Bulletin 700-52-046, dated October 4, 2013; except as provided by paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD: Within 15 months after the effective date of this AD, but not exceeding the applicable life limit of the passenger tensator spring, replace the passenger door tensator springs having part number (P/N) GS321-0580-1, with new springs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Global 5000 Service Bulletin 700-1A11-52-023, dated October 4, 2013; or Bombardier Global Express/Global Express XRS Service Bulletin 700-52-046, dated October 4, 2013; as applicable.

    (j) Acceptable Alternative Actions for Paragraph (i) of This AD

    (1) For airplanes having serial numbers (S/N) 9278 through 9360 inclusive: Replacement of the passenger door tensator springs having P/N GS321-0580-1 with new springs before the effective date of this AD is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD. Refer to the task specified in the applicable TRs identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD for subsequent spring replacements.

    (2) For airplanes with serial numbers not identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD: Accomplishment after the effective date of this AD of the “Time Limits/Maintenance Checks” discard task identified in the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD.

    (k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

    (l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2014-39, dated November 4, 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-2016-3989.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone: 514-855-5000; fax: 514-855-7401; email: [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 19, 2016. Dorr M. Anderson, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04561 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-4233; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-003-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Blanik Limited Gliders 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 Blanik Limited Models L-13 Blanik and L-13 AC Blanik gliders (type certificate previously by LET Aeronautical Works) that would supersede AD 99-19-33. 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 lack of distinct color marking of the elevator drive. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 18, 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 Blanik Limited, 2nd Floor Beaux Lane House, Mercer Street Lower, Dublin 2, Republic of Ireland; phone: +420 733 662 194; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.blanik.aero/%EF%BB%BFcustomer_support. 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-2016-4233; 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-2016-4233; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-003-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

    On November 8, 1999, we issued AD 99-19-33, Amendment 39-11320 (64 FR 50440; September 17, 1999) (“99-19-33”). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on BLANIK LIMITED Models L-13 Blanik gliders and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by the Civil Aviation Authority, which is the aviation authority for the Czech Republic. That MCAI (AD CAA-AD-4-099/98, dated December 30, 1998) was issued to correct an unsafe condition for EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders and BLANIK LIMITED Models L-13 Blanik and L-13 AC Blanik gliders. The MCAI states:

    Colour marking of elevator drive is not inspected or re-painted during sailplane operation. The elevator drive is asymmetrical and improper installation causes significant elevator deflection changes.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-4233.

    A review of records since issuance of AD 99-19-33 revealed that the FAA inadvertently did not address this MCAI for the EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders and the BLANIK LIMITED Model L-13 AC Blanik gliders. This proposed AD would supersede AD 99-19-13 to add the BLANIK LIMITED Model L-13 AC Blanik gliders to the applicability of the AD.

    The FAA will address the EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders in another AD action.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    LET Aeronautical Works has issued LET Mandatory Bulletin MB No.: L13/082a, dated December 10, 1998. The service information describes procedures for painting the left arm of the elevator drive. 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 124 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $10 per product.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $11,780, or $95 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-11320 (64 FR 50440; September 17, 1999), and adding the following new AD: Blanik Limited: Docket No. FAA-2016-4233; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-003-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 18, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 99-19-33, Amendment 39-11320 (64 FR 50440; September 17, 1999) (“AD 99-19-33”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to BLANIK LIMITED Models L-13 Blanik and L-13 AC Blanik gliders (type certificate previously by LET Aeronautical Works), all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

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

    (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 lack of distinct color marking of the elevator drive. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadvertent backward installation of the elevator drive, which could cause significant elevator deflection changes and lead to loss of control.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, including all subparagraphs:

    (1) Model L-13 Blanik gliders:

    (i) Within the next 3 calendar months after November 8, 1999 (the effective date retained from AD 99-19-33), paint the elevator drive mechanism using a contrasting color (such as red) following the procedures in LET Mandatory Bulletin MB No.: L13/082a, dated December 10, 1998.

    (ii) As of November 8, 1999 (the effective date retained from AD 99-19-33), only install an elevator bellcrank that has been painted as specified in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD and that has been properly oriented to make sure it is not being installed backward.

    (2) Model L-13 AC Blanik gliders:

    (i) Within the next 3 calendar months after the effective date of this AD, paint the elevator drive mechanism using a contrasting color (such as red) following the procedures in LET Mandatory Bulletin MB No.: L13/082a, dated December 10, 1998.

    (ii) As of the effective date of this AD, only install an elevator bellcrank that has been painted as specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD and that has been properly oriented to make sure it is not being installed backward.

    (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 Civil Aviation Authority AD CAA-AD-4-099/98, dated December 30, 1998, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-4233. For service information related to this AD, contact Blanik Limited, 2nd Floor Beaux Lane House, Mercer Street Lower, Dublin 2, Republic of Ireland; phone: +420 733 662 194; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.blanik.aero/%EF%BB%BFcustomer_support. 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 February 24, 2016. Robert P. Busto, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04542 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-4232; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-043-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Gliders 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 EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Model L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders (type certificate previously held by AEROTECHNIK s.r.o.). 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 lack of distinct color marking of the elevator drive. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 18, 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 EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o, Letecka 1008, 686 04 Kunovice, Czech Republic; phone: +420 572 537 428; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.evektor.cz/en/sales-and-support. 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-2016-4232; 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-2016-4232; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-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://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 Civil Aviation Authority, which is the aviation authority for the Czech Republic, has issued AD CAA-AD-4-099/98, dated December 30, 1998 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders and BLANIK LIMITED Models L-13 Blanik and L-13 AC Blanik gliders and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:

    Colour marking of elevator drive is not inspected or re-painted during sailplane operation. The elevator drive is asymmetrical and improper installation causes significant elevator deflection changes.

    A review of records revealed that the FAA inadvertently did not address this MCAI for the EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders and the BLANIK LIMITED Model L-13 AC Blanik gliders. This proposed AD would address this MCAI for the EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders and would require painting or re-painting the elevator drive mechanism a contrasting color to prevent the backward installation of the elevator drive bellcrank. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-4232.

    The FAA will address the BLANIK LIMITED Model L-13 AC Blanik gliders in another AD action.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    AEROTECHNIK CZ s.r.o. issued Mandatory Service Bulletin SEH 13-003a, dated December 15, 1998. The service information describes procedures for painting the left arm of the elevator drive. 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 9 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $10 per product.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $855, or $95 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: EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o.: Docket No. FAA-2016-4232; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-043-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 18, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders (type certificate previously held by AEROTECHNIK s.r.o.), all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

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

    (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 lack of distinct color marking of the elevator drive. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadvertent backward installation of the elevator drive, which could cause significant elevator deflection changes and lead to loss of control.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Within the next 3 calendar months after the effective date of this AD, paint the elevator drive mechanism using a contrasting color (such as red) following the procedures in AEROTECHNIK CZ s.r.o. issued Mandatory Service Bulletin SEH 13-003a, dated December 15, 1998.

    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, only install an elevator bellcrank that has been painted as specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD and that has been properly oriented to make sure it is not being installed backward.

    (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 Civil Aviation Authority AD CAA-AD-4-099/98, dated December 30, 1998, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-4232. For service information related to this AD, contact EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o, Letecka 1008, 686 04 Kunovice, Czech Republic; phone: +420 572 537 428; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.evektor.cz/en/sales-and-support. 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 February 24, 2016. Robert P. Busto, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04573 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 820 [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0436] Refurbishing, Reconditioning, Rebuilding, Remarketing, Remanufacturing, and Servicing of Medical Devices Performed by Third-Party Entities and Original Equipment Manufacturers; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notification; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the establishment of a docket to receive information and comments on the medical device industry and healthcare community that refurbish, recondition, rebuild, remarket, remanufacture, service, and repair medical devices (hereafter termed “third-party entity or entities”), including radiation-emitting devices subject to the electronic product radiation control (EPRC) provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act). FDA is taking this action, in part, because various stakeholders have expressed concerns about the quality, safety, and continued effectiveness of medical devices that have been subject to one or more of these activities that are performed by both original equipment manufacturers (OEM) and third parties, including health care establishments. We are seeking comments from the widest range of interested persons, including those who are engaged in one or more of the activities noted previously or who utilize refurbished, reconditioned, rebuilt, remarketed, remanufactured, or third-party serviced and repaired medical devices.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments by May 3, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0436 for “Refurbishing, Reconditioning, Rebuilding, Remarketing, Remanufacturing, and Servicing of Medical Devices Performed by Third-Party Entities and Original Equipment Manufacturers; Request for Comments.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Valerie Flournoy, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5495.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Over the past 20 years, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health has sought to clarify our regulatory requirements and expectations, under part 820 (21 CFR part 820), to entities servicing, refurbishing, rebuilding, reconditioning, remarketing, and remanufacturing medical devices. In addition, FDA medical device regulations include requirements that device manufacturers establish and maintain instructions and procedures for servicing. However, in the Federal Register on December 4, 1998 (63 FR 67076), refurbishers and servicers of medical devices were excluded from the requirement to comply with the 1997 Quality System Regulation under part 820.

    Moreover, EPRC requirements of the FD&C Act (Pub. L. 90-602, amended by Pub. L. 103-80), include provisions specific to manufacturers and assemblers of certified x-ray components. Under § 1020.30(c) (21 CFR 1020.30(c)), manufacturers of diagnostic x-ray systems are responsible for providing assembly instructions adequate to assure compliance of their components with the applicable performance standards when installed properly. Furthermore, under § 1020.30(d), assemblers are then required to assemble, install, adjust, and test the certified components according to the instructions of their respective manufacturers.

    FDA has previously issued guidance on these topics, including an Assembler's Guide to Diagnostic X-ray Equipment (Ref. 1) and Information Disclosure by Manufacturers to Assemblers for Diagnostic X-ray Systems (Ref. 2). Under the EPRC provision in 21 CFR 1040.10(h)(1)(i), manufacturers of laser products are required to provide instructions for assembly, operation, and maintenance, including warnings and precautions on how to avoid exposure, and maintenance schedules to ensure product complies with requirements in the standard.

    Stakeholders have expressed concerns that some third-party entities who refurbish, recondition, rebuild, remarket, remanufacture, service, and repair medical devices may use unqualified personnel to perform service, maintenance, refurbishment, and device alterations on their equipment and that the work performed may not be adequately documented. Possible public health issues arising from these activities include ineffective recalls, disabled device safety features, and improper or unexpected device operation. OEMs have also requested clarification of their responsibilities when their devices have been altered by a third-party entity. Federal Agencies other than FDA address service and maintenance activities as well.

    FDA is interested in comments concerning the service, maintenance, refurbishment, and alteration of medical devices, including endoscopes (Ref. 3), by third-party entities. In addition, we want to know more about the challenges third-party entities face in maintaining or restoring devices to their original or current specifications. This docket is not intended to address the reprocessing of single-use or reusable medical devices.

    FDA intends to hold a public meeting later in 2016 to further engage this segment of the device industry and healthcare community. The comments submitted to this docket will help inform the content of the public meeting.

    II. Issues for Consideration A. Proposed Definitions of Third-Party and OEM Activities

    FDA is asking for assistance in defining the following terms specific to this document. These terms, while not an exhaustive list, should capture and encompass most of the activities performed on medical devices. While we suggest language for each term, we are inviting interested persons to suggest revisions and any additional terms that may help define third-party and OEM activities including additional activities that are not encompassed by the following suggested terms and all-encompassing terms that can include some or all of the activities discussed in this section II.A.

    1. Recondition: Restores and/or refurbishes a medical device to the OEM's original specifications. Under limited circumstances the medical device may be restored and/or refurbished to current specifications.

    2. Service: Maintenance or repair of a finished device after distribution for purposes of returning it to the safety and performance specifications established by the OEM and to meet its original intended use. Servicing cannot change the intended use(s) of the device from its original purpose(s).

    3. Repair: Return the device or component to original specifications including replacing non-working components or parts outside of routine or periodic upkeep for the current owner of the device.

    4. Refurbish: Restore device to a condition of safety and effectiveness that is comparable to when new. This includes reconditioning, repair, installation of certain software/hardware updates that do not change the intended use of the original device, and replacement of worn parts.

    5. Remanufacture: Process, condition, renovate, repackage, restore, or any other act done to a finished device that significantly changes the finished device's performance, safety specifications, or intended use.

    6. Remarket: The act of facilitating the transfer of a previously owned device from one party to another by sale, donation, gift, or lease.

    B. Evaluation of Risk Associated With These Third-Party and OEM Activities

    In addition to obtaining comments that define the key terms applicable to this issue, FDA believes that a need exists for interested persons to comment on the benefits and risks related to the previously defined activities. We invite interested persons to comment on the following questions:

    1. Who are the different stakeholders involved with the medical device activities listed previously? What are their respective roles?

    2. What evidence exists regarding actual problems with the safety and/or performance of devices that result from these activities? Specific examples should be submitted.

    3. What are the potential risks (patients/users) and failure modes (devices) introduced as a result of performing the previously defined activities on medical devices? Please speak to issues common to all devices as well as specific risks with specific devices.

    4. These activities are performed by OEMs and various third-party entities, including hospitals and humanitarian organizations. Are the risks different depending on who performs the previously mentioned activities?

    5. We are interested in knowing if these activities are more difficult or riskier to perform on certain devices versus others. Please cite specific examples in your response, along with an explanation of the source of this particular complexity.

    6. What information do third-party entities need in order to perform these activities in a way that results in safe and effective operation of the medical device? Please provide specific examples.

    7. What additional challenges do stakeholders encounter with devices that result from these activities?

    III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This document refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 1020 and 1040 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0025.

    IV. References

    The following references are on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the Web site addresses, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

    1. Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff on Assembler's Guide to Diagnostic X-Ray Equipment. Available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/.../UCM257783.pdf. 2. Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff on Information Disclosure by Manufacturers to Assemblers for Diagnostic X-ray Systems. Available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Radiation-EmittingProducts/ElectronicProductRadiationControlProgram/IndustryGuidance/UCM136731.pdf. 3. FDA Executive Summary: Effective Reprocessing of Endoscopes Used in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Procedures, FDA. Available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/Gastroenterology-UrologyDevicesPanel/UCM445592.pdf. Dated: February 26, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04700 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration 21 CFR Part 1308 [Docket No. DEA-436] Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of 10 Synthetic Cathinones Into Schedule I AGENCY:

    Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Drug Enforcement Administration proposes placing 10 synthetic cathinones: 4-methyl-N-ethylcathinone (4-MEC); 4-methyl-alpha-pyrrolidinopropiophenone (4-MePPP); alpha-pyrrolidinopentiophenone (α-PVP); 1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-(methylamino)butan-1-one (butylone); 2-(methylamino)-1-phenylpentan-1-one (pentedrone); 1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-(methylamino)pentan-1-one (pentylone); 4-fluoro-N-methylcathinone (4-FMC); 3-fluoro-N-methylcathinone (3-FMC); 1-(naphthalen-2-yl)-2-(pyrrolidin-1-yl)pentan-1-one (naphyrone); alpha-pyrrolidinobutiophenone (α-PBP) and their optical, positional, and geometric isomers, salts and salts of isomers into schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. This proposed scheduling action is pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act which requires that such actions be made on the record after opportunity for a hearing through formal rulemaking. If finalized, this action would impose the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to schedule I controlled substances on persons who handle (manufacture, distribute, import, export, engage in research, conduct instructional activities or chemical analysis, or possess), or propose to handle 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, or α-PBP.

    DATES:

    Interested persons may file written comments on this proposal in accordance with 21 CFR 1308.43(g). Comments must be submitted electronically or postmarked on or before April 4, 2016. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period.

    Interested persons, defined at 21 CFR 1300.01 as those “adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable pursuant to section 201 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 811),” may file a request for hearing or waiver of hearing pursuant to 21 CFR 1308.44 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1316.45 and/or 1316.47, as applicable. Requests for hearing and waivers of an opportunity for a hearing or to participate in a hearing must be received on or before April 4, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. DEA-436” on all correspondence, including any attachments.

    Electronic comments: The Drug Enforcement Administration encourages that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the Web page or to attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions at that site for submitting comments. Upon completion of your submission you will receive a Comment Tracking Number for your comment. Please be aware that submitted comments are not instantaneously available for public view on Regulations.gov. If you have received a Comment Tracking Number, your comment has been successfully submitted and there is no need to resubmit the same comment.

    Paper comments: Paper comments that duplicate the electronic submission are not necessary. Should you wish to mail a paper comment in lieu of an electronic comment, it should be sent via regular or express mail to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

    Hearing requests: All requests for hearing and waivers of participation must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing and waivers of participation should also be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barbara J. Boockholdt, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Posting of Public Comments

    Please note that all comments received in response to this docket are considered part of the public record. They will, unless reasonable cause is given, be made available by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for public inspection online at http://www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) applies to all comments received. If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also place all of the personal identifying information you do not want made publicly available in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.

    If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment.

    Comments containing personal identifying information and confidential business information identified as directed above will generally be made publicly available in redacted form. If a comment has so much confidential business information or personal identifying information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be made publicly available. Comments posted to http://www.regulations.gov may include any personal identifying information (such as name, address, and phone number) included in the text of your electronic submission that is not identified as directed above as confidential.

    An electronic copy of this document and supplemental information to this proposed rule are available at http://www.regulations.gov for easy reference.

    Request for Hearing or Waiver of Participation in a Hearing

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this action is a formal rulemaking “on the record after opportunity for a hearing.” Such proceedings are conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551-559. 21 CFR 1308.41-1308.45; 21 CFR part 1316, subpart D. In accordance with 21 CFR 1308.44 (a)-(c), requests for hearing, notices of appearance, and waivers of an opportunity for a hearing or to participate in a hearing may be submitted only by interested persons, defined as those “adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable pursuant to section 201 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 811).” 21 CFR 1300.01. Such requests or notices must conform to the requirements of 21 CFR 1308.44 (a) or (b), and 1316.47 or 1316.48, as applicable, and include a statement of interest of the person in the proceeding and the objections or issues, if any, concerning which the person desires to be heard. Any waiver must conform to the requirements of 21 CFR 1308.44(c) and may include a written statement regarding the interested person's position on the matters of fact and law involved in any hearing.

    Please note that pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), the purpose and subject matter of a hearing held in relation to this rulemaking are restricted to: “(A) find[ing] that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and (B) mak[ing] with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of section 812 of this title for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed . . .” All requests for hearing and waivers of participation must be sent to the DEA using the address information provided above.

    Legal Authority

    The DEA implements and enforces Titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, and are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for the purposes of this action. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. The DEA publishes the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while providing for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.

    Under the CSA, controlled substances are classified into one of five schedules based upon their potential for abuse, their currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and the degree of dependence the substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The initial schedules of controlled substances established by Congress are found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), and the current list of scheduled substances is published at 21 CFR part 1308.

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), the Attorney General may, by rule, “add to such a schedule or transfer between such schedules any drug or other substance if he (A) finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and (B) makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of section 812 of this title for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed . . .” The Attorney General has delegated scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100.

    The CSA provides that proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of the scheduling of any drug or other substance may be initiated by the Attorney General (1) on her own motion; (2) at the request of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); 1 or (3) on the petition of any interested party. 21 U.S.C. 811(a). This proposed action is supported by a recommendation from the Assistant Secretary of the HHS and an evaluation of all other relevant data by the DEA. If finalized, this action would impose the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions of schedule I controlled substances on any person who handles or proposes to handle 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-;FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, or α-PBP.

    1 As discussed in a memorandum of understanding entered into by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the FDA acts as the lead agency within the HHS in carrying out the Secretary's scheduling responsibilities under the CSA, with the concurrence of NIDA. 50 FR 9518, Mar. 8, 1985. The Secretary of the HHS has delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Health of the HHS the authority to make domestic drug scheduling recommendations. 58 FR 35460, July 1, 1993.

    Background

    On March 7, 2014, the DEA published a final order in the Federal Register amending 21 CFR 1308.11(h) to temporarily place 4-methyl-N-ethylcathinone (4-MEC); 4-methyl-alpha-pyrrolidinopropiophenone (4-MePPP); alpha-pyrrolidinopentiophenone (α-PVP); 1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-(methylamino)butan-1-one (butylone); 2-(methylamino)-1-phenylpentan-1-one (pentedrone); 1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-(methylamino)pentan-1-one (pentylone); 4-fluoro-N-methylcathinone (4-FMC); 3-fluoro-N-methylcathinone (3-FMC); 1-(naphthalen-2-yl)-2-(pyrrolidin-1-yl)pentan-1-one (naphyrone); and alpha-pyrrolidinobutiophenone (α-PBP) into schedule I of the CSA pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(h). 79 FR 12938. That final order, which became effective on the date of publication, was based on findings by the Deputy Administrator of the DEA that the temporary scheduling of these 10 synthetic cathinones was necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to public safety pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). At the time the final order took effect, section 201(h)(2) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2)), required that the temporary scheduling of a substance expire at the end of two years from the date of issuance of the scheduling order, and it provided that, during the pendency of proceedings under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) with respect to the substance, temporary scheduling of that substance could be extended for up to 1 year. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2), the temporary scheduling of 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP expires on March 6, 2016, unless extended. An extension of the temporary order is being ordered by the DEA Administrator in a separate action.

    As described in the final order published on March 7, 2014, 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP are structurally and pharmacologically similar to amphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), cathinone, and other related substances. While 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP have been used as research chemicals and/or studied due to their misuse and abuse, based on the review of the scientific literature, there are no known currently accepted medical uses for these substances. The Assistant Secretary of Health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has advised that there are no exemptions or approvals in effect for 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, or α-PBP under section 505 (21 U.S.C. 355) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. As stated by the HHS, 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP have no known accepted medical use. They are not the subject of any approved new drug applications (NDAs) or investigational new drug applications (INDs), and are not currently marketed as approved drug products. The HHS recommends that 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP and their salts be placed into schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

    Proposed Determination To Schedule 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, Butylone, Pentedrone, Pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, Naphyrone, and α-PBP

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), proceedings to add a drug or substance to those controlled under the CSA may be initiated by the Attorney General, or her delegate, the DEA Administrator. On December 30, 2014, the DEA requested scientific and medical evaluations and scheduling recommendations from the Assistant Secretary of Health for the HHS for 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(b). Upon receipt of the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendations from the HHS on March 2, 2016, the DEA reviewed the documents and all other relevant data, and conducted its own eight-factor analysis of the abuse potential of 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(c). Included below is a brief summary of each of the eight factors as analyzed by the HHS and the DEA, and as considered by the DEA in its proposed scheduling action. Please note that both the DEA 8-Factor and the HHS 8-Factor analyses are available in their entirety under the tab “Supporting Documents” of the public docket for this action at http:// www.regulations.gov under Docket Number “DEA-436.”

    1. The Drug's Actual or Relative Potential for Abuse: The term “abuse” is not defined in the CSA. However, the legislative history of the CSA suggests that the DEA consider the following criteria when determining whether a particular drug or substance has a potential for abuse: 2

    2 Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, H.R. Rep. No. 91-1444, 91st Cong., Sess. 1 (1970); reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4566, 4603.

    (a) There is evidence that individuals are taking the drug or drugs containing such a substance in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health or to the safety of other individuals or of the community; or

    (b) There is significant diversion of the drug or drugs containing such a substance from legitimate drug channels; or

    (c) Individuals are taking the drug or drugs containing such a substance on their own initiative rather than on the basis of medical advice from a practitioner licensed by law to administer such drugs in the course of his professional practice; or

    (d) The drug or drugs containing such a substance are new drugs so related in their action to a drug or drugs already listed as having a potential for abuse to make it likely that the drug will have the same potentiality for abuse as such drugs, thus making it reasonable to assume that there may be significant diversions from legitimate channels, significant use contrary to or without medical advice, or that it has a substantial capability of creating hazards to the health of the user or to the safety of the community.

    As described by the HHS, the abuse potentials of 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP are associated with their abilities to produce psychoactive effects that are similar to those produced by mephedrone, methylone, MDPV, and other schedule I and II substances such as amphetamine, methamphetamine, cocaine, methcathinone, and MDMA that have a high potential for abuse.

    The substances 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP have no approved medical uses in the United States and they have been encountered on the illicit market with adverse outcomes on the public health and safety. Because these substances are not approved drug products, a practitioner may not legally prescribe them, and they cannot be dispensed to an individual. Therefore, the use of these substances is without medical advice, leading to the conclusion that the 10 synthetic cathinones are being abused for their psychoactive properties. There are no legitimate drug channels for these synthetic cathinones as marketed drugs but the DEA notes that the 10 synthetic cathinones have use in scientific research. However, despite the limited legitimate use of these substances, reports from public health and law enforcement communicate that these substances are being abused and taken in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to an individual's health. This misuse is evidenced by emergency department admissions and deaths, representing a significant safety issue for those in the community. Papers published in the medical literature (e.g., case reports) related to 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, or α-PBP describe the effects of these substances to be similar to those of the schedule I cathinone substances MDPV, mephedrone, and methylone and other stimulant and hallucinogenic substances to include methamphetamine, cocaine and MDMA. In particular, the responses in humans to the 10 synthetic cathinones are stimulant-like and include paranoia, agitation, palpitations, tachycardia, hypertension, hyperthermia, and seizures. Data from forensic databases are used as indicators of illicit activity with drugs and abuse 3 within the United States and include data from the System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence (STRIDE),4 STARLiMS, and the National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS).5 From January 2010 through December 2015 (query dates: February 10 & 11, 2016), STRIDE, STARLiMS and NFLIS databases registered a total of 20,090 reports pertaining to the 10 synthetic cathinones (4-MEC—2,820 reports; 4-MePPP—438 reports; α-PVP—13,295 reports; butylone—789 reports; pentedrone—1,645 reports; pentylone—411 reports; FMC—375 reports; naphyrone—84 reports; α-PBP—233 reports). These drug reports represent all of the 10 synthetic cathinones reported to these databases by participating DEA, State, local, and other forensic laboratories. Consequently, the data indicate that these substances are being abused, and they present safety hazards to the health of individuals who consume them due to their stimulant properties, making them a hazard to the safety of the community.

    3 While law enforcement data is not direct evidence of abuse, it can lead to an inference that a drug has been diverted and abused. See 76 FR 77330, 77332, Dec. 12, 2011.

    4 STRIDE was a database that collected analyses of results from drug evidence sent to DEA laboratories. Evidence was submitted by the DEA, other Federal agencies, and select local law enforcement agencies. On October 1, 2014, STARLiMS replaced STRIDE as the DEA system of record for forensic laboratory drug evidence data.

    5 NFLIS is a DEA program and a national forensic laboratory reporting system that systematically collects results from drug chemistry analyses conducted by state and local forensic laboratories in the United States. The NFLIS database also contains Federal data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). NFLIS only includes drug chemistry results from completed analyses.

    2. Scientific Evidence of the Drug's Pharmacological Effects, if Known: Studies show that 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP produce pharmacological effects that are similar to those produced by schedule I and II substances such as methamphetamine, cocaine, MDMA, mephedrone, MDPV, and methylone. Similar to schedule I and II stimulants, the 10 synthetic cathinone substances affect monoamine transmission. The 10 synthetic cathinones, similar to methamphetamine, cocaine, MDMA, mephedrone, MDPV, methylone, and other related schedule I and II substances, bind to transporters for the dopamine, serotonin, and/or norephinephrine neurotransmitters and are uptake inhibitors of these neurotransmitters. Additionally, behavioral studies in animals demonstrate that the 10 synthetic cathinones produce locomotor behavior and discriminative stimulus effects that are similar to those of the schedule I and II substances methamphetamine and cocaine. Furthermore, the 10 synthetic cathinone produce rewarding properties as demonstrated in self-administration and conditioned place preference (CPP) studies. Drugs that have rewarding effects in animals are likely to produce rewarding effects in humans, which is indicative of abuse potential. Overall, these data indicate that the 10 synthetic cathinones produce pharmacological effects and stimulant-like behaviors that are similar to those of the schedule I substances (MDMA, mephedrone, MDPV, methylone), as well as the schedule II stimulants (methamphetamine and cocaine).

    3. The State of Current Scientific Knowledge Regarding the Drug or Other Substance: 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP are synthetic cathinones (β-keto-phenethylamines) of the larger phenethylamine structural class (amphetamines, cathinones, 2C compounds, aminoindanes, etc.). These substances share the core phenethylamine structure with a keto functional group [carbonyl (C=O)] at the β-position and substitutions at the α-position and on the phenyl ring and nitrogen atom. Available data demonstrate that 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP are β-ketophenethylamines (i.e., synthetic cathinones) and are structurally and pharmacologically similar to amphetamine, MDMA, cathinone, mephedrone, methylone, MDPV, and other related substances. Metabolism studies demonstrate that humans metabolize synthetic cathinones to their corresponding amphetamines followed by reduction of the beta-keto group to the corresponding alcohol. According to the HHS, 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP have no known accepted medical use. They are not the subject of any approved new drug applications (NDAs) or investigational new drug applications (INDs), and are not currently marketed as approved drug products in the U.S or in any other country. The HHS also states that there are no reported clinical trials with the 10 synthetic cathinones. Accordingly, the DEA is not aware of any accepted medical use for 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP in the United States. In addition, although the chemistry of 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP is known and has been reproduced, no studies have been undertaken to evaluate the efficacy, toxicology, and safety of these substances in humans.

    4. Its History and Current Pattern of Abuse: 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP are synthetic cathinones that emerged on the U.S. illicit drug market around the time of the scheduling of mephedrone, methylone, and MDPV on October 21, 2011. These synthetic cathinone substances, like the schedule I synthetic cathinones (mephedrone, methylone, and MDPV), are promoted as being `legal' alternatives to cocaine, methamphetamine, and MDMA. As reported in the medical literature, synthetic cathinones can induce stimulant effects, especially under high dose conditions, including tachycardia, palpitations, hypertension, tremor, seizures, hallucinations, paranoia, delusions, hyperthermia, sweating, headache, hyponatremia, and rhabdomyolysis. Products that contain 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP are falsely marketed as “research chemicals,” “jewelry cleaner,” “stain remover,” “plant food or fertilizer,” “insect repellants,” or “bath salts” and are sold at smoke shops, head shops, convenience stores, adult book stores, and gas stations. They can also be purchased on the Internet under a variety of product names (e.g., “White Dove,” “Explosion,” “Tranquility”). They are commonly encountered in the form of powders, crystals, resins, tablets, and capsules. The packages of these commercial products usually contain the warning “not for human consumption.” Information from published scientific studies indicate that the most common routes of administration for synthetic cathinone substances is ingestion by swallowing capsules or tablets, or nasal insufflation by snorting the powder tablets. Evidence from poison centers and published reports suggest that the main users of methylone are young adults. There is evidence that these synthetic cathinone substances are ingested with other substances including other synthetic cathinones, common cutting agents, or other recreational substances.

    5. The Scope, Duration, and Significance of Abuse: 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP, like mephedrone, methylone, and MDPV, are popular recreational drugs. Evidence that these synthetic cathinone substances are being abused and trafficked is confirmed by law enforcement encounters of these substances and reports from national databases. Forensic laboratories have analyzed drug exhibits received from state, local, or Federal law enforcement agencies that were found to contain 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, or α-PBP. NFLIS registered over 17,000 reports from State, local, and other forensic laboratories identifying these substances in drug-related reports for the period from January 2010 to December 2015 from 47 states. STRIDE & STARLiMS registered over 2,000 reports from DEA forensic laboratories from January 2010 to December 2015. Encounters of 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP by law enforcement have occurred in several states. Additionally, large seizures of these substances have occurred by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Concerns over the abuse of these synthetic cathinone substances have prompted many States to regulate them. These data demonstrate that 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP have a scope, duration, and significance of abuse that supports scheduling under the CSA.

    6. What, if Any, Risk There is to the Public Health: Available evidence on the overall public health risks associated with the use of synthetic cathinones indicates that 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP can cause acute health problems leading to emergency department (ED) admissions, violent behaviors causing harm to self or others, or death. Law enforcement, forensic laboratories, case reports, and public health officials have reported toxic exposure to some of the 10 synthetic cathinones that demonstrate the public health risks associated with these substances. Serious adverse effects have resulted in documented hospital ED admissions from the ingestion of butylone, 4-FMC, or naphyrone. Individuals under the influence of 4-MEC or α-PVP have acted violently and unpredictably causing harm, or even death, to themselves or others. Butylone has been directly implicated in two fatalities reported in the medical literature. Other synthetic cathinones, such as α-PVP, pentedrone, and pentylone, have also been implicated in the deaths of individuals. Acute effects of these substances are those typical of a sympathomimeticagent (e.g., cocaine, methamphetamine, amphetamine) and include among other effects tachycardia, headache, palpitations, agitation, anxiety, mydriasis, tremor, fever or sweating, and hypertension. Other effects, with possible public health risk implications, that have been reported from the use of synthetic cathinone substances include psychological effects such as psychosis, paranoia, hallucinations, and agitation. Finally, the possibility of death for individuals abusing 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP also indicates that these substances pose a serious public health threat. In addition to the recognized harm from ingesting and abusing synthetic cathinones, abusers risk harm when they obtain these drugs through unknown sources. Products containing these synthetic cathinone substances often do not bear labeling information regarding their ingredients and if they do, they may not contain the expected active ingredients or identify the health risks and potential hazards associated with these products. Thus, the limited knowledge about product contents, its purity and lack of information about its effects may pose another level of risk to users.

    7. Its Psychic or Physiological Dependence Liability: The DEA is unaware of any clinical studies that have evaluated the dependence potential of 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, or α-PBP; however, according to the HHS, synthetic cathinones have rewarding properties in rodents similar to those of schedule II stimulants. Generally, there is a strong correlation between drugs that serve as reinforcers in animals, and drugs associated with problems of addiction, dependence, or abuse by humans. In a self-administration study, α-PVP and pentedrone were self-administered by rodents. In the intracranial self-stimulation (ICSS) assay, α-PVP and 4-MEC significantly reduced the ICSS threshold compared to vehicle control. In drug discrimination studies, all 10 synthetic cathinone substances fully generalize to the discriminative stimulus effects produced by the schedule II stimulants—cocaine and methamphetamine. In conditioned place preference (CPP) studies, α-PBP, α-PVP, and pentedrone produce CPP in rodents. Thus, these data indicate that 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP have behavioral and rewarding properties in rodents similar to those of schedule II stimulants and, consequently, psychic dependence on these substances can develop and may contribute to the continued use among individuals who abuse them despite their adverse consequences.

    8. Whether the Substance is an Immediate Precursor of a Substance Already Controlled Under the CSA: 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP are not considered immediate precursors of any controlled substance of the CSA.

    Conclusion: After considering the scientific and medical evaluation conducted by the HHS, the HHS's recommendation, and the DEA's own eight-factor analysis, the DEA finds that the facts and all relevant data constitute substantial evidence of the potential for abuse of 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP. As such, the DEA hereby proposes to schedule 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP as controlled substances under the CSA.

    Proposed Determination of Appropriate Schedule

    The CSA establishes five schedules of controlled substances known as schedules I, II, III, IV, and V. The CSA also outlines the findings required to place a drug or other substance in any particular schedule. 21 U.S.C. 812(b). After consideration of the analysis and recommendation of the Assistant Secretary for the HHS and review of all other available data, the Administrator of the DEA, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a) and 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1), finds that:

    1. 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP have a high potential for abuse that is comparable to other schedule I and schedule II substances such as mephedrone, methylone, MDPV, methcathinone, MDMA, amphetamine, methamphetamine, and cocaine;

    2. 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and

    3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP under medical supervision.

    Based on these findings, the Administrator of the DEA concludes that 4-methyl-N-ethylcathinone (4-MEC); 4-methyl-alpha-pyrrolidinopropiophenone (4-MePPP); alpha-pyrrolidinopentiophenone (α-PVP); 1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-(methylamino)butan-1-one (butylone); 2-(methylamino)-1-phenylpentan-1-one (pentedrone); 1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-(methylamino)pentan-1-one (pentylone); 4-fluoro-N-methylcathinone (4-FMC); 3-fluoro-N-methylcathinone (3-FMC); 1-(naphthalen-2-yl)-2-(pyrrolidin-1-yl)pentan-1-one (naphyrone); alpha-pyrrolidinobutiophenone (α-PBP) and their optical, positional, and geometric isomers, salts and salts of isomers, warrant control in schedule I of the CSA. 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1).

    Requirements for Handling 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, Butylone, Pentedrone, Pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, Naphyrone, and α-PBP

    If this rule is finalized as proposed, 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP would continue 6 to be subject to the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, possession, importing, research, conduct of instructional activities, and exporting of schedule I controlled substances, including the following:

    6 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, or α-PBP are currently subject to schedule I controls on a temporary basis, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h). 79 FR 12938, Mar. 7, 2014.

    1. Registration. Any person who handles (manufactures, distributes, dispenses, imports, exports, engages in research, conducts instructional activities or chemical analysis with, or possesses) 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, or α-PBP, or who desires to handle 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, or α-PBP would be required to be registered with the DEA to conduct such activities pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 957, and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1312.

    2. Security. 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, or α-PBP would be subject to schedule I security requirements and would need to be handled and stored pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 821 and 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.71-1301.93.

    3. Labeling and Packaging. All labels, labeling, and packaging for commercial containers of 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, or α-PBP would need to be in compliance with 21 U.S.C. 825 and 958(e), and be in accordance with 21 CFR part 1302.

    4. Quota. Only registered manufacturers would be permitted to manufacture 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, or α-PBP in accordance with a quota assigned pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 826, and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1303.

    5. Inventory. Any person who becomes registered with the DEA on or after the effective date of the final rule must take an initial inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP) on hand on the date the registrant first engages in the handling of controlled substances pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.

    After the initial inventory, every DEA registrant must take a new inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP) on hand every two years pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.

    6. Records and Reports. Every DEA registrant would be required to maintain records and submit reports with respect to 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and/ or α-PBP pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958(e), and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1304 and 1312.

    7. Order Forms. Every DEA registrant who distributes 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, or α-PBP would be required to comply with the order form requirements, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 828, and 21 CFR part 1305.

    8. Importation and Exportation. All importation and exportation of 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, or α-PBP would need to be in compliance with 21 U.S.C. 952, 953, 957, and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1312.

    9. Liability. Any activity involving 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, or α-PBP not authorized by, or in violation of, the CSA or its implementing regulations would be unlawful, and could subject the person to administrative, civil, and/ or criminal sanctions.

    Regulatory Analyses Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this proposed scheduling action is subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing,” which are conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. The CSA sets forth the criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Such actions are exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to section 3(d)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and the principles reaffirmed in Executive Order 13563.

    Executive Order 12988

    This proposed regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.

    Executive Order 13132

    This proposed rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    Executive Order 13175

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Administrator, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-602, has reviewed this proposed rule and by approving it, certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. On March 7, 2014, the DEA published a final order to temporarily place 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP into schedule I of the CSA pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(h). The DEA estimates that all entities handling or planning to handle 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, or α-PBP are currently registered to handle these substances. There are currently 43 registrations authorized to handle 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, or α-PBP, as well as a number of registered analytical labs that are authorized to handle schedule I controlled substances generally. These 43 registrations represent 31 entities, of which 11 are small entities. Therefore, the DEA estimates that 11 small entities are affected by this proposed rule.

    A review of the 43 registrations indicates that all entities that currently handle 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, or α-PBP also handle other schedule I controlled substances, and have established and implemented (or currently maintain) the systems and processes required to handle 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, or α-PBP. Therefore, the DEA anticipates that this proposed rule will impose minimal or no economic impact on any affected entities; and thus, will not have a significant economic impact on any of the 11 affected small entities. Therefore, the DEA has concluded that this proposed rule will not have a significant effect on the small entities.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., the DEA has determined and certifies that this action would not result in any Federal mandate that may result “in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year . . .” Therefore, neither a Small Government Agency Plan nor any other action is required under UMRA of 1995.

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This action does not impose a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. This action would not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308

    Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set out above, 21 CFR part 1308 is proposed to be amended to read as follows:

    PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 1308 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.

    2. In § 1308.11: a. Add paragraphs (d)(58) through (d)(67); b. Remove paragraphs (h)(11) through (h)(20), c. Redesignate paragraphs (h)(21) through (h)(25) as (h)(11) through (h)(15);

    The additions to read as follows:

    § 1308.11 Schedule I.

    (d) * * *

    (58) 4-methyl-N-ethylcathinone (4MEC) (1249) (59) 4-methyl-alpha-pyrrolidinopropiophenone (4-MePPP) (7498) (60) alpha-pyrrolidinopentiophenone (α-PVP) (7545) (61) 1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-(methylamino)butan-1-one (butylone, bk-MB (7541) (62) 2-(methylamino)-1-phenylpentan-1-one (pentedrone) (1246) (63) 1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-(methylamino)pentan-1-one (pentylone, bk-MBDP) (7542) (64) 4-fluoro-N-methylcathinone (4-FMC; flephedrone). (1238) (65) 3-fluoro-N-methylcathinone (3-FMC) (1233) (66) 1-(naphthalen-2-yl)-2-(pyrrolidin-1-yl)pentan-1-one (naphyrone). (1258) (67) alpha-pyrrolidinobutiophenone (7546)
    Dated: March 2, 2016. Chuck Rosenberg, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05002 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 1 and 301 [REG-127923-15] RIN 1545-BM97 Consistent Basis Reporting Between Estate and Person Acquiring Property From Decedent AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking, and notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains proposed regulations that provide guidance regarding the requirement that a recipient's basis in certain property acquired from a decedent be consistent with the value of the property as finally determined for Federal estate tax purposes. In addition, these proposed regulations provide guidance on the reporting requirements for executors or other persons required to file Federal estate tax returns. Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register provide transition relief to executors and other persons required to file or furnish certain statements. The text of those temporary regulations (TD 9757) published in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register also serves as the text of the proposed regulations regarding the transition relief. These proposed regulations as well as TD 9757 published elsewhere in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of this Federal Register affect executors or other persons who file estate tax returns after July 31, 2015. The proposed regulations also affect beneficiaries who acquire certain property from these estates, and subsequent transferees to whom beneficiaries transfer the property in transactions that do not result in the recognition of gain or loss for Federal income tax purposes.

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by June 2, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-127923-15), Internal Revenue Service, Room 5203, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-127923-15), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224; or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (IRS-REG-127923-15).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed regulations, Theresa M. Melchiorre, at (202) 317-6859; concerning submissions of comments or, to request a hearing, Regina Johnson, at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paperwork Reduction Act

    The collection of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d). Comments on the collection of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, SE:W:CAR:MP:T:T:SP, Washington, DC 20224. Comments on the collection of information should be received by May 3, 2016.

    Comments are specifically requested concerning:

    Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), including whether the information will have practical utility;

    The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collection of information;

    How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced;

    How the burden of complying with the proposed collection of information may be minimized, including through the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

    Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of service to provide information.

    The reporting requirements in these proposed regulations are in § 1.6035-1(a) and (d) and require executors and other persons required to file a return under section 6018 to furnish a statement to the IRS and to each beneficiary providing information regarding the value of the property the beneficiary acquires from the decedent. The IRS will use this information to determine whether the beneficiary (or transferee) reports a basis for that property that is consistent with the value of that property as finally determined for Federal estate tax purposes when the beneficiary (or transferee) depreciates the property, or sells, exchanges, or otherwise disposes of some or all of that property in transactions that result in the recognition of gain or loss for Federal income tax purposes.

    The collection of information may vary depending on the property includible in the gross estate and the number of beneficiaries receiving the property. The following estimates are based on the information that is available to the IRS. A respondent may require more or less time, depending on the circumstances.

    Estimated total annual reporting burden. The estimated total annual reporting burden per respondent is 5.31 hours.

    Estimated annual number of respondents. The estimated annual number of respondents is 10,000.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.

    Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

    Background 1. Overview

    On July 31, 2015, the President of the United States signed into law H.R. 3236, the Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-41, 129 Stat. 443 (Act). Section 2004 of the Act enacted sections 1014(f), 6035, 6662(b)(8), 6662(k), 6724(d)(1)(D), and 6724(d)(2)(II) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). This document contains proposed regulations that amend 26 CFR parts 1 and 301 under those Code provisions to achieve consistency between a recipient's basis in certain property acquired from a decedent and the value of the property as finally determined for Federal estate tax purposes. This notice of proposed rulemaking also cross-references to temporary regulations (TD 9757) published in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register, which provide transition relief to certain persons required to file or furnish statements under section 6035. This document also proposes to remove from 26 CFR part 1 regulations under former section 6035 as a result of the repeal of that Code provision in 2004.

    2. Summary of New Statutory Framework A. Section 1014(f)

    Section 1014(f) imposes an obligation of consistency between the basis of certain inherited property and the value of that property for Federal estate tax purposes.

    Section 1014(f)(1) provides that the basis of property acquired from a decedent cannot exceed that property's final value for purposes of the Federal estate tax imposed on the estate of the decedent, or, if the final value has not been determined, the value reported on a statement required by section 6035(a).

    Section 1014(f)(2) provides that section 1014(f)(1) only applies to property the inclusion of which in the decedent's gross estate increased the estate's liability for the Federal estate tax (reduced by credits allowable against the tax).

    Section 1014(f)(3) provides that, for purposes of section 1014(f)(1), the basis of property has been determined for Federal estate tax purposes if (A) the value of the property is shown on a return under section 6018 and that value is not contested by the Secretary before the expiration of the time for assessing the estate tax; (B) in a case not described in (A), the value is specified by the Secretary and that value is not timely contested by the executor of the estate; or (C) the value is determined by a court or pursuant to a settlement agreement with the Secretary.

    B. Section 6035

    Section 6035 requires the reporting, both to the IRS and the beneficiary, of the value of property included on a required Federal estate tax return.

    Section 6035(a)(1) provides that the executor of any estate required to file a return under section 6018(a) must furnish, both to the Secretary and to the person acquiring any interest in property included in the estate, a statement identifying the value of each interest in the property as reported on the return and any other information as the Secretary may prescribe.

    Section 6035(a)(2) provides that each person required to file a return under section 6018(b) must furnish to the Secretary and to each other person who holds a legal or beneficial interest in the property to which the return relates a statement identifying the information described in section 6035(a)(1).

    Section 6035(a)(3)(A) provides that this statement is due no later than the earlier of (i) 30 days after the due date of the return under section 6018 (including extensions, if any) or (ii) 30 days after the date the return is filed. If there is an adjustment to the information required to be included on this statement, section 6035(a)(3)(B) requires the executor (or other person required to file the statement) to provide a supplemental statement to the Secretary and to each affected beneficiary no later than 30 days after the adjustment is made.

    Section 6035(b) authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations to carry out section 6035, including regulations relating to (1) the application of this section to property to which no Federal estate tax return is required to be filed, and (2) situations in which the surviving joint tenant or other recipient may have better information than the executor regarding the basis or fair market value of the property.

    C. Penalties Under Sections 6662, 6721, and 6722

    Section 2004(c) of the Act added a new accuracy-related penalty for underpayments attributable to an inconsistent estate basis. See section 6662(b)(8).

    Section 6662(k) provides that there is an inconsistent estate basis if the basis of property claimed on a return exceeds the basis as determined under section 1014(f).

    Section 2004(c) of the Act adds statements under section 6035 to the list of information returns and payee statements subject to the penalties under section 6721 and section 6722, respectively. Specifically, the Act adds new paragraph (D) to section 6724(d)(1) to provide that the term information return means any statement required to be filed with the Secretary under section 6035. The Act also adds new paragraph (II) to section 6724(d)(2) to provide that the term payee statement means any statement required to be furnished under section 6035 (other than a statement described in section 6724(d)(1)(D)).

    3. Notice 2015-57

    On August 21, 2015, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued Notice 2015-57, 2015-36 IRB 294. That notice delayed until February 29, 2016, the due date for any statements required under section 6035(a)(3)(A) to be provided before February 29, 2016. The notice also stated that the Treasury Department and the IRS expect to issue additional guidance to assist taxpayers in complying with sections 1014(f) and 6035 and invited comments. The Treasury Department and the IRS received numerous comments in response to the notice and considered all comments in the drafting of the proposed regulations. The comments are discussed in more detail in this preamble.

    4. Notice 2016-19

    On February 11, 2016, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued Notice 2016-19, 2016-09 IRB 362. That notice provides that executors or other persons required to file or furnish a statement under section 6035(a)(1) or (a)(2) before March 31, 2016, need not do so until March 31, 2016.

    Summary of Comments on Notice 2015-57 and Explanation of Provisions 1. Section 1014(f)(1)—Consistency of Basis With Estate Tax Return

    The general rule of section 1014 is that the basis of property received from a decedent (or as a result of a decedent's death) is that property's fair market value on the decedent's date of death (or the alternate valuation date, if elected). Newly enacted section 1014(f)(1) provides that the basis of certain property acquired from a decedent cannot exceed that property's final value as determined for Federal estate tax purposes. If no final value has been determined when the taxpayer's basis in the property becomes relevant for Federal tax purposes, for example, to calculate depreciation or amortization, or to calculate gain or loss on the sale, exchange or disposition of the property, the taxpayer uses the value reported on the statement required by section 6035(a) (the fair market value reported on the Federal estate tax return) to determine the taxpayer's basis for Federal tax purposes.

    Proposed § 1.1014-10(a)(1) provides that a taxpayer's initial basis in certain property acquired from a decedent may not exceed the final value of the property as that term is defined in § 1.1014-10(c). This limitation applies to the property whenever the taxpayer reports to the IRS a taxable event with respect to the property (for example, depreciation or amortization) and continues to apply until the property is sold, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of in one or more transactions that result in the recognition of gain or loss for Federal income tax purposes. The property for this purpose includes any other property the basis of which is determined in whole or in part by reference to the basis of the property acquired from the estate or as a result of the death of the decedent (for example as the result of a like-kind exchange or involuntary conversion).

    2. Effect of Other Provisions of the Code That Govern Basis

    Section 6662(b)(8) imposes an accuracy-related penalty on the portion of any underpayment of tax required to be shown on a return that is attributable to an inconsistent estate basis. Under newly enacted section 6662(k), an inconsistent estate basis arises if the basis of property claimed on a return exceeds its final value as determined under section 1014(f).

    Commenters have expressed concern that section 1014(f) and section 6662(k) appear to prohibit otherwise permissible adjustments to the basis of property as a result of post-death events. In response, proposed §§ 1.1014-10(a)(2) and 1.6662-8(b) clarify that sections 1014(f) and 6662(k) do not prohibit adjustments to the basis of property as a result of post-death events that are allowed under other sections of the Code, and provide that such basis adjustments will not cause a taxpayer to violate the provisions of section 1014(f) or section 6662(k) on the date of sale, exchange, or disposition. The proposed regulations interpret sections 1014(f) and 6662(k) to require only that the beneficiary's initial basis of the inherited property cannot exceed the final value of the property for Federal estate tax purposes. Adjustments to the basis of the inherited property permitted by other sections of the Code as a result of post-death events (for example, depreciation or amortization, or a sale, exchange, or disposition of the property) will not cause the taxpayer's basis in the property on the date of a taxable event with respect to the property to be treated as exceeding the final value of the property. As a result, there cannot be an underpayment attributable to an inconsistent estate basis arising from these basis adjustments, and the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(b)(8) cannot apply solely as a result of these basis adjustments.

    3. Section 1014(f)(2)—Property That Increases Estate Tax Liability

    The consistent basis requirement of section 1014(f)(1) applies only to property the inclusion of which in the decedent's gross estate for Federal estate tax purposes increases the Federal estate tax liability payable by the decedent's estate. Proposed § 1.1014-10(b) defines this property as property includible in the gross estate under section 2031, as well as property subject to tax under section 2106, that generates a Federal estate tax liability in excess of allowable credits. The proposed regulations specifically exclude all property reported on a Federal estate tax return required to be filed by section 6018 if no Federal estate tax is imposed upon the estate due to allowable credits (other than a credit for a prepayment of that tax). In cases where Federal estate tax is imposed on the estate, the proposed regulations exclude property that qualifies for a charitable or marital deduction under section 2055, 2056, or 2056A because this property does not increase the Federal estate tax liability. In addition, the proposed regulations exclude any tangible personal property for which an appraisal is not required under § 20.2031-6(b) (relating to the valuation of certain household and personal effects) because of its value. Thus, if any Federal estate tax liability is incurred, all of the property in the gross estate (other than that described in the preceding two sentences) is deemed to increase the Federal estate tax liability and is subject to the consistency requirement of section 1014(f).

    4. Section 1014(f)(3)—Final Value of Property Acquired From a Decedent

    Section 1014(f)(3) provides that, for purposes of section 1014(f)(1), the final value of property has been determined for Federal estate tax purposes if: (A) The value is reported on a Federal estate tax return filed with the IRS and is not contested by the IRS before the period of limitation on assessment expires; (B) the value is specified by the IRS and is not timely contested by the executor of the estate; or (C) the value is determined by a court or pursuant to a settlement agreement with the IRS.

    Proposed § 1.1014-10(c)(1) defines the final value of property that is reported on a Federal estate tax return filed with the IRS. That value is the value reported on the Federal estate tax return once the period of limitations on assessment for adjusting or contesting that value has expired. The IRS may specify a value for the property by determining a value in the course of carrying out its responsibilities under section 7803(a)(2). If the IRS determines a value different from the value reported, the final value is the value determined by the IRS once that value can no longer be contested by the estate. If the value determined or specified by the IRS is timely contested by the estate, the final value is the value determined in an agreement that is binding on all parties, or the value determined by a court once the court's determination is final.

    Proposed § 1.1014-10(c)(2) provides that the recipient of property to which the consistency requirement applies may not claim a basis in excess of the value reported on the statement required to be furnished under section 6035(a) (the value shown on the Federal estate tax return) if the taxpayer's basis in the property is relevant for any purpose under the Internal Revenue Code before the final value of that property has been determined under proposed § 1.1014-10(c)(1). However, under section 1014(f)(1), basis cannot exceed the property's final value. Therefore, proposed § 1.1014-10(c)(2) provides that, if the final value is determined before the period of limitation on assessment expires for any Federal income tax return of the recipient on which the taxpayer's basis is relevant and the final value differs from the initial basis claimed with respect to that return, a deficiency and an underpayment may result.

    5. After-Discovered or Omitted Property

    Commenters requested that the regulations clarify how the consistent basis requirement applies to property that is discovered after the filing of the Federal estate tax return or is otherwise omitted from that return. If this property would have generated a Federal estate tax liability if it had been reported on the Federal estate tax return that was filed with IRS, proposed § 1.1014-10(c)(3)(i) provides two different results based upon whether the period of limitation on assessment has expired for the Federal estate tax imposed on the estate. Proposed § 1.1014-10(c)(3)(i)(A) provides that, if the executor reports the after-discovered or omitted property on an estate tax return filed before the expiration of the period of limitation on assessment of the estate tax, the final value of the property is determined under proposed § 1.1014-10(c)(1) or (2). Alternatively, proposed § 1.1014-10(c)(3)(i)(B) provides that, if the after-discovered or omitted property is not reported before the period of limitation on assessment expires, the final value of the after-discovered or omitted property is zero.

    Finally, to address situations in which no Federal estate tax return was filed, proposed § 1.1014-10(c)(3)(ii) provides that the final value of all property includible in the gross estate subject to the consistent basis requirement is zero until the final value is determined under proposed § 1.1014-10(c)(1) or (2).

    6. Definition of Executor for Purposes of Sections 1014(f) and 6035

    The proposed regulations adopt the definition of the term executor found in section 2203 applicable for Federal estate tax purposes and expand it to include a person required to file a return under section 6018(b).

    7. Requirement To Provide Information Return and Statement(s) Under Section 6035

    The proposed regulations define the term Information Return as the Form 8971, Information Regarding Beneficiaries Acquiring Property from a Decedent, which includes a copy of a Schedule A (Statement) for each person who has received or will receive property from the estate or by reason of the decedent's death.

    Proposed § 1.6035-1(a)(1) provides that an executor who is required to file a Federal estate tax return also is required to file an Information Return with the IRS to report the final value of certain property, the recipient of that property, and other information prescribed by the Information Return and the related instructions. The executor also is required to furnish a Statement to each beneficiary who has acquired (or will acquire) property from the decedent or by reason of the death of the decedent to report the property the beneficiary has acquired (or will acquire) and the final value of that property.

    8. Circumstances Under Which No Information Return or Statement(s) Is Required Under Section 6035

    Commenters expressed concern that the section 6035 filing requirements might extend to a return filed by an estate solely to make the portability election under section 2010(c)(5), or a generation-skipping transfer tax election or exemption allocation. The proposed regulations provide that the filing requirements of section 6035 do not apply to such returns because these returns are not required by section 6018.

    9. Property To Be Reported on an Information Return and Statement(s)

    Commenters requested that the regulations clarify the types of property to be reported on the Information Return and one or more Statements. In response, proposed § 1.6035-1(b) defines the property to be reported on an Information Return and Statement(s) as all property included in the gross estate for Federal estate tax purposes with four exceptions: Cash (other than coins or paper bills with numismatic value); income in respect of a decedent; those items of tangible personal property for which an appraisal is not required under § 20.2031-6(b); and property that is sold or otherwise disposed of by the estate (and therefore not distributed to a beneficiary) in a transaction in which capital gain or loss is recognized.

    10. Beneficiaries

    Proposed § 1.6035-1(c)(1) provides that each beneficiary (including a beneficiary who is also the executor of the estate) who receives property to be reported on the estate's Information Return must receive a copy of the Statement reporting the property distributable to that beneficiary. Proposed § 1.6035-1(c)(2) provides that, if the beneficiary is a trust, estate, or business entity instead of an individual, the executor is to furnish the entity's Statement to the trustee, executor, or to the business entity itself, and not to the beneficiaries of the trust or estate or to the owners of the business entity.

    Commenters requested guidance on how to comply with the section 6035 reporting requirements when the executor cannot determine the exact distribution of the estate's property and thus the beneficiary of each property by the due date of the Information Return and the related Statements. This situation can arise, for example, when tangible personal property defined in § 20.2031-6 is to be distributed among a group of beneficiaries as that group determines, the residuary estate is distributable to multiple beneficiaries, or when multiple residuary trusts are to be funded. In response, proposed § 1.6035-1(c)(3) provides that, if by the due date the executor does not yet know what property will be used to satisfy the interest of each beneficiary, the executor is required to report on the Statement for each beneficiary all of the property that could be used to satisfy that beneficiary's interest. This results in the duplicate reporting of those assets on multiple Statements, but each beneficiary will have been advised of the final value of each property that may be received by that beneficiary and therefore will be able to comply with the basis consistency requirement, if applicable.

    Proposed § 1.6035-1(c)(4) provides that, if the executor is unable to locate a beneficiary by the due date of the Information Return, the executor is required to report that on that Information Return and explain the efforts taken to locate the beneficiary. If the executor subsequently locates the beneficiary, the executor is required to furnish the beneficiary with a Statement and file a supplemental Information Return with the IRS within 30 days of locating the beneficiary. If the executor is unable to locate a beneficiary and distributes the property to a different beneficiary who was not identified in the Information Return as the recipient of that property, the executor is required to file a supplemental Information Return with the IRS and furnish the successor beneficiary with a Statement within 30 days after distributing the property.

    11. Due Date for Information Return and Statements

    Proposed § 1.6035-1(d)(1) provides that the executor is required to file the Information Return with the IRS, and is required to furnish each beneficiary with that beneficiary's Statement, on or before the earlier of the date that is 30 days after the due date of the Federal estate tax return (including extensions actually granted, if any), or the date that is 30 days after the date on which that return is filed with the IRS. In response to comments, proposed § 1.6035-1(d)(2) provides a transition rule for any Federal estate tax return that was due on or before July 31, 2015, but that is filed after July 31, 2015. In this case, the due date of the Information Return and all Statements is 30 days after the date on which the return is filed. Otherwise, as commenters noted, the due date for the Information Return and Statement(s) may be prior to the effective date of section 6035.

    12. Supplemental Information Return and Statement(s)

    Proposed § 1.6035-1(e)(1) and (2) generally requires a supplemental Information Return and corresponding supplemental Statement(s) upon a change to the information required to be reported on the Information Return or a Statement that causes the information as reported to be incorrect or incomplete. Such changes include, for example, the discovery of property that should have been, but was not, reported on the Federal estate tax return, a change in the value of property pursuant to an examination or litigation, or (except as provided by proposed § 1.6035-1(e)(3)(B)) a change in the identity of the beneficiary to whom the property is to be distributed (for example, pursuant to a death, disclaimer, bankruptcy, or otherwise).

    Proposed § 1.6035-1(e)(3) provides that a supplemental Information Return and Statement(s) may be filed, but they are not required, to correct an inconsequential error or omission within the meaning of § 301.6722-1(b) or to specify the actual distribution of assets previously reported as being available to satisfy the interests of multiple beneficiaries in the situation described in proposed § 1.6035-1(c)(3).

    Proposed § 1.6035-1(e)(4) provides that the due date for the supplemental Information Return and each supplemental Statement is 30 days after: (i) The final value (within the meaning of proposed § 1.1014-10(c)(1)) of property is determined; (ii) the executor discovers that the information reported on the Information Return or Statement is otherwise incorrect or incomplete; or (iii) a supplemental Federal estate tax return is filed. However, at the suggestion of a commenter, if these events occur prior to the distribution to the beneficiary of probate property or of the property of a revocable trust, a supplemental Information Return or Statement is not due until 30 days after the property is distributed. This is likely to be approximately the same time when the executor would provide the beneficiary with information as to changes, if any, to the basis of the property that have occurred since the decedent's death and prior to the distribution. Because that basis adjustment information is not part of what is required to be reported under section 6035, however, if the executor chooses to provide that basis adjustment information on the Schedule A provided to the beneficiary, the basis adjustment information must be shown separately from the final value required to be reported on the beneficiary's Statement.

    13. Subsequent Transfers

    As discussed earlier in this preamble, section 6035(a)(2) imposes a reporting requirement on the executor of the decedent's estate and on any other person required to file a return under section 6018. The purpose of this reporting is to enable the IRS to monitor whether the basis claimed by an owner of the property is properly based on the final value of that property for estate tax purposes. The Treasury Department and the IRS are concerned, however, that opportunities may exist in some circumstances for the recipient of such reporting to circumvent the purpose of the statute (for example, by making a gift of the property to a complex trust for the benefit of the transferor's family).

    Accordingly, pursuant to the regulatory authority granted in section 6035(b)(2), the proposed regulations require additional information reporting by certain subsequent transferors in limited circumstances. Specifically, proposed § 1.6035-1(f) provides that, with regard to property that previously was reported or is required to be reported on a Statement furnished to a recipient, when the recipient distributes or transfers (by gift or otherwise) all or any portion of that property to a related transferee, whether directly or indirectly, in a transaction in which the transferee's basis for Federal income tax purposes is determined in whole or in part with reference to the transferor's basis, the transferor is required to file and furnish with the IRS and the transferee, respectively, a supplemental Statement documenting the new ownership of this property. This proposed reporting requirement is imposed on each such recipient of the property. For purposes of this provision, a related transferee means any member of the transferor's family as defined in section 2704(c)(2), any controlled entity (a corporation or any other entity in which the transferor and members of the transferor's family, whether directly or indirectly, have control within the meaning of section 2701(b)(2)(A) or (B)), and any trust of which the transferor is a deemed owner for income tax purposes.

    In the event such transfer occurs before a final value is determined within the meaning of proposed § 1.1014-10(c), the transferor must provide the executor with a copy of the supplemental Statement filed with the IRS and furnished to the transferee reporting the new ownership of the property. When a final value is determined, the executor will then provide a supplemental Statement to the new transferee instead of to the transferor. The supplemental Statements are due no later than 30 days after the transferor distributes or transfers all or a portion of the property to the transferee.

    14. Surviving Joint Tenants or Other Recipients Under Section 6035(b)(2)

    Section 6035(b)(2) authorizes the IRS to prescribe regulations relating to situations in which the surviving joint tenant or other recipient may have better information than the executor regarding the basis or fair market value of the property received by reason of the decedent's death. Section 6018(b) addresses these situations. Section 6018(b) generally requires that, if the executor is unable to make a complete return as to any part of the gross estate of the decedent, the executor must include on the return a description of that part of the gross estate and the name of every person holding a legal or beneficial interest in it. Upon notice from the Secretary, any such person must in like manner make a return as to this part of the gross estate. Section 6035(a)(2) and these proposed regulations require a person required to file a return under section 6018(b) to file an Information Return with the IRS and to furnish the Statement(s) to each beneficiary of that property. Therefore, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that no additional regulations applicable only to surviving joint tenants or other recipients are necessary for this purpose.

    15. Removal of Regulations Under Former Section 6035

    The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-357, 118 Stat. 1418) (Jobs Act) repealed former section 6035, effective for taxable years of foreign corporations beginning after December 31, 2004, and for taxable years of United States shareholders with or within which the tax years of foreign corporations end. Prior to repeal, former section 6035 set forth information reporting requirements for certain United States persons that were officers, directors, or 10-percent shareholders of a foreign personal holding company. Section 1.6035-1 (TD 8573), § 301.6035-1 (TD 6498), § 1.6035-2 (TD 8028), and § 1.6035-3 (TD 8028) (collectively, the FPHC regulations) provide guidance on the information reporting required under former section 6035, as in effect prior to amendment by the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-248, 96 Stat. 328), and prior to its repeal by the Jobs Act.

    This document proposes to withdraw the FPHC regulations. However, the FPHC regulations referenced above contained in 26 CFR parts 1 and 301, revised as of April 1, 2015, continue to apply for taxable years of foreign corporations beginning on or before December 31, 2004, and for taxable years of United States shareholders in which former section 6035 applies with or within which the tax years of foreign corporations end.

    16. Request for New Process

    One commenter requested the creation of a process to allow an estate beneficiary to challenge the value reported by the executor. There is no such process under the Federal law regarding returns described in section 6018. The beneficiary's rights with regard to the estate tax valuation of property are governed by applicable state law. Accordingly, the proposed regulations do not create a new Federal process for challenging the value reported by the executor.

    Proposed Effective/Applicability Date

    Upon the publication of the Treasury Decision adopting these rules as final in the Federal Register, these proposed regulations will apply to property acquired from a decedent or by reason of the death of a decedent whose return required by section 6018 is filed after July 31, 2015. Persons may rely upon these rules before the date of publication of the Treasury Decision adopting these rules as final in the Federal Register.

    Statement of Availability of IRS Documents

    IRS Revenue Procedures, Revenue Rulings notices, notices and other guidance cited in this preamble are published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (or Cumulative Bulletin) and are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting the IRS Web site at http://www.irs.gov.

    Special Analyses

    Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that the collection of information in these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that this rule primarily affects individuals (or their estates) and trusts, which are not small entities as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601). Although it is anticipated that there may be an incremental economic impact on executors that are small entities, including entities that provide tax and legal services that assist individuals in preparing tax returns, any impact would not be significant and would not affect a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

    Comments and Requests for a Public Hearing

    Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight (8) copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. Comments are requested on all aspects of the proposed rules. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing may be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the hearing will be published in the Federal Register.

    Drafting Information

    The principal author of these proposed regulations is Theresa M. Melchiorre, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). Other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

    List of Subjects 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    26 CFR Part 301

    Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 301 are proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 1—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 is amended by adding entries in numerical order to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Section 1.1014-10 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1014(f).

    Section 1.6035-1 also issued under 26. U.S.C. 6035(a).

    Section 1.6035-2 also issued under 26. U.S.C. 6035(a).

    Par. 2. Section 1.1014-10 is added to read as follows:
    § 1.1014-10 Basis of property acquired from a decedent must be consistent with Federal estate tax return.

    (a) Consistent basis requirement—(1) In general. The taxpayer's initial basis in property described in paragraph (b) of this section may not exceed the property's final value within the meaning of paragraph (c) of this section. This requirement applies whenever the taxpayer reports a taxable event with respect to the property to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (for example depreciation or amortization) and continues to apply until the property is sold, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of in one or more transactions that result in the recognition of gain or loss for Federal income tax purposes, regardless of whether the owner on the date of the sale, exchange, or disposition is the same taxpayer who acquired the property from the decedent or as a result of the decedent's death.

    (2) Subsequent basis adjustments. The final value within the meaning of paragraph (c) of this section is the taxpayer's initial basis in the property. In computing at any time after the decedent's date of death the taxpayer's basis in property acquired from the decedent or as a result of the decedent's death, the taxpayer's initial basis in that property may be adjusted due to the operation of other provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) governing basis without violating paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Such adjustments may include, for example, gain recognized by the decedent's estate or trust upon distribution of the property, post-death capital improvements and depreciation, and post-death adjustments to the basis of an interest in a partnership or S corporation. The existence of recourse or non-recourse debt secured by property at the time of the decedent's death does not affect the property's basis, whether the gross value of the property and the outstanding debt are reported separately on the estate tax return or the net value of the property is reported. Therefore, post-death payments on such debt do not result in an adjustment to the property's basis.

    (b) Property subject to consistency requirement—(1) In general. Property subject to the consistency requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section is any property that is includable in the decedent's gross estate under section 2031,any property subject to tax under section 2106, and any other property the basis of which is determined in whole or in part by reference to the basis of such property (for example as the result of a like-kind exchange or involuntary conversion) that generates a tax liability under chapter 11 of subtitle B of the Code (chapter 11) on the decedent's estate in excess of allowable credits, except the credit for prepayment of tax under chapter 11.

    (2) Exclusions. For purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, property that qualifies for an estate tax charitable or marital deduction under section 2055, 2056, or 2056A, respectively, does not generate a tax liability under chapter 11 and therefore is excluded from the property subject to the consistency requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. For purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, tangible personal property for which an appraisal is not required under § 20.2031-6(b) is deemed not to generate a tax liability under chapter 11 and therefore also is excluded from the property subject to the consistency requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

    (3) Application. For purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, if a liability under chapter 11 is payable after the application of all available credits (other than a credit for a prepayment of estate tax), the consistency requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section applies to the entire gross estate (other than property excluded under paragraph (b)(2) of this section) because all such property contributes to the liability under chapter 11 and therefore is treated as generating a tax liability under chapter 11. If, however, after the application of all such available credits, no tax under chapter 11 is payable, the entire gross estate is excluded from the application of the consistency requirement.

    (c) Final value—(1) Finality of estate tax value. The final value of property reported on a return filed pursuant to section 6018 is its value as finally determined for purposes of the tax imposed by chapter 11. That value is—

    (i) The value reported on a return filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) pursuant to section 6018 once the period of limitations for assessment of the tax under chapter 11 has expired without that value having been timely adjusted or contested by the IRS,

    (ii) If paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section does not apply, the value determined or specified by the IRS once the periods of limitations for assessment and for claim for refund or credit of the tax under chapter 11 have expired without that value having been timely contested;

    (iii) If paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section do not apply, the value determined in an agreement, once that agreement is final and binding on all parties; or

    (iv) If paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this section do not apply, the value determined by a court, once the court's determination is final.

    (2) No finality of estate tax value. Prior to the determination, in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section, of the final value of property described in paragraph (b) of this section, the recipient of that property may not claim an initial basis in that property in excess of the value reported on the statement required to be furnished under section 6035(a). If the final value of the property subsequently is determined under paragraph (c)(1) of this section and that value differs from the value reported on the statement required to be furnished under section 6035(a), then the taxpayer may not rely on the statement initially furnished under section 6035(a) for the value of the property and the taxpayer may have a deficiency and underpayment resulting from this difference.

    (3) After-discovered or omitted property—(i) Return under section 6018 filed. In the event property described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section is discovered after the estate tax return under section 6018 has been filed or otherwise is omitted from that return (after-discovered or omitted property), the final value of that property is determined under section (c)(3)(i)(A) or (B) of this section.

    (A) Reporting prior to expiration of period of limitation on assessment. The final value of the after-discovered or omitted property is determined in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section if the executor, prior to the expiration of the period of limitation on assessment of the tax imposed on the estate by chapter 11, files with the IRS an initial or supplemental estate tax return under section 6018 reporting the property.

    (B) No reporting prior to expiration of period of limitation on assessment. If the executor does not report the after-discovered or omitted property on an initial or supplemental Federal estate tax return filed prior to the expiration of the period of limitation on assessment of the tax imposed on the estate by chapter 11, the final value of that unreported property is zero. See Example 3 of paragraph (e) of this section.

    (ii) No return under section 6018 filed. If no return described in section 6018 has been filed, and if the inclusion in the decedent's gross estate of the after-discovered or omitted property would have generated or increased the estate's tax liability under chapter 11, the final value, for purposes of section 1014(f), of all property described in paragraph (b) of this section is zero until the final value is determined under paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section. Specifically, if the executor files a return pursuant to section 6018(a) or (b) that includes this property or the IRS determines a value for the property, the final value of all property described in paragraph (b) of this section includible in the gross estate then is determined under paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section.

    (d) Executor. For purposes of this section, executor has the same meaning as in section 2203 and includes any other person required under section 6018(b) to file a return.

    (e) Examples. The following examples illustrate the application of this section.

    Example 1.

    (i) At D's death, D owned 50% of Partnership P, which owned a rental building with a fair market value of $10 million subject to nonrecourse debt of $2 million. D's sole beneficiary is C, D's child. P is valued at $8 million. D's interest in P is reported on the return required by section 6018(a) at $4 million. The IRS accepts the return as filed and the time for assessing the tax under chapter 11 expires. C sells the interest for $6 million in cash shortly thereafter.

    (ii) Under these facts, the final value of D's interest is $4 million under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section. Under section 742 and § 1.742-1, C's basis in the interest in P at the time of its sale is $5 million (the final value of D's interest ($4 million) plus 50% of the $2 million nonrecourse debt). Following the sale of the interest, C reports taxable gain of $1 million. C has complied with the consistency requirement of paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

    (iii) Assume instead that the IRS adjusts the value of the interest in P to $4.5 million, and that value is not contested before the expiration of the time for assessing the tax under chapter 11. The final value of D's interest in P is $4.5 million under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section. Under section 742 and § 1.742-1, C claims a basis of $5.5 million at the time of sale and reports gain on the sale of $500,000. C has complied with the consistency requirement of paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

    Example 2.

    (i) At D's death, D owned (among other assets) a private residence that was not encumbered. D's sole beneficiary is C. D's executor reports the value of the residence on the return required by section 6018(a) as $600,000 and pays the tax liability under chapter 11. The IRS timely contests the reported value and determines that the value of the residence is $725,000. The parties enter into a settlement agreement that provides that the value of the residence for purposes of the tax imposed by chapter 11 is $650,000. Pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section, the final value of the residence is $650,000.

    (ii) Several years later, C adds a master suite to the residence at a cost of $45,000. Pursuant to section 1016(a), C's basis in the residence is increased by $45,000 to $695,000. Subsequently, C sells the residence to an unrelated third party for $900,000. C claims a basis in the residence of $695,000 and reports a gain of $205,000 ($900,000−$695,000). C has complied with the consistency requirement of paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

    Example 3.

    (i) The facts are the same as in Example 2 but, after the expiration of the period for assessing the tax imposed by chapter 11, the executor discovers property that had not been reported on the return required by section 6018(a) but which, if reported, would have generated additional chapter 11 tax on the entire value of the newly discovered property. Pursuant to paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B) of this section, C's basis in the residence of $695,000 does not change, but the final value of the additional unreported property is zero.

    (ii) Alternatively, assume that no return was required to be filed under section 6018 before discovering the additional property (and none in fact was filed) but, after the application of the applicable credit amount, D's taxable estate including the unreported property would have been $200,000. Pursuant to paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section, the final value of all property included in D's gross estate that is described in paragraph (b) of this section is zero until the executor files an estate tax return with the IRS pursuant to section 6018 or the IRS determines a value for the property. In either of those events, the final value of property described in paragraph (b) of this section reported on the return is determined in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section.

    Example 4.

    (i) At D's death, D's gross estate includes a residence valued at $300,000 encumbered by nonrecourse debt in the amount of $100,000. Title to the residence is held jointly by D and C (D's daughter) with rights of survivorship. D provided all the consideration for the residence and the entire value of the residence was included in D's gross estate. The executor reports the value of the residence as $200,000 on the return required by section 6018 filed with the IRS for D's estate and claims no other deduction for the debt. The statement required by section 6035 reports the value of the residence as $300,000. C sells the residence before the final value is determined under paragraph (c)(1) of this section for $375,000 and claims a gain of $75,000 on C's Federal income tax return.

    (ii) A court subsequently determines that the value of the residence was $290,000 and the time for contesting this value in any court expires before the expiration of the period for assessing C's income tax for the year of C's sale of the property. The final value of the residence is $290,000 pursuant to paragraphs (c)(1)(iv) and (c)(2) of this section. Because C claimed a basis in the residence that exceeds the final value, C may have a deficiency and underpayment.

    (f) Effective/applicability date. Upon the publication of the Treasury Decision adopting these rules as final in the Federal Register, this section will apply to property acquired from a decedent or by reason of the death of a decedent whose return required by section 6018 is filed after July 31, 2015. Persons may rely upon these rules before the date of publication of the Treasury Decision adopting these rules as final in the Federal Register.

    Par. 3. Section 1.6035-1 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.6035-1 Basis information to persons acquiring property from decedent.

    (a) Required Information Return and Statement(s)—(1) In general. An executor (defined in paragraph (g)(1) of this section) required to file a return under section 6018 for an estate must file an Information Return (defined in paragraph (g)(2) of this section) with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to report the value of certain property (described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section) included in the decedent's gross estate for purposes of the tax imposed by chapter 11 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code (chapter 11) and other information prescribed by the Information Return and the instructions thereto. The value to be reported is the final value of the property as described in § 1.1014-10(c). This executor also must furnish a Statement (defined in paragraph (g)(3) of this section) to each beneficiary who has (or will) acquire, whether from the decedent or by reason of the death of the decedent, property reported on the Information Return to identify the property the beneficiary is to receive and to report the value of that property and other information prescribed by the Statement and instructions thereto. The Information Return and each Statement are required to be filed and furnished by the date provided in paragraph (d) of this section. If, after the Information Return and Statement are filed and furnished, there are certain changes in the final value and/or the recipient of property as described in paragraph (e) or (f) of this section, the executor must file a supplemental Information Return with the IRS and furnish a supplemental Statement to the beneficiary. Subsequent transfers of all or a portion of property previously reported (or required to be reported) on the Information Return required by paragraph (a) of this section, in transactions in which the transferee acquires the property with the transferor's basis, require additional reporting as described in paragraph (f) of this section.

    (2) Exception. Paragraph (a)(1) of this section applies only to the executor of an estate required by section 6018 to file an estate tax return. Accordingly, notwithstanding § 20.2010-2(a)(1), the executor does not have to file or furnish the Information Return or Statement(s) referred to in paragraph (a)(1) of this section if the executor is not required by section 6018 to file an estate tax return for the estate, even if the executor does file such a return for other purposes, e.g., to make a generation-skipping transfer tax exemption allocation or election, to make the portability election under section 2010(c)(5), or to make a protective filing to avoid any penalty if an asset value is later determined to cause a return to be required or otherwise.

    (b) Property for which reporting is required—(1) In general. The property to which the reporting requirement under paragraph (a)(1) of this section applies is all property reported or required to be reported on a return under section 6018. This includes, for example, any other property whose basis is determined in whole or in part by reference to that property (for example as the result of a like-kind exchange or involuntary conversion). Of the property of a deceased nonresident non-citizen, this includes only the property that is subject to U.S. estate tax; similarly, this includes only the decedent's one-half of community property. Nevertheless, the following property is excepted from the reporting requirements—

    (i) Cash (other than a coin collection or other coins or bills with numismatic value);

    (ii) Income in respect of a decedent (as defined in section 691);

    (iii) Tangible personal property for which an appraisal is not required under § 20.2031-6(b); and

    (iv) Property sold, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of (and therefore not distributed to a beneficiary) by the estate in a transaction in which capital gain or loss is recognized.

    (2) Examples. The following examples illustrate the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

    Example 1.

    Included in D's gross estate are the contents of his residence. Pursuant to § 20.2031-6(a), the executor attaches to the return required by section 6018 filed for D's estate a room by room itemization of household and personal effects. All articles are named specifically. In each room a number of articles, none of which has a value in excess of $100, are grouped. A value is provided for each named article. Included in the household and personal effects are a painting, a rug, and a clock, each of which has a value in excess of $3,000. Pursuant to § 20.2031-6(b), the executor obtains an appraisal from a disinterested, competent appraiser(s) of recognized standing and ability, or a disinterested dealer(s) in the class of personalty involved for the painting, rug, and clock. The executor attaches these appraisals to the estate tax return for D's estate. Pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section, the reporting requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section apply only to the painting, rug, and clock.

    Example 2.

    Included in D's estate are shares in C, a publicly traded company. Shortly after D's death but prior to the filing of the estate tax return for D's estate, C is acquired by T, also a publicly traded company. For the shares in C includible in D's estate, the estate receives new shares in T and cash in a fully taxable transaction. Pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section, the reporting requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section do not apply to the new shares in T or the cash.

    (c) Beneficiaries—(1) In general. As provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the executor must furnish to each beneficiary (including a beneficiary who is also an executor) receiving property that must be reported on the Information Return filed with the IRS, the Statement containing the required information regarding that beneficiary's property. For purposes of this provision, the beneficiary of a life estate is the life tenant, the beneficiary of a remainder interest is the remainderman(men) identified as if the life tenant were to die immediately after the decedent, and the beneficiary of a contingent interest is a beneficiary, unless the contingency has occurred prior to the filing of the Form 8971. If the contingency subsequently negates the inheritance of the beneficiary, the executor must do supplemental reporting in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section to report the change of beneficiary.

    (2) Beneficiary not an individual. If the beneficiary is a trust or another estate, the executor must furnish the beneficiary's Statement to the trustee or executor of the trust or estate, rather than to the beneficiaries of that trust or estate. If the beneficiary is a business entity, the executor must furnish the Statement to the entity. However, see paragraph (f) of this section for additional reporting requirements in the event the trust, estate, or entity transfers all or a portion of the property in a transaction in which the transferee acquires the basis of the trust, estate, or entity.

    (3) Beneficiary not determined. If, by the due date provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the executor has not determined what property will be used to satisfy the interest of each beneficiary, the executor must report on the Statement for each such beneficiary all of the property that the executor could use to satisfy that beneficiary's interest. Once the exact distribution has been determined, the executor may, but is not required to, file and furnish a supplemental Information Return and Statement as provided in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.

    (4) Beneficiary not located. An executor must use reasonable due diligence to identify and locate all beneficiaries. If the executor is unable to locate a beneficiary by the due date of the Information Return provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the executor must so report on that Information Return and explain the efforts the executor has taken to locate the beneficiary and to satisfy the obligation of reasonable due diligence. If the executor subsequently locates the beneficiary, the executor must furnish the beneficiary with that beneficiary's Statement and file a supplemental Information Return with the IRS within 30 days of locating the beneficiary. A copy of the beneficiary's Statement must be attached to the supplemental Information Return. If the executor is unable to locate a beneficiary and distributes the property to a different beneficiary who was not identified in the Information Return as the recipient of that property, the executor must file a supplemental Information Return with the IRS and furnish the substitute beneficiary with that beneficiary's Statement within 30 days after the property is distributed. See paragraph (e)(1) of this section. A copy of the substitute beneficiary's Statement must be attached to the supplemental Information Return.

    (d) Due dates—(1) In general. Except as provided in § 1.6035-2T, the executor must file the Information Return with the IRS, and must furnish to each beneficiary the Statement with regard to the property to be received by that beneficiary, on or before the earlier of—

    (i) The date that is 30 days after the due date of the estate tax return required by section 6018 (including extensions, if any), or

    (ii) The date that is 30 days after the date on which that return is filed with the IRS.

    (2) Transition rule. If the due date of an estate tax return required to be filed by section 6018 is on or before July 31, 2015, but the executor does not file the return with the IRS until after July 31, 2015, then the Information Return and Statement(s) are due on or before the date that is 30 days after the date on which the estate tax return is filed, except as provided in § 1.6035-2T.

    (e) Duty to supplement.—(1) In general. In the event of any adjustment to the information required to be reported on the Information Return or any Statement as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, the executor must file a supplemental Information Return with the IRS including all supplemental Statements and furnish a corresponding supplemental Statement to each affected beneficiary by the due date described in paragraph (e)(4) of this section.

    (2) Adjustments requiring supplement. Except as provided in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, an adjustment to which the duty to supplement applies is any change to the information required to be reported on the Information Return or Statement that causes the information as reported to be incorrect or incomplete. Such changes include, for example, the discovery of property that should have been (but was not) reported on an estate tax return described in section 6018, a change in the value of property pursuant to an examination or litigation, or a change in the identity of the beneficiary to whom the property is to be distributed (pursuant to a death, disclaimer, bankruptcy, or otherwise). Such changes also include the executor's disposition of property acquired from the decedent or as a result of the death of the decedent in a transaction in which the basis of new property received by the estate is determined in whole or in part by reference to the property acquired from the decedent or as a result of the death of the decedent (for example as the result of a like-kind exchange or involuntary conversion). Changes requiring supplement pursuant to this paragraph (e)(2) are not inconsequential errors or omissions within the meaning of § 301.6722-1(b) of this chapter.

    (3) Adjustments not requiring supplement—(i) In general. A supplemental Information Return and Statement may but they are not required to be filed or furnished-

    (A) To correct an inconsequential error or omission within the meaning of § 301.6722-1(b) of this chapter, or

    (B) To specify the actual distribution of property previously reported as being available to satisfy the interests of multiple beneficiaries in the situation described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.

    (ii) Example. Paragraph (e)(3)(i)(B) of this section is illustrated by the following example.

    Example 1.

    D's Will provided for D's residuary estate to be distributed to D's three children (E, F, and G). D's residuary estate included stock in a publicly traded company (X), a personal residence, and three paintings. On the due date of the Information Return and Statement required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section, D's executor had not yet determined which property each child would receive from D's residuary estate in satisfaction of that child's bequest. In accordance with paragraph (c)(3) of this section, D's executor reported on the Information Return filed with the IRS and on each child's own Statement that E, F, and G each might receive an interest in the stock in X, the personal residence, and the three paintings. Several months later, the executor determined that E would receive the stock in X, F would receive the residence, and G would receive the paintings. Paragraph (e)(3)(i)(B) of this section provides that the executor may but is not required to file a supplemental Information Return with the IRS and furnish supplemental Statements to E, F, and G to accurately report which beneficiary received what property.

    Example 2.

    D's Will provided that D's jewelry and household effects (personalty) are to be distributed among D's three children (E, F, and G) as determined by E, F, and G. In accordance with paragraph (c)(3) of this section, D's executor reports on the Information Return filed with the IRS and on each child's own Statement each item of personalty other than items described in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section. Several months later, E, F, and G determine who is to receive each item of personalty. Paragraph (e)(3)(i)(B) of this section provides that the executor may but is not required to file a supplemental Information Return with the IRS and furnish supplemental Statements to E, F, and G to accurately report which beneficiary received which item(s) of personalty.

    (4) Due date of supplemental reporting—(i) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this section, the supplemental Information Return must be filed and each supplemental Statement must be furnished on or before 30 days after—

    (A) The final value within the meaning of § 1.1014-10(c)(1) is determined;

    (B) The executor discovers that the information reported on the Information Return or Statement is otherwise incorrect or incomplete, except to the extent described in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section; or

    (C) A supplemental estate tax return under section 6018 is filed reporting property not reported on a previously filed estate tax return pursuant to § 1.1014-10(c)(3)(i). In this case, a copy of the supplemental Statement provided to each beneficiary of an interest in this property must be attached to the supplemental Information Return.

    (ii) Probate property or property from decedent's revocable trust. With respect to property in the probate estate or held by a revocable trust at the decedent's death, if an event described in paragraph (e)(4)(i)(A), (B), or (C) of this section occurs after the decedent's date of death but before or on the date the property is distributed to the beneficiary, the due date for the supplemental Information Return and corresponding supplemental Statement is the date that is 30 days after the date the property is distributed to the beneficiary. If the executor chooses to furnish to the beneficiary on the Statement information regarding any changes to the basis of the reported property as described in § 1.1014-10(a)(2) that occurred after the date of death but before or on the date of distribution, that basis adjustment information (which is not part of the requirement under section 6035) must be shown separately from the final value required to be reported on that Statement.

    (f) Subsequent transfers. If all or any portion of property that previously was reported or is required to be reported on an Information Return (and thus on the recipient's Statement or supplemental Statement) is distributed or transferred (by gift or otherwise) by the recipient in a transaction in which a related transferee determines its basis, in whole or in part, by reference to the recipient/transferor's basis, the recipient/transferor must, no later than 30 days after the date of the distribution or other transfer, file with the IRS a supplemental Statement and furnish a copy of the same supplemental Statement to the transferee. The requirement to file a supplemental Statement and furnish a copy to the transferee similarly applies to the distribution or transfer of any other property the basis of which is determined in whole or in part by reference to that property (for example as the result of a like-kind exchange or involuntary conversion). In the case of a supplemental Statement filed by the recipient/transferor before the recipient/transferor's receipt of the Statement described in paragraph (a) of this section, the supplemental Statement will report the change in the ownership of the property and need not provide the value information that would otherwise be required on the supplemental Statement. In the event the transfer occurs before the final value is determined within the meaning of proposed § 1.1014-10(c), the transferor must provide the executor with a copy of the supplemental Statement filed with the IRS and furnished to the transferee in order to notify the executor of the change in ownership of the property. When the executor subsequently files any Return and issues any Statement required by paragraphs (a) or (e) of this section, the executor must provide the Statement (or supplemental Statement) to the new transferee instead of to the transferor. For purposes of this provision, a related transferee means any member of the transferor's family as defined in section 2704(c)(2), any controlled entity (a corporation or any other entity in which the transferor and members of the transferor's family (as defined in section 2704(c)(2)), whether directly or indirectly, have control within the meaning of section 2701(b)(2)(A) or (B)), and any trust of which the transferor is a deemed owner for income tax purposes. If the transferor chooses to include on the supplemental Statement provided to the transferee information regarding any changes to the basis of the reported property as described in § 1.1014-10(a)(2) that occurred during the transferor's ownership of the property, that basis adjustment information (which is not part of the requirement under section 6035) must be shown separately from the final value required to be reported on that Statement.

    (g) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following terms are defined as follows—

    (1) Executor has the same meaning as in section 2203 and includes any other person required under section 6018(b) to file a return.

    (2) Information Return means the Form 8971, including each beneficiary's Statement as defined in paragraph (g)(3) of this section required to be furnished, or any successor form issued by the IRS for this purpose.

    (3) Statement means the payee statement described as Schedule A of the Information Return furnished to a beneficiary or any successor form or schedule issued by the IRS for this purpose.

    (h) Penalties—(1) Failure to timely file complete and correct Information Return. For provisions relating to the penalty provided for failure to file an Information Return required by section 6035(a)(1) on or before the required filing date, failure to include all of the required information on an Information Return, or the filing of an Information Return that includes incorrect information, see section 6721 and the regulations thereunder. See section 6724 and the regulations thereunder for rules relating to waivers of penalties for certain failures due to reasonable cause.

    (2) Failure to timely furnish correct Statements. For provisions relating to the penalty provided for failure to furnish a Statement required by section 6035(a)(2) on or before the prescribed date, failure to include all of the required information on a Statement, or the filing of a Statement that includes incorrect information, see section 6722 and the regulations thereunder. See section 6724 and the regulations thereunder for rules relating to waivers of penalties for certain failures due to reasonable cause.

    (i) Effective/applicability date. Upon the publication of the Treasury Decision adopting these rules as final in the Federal Register, this section will apply to property acquired from a decedent or by reason of the death of a decedent whose return required by section 6018 is filed after July 31, 2015. Persons may rely upon these rules before the date of publication of the Treasury Decision adopting these rules as final in the Federal Register.

    Par. 4. Section 1.6035-2 is added to read as follows:
    § 1.6035-2 Transition relief.

    [The text of proposed § 1.6035-2 is the same as the text of § 1.6035-2T published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register].

    § 1.6035-3 [Removed]
    Par. 5. Section 1.6035-3 is removed. Par. 6. Section 1.6662-8 is added to read as follows:
    § 1.6662-8 Inconsistent estate basis reporting.

    (a) In general. Section 6662(a) and (b)(8) impose an accuracy-related penalty on the portion of any underpayment of tax required to be shown on a return that is attributable to an inconsistent estate basis.

    (b) Inconsistent estate basis. In accordance with section 6662(k), there is an inconsistent estate basis to the extent that a taxpayer claims a basis, without regard to the adjustments described in § 1.1014-10(a)(2), in property described in paragraph (c) of this section that exceeds that property's final value as determined under § 1.1014-10(c).

    (c) Applicable property. The property to which this section applies is property described in § 1.1014-10(b) that is reported or required to be reported on a return required by section 6018 filed after July 31, 2015.

    (d) Effective/applicability date. Upon the publication of the Treasury Decision adopting these rules as final in the Federal Register, this section will apply to property described in § 1.1014-10(b) acquired from a decedent or by reason of the death of a decedent whose return required by section 6018 is filed after July 31, 2015. Persons may rely upon these rules before the date of publication of the Treasury Decision adopting these rules as final in the Federal Register.

    PART 301—PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION Par. 7. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 8. Section 301.6721-1 is amended by removing the word “or” at the end of paragraph (g)(2)(x), removing the period and adding “; or” at the end of paragraph (g)(2)(xi), and adding paragraph (g)(2)(xii).

    The addition reads as follows:

    § 301.6721-1 Failure to file correct information returns.

    (g) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (xii) Section 6035 (relating to basis of property acquired from decedents).

    Par. 9. Section 301.6722-1 is amended by removing the word “or” at the end of paragraph (d)(2)(xxxiii), removing the period and adding a semi-colon in its place followed by the word “or” at the end of paragraph (d)(2)(xxxiv), and adding paragraph (d)(2)(xxxv).

    The addition reads as follows:

    § 301.6722-1 Failure to furnish correct payee statements.

    (d) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (xxxv) Section 6035 (relating to basis of property acquired from decedents).

    John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04718 Filed 3-2-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 31 CFR Part 1010 RIN 1506-AB30 Financial Crimes Enforcement Network; Withdrawal of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Banca Privada d'Andorra AGENCY:

    Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document withdraws FinCEN's notice of proposed rulemaking seeking to impose the fifth special measure regarding Banca Privada d'Andorra (“BPA”), pursuant to Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act (“Section 311”), codified at 31 U.S.C. 5318A. Because of material subsequent developments that have mitigated the money laundering risks associated with BPA, FinCEN has determined that BPA is no longer a primary money laundering concern that warrants the implementation of a special measure under Section 311. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FinCEN is publishing a withdrawal of the related finding regarding BPA.

    DATES:

    The notice of proposed rulemaking is withdrawn as of March 4, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The FinCEN Resource Center at (800) 767-2825.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On October 26, 2001, the President signed into law the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56 (“the USA PATRIOT Act”). Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act amends the anti-money laundering provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”), codified at 12 U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959, and 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314, 5316-5332, to promote the prevention, detection, and prosecution of international money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Regulations implementing the BSA appear at 31 CFR Chapter X. The authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to administer the BSA and its implementing regulations has been delegated to the Director of FinCEN.

    Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act (“Section 311”) grants the Director of FinCEN the authority, upon finding that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that a foreign jurisdiction, foreign financial institution, class of transactions, or type of account is of “primary money laundering concern,” to require domestic financial institutions and financial agencies to take certain “special measures” to address the primary money laundering concern. The special measures enumerated under Section 311 are prophylactic safeguards that defend the U.S. financial system from money laundering and terrorist financing. FinCEN may impose one or more of these special measures in order to protect the U.S. financial system from these threats. To that end, special measures one through four, codified at 31 U.S.C. 5318A(b)(1)-(b)(4), impose additional recordkeeping, information collection, and information reporting requirements on covered U.S. financial institutions. The fifth special measure, codified at 31 U.S.C. 5318A(b)(5), allows the Director to prohibit or impose conditions on the opening or maintaining of correspondent or payable-through accounts by covered U.S. financial institutions.

    II. The Finding and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On March 13, 2015, FinCEN provided notice in the Federal Register that it had found Banca Privada d'Andorra (“BPA”), a bank headquartered in Andorra, to be of primary money laundering concern.1 Based on the finding, FinCEN also published on March 13, 2015 a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) proposing the imposition of the fifth special measure with respect to BPA, and invited public comment.2 Specifically, FinCEN proposed to prohibit covered financial institutions from establishing, maintaining, administering, or managing in the United States any correspondent account for, or on behalf of, BPA. FinCEN also proposed to require a covered financial institution to apply special due diligence to all of its foreign correspondent accounts that is reasonably designed to guard against processing transactions involving BPA. Among other things, covered financial institutions would have been required to notify those foreign correspondent account holders that the covered financial institutions know or have reason to know provide services to BPA that such correspondents may not provide BPA with access to the correspondent account maintained at the covered financial institution.

    1 80 FR 13,464 (Mar. 13, 2015).

    2 80 FR 13,304 (Mar. 13, 2015) (RIN 1506-AB30). FinCEN publicly announced the finding and NPRM on March 10, 2015.

    III. Subsequent Developments

    Significant developments regarding BPA have occurred since FinCEN announced its finding and related NPRM regarding BPA, as described below. As a result, BPA is no longer operating as a financial institution that poses a money laundering threat to the U.S. financial system.

    On March 11, 2015, the Institut Nacional Andorrà de Finances (“INAF”), the Andorran regulator and supervisor of financial institutions, appointed two INAF representatives to oversee BPA's operations. On March 12, 2015, the INAF suspended the authority of BPA's board of directors, the chief executive officer and two other senior managers and appointed special administrators to assume full control of BPA. On March 13, 2015, Andorran law enforcement arrested BPA's chief executive officer in Andorra on suspicion of money laundering.

    The next month, in April 2015, the Andorran parliament enacted a law regarding the restructuring and resolution of banks, which created a new government agency, Agència Estatal de Resolució d'Entitats Bancàries (“AREB”), for that purpose. On April 27, 2015, AREB took over control of BPA.3 In June 2015, AREB approved a resolution plan for BPA, under which the bank's “good” and “bad” assets, liabilities, and clients would be separated. Under the resolution plan, the “good” assets, liabilities, and clients are to be transferred to a bridge bank, and the bridge bank sold.4 In July 2015, AREB announced the creation of the bridge bank, named Vall Banc, to receive the transfer of BPA's legitimate assets, liabilities, and clients. Vall Banc is wholly-owned by AREB, is registered with the INAF, and is supervised by Andorran banking supervisory authorities. Vall Banc will not employ the high-level BPA managers described in FinCEN's Notice of Finding. In addition, any other person who has been or may be identified as related to the issues described in the Notice of Finding will not be employed at Vall Banc.

    3 Press Release, AREB, AREB Assumes the Tutelage of BPA, April 27, 2015, (http://areb.ad/images/areb/comunicats/27042015_AREB_ENG.pdf)

    4 Press Release, AREB, AREB Will Create a `Good Bank' with Legitimate Assets and Liabilities Segregated from BPA, June 15, 2015, (http://areb.ad/images/areb/comunicats/15062015_AREB_ENG.pdf)

    After the good assets, liabilities, and clients are transferred from BPA to Vall Banc, BPA will remain under the control of AREB. FinCEN understands that BPA will not be reactivated as an operational financial institution at any point except to facilitate the finalization of the resolution process. AREB, in coordination with other authorities in Andorra, ultimately intends to liquidate BPA following the resolution of judicial proceedings in Andorra and other jurisdictions.

    IV. Withdrawal of the NPRM

    Because of these subsequent developments, BPA no longer operates in a manner that poses a money laundering threat to the U.S. financial system. FinCEN has determined that the steps taken by the authorities in Andorra sufficiently protect the U.S. financial system from the money laundering risks previously associated with BPA. FinCEN therefore has determined that BPA no longer is a primary money laundering concern and will not impose any special measures under Section 311 with respect to BPA.

    For these reasons, FinCEN hereby withdraws its NPRM published on March 13, 2015, and announced on March 10, 2015, seeking to impose the fifth special measure regarding BPA.

    Jamal El-Hindi, Deputy Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04768 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-02-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0353, FRL-9943-24-Region 10] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alaska: Updates to Incorporation by Reference and Miscellaneous Revisions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve certain State Implementation Plan revisions submitted by Alaska on May 12, 2015. The revisions updated the incorporation by reference of certain Federal provisions, revised rules to reflect changes to Federal permitting requirements and the 2013 redesignation of the Mendenhall Valley area of Juneau, and made minor clarifications. We note that the May 12, 2015 submission also addressed transportation conformity and infrastructure requirements. These requirements are not being addressed in this action. We approved the transportation conformity revisions in a previous action on September 8, 2015 and we intend to address the infrastructure requirements in a separate, future action.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 4, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0353, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from http://www.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 the disclosure of which 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.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristin Hall at (206) 553-6357 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

    Table of Contents I. Background II. Analysis of Rule Updates III. Proposed Action IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) governs the process by which a state submits air quality requirements to the EPA for approval into the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP is a state's plan to implement, maintain and enforce the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set by the EPA. Alaska's air quality regulations are set forth at Alaska Administrative Code Title 18 Environmental Conservation, Chapter 50 Air Quality Control (18 AAC 50). Alaska regularly revises these and other rules to implement, maintain and enforce the standards.

    We note that Alaska incorporates by reference portions of certain Federal regulations directly into the Alaska SIP. Alaska generally submits an annual update to the EPA to ensure that its rules stay consistent with Federal requirements. On May 12, 2015, Alaska submitted such an update, and included other revisions to account for changes to Federal permitting rules and the 2013 redesignation of the Mendenhall Valley area of Juneau. Alaska also included some minor rule clarifications and edits.

    We note that the May 12, 2015 submission also addressed transportation conformity and infrastructure-related requirements. These requirements are not being addressed in this action. We previously approved the transportation conformity revisions on September 8, 2015 (80 FR 53735). We intend to address the infrastructure requirements in a separate, future action.

    II. Analysis of Rule Updates Ambient Air Quality Standards—18 AAC 50.010

    In the Ambient Air Quality Standards rule section, Alaska revised paragraph (1)(A) to reference the appropriate Federal interpretation method for determining compliance with the 24-hour standard for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10). The interpretation method is specified at 40 CFR part 50, Appendix K, and Alaska incorporates this provision by reference into the Alaska SIP at 18 AAC 50.035(b). We are proposing to approve this revision.

    We note that, consistent with our September 19, 2014 action, we are not approving paragraphs (7) and (8) of this section, which establish state ambient air quality standards for reduced sulfur compounds and ammonia (79 FR 56268). These are not NAAQS established under section 109 of the CAA and Alaska has not relied on these provisions to demonstrate attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or to meet other specific requirements of section 110 of the CAA.

    Air Quality Designations—18 AAC 50.015

    Alaska revised paragraphs (b)(2) and (e) of the Air Quality Designations, Classifications, and Control Regions rule section to reflect the redesignation of the Mendenhall Valley area of Juneau to attainment for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. The EPA approved Alaska's maintenance plan and request to redesignate the area on May 9, 2013 (78 FR 27071). We are proposing to approve the update to this rule section to reflect the redesignation.

    Baseline Dates and Maximum Allowable Increases—18 AAC 50.020

    Alaska updated Table 2 in paragraph (a) of the Baseline Dates and Maximum Allowable Increases rule section to set the minor source baseline date for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) for the Northern Alaska Intrastate Air Quality Control Region. This baseline date is calculated based on a trigger date set in Federal major source permitting regulations. The baseline date is calculated as the date on which the first complete Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit application is received after the EPA trigger date—which for PM2.5 is October 20, 2011. For this region of Alaska, the minor source baseline date is November 2, 2012. Emission changes at sources after this date consume the PM2.5 PSD increment. We are proposing to approve this rule revision.

    Documents, Procedures and Methods Adopted by Reference—18 AAC 50.035

    Alaska submitted revisions to paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Documents, Procedures and Methods Adopted by Reference rule section to include the Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollutant Measurement Systems and the Federal reference method for measuring carbon monoxide in ambient air. Alaska also repealed the section's reference to a Federal monitoring provision that was likewise repealed. The revisions update the incorporation by reference of specific Federal procedures and methods into the Alaska SIP, as of February 27, 2014. We are proposing to approve the submitted revisions.

    We note that, consistent with our September 19, 2014 action, we are not approving paragraph (a)(6) of this rule section because the provision implements requirements of title V of the CAA and not requirements of section 110 of title I of the CAA. We are also not approving paragraph (b)(4) which specifies test methods related to 40 CFR part 63 because it is not related to attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or other specific requirements of section 110 of the CAA (79 FR 56268).

    Federal Standards Adopted by Reference—18 AAC 50.040

    Alaska submitted revisions to paragraphs (f) and (h) of the Federal Standards Adopted by Reference rule section to update the citation dates for the adoption by reference of the Federal Guideline on Air Quality Models at paragraph (f) and the Federal PSD permitting requirements at paragraph (h). We are proposing to approve the changes to 18 AAC 50.040(f) and (h) because they update the Alaska SIP to reflect recent changes to Federal requirements, including the EPA's final rule to remove specific screening provisions from PSD regulations that were vacated by a court and subsequently repealed by the EPA, as discussed below.

    On January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Sierra Club v. EPA, 703 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013), issued a judgment that, among other things, vacated the provisions adding the PM2.5 Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC) to the Federal regulations, at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c), that were promulgated as part of the “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC); Final Rule,” (75 FR 64864, October 10, 2010) (2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule).

    In its decision, the court held that the EPA did not have the authority to use SMCs to exempt permit applicants from statutory requirements related to PSD. Although the PM2.5 SMC was not a required element of a state's PSD program, were a state PSD program that contains such a provision to rely on that provision to issue new permits without requiring ambient PM2.5 monitoring data, such application of the vacated SMC would be inconsistent with the court's opinion and the requirements of the CAA.

    This decision also—at the EPA's request—vacated and remanded to the EPA for further consideration the portions of the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule that revised certain Federal regulations related to Significant Impact Levels (SILs) for PM2.5. The EPA requested this vacatur and remand of two of the three provisions in the EPA regulations that contain SILs for PM2.5, because the wording of these two SIL provisions (40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2)) is inconsistent with the explanation of when and how SILs should be used by permitting authorities that we provided in the preamble to the Federal Register publication when we promulgated these provisions. The third SIL provision (40 CFR 51.165(b)(2)) was not vacated and remains in effect. The court's decision does not affect the PSD increments for PM2.5 promulgated as part of the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule.

    The EPA amended its regulations to remove the vacated PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions from PSD regulations on December 9, 2013 (78 FR 73698). In addition, the EPA is initiating a separate rulemaking regarding the PM2.5 SILs that will address the court's remand.

    In the May 12, 2015 submission, Alaska updated the citation date for the incorporation by reference of Federal PSD permitting rules to December 9, 2013, to capture the EPA's removal of the vacated SILs and SMC provisions. In addition, Alaska submitted changes to the Ambient Air Quality Analysis Methods rule section at 18 AAC 50.215 to address the court vacatur. These changes are discussed below. We are proposing to approve the changes to 18 AAC 50.040(h) and 18 AAC 50.215 as being consistent with the court decision and revised EPA regulations for the PM2.5 SMC and SILs.

    Ambient Air Quality Analysis Methods—18 AAC 50.215

    Alaska revised paragraph (a)(3) of the Ambient Air Quality Analysis Methods rule section to include a reference to the Quality Assurance Project Plan for the State of Alaska Air Monitoring and Quality Assurance Program (QAPP) for meteorological data, as adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.030. We are proposing to approve the revision because the EPA has reviewed and approved the QAPP through a separate quality assurance/quality control review process.

    Alaska revised paragraph (d) of this section, intending to align the rule language with the explanation of when and how SILs should be used by permitting authorities that the EPA provided in the preamble to the Federal Register publication when the provisions were originally promulgated (October 20, 2010, 75 FR 64864). Alaska also updated the SILs table in paragraph (d), adding SILs for the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and for 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS. The SILs values in the table are consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.165(b) and the EPA's NO2 and SO2 guidance and recommended interim SILs for the 1-hour NO2 and 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. We are proposing to approve the revisions as being consistent with the January 22, 2013, court decision vacating the PM2.5 SILs and SMC discussed above.

    Consistent with our previous actions on the Alaska SIP, the EPA is proposing not to approve paragraph (a)(4), which authorizes the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to approve any alternative method that it determines is “representative, accurate, verifiable, capable of replication.” In essence, this subparagraph allows the department to modify requirements relied on to attain and maintain the NAAQS without a SIP revision. For additional discussion, please see the technical support documents for our previous actions on September 19, 2014 (79 FR 56268) and on August 14, 2007 (72 FR 45378). See also 78 FR 12460, 12485-86 (Feb. 22, 2013).

    III. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve and incorporate by reference into the Alaska SIP the following revised provisions, state effective April 17, 2015:

    • 18 AAC 50.010 Ambient Air Quality Standards, except paragraphs (7) and (8);

    • 18 AAC 50.015 Air Quality Designations, Classifications, and Control Regions;

    • 18 AAC 50.020 Baseline Dates and Maximum Allowable Increases;

    • 18 AAC 50.035 Documents, Procedures and Methods Adopted by Reference, except paragraphs (a)(6) and (b)(4);

    • 18 AAC 50.040 Federal Standards Adopted by Reference, except (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (i), (j), and (k); and

    • 18 AAC 50.215 Ambient Air Quality Analysis Methods, except (a)(4).

    We note that we previously approved the submitted rule revisions related to transportation conformity at 18 AAC 50.700 through 18 AAC 50.750 and 18 AAC 50.990 on September 8, 2015 (80 FR 53735).

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference the provisions described above in Section VI. Proposed Action.

    The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because it does not involve technical standards; and

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: February 17, 2016. Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04753 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 63 [IB Docket Nos. 11-80, 10-95, 05-254, RM-11322; FCC 16-13] International Settlements Policy Reform AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, based on recent State Department guidance, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes to remove the nondiscrimination prong of the International Settlements Policy (ISP) on the U.S.-Cuba route and the nondiscrimination requirement condition placed on the waiver of benchmark settlements for the U.S.-Cuba route by the TeleCuba Waiver Order. Removal of these nondiscrimination requirements would allow U.S. carriers to enter into individualized contracts with the Cuban carrier.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before April 4, 2016, and replies on or before April 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket Nos. 11-80, 10-95, 05-254 and RM-11322, by any of the following methods:

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

    Federal Communications Commission's ECFS Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    People With Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email to [email protected]cc.gov, phone: 202-418-0530 (voice), tty: 202-418-0432.

    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Krech or Jodi Cooper, Telecommunications and Analysis Division, International Bureau, FCC, (202) 418-1480 or via email to [email protected], [email protected] On PRA matters, contact Cathy Williams, Office of the Managing Director, FCC, (202) 418-2918 or via email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in IB Docket Nos. 11-80, 10-95, 05-254 and RM-11322, FCC 16-13, adopted on February 10, 2016 and released on February 12, 2016. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The document also is available for download over the Internet at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-13A1.pdf.

    Comment Filing Procedures

    Pursuant to §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated above. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the Commission's ECFS Web site at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    • All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

    • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

    • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.

    Summary of Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) proposes to remove the nondiscrimination requirements from the U.S.-Cuba route. Recent policy guidance from the U.S. Department of State (State Department) recommends that the Commission discontinue application of the nondiscrimination requirements on the U.S.-Cuba route in light of the changes in U.S.-Cuba relations. See Modification of Process Regarding the Licensing of Telecommunications Services Between the United States and Cuba, Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 12458 (IB 2015) (2015 Cuba Public Notice). Currently, under Commission policy and rules, the terms and conditions of any operating agreement to provide facilities-based switched voice service on the U.S.-Cuba route between a U.S. carrier and a carrier with market power in Cuba must be identical to the equivalent terms and conditions in the agreement of any other U.S. carrier providing the same or similar service between the United States and Cuba. The FNPRM seeks comment on the State Department's recommendation for removal of the nondiscrimination requirements based on the changes in U.S.-Cuba relations and whether such a Commission action would serve the public interest. Specifically, the FNPRM seeks comment on removing (1) the nondiscrimination prong of the International Settlements Policy (ISP), as codified in 47 CFR 63.22(f), and (2) the nondiscrimination requirement condition placed on the waiver of benchmark settlements by the TeleCuba Waiver Order. See IConnect Wholesale, Inc., d/b/a TeleCuba; Petition for Waiver of the International Settlements Policy and Benchmark Rate for Facilities-Based Telecommunications Services with Cuba, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 5217, 5228, para. 31 (IB 2011) (TeleCuba Waiver Order).

    2. The FNPRM seeks comment on whether removal of these nondiscrimination requirements would serve the public interest, for example, by leading to more direct agreements between U.S. carriers and the Cuban carrier, ETECSA. In the 2012 ISP Reform Order, 78 FR 11109 (Feb. 15, 2013), the Commission found that removal of the ISP on all routes (except the nondiscrimination prong on the U.S.-Cuba route) would provide U.S. carriers greater flexibility to negotiate lower settlement rates. See International Settlement Policy Reform et al., Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 15521 (2012) (2012 ISP Reform Order). Do commenters agree that circumstances have now changed sufficiently with respect to Cuba to anticipate that the removal of the nondiscrimination prong of the ISP on the U.S.-Cuba route will provide similar opportunities? More generally, comment is sought on whether removal of these nondiscrimination requirements may encourage competition on the U.S.-Cuba route. Would the ability of U.S. carriers to negotiate individualized operating agreements with ETECSA give U.S. carriers the ability to negotiate lower rates? Are there any concerns that removal of our nondiscrimination requirements would cause discrimination or threats of discrimination or other anticompetitive actions against U.S. carriers as a strategy to obtain pricing concessions regarding the exchange of traffic between the United States and Cuba?

    3. The FNPRM observes that the operation of the current benchmark settlement rate for telecommunications services between the United States and Cuba—which we are not proposing to change—will continue to provide a safeguard against anticompetitive actions against U.S. carriers. (The State Department recommends that the Commission continue to apply the benchmarks settlement policy on the U.S.-Cuba route, but continue to allow waivers of limited duration. See 2015 Cuba Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 12461.) Although carriers may still obtain operating agreements above the benchmark rate, such agreements would require Commission grant of a waiver of the benchmark rate before they could go into effect, and, in considering the waiver, the Commission would have the opportunity to assess on a case-by-case basis whether allowing an above benchmark settlement rate without the protections of a nondiscrimination rule (with or without conditions) would serve the public interest. Comment is sought on these observations.

    4. Currently, any agreement with ETECSA is routinely made available for public inspection under the nondiscrimination requirement condition placed on the waiver of the benchmark settlements in the TeleCuba Waiver Order. TeleCuba Waiver Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5228, para. 31. The FPRM seeks comment on whether, if the Commission is to remove the nondiscrimination requirement in the TeleCuba Waiver Order, it also should no longer consider operating agreements between a U.S. carrier and ETECSA to be routinely available for public inspection. In that waiver order, the International Bureau adopted other conditions that it believed would help “balance the policy goals of reestablishing direct telecommunications links with Cuba by U.S. carriers with promoting competition and lower international calling rates for services to Cuba, as well as other international routes.” TeleCuba Waiver Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5222, para. 15. Commenters may address whether it would serve the public interest to reevaluate other conditions adopted in the TeleCuba Waiver Order in light of the proposed changes. Finally, the FNPRM seeks comment on whether there are other actions the Commission should take involving the U.S.-Cuba route to facilitate the provision of service between the United States and Cuba.

    Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    5. The Further Notice does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.1

    1 Public Law 107-198, 116 Stat. 729 (2002); see 44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(4).

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    6. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),2 requires that an initial regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment rule making proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” 3 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 4 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.5 A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

    2See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 2002); §601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 847, 857 (1996).

    3 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    4 5 U.S.C. 601(6).

    5 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definitions(s) in the Federal Register”.

    7. The Commission has licensed facilities-based telecommunications between the United States and Cuba based on policy guidance from the State due to the unique relationship between the United States and Cuba. The State Department has recently provided new guidance that recommends that the Commission remove the nondiscrimination requirements placed on the U.S.-Cuba route.

    8. In this Further Notice, the Commission seeks comment on proposals to remove the nondiscrimination requirements for the provision of telecommunications services between the United States and Cuba. We seek comment on whether, if we are to remove the nondiscrimination requirements, we also should no longer consider operating agreements between a U.S. carrier and ETECSA to be routinely available for public inspection. The proposals in this Further Notice are designed to allow U.S. carriers to negotiate individualized operating agreements with ETECSA, the Cuban carrier. Allowing U.S. carriers to negotiate individualized operating agreements may lead to more U.S. carriers entering into operating agreements with ETECSA, more direct connections between the United States and Cuba, and lower settlement rates on the U.S.-Cuba route.

    9. The proposals in this Further Notice, if adopted, would not change the need for a U.S. carrier to reach an agreement with the Cuban carrier and to file the agreement with the Commission. Therefore, these rule changes should not have a significant economic impact on any carrier. Further, these requirements are only applicable to facilities-based carriers, which are generally large companies and do not come within the definition of small businesses. Consequently, we do not believe that the proposals affect a substantial number of small businesses. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that the proposed rule change will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy of the Further Notice, including a copy of this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. This initial certification will also be published in the Federal Register.

    Ordering Clauses

    10. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, 208, 211, 214, 303(r), 309, and 403, of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 208, 211, 214, 303(r), 309, and 403, this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED.

    11. IT IS FUTHER ORDERED that NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the proposed regulatory changes to Commission policy and rules described in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and that comment is sought on these proposals.

    12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 63

    Communications common carriers, Telecommunications.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 63 as follows:

    Proposed Rules PART 63—EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW LINES, AND DISCONTINUANCE, REDUCTION, OUTAGE AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIERS; AND GRANTS OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 10, 11, 201-205, 214, 218, 403 and 651 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 160, 201-205, 214, 218, 403, and 571, unless otherwise noted.

    63.22 [Amended].
    2. In § 63.22 remove and reserve paragraph (f).
    [FR Doc. 2016-04837 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 150303208-6099-01] RIN 0648-BE70 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 35 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 35 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP) (Amendment 35), as prepared and submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). The proposed rule, if implemented, would remove black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster from the FMP as well as revise regulations regarding the golden tilefish longline endorsement program. The purpose of this rule is to ensure that only snapper-grouper species requiring Federal management are included in the Snapper-Grouper FMP, improve the consistency of management of snapper-grouper species in waters off south Florida across state and Federal jurisdictional boundaries, and to align regulations for golden tilefish longline endorsements with the Council's original intent for establishing the longline endorsement program.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before April 4, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the proposed rule identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2015-0076” by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0076, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Nikhil Mehta, 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 35 may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov. Amendment 35 includes a draft environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, a Regulatory Impact Review, and a Fishery Impact Statement.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nikhil Mehta, telephone: 727-824-5305; email: [email protected]ov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic is managed under the FMP, and includes black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, schoolmaster, and golden tilefish. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

    Management Measures Contained in This Proposed Rule

    This rule would remove black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster from the FMP, and revise the golden tilefish longline endorsement regulations to be consistent with the Council's original intent for establishing the longline endorsement program.

    Remove Four Species From the FMP

    Black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster are currently in the FMP, but have extremely low commercial landings in state and Federal waters, and almost all harvest (recreational and commercial) occurs in waters off the coast of South Florida. Currently, NMFS does not manage these species in Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf); however, the species are subject to regulations in Florida state waters. As described in Amendment 35, there are currently different regulations for recreational bag limits, size limits, and catch levels for these species between the Gulf, South Atlantic, and Florida. Inconsistent regulations make enforcement difficult and can be confusing to the public. This rule would remove black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster from the FMP and NMFS's management in Federal waters of the South Atlantic to ensure that only species requiring federal management are included in the FMP. The state of Florida has indicated that if these species are removed from the FMP, it intends to extend state regulation of these species into Federal waters off Florida for Florida-state registered fishing vessels, under § 306(a)(3)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to provide consistent regulations for these species across state and Federal jurisdictional boundaries.

    Black snapper is part of the deep-water complex within the FMP. The deep-water complex currently includes black snapper, yellowedge grouper, silk snapper, misty grouper, queen snapper, sand tilefish, and blackfin snapper. If black snapper is removed from the FMP, the annual catch limit (ACL) for the deep-water complex would be reduced from 170,279 lb (77,237 kg), round weight, to 169,896 lb (77,063 kg), round weight, a difference of 382 lb (173 kg), round weight.

    Dog snapper and mahogany snapper are part of the other snappers complex within the FMP. The other snappers complex currently includes cubera snapper, gray snapper, lane snapper, dog snapper, and mahogany snapper. Removal of dog snapper and mahogany snapper from the FMP would reduce the other snappers complex ACL from 1,517,716 lb (688,424 kg), round weight, to 1,513,883 lb (686,688 kg), round weight, a difference of 3,833 lb (1,739 kg), round weight.

    Dog snapper, mahogany snapper, and black snapper are not typically targeted by commercial or recreational fishermen; therefore, bycatch associated with harvest of these species is extremely low. Schoolmaster is currently designated as an ecosystem component (EC) species in the FMP. The Council did not choose to retain dog snapper, mahogany snapper, and black snapper in the FMP as EC species because the objective of the amendment is to establish a consistent regulatory environment across jurisdictional boundaries in Gulf and South Atlantic Federal waters and Florida state waters. Because NMFS does not manage these species in Gulf Federal waters, retaining them as EC species would continue inconsistent regulations across jurisdictional boundaries. Additionally, if these species are designated as EC species, the state of Florida would not be able to extend their management authority for these species into Federal waters, because states may not generally manage species in Federal waters if those species are included in Federal fishery management plans.

    A formal stock assessment has not been performed for black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, or schoolmaster; however, there is no indication that these stocks are depleted. Therefore, removing these species from the FMP is not expected to result in any adverse biological effects.

    Clarify Regulations for Golden Tilefish Endorsement Holders

    The final rule to implement Amendment 18B to the FMP (78 FR 23858, April 23, 2013) established a longline endorsement program for the commercial golden tilefish component of the snapper-grouper fishery. A longline endorsement is required to fish for golden tilefish with longline gear. Amendment 18B also established a golden tilefish hook-and-line quota and modified the golden tilefish commercial trip limits. The golden tilefish longline endorsement, sector quotas, and trip limits, were implemented because the golden tilefish commercial ACL was being harvested rapidly by fishermen using longline gear, so that fishermen who had historically used hook-and-line gear to target golden tilefish were not able to participate in the golden tilefish portion of the snapper-grouper fishery. The Council established the longline endorsement program and gear specific commercial quotas to help ensure that fishermen fishing with each gear type have a fair and equitable allocation of the commercial quota. The Council did not intend for longline endorsement holders to fish on the hook-and-line quota, or for non-endorsement holders to fish on the longline quota.

    The Council and NMFS are aware that since Amendment 18B was implemented, some longline endorsement holders are transferring their golden tilefish longline endorsement to another vessel and then fishing for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under the hook-and-line quota. Other endorsement holders are renewing their Federal commercial snapper-grouper vessel permit but are waiting to renew their golden tilefish longline endorsement, so that they are able to fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under the hook-and-line quota while their longline endorsement is not valid. Neither scenario is consistent with the original intent of the Council in Amendment 18B. The Council decided to clarify their intent for golden tilefish longline endorsement holders in Amendment 35. Currently, as described at § 622.191(a)(2)(ii), the regulations state that “Vessels with a golden tilefish longline endorsement are not eligible to fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under this 500-lb (227-kg), gutted weight, trip limit.” This rule would propose that “Vessels that have valid or renewable golden tilefish longline endorsements anytime during the fishing year, are not eligible to fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under this 500-lb (227-;kg), gutted weight, trip limit.” Thus, a fisherman who owns a vessel with a valid or renewable golden tilefish longline endorsement would not be eligible to fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under the 500-lb (227-kg), gutted weight, hook-and-line trip limit during that fishing year.

    Additional Change to Codified Text

    In the part 622 regulations, NMFS would revise “allowable biological catch” to read “acceptable biological catch” wherever it occurs. In the part 600 regulations, “ABC” is defined as “acceptable biological catch;” however, in the part 622 regulations, “ABC” is defined as “acceptable biological catch” in three places and “allowable biological catch” in four places. NMFS has determined that “acceptable biological catch” is the more precise definition for “ABC”. Therefore, to be consistent with the part 600 regulations and to use the more precise terminology, NMFS proposes to change the definition of “ABC” to “acceptable biological catch,” and accordingly revise “allowable biological catch,” wherever it occurs in the part 622 regulations.

    Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 35, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

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

    A Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Analysis was prepared as an Appendix to Amendment 35 and is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). For this proposed rule, NMFS adopts this analysis as its initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) required by section 603 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 603. The IRFA describes the economic impact that this proposed rule, if implemented, would have on small entities. A description of the proposed rule, why it is being considered, and the objectives of, and legal basis for this proposed rule are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the IRFA follows.

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this proposed rule. Accordingly, this rule does not implicate the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    This proposed rule would be expected to directly affect all commercial vessels that harvest black snapper, dog snapper, mahogany snapper, schoolmaster and/or golden tilefish under the FMP. The removal of the four snapper-grouper species discussed in this proposed rule would not directly apply to or affect charter vessel and headboat (for-hire) businesses. Any impact to the profitability or competitiveness of for-hire fishing businesses would be the result of changes in for-hire angler demand and would therefore be indirect in nature. Currently, charter and headboat captains and crew can retain black snapper, dog snapper, mahogany snapper, schoolmaster and golden tilefish under the recreational bag limit; however, they cannot sell these fish. As such, charter and headboat captains and crew would only be affected as recreational anglers. The RFA does not consider recreational anglers, who would be directly affected by this proposed rule, to be small entities, so they are outside the scope of this analysis and only the effects on commercial vessels were analyzed.

    As of November 3, 2014, there were 564 vessels with valid or renewable South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper Unlimited Permits, 120 vessels with valid or renewable 225-lb (102-kg) Trip Limit Permits and 22 vessels with valid or renewable longline endorsements for golden tilefish. Although all commercial snapper-grouper permit holders have the opportunity to fish for black snapper, dog snapper, mahogany snapper, and/or schoolmaster, on average, there were only four federally permitted vessels identified from 2009 through 2013 that commercially landed one or more of these species each year. The average annual vessel-level revenue for all species harvested by these four vessels over this period was approximately $101,000 (2013 dollars), of which $32 was from black snapper, dog snapper, mahogany snapper, and/or schoolmaster. During the same time period, on average, 22 vessels per year commercially harvested golden tilefish using longline gear and their annual average vessel-level revenue for all species was approximately $95,000 (2013 dollars), of which $55,000 was from golden tilefish. Thirty-seven vessels, on average (2009 through 2013), commercially harvested golden tilefish exclusively with non-longline gear and they earned an average of approximately $46,000 (2013 dollars) per vessel for all species harvested, of which $2,000 was from golden tilefish.

    No other small entities that would be directly affected by this proposed rule have been identified.

    The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S., including commercial finfish harvesters (NAICS code 114111). A business primarily involved in finfish harvesting 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 $20.5 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. All of the vessels directly regulated by this rule are believed to be small entities based on the SBA size criteria.

    Of the 684 vessels eligible to fish for the species managed under the FMP, only 63 of them are expected to be affected by this proposed rule (approximately 9 percent). Because all of these commercial fishing businesses are believed to be small entities, the issue of disproportionate effects on small versus large entities does not arise in the present case.

    This proposed rule would remove black snapper, dog snapper, mahogany snapper, and schoolmaster from the FMP. The state of Florida intends to then extend its management of these species into Federal waters. Average revenues per vessel from 2009 through 2013 for these four snapper-grouper species accounted for less than 1 percent of average total revenues received by the vessels that commercially harvested these species. Almost all harvest (recreational and commercial) of these species occurs in state and Federal waters off the coast of Florida. The normal harvest of these species would not be expected to change under management by the state of Florida, thus no reduction in associated ex-vessel revenue or profit would be expected from this proposed rule.

    This proposed rule would also modify the golden tilefish longline endorsement regulations. Vessels that have Federal commercial snapper-grouper permits with golden tilefish longline endorsements, specifically those that harvest golden tilefish using both longline and hook-and-line gear, would be expected to be negatively affected by this proposed action because they would no longer be able to harvest golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under the hook-and-line quota. This would result in reduced revenues if they are unable to substitute the harvest of other species. A total of four vessels were identified in 2014 that had a valid or renewable golden tilefish longline endorsement during some part of the year and also harvested golden tilefish under the hook-and-line 500-lb (227-kg) trip limit quota. On average, these four vessels earned an estimated $8,142 (2013 dollars) per vessel from golden tilefish landings using hook-and-line gear in 2014. This accounts for approximately 9.2 percent of their average total revenue per vessel (2009 through 2013; 2014 data were incomplete). Therefore, this proposed rule, if implemented, assuming no substitution of other species and constant prices, would be expected to result in an estimated recurring annual loss of $8,142 (2013 dollars) per vessel for the four vessels that harvested golden tilefish using both longline and hook-and-line gear. Vessels that do not have longline endorsements, on the other hand, would be expected to indirectly benefit from this proposed rule, because they would no longer have to compete with longline endorsement holders for the hook-and-line quota. On average, the 37 non-longline endorsement holders would be expected to experience an annual per-vessel increase in revenue of approximately $880 (2013 dollars) or less than 2 percent of their annual average vessel-level revenue.

    The following discussion analyzes the alternatives that were not selected as preferred by the Council. Only actions that would have direct economic effects on small entities merit inclusion.

    Five alternatives were considered to remove species from the FMP. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would retain all current species in the FMP and would not be expected to have any economic effects. Under the no action alternative, species that do not require Federal management would remain in the FMP and potential cost savings and/or efficiency gains of management would go unrealized. All of the other alternatives were selected as preferred and would result in the removal of black snapper, dog snapper, mahogany snapper, and schoolmaster from Federal management.

    Three alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were considered for modifying the golden tilefish endorsement regulations. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would not be expected to have any economic effects. The current golden tilefish endorsement regulations are, however, contrary to the intent of the Council and unintentionally limit golden tilefish harvest opportunities and economic benefits for hook-and-line fishermen. The second alternative would revise the golden tilefish endorsement regulations so that any vessel with a valid or renewable longline endorsement would not be permitted to harvest golden tilefish under the hook-and-line quota. Under the second alternative, longline endorsement holders that operate more than one vessel (with a Federal snapper-grouper vessel permit) would be able to transfer their golden tilefish longline endorsement to a different vessel and then continue to fish for golden tilefish under the hook-and-line quota in a single year. Only one vessel exhibited this behavior in 2014. Under the second alternative, the negative economic effects on the longline endorsement holders would be lower than under this proposed rule, as would the positive effects experienced by the hook-and-line component of the commercial sector. However, this alternative would be inconsistent with the original Council intent of establishing the longline endorsement.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

    Acceptable biological catch, Annual catch limit, Commercial trip limit, Fisheries, Fishing, Quotas, Snapper-grouper, South atlantic, Species table.

    Dated: February 26, 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 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 part 622, revise “allowable biological catch” to read “acceptable biological catch” wherever it occurs. 3. In § 622.185, paragraph (a)(3) is revised to read as follows:
    § 622.185 Size limits.

    (a) * * *

    (3) Blackfin, cubera, gray, queen, silk, and yellowtail snappers—12 inches (30.5 cm), TL.

    4. In § 622.191, the second sentence in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) is revised to read as follows:
    § 622.191 Commercial trip limits.

    (a) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (ii) * * * Vessels that have valid or renewable golden tilefish longline endorsements any time during the fishing year, are not eligible to fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under this 500-lb (227-kg), gutted weight, trip limit.

    5. In § 622.193, paragraphs (h) and (p) are revised to read as follows:
    § 622.193 Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs).

    (h) Deep-water complex (including yellowedge grouper, silk snapper, misty grouper, queen snapper, sand tilefish, and blackfin snapper)—(1) Commercial sector—(i) If commercial landings for the deep-water complex, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL of 131,268 lb (59,542 kg), round weight, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the commercial sector for the remainder of the fishing year. On and after the effective date of such a notification, all sale or purchase of deep-water complex species is prohibited and harvest or possession of these species in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is limited to the bag and possession limits. These bag and possession limits apply in the South Atlantic on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested, i.e., in state or Federal waters.

    (ii) If commercial landings exceed the ACL, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL of 169,896 lb (77,064 kg), round weight, is exceeded, and at least one of the species in the deep-water complex is overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year to reduce the commercial ACL for that following year by the amount of the commercial ACL overage in the prior fishing year.

    (2) Recreational sector. (i) If recreational landings for the deep-water complex, as estimated by the SRD, are projected to reach the recreational ACL of 38,628 lb (17,521 kg), round weight, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the recreational sector for the remainder of the fishing year, unless the RA determines that no closure is necessary based on the best scientific information available. On and after the effective date of such a notification, the bag and possession limits are zero.

    (ii) If recreational landings for the deep-water complex, exceed the applicable recreational ACL, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL of 169,896 lb (77,064 kg), round weight, is exceeded, and at least one of the species in the deep-water complex is overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, to reduce the length of the recreational fishing season in the following fishing year to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL the following fishing year. When NMFS reduces the length of the following recreational fishing season and closes the recreational sector, the following closure provisions apply: The bag and possession limits for the deep-water complex in or from the South Atlantic EEZ are zero. Additionally, the recreational ACL will be reduced by the amount of the recreational ACL overage in the prior fishing year. The fishing season and recreational ACL will not be reduced if the RA determines, using the best scientific information available that no reduction is necessary.

    (p) Other snappers complex (including cubera snapper, gray snapper, and lane snapper)—(1) Commercial sector—(i) If commercial landings for the other snappers complex, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the complex commercial ACL of 344,575 lb (156,297 kg), round weight, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, to close the commercial sector for this complex for the remainder of the fishing year. On and after the effective date of such a notification, all sale or purchase of cubera snapper, gray snapper, and lane snapper is prohibited, and harvest or possession of any of these species in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is limited to the bag and possession limits. These bag and possession limits apply in the South Atlantic on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested, i.e., in state or Federal waters.

    (ii) If commercial landings for the other snappers complex, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the commercial ACL, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL of 1,513,883 lb (686,686 kg), round weight, is exceeded, and at least one of the species in the other snappers complex is overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to reduce the commercial ACL for that following year by the amount of the commercial ACL overage in the prior fishing year.

    (2) Recreational sector—(i) If recreational landings for the other snappers complex, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the recreational ACL of 1,169,308 lb (530,391 kg), round weight, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the recreational sector for the remainder of the fishing year regardless if any stock in the other snappers complex is overfished, unless NMFS determines that no closure is necessary based on the best scientific information available. On and after the effective date of such a notification, the bag and possession limits for any species in the other snappers complex in or from the South Atlantic EEZ are zero.

    (ii) If recreational landings for the other snappers complex, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the recreational ACL, then during the following fishing year, recreational landings will be monitored for a persistence in increased landings, and if necessary, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, to reduce the length of the recreational fishing season and the recreational ACL by the amount of the recreational ACL overage, if at least one of the species in the other snappers complex is overfished based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL of 1,513,883 lb (686,686 kg), round weight, is exceeded during the same fishing year. NMFS will use the best scientific information available to determine if reducing the length of the recreational fishing season and recreational ACL is necessary. When the recreational sector is closed as a result of NMFS reducing the length of the recreational fishing season and the ACL, the bag and possession limits for any species in the other snappers complex in or from the South Atlantic EEZ are zero.

    6. In Appendix A to part 622, Table 4 is revised to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 622—Species Tables Table 4 of Appendix A to Part 622—South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper Balistidae—Triggerfishes Gray triggerfish, Balistes capriscus Carangidae—Jacks Bar jack, Caranx ruber Greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili Lesser amberjack, Seriola fasciata Almaco jack, Seriola rivoliana Banded rudderfish, Seriola zonata Ephippidae—Spadefishes Spadefish, Chaetodipterus faber Haemulidae—Grunts Margate, Haemulon album Tomtate, Haemulon aurolineatum Sailor's choice, Haemulon parrai White grunt, Haemulon plumieri Labridae—Wrasses Hogfish, Lachnolaimus maximus Lutjanidae—Snappers Queen snapper, Etelis oculatus Mutton snapper, Lutjanus analis Blackfin snapper, Lutjanus buccanella Red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus Cubera snapper, Lutjanus cyanopterus Gray snapper, Lutjanus griseus Lane snapper, Lutjanus synagris Silk snapper, Lutjanus vivanus Yellowtail snapper, Ocyurus chrysurus Vermilion snapper, Rhomboplites aurorubens Malacanthidae—Tilefishes Blueline tilefish, Caulolatilus microps Golden tilefish, Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps Sand tilefish, Malacanthus plumieri Percichthyidae—Temperate basses Wreckfish, Polyprion americanus Serranidae—Groupers Rock hind, Epinephelus adscensionis Graysby, Epinephelus cruentatus Speckled hind, Epinephelus drummondhayi Yellowedge grouper, Epinephelus flavolimbatus Coney, Epinephelus fulvus Red hind, Epinephelus guttatus Goliath grouper, Epinephelus itajara Red grouper, Epinephelus morio Misty grouper, Epinephelus mystacinus Warsaw grouper, Epinephelus nigritus Snowy grouper, Epinephelus niveatus Nassau grouper, Epinephelus striatus Black grouper, Mycteroperca bonaci Yellowmouth grouper, Mycteroperca interstitialis Gag, Mycteroperca microlepis Scamp, Mycteroperca phenax Yellowfin grouper, Mycteroperca venenosa Serranidae—Sea Basses Black sea bass, Centropristis striata Sparidae—Porgies Jolthead porgy, Calamus bajonado Saucereye porgy, Calamus calamus Whitebone porgy, Calamus leucosteus Knobbed porgy, Calamus nodosus Red porgy, Pagrus pagrus Scup, Stenotomus chrysops

    The following species are designated as ecosystem component species:

    Cottonwick, Haemulon melanurum Bank sea bass, Centropristis ocyurus Rock sea bass, Centropristis philadelphica Longspine porgy, Stenotomus caprinus Ocean triggerfish, Canthidermis sufflamen
    [FR Doc. 2016-04808 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 43 Friday, March 4, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (Board) will meet in Rapid City, South Dakota. The Board is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. App. II), the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1612), and the Federal Public Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (Pub. L. 108-447). Additional information concerning the Board, including the meeting summary/minutes, can be found by visiting the Board's Web site at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/blackhills/workingtogether/advisorycommittees.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 16, 2016, at 1:00 p.m.

    All meetings are subject to cancellation. For updated status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Mystic Ranger District, 8221 South Highway 16, Rapid City, South Dakota.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses, when provided, are placed in the record and available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott Jacobson, Board Coordinator, by phone at 605-440-1409 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 provide:

    (1) Welcome Members;

    (2) Purpose and Mission of NFAB & Black Hills National Forest;

    (3) Over-snow and Non-motorized Working Group Report update;

    (4) Forest Health Working Group update;

    (5) Restoring Large Landscapes Strategy;

    (6) Northern Long Eared Bat Report; and

    (7) Election process update.

    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 submit a request in writing by March 7, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Board may file written statements with the Board's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Scott Jacobson, Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's Office, 1019 North Fifth Street, Custer, South Dakota 57730; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 605-673-9208.

    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 by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: February 29, 2016. Craig Bobzien, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04789 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Olympic Peninsula Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Olympic Peninsula Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Sequim, Washington. 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/olympic/workingtogether/advisorycommittees.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held April 6, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.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 Jamestown S'Klallam Tribal Center, Red Cedar Room, 1033 Old Blyn Highway, Sequim, Washington.

    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 Olympic National Forest Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Piper, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 360-956-2435 or via email at [email protected].

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Review project proposals; and

    2. Make recommendations for Title II funds.

    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 April 1, 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 for oral comments must be sent to Susan Piper, RAC Coordinator, Olympic National Forest, 1835 Black Lake Boulevard Southwest, Olympia, Washington, 98512; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 360-956-2330. 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: February 25, 2016. Larry Sandoval, Acting Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04778 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Agricultural Statistics Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request February 29, 2016.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by April 4, 2016 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    National Agricultural Statistics Service

    Title: Residue and Biomass Field Survey.

    OMB Control Number: 0535-0251.

    Summary of Collection: The primary function of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) is to prepare and issue official State and national estimates of crop and livestock production, disposition and prices. The purpose of this collection is for NASS and the Agricultural Research Service/Hydrology and Remote Sensing Laboratory to make an objective connection between the amounts of organic matter produced and how crop residues impact future crop yields. General authority for these data collection activities is granted under U.S. Code Title 7, Section 2204(a) which specifies that “The Secretary of Agriculture shall procure and preserve all information concerning agriculture which he can obtain . . . by the collection of statistics . . . and shall distribute them among agriculturists.” Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985 as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents.

    Need and Use of the Information: This study will investigate the effect crop residue removal has on soil and water quality. The study will use, as a sampling universe fields in the South Fork watershed in central Iowa. The study will be conducted in several phases. Permission forms will be presented to farm operators. With the farmers permission the field enumerators will return several times during the growing season to measure and collect samples from the target areas. Measurements of crop residues will be compared with remote sensed data to measure crop residue cover and soil tillage intensity for the entire watershed. After measurements and samples are taken the farm operators will be asked to complete a questionnaire and, if possible provide a yield map. The questionnaire and yield maps help associate measured residue and biomass to specific field management plans and provide realistic operation files for the water and soil quality models. Without this collection, our knowledge of the management practices in the watershed would be severely limited.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Farms.

    Number of Respondents: 100.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: One time.

    Total Burden Hours: 64.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04787 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service [Docket No. NRCS-2016-0001] Notice of Proposed Changes to the National Handbook of Conservation Practices for the Natural Resources Conservation Service AGENCY:

    Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of proposed changes to the National Handbook of Conservation Practices for public review and comment.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of the intention of NRCS to issue a series of revised conservation practice standards in the National Handbook of Conservation Practices. These standards include: Clearing and Snagging (Code 326), Diversion (Code 362), Fish Raceway or Tank (Code 398), Pond Sealing or Lining—Compacted Soil Treatment (Code 521B), Pond Sealing or Lining—Concrete (Code 521C), Sediment Basin (Code 350), Silvopasture (Code 381), Tree/Shrub Establishment (Code 612), Vegetated Subsurface Drain Outlet (Code 604), and Waste Storage Facility (Code 313).

    NRCS State Conservationists who choose to adopt these practices for use within their States will incorporate them into section IV of their respective electronic Field Office Technical Guide. These practices may be used in conservation systems that treat highly erodible land (HEL) or on land determined to be a wetland. Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 requires NRCS to make available for public review and comment all proposed revisions to conservation practice standards used to carry out HEL and wetland provisions of the law.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: This is effective March 4, 2016.

    Comment Date: Submit comments on or before April 4, 2016. Final versions of these new or revised conservation practice standards will be adopted after the close of the 30-day period and after consideration of all comments.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments should be submitted, identified by Docket Number NRCS-2016-0001, using any of the following methods:

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

    Mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attention: Regulatory and Agency Policy Team, Strategic Planning and Accountability, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Building 1-1112D, Beltsville, Maryland 20705.

    NRCS will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. In general, personal information provided with comments will be posted. If your comment includes your address, phone number, email, or other personal identifying information, your comments, including personal identifying information (PII), may be available to the public. You may ask in your comment that your PII be withheld from public view, but this cannot be guaranteed.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Wayne Bogovich, National Agricultural Engineer, Conservation Engineering Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1400 Independence Avenue Southwest, South Building, Room 6136, Washington, DC 20250.

    Electronic copies of the proposed revised standards are available through http://www.regulations.gov by accessing Docket No. NRCS-2016-0001. Alternatively, copies can be downloaded or printed from the following Web site: http://go.usa.gov/TXye. Requests for paper versions or inquiries may be directed to Emil Horvath, National Practice Standards Review Coordinator, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Central National Technology Support Center, 501 West Felix Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76115.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The amount of the proposed changes varies considerably for each of the conservation practice standards addressed in this notice. To fully understand the proposed changes, individuals are encouraged to compare these changes with each standard's current version as shown at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/technical/cp/ncps/?cid=nrcs143_026849. To aid in this comparison, following are highlights of some of the proposed revisions to each standard:

    Clearing and Snagging (Code 326)—The changes were made to provide better clarity, and include the use of active voice and the removal of all occurrences of the word “shall”. The References section remains unchanged; however, one of the references, NEH Part 654, Stream Restoration Design, now appears in the Considerations section, where it specifically identifies Technical Supplement 14E of this reference for use in determining the forces acting on woody debris and the necessary anchoring.

    Diversion (Code 362)—The definition was revised and the purpose modified for clarity. The Criteria, Considerations, and Operations and Maintenance sections were refined and the references were updated.

    Fish Raceway or Tank (Code 398)—The purpose was refined, the criteria was modified, and the references were updated. Other changes improved the clarity of the language used in the standard.

    Pond Sealing or Lining—Compacted Soil Treatment (Code 521B)—521B Pond Sealing or Lining—Compacted Soil Treatment now combines the existing compacted soil liner standards (521B. 521C & 521D) into one standard code which is now 521B Pond Sealing or Lining—Compacted Soil Treatment. As a result, a change to the title was necessary, along with other changes needed for clarification, consistency, and 508 compliance requirements.

    Pond Sealing or Lining—Concrete (Code 521C)—521C Pond Sealing or Lining—Concrete is a new standard developed as an alternative practice for lining and sealing animal waste storage ponds and lagoons as needed. It covers concrete design requirements for this specified function that is not specified in Waste Storage Facility (Code 313).

    Sediment Basin (Code 350)—The purpose was refined, the criteria was modified, and the references were updated. Other changes improved the clarity of the language used in the standard.

    Silvopasture (Code 381)—The title was changed from “Silvopasture Establishment” to “Silvopasture.” The Definition, Purposes, and Conditions Where Practice Applies sections were refined. Two purposes were removed and three purposes were added. The criteria were adjusted to match the changes in purposes. The Considerations and Operations and Maintenance sections were refined and the references were updated.

    Tree/Shrub Establishment (Code 612)—The Purposes and Conditions Where Practice Applies sections were refined. One purpose was added and one purpose removed. The criteria were adjusted to match the changes in purposes. The Considerations, Plans and Specifications, and Operations and Maintenance sections were refined and the references were updated.

    Saturated Buffer (Code 604)—This is a new conservation practice standard developed from an existing interim conservation practice standard “Saturated Buffer” (Code 739).

    Waste Storage Facility (Code 313)—The document has been revised extensively. Those revisions include modification of structural design requirements to account for changes in accepted concrete and timber design criteria, modification of language for storage requirements to improve clarity, modify language to conform to the Plain Language Act, improvements to the safety criteria, changing the requirement of a staff gauge from optional to required, addition of criteria specific to solid manure stacking facilities, and improvements to the Plans and Specifications, and Operation and Maintenance sections of the standard. The structural design and safety requirements have been revised to reflect changes in accepted design methods. Other changes have been made to improve the clarity of the language used in the standard.

    Jason A. Weller, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04824 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utility Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request February 29, 2016.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by April 4, 2016 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Rural Utilities Service

    Title: 7 CFR part 1786, Prepayment of RUS Guaranteed and Insured Loans to Electric and Telephone Borrowers.

    Omb Control Number: 0572-0088.

    Summary of Collection: The Rural Electrification (RE) Act of 1936, as amended, authorizes and empowers the Administrator of RUS to make loans in the States and Territories of the United States for rural electrification and for the purpose of furnishing and improving electric and telephone service in rural areas and to assist electric borrowers to implement demand side management, energy conservation programs, and on-grid and off-grid renewable energy systems. 7 CFR part 1786, subparts E and F are authorized by this section.

    Need and Use of the Information: The required documentation and information will be collected from electric and telecommunications program borrowers. The purpose of the information collected is to provide borrowers an opportunity to request prepayment of their notes and to determine that the borrower is qualified to prepay under the authorizing statues. The overall goal of Subparts E and F is to allow RUS borrowers to prepay their RUS loan and the overall goal of Subpart G is to refinance.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents: 38.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 76.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04788 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration First Responder Network Authority [Docket Number: 160229154-6154-01] RIN 0660-XC023 Notice of Availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Non-Contiguous Region of the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network and Notice of Public Meetings AGENCY:

    First Responder Network Authority, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of availability of a draft programmatic environmental impact statement and of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The First Responder Network Authority (“FirstNet”) announces the availability of the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Non-Contiguous Region (“Draft PEIS”). FirstNet also announces a series of public meetings to be held throughout the Non-Contiguous Region to receive comments on the Draft PEIS. The Draft PEIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed nationwide public safety broadband network in the Non-Contiguous Region.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on the Draft PEIS for the Non-Contiguous Region on or before May 3, 2016. FirstNet will also hold public meetings in each of the seven Non-Contiguous states and territories. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for meeting dates.

    ADDRESSES:

    At any time during the public comment period, members of the public, public agencies, and other interested parties are encouraged to submit written comments, questions, and concerns about the project for FirstNet's consideration or to attend any of the public meetings. Written comments may be submitted electronically via www.regulations.gov, FIRSTNET-2016-01, or by mail to Amanda Goebel Pereira, NEPA Coordinator, First Responder Network Authority, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, M/S 243, Reston, VA 20192. Comments received will be made a part of the public record and may be posted to FirstNet's Web site (www.firstnet.gov) without change. Comments should be machine readable and should not be copy-protected. All personally identifiable information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. The Draft PEIS is available for download from www.regulations.gov FIRSTNET-2016-01. A CD of this document is also available for viewing at public libraries (see Chapter 15 of the Draft PEIS for the complete distribution list). See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for public meeting addresses.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For more information on the Draft PEIS, contact Amanda Goebel Pereira, NEPA Coordinator, First Responder Network Authority, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, M/S 243, Reston, VA 20192.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Meetings

    Attendees can obtain information regarding the project and/or submit a comment in person during public meetings. The meeting details are as follows:

    • Anchorage, Alaska: March 15, 2016, from 5:00-8:00 p.m., at the Hilton Anchorage, 500 West Third Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501

    • Juneau, Alaska: March 17, 2016, from 5:00-8:00 p.m., at the Centennial Hall Convention Center, 101 Egan Drive, Juneau, Alaska 99801

    • Honolulu, Hawaii: March 21, 2016, from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., at the Hilton Waikiki Beach Hotel, 2500 Kuhio Avenue, Honolulu, Hawaii 96815

    • Tumon Bay, Guam: April 5, 2016, from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., at the Hilton Guam Resort, 202 Hilton Road, Tumon Bay, Guam 96913

    • Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands: April 7, 2016, from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., at the Hyatt Regency Saipan, Royal Palm Avenue, Micro Beach Road, Garapan, Saipan, MP 96950

    • Tafuna, American Samoa: April 11, 2016, from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., at the Tradewinds Hotel, 999 Ottoville Road, Tafuna, American Samoa 69799

    • Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands: April 22, 2016, from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., at the Company House Hotel, No. 2 Company Street, Christiansted, Virgin Islands 00820

    • San Juan, Puerto Rico: April 26, 2016, from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., at La Concha Resort, 1077 Ashford Avenue, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00907

    Background

    The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-96, Title VI, 126 Stat. 156 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.)) (the “Act”) created and authorized FirstNet to take all actions necessary to ensure the building, deployment, and operation of an interoperable, nationwide public safety broadband network (“NPSBN”) based on a single, national network architecture. The Act meets a longstanding and critical national infrastructure need, to create a single, nationwide network that will, for the first time, allow police officers, fire fighters, emergency medical service professionals, and other public safety entities to effectively communicate with each other across agencies and jurisdictions. The NPSBN is intended to enhance the ability of the public safety community to perform more reliably, effectively, and safely; increase situational awareness during an emergency; and improve the ability of the public safety community to effectively engage in those critical activities.

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) (“NEPA”) requires federal agencies to undertake an assessment of environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making a final decision and implementing the action. NEPA requirements apply to any federal project, decision, or action that may have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. NEPA also establishes the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”), which issued regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (see 40 CFR parts 1500-1508). Among other considerations, CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1508.28 recommend the use of tiering from a “broader environmental impact statement (such as a national program or policy statements) with subsequent narrower statements or environmental analysis (such as regional or basin wide statements or ultimately site-specific statements) incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the statement subsequently prepared.”

    Due to the geographic scope of FirstNet (all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five territories) and the diversity of ecosystems potentially traversed by the project, FirstNet has elected to prepare five regional PEISs. The five PEISs will be divided into the East, Central, West, South, and Non-Contiguous Regions. The Non-Contiguous Region consists of Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Draft PEIS analyzes potential impacts of the deployment and operation of the NPSBN on the natural and human environment in the Non-Contiguous Region, in accordance with FirstNet's responsibilities under NEPA.

    Next Steps

    All comments received by the public and any interested stakeholders will be evaluated and considered by FirstNet during the preparation of the Final PEIS. Once a PEIS is completed and a Record of Decision (ROD) is signed, FirstNet will evaluate site-specific documentation, as network design is developed, to determine if the proposed project has been adequately evaluated in the PEIS or warrants a Categorical Exclusion, an Environmental Assessment, or an Environmental Impact Statement.

    Dated: March 1, 2016. Amanda Goebel Pereira, NEPA Coordinator First Responder Network Authority.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04830 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-TL-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-11-2016] Foreign-Trade Zone 230—Piedmont Triad Area, North Carolina; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; United Chemi-Con, Inc.; Subzone 230A (Aluminum Electrolytic Capacitors); Lansing, North Carolina

    The Piedmont Triad Partnership, grantee of FTZ 230, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of United Chemi-Con, Inc. (UCC), operator of Subzone 230A, at its facility located in Lansing, North Carolina. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on February 26, 2016.

    UCC already has authority to produce aluminum electrolytic capacitors within Subzone 230A. The current request would add new foreign components to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt UCC from customs duty payments on the foreign status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, UCC would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to aluminum electrolytic capacitors (free) for the foreign status inputs noted below and in the existing scope of authority. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.

    The components sourced from abroad are: Boric acid; D-Mannitol; polyoxy ethylene glyceline; polyvinyl/p-nitrobenzy alcohol; ammonium benzoate; adipic acid; ammonium adipate; maleic acid; gamma resorcylic acid; isomeric decanedicarboxylic & 1,2,3,4-butanetracarboxylic; polyethylene glycol phosphate; KIP (gamma-butyrolactone & 1-ethyl-2,3-dimethylimidazoliniium hydrogen phthalate mixture); PEG1000 polyethylene glycol; MMA-10R (carbolic acid mixture); wax poly white; silicone oil; polypropylene tape; sleeving and nuts of plastic; end disks; gaskets of ethylene propylene diene monomer; steel screws/nuts/hexes; aluminum waste/scrap/tab stock/foil/inserts/rivets/washers/springs/lock washers; and, metal clamps and brackets (duty rate ranges from free to 6.5%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is April 13, 2016.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Pierre Duy at [email protected] or (202) 482-1378.

    Dated: February 29, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04845 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1994] Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 182, (Expansion of Service Area), Under Alternative Site Framework; Fort Wayne, Indiana

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Board adopted the alternative site framework (ASF) (15 CFR 400.2(c)) as an option for the establishment or reorganization of zones;

    Whereas, the City of Fort Wayne, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 182, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ Docket B-56-2015, docketed August 25, 2015) for authority to expand the service area of the zone to include Randolph County, Indiana, as described in the application, adjacent to the Dayton, Ohio Customs and Border Protection port of entry;

    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (80 FR 53103-53104, September 2, 2015) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,

    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied;

    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:

    The application to reorganize FTZ 182 to expand the service area under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 22nd day of February 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04846 Filed 3-3-16; 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: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) is conducting the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain activated carbon from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) for the period of review (“POR”) April 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015. The Department preliminarily finds that subject merchandise has been sold in the United States at prices below normal value (“NV”) during the POR. The Department invites interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Effective March 4, 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: Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is certain activated carbon. The products are currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheading 3802.10.00.1 Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order remains dispositive.

    1 For a complete description of the Scope of the Order, see “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China; 2014-2015” (“Preliminary Decision Memorandum”) from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, issued concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    Preliminary Determination of No Shipments

    Based on an analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) information, and no shipment certifications submitted by Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd. (“Carbon Activated”), the Department preliminarily determines that Carbon Activated had no shipments during the POR. For additional information regarding this determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Consistent with our practice in non-market economy (“NME”) cases, the Department is not rescinding this review, in part, but intends to complete the review with respect to Carbon Activated, for which it has preliminarily found no shipments, and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.2

    2See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694, 65694-95 (October 24, 2011).

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). We calculated constructed export prices and export prices in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because the PRC is a non-market economy (“NME”) within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, NV has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.

    For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. A list of the topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as an appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public 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 Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Verification

    As provided in sections 782(i)(3)(A)-(B) of the Act, we intend to verify the information upon which we will rely in determining our final results of review with respect to Jacobi Carbons AB.

    Preliminary Results of the Review

    The Department preliminarily finds that 181 companies 3 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 SRC. As such, we preliminarily determine that they 4 are part of the PRC-wide entity.5

    3 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 “Separate Rates” section of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum at Attachment I for a complete list of the 179 company names.

    4Id.

    5 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, we did not conduct a review of the PRC-wide entity. Thus, the rate for the NME entity is not subject to change as a result of this review. 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, 65969-70 (November 4, 2013).

    For companies subject to this review that established their eligibility for a separate rate, the Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR from April 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015:

    6 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). See also Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 20988 (April 27, 2007) (“Order”).

    Exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (U.S. dollars
  • per kilogram) 6
  • Jacobi Carbons AB 7 2.80 Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 0.29 Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd 2.22 Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 2.22 Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd 2.22 Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.8 2.22 Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 2.22 Ningxia Mineral and Chemical Limited 2.22 Shanxi DMD Corporation 2.22 Shanxi Dapu International Trade Co., Ltd 2.22 Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd 2.22 Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd 2.22 Shanxi Tianxi Purification Filter Co., Ltd 2.22 Sinoacarbon International Trading Co., Ltd 2.22 Tancarb Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 2.22 Tianjin Channel Filters Co., Ltd 2.22 Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd 2.22
    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department intends to disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    7 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.

    8 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.

    Because, as noted above, the Department intends to verify the information upon which we will rely in making our final determination, the Department will establish the briefing schedule at a later time, and will notify parties of the schedule in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309. Interested parties may submit written comments in the form of case briefs and rebuttal comments in the form of rebuttal briefs within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs.9 Rebuttal briefs must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs.10 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.11

    9See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 351.309(d)(1); see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    10See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2).

    11See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d); see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) The number of participants; and (3) A list of issues parties intend to discuss. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs.12 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 and time to be determined.13 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    12See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    13See 19 CFR 351.310(d).

    All submissions, with limited exceptions, must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time (“ET”) on the due date. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with the APO/Dockets Unit in Room 18022 and stamped with the date and time of receipt by 5 p.m. ET on the due date.

    Unless otherwise extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.14 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review. For any individually examined respondent whose (estimated) ad valorem weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent) in the final results of this review, the Department will calculate importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales and the total quantity of those sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).15 The Department will also calculate (estimated) ad valorem importer-specific assessment rates with which to assess whether the per-unit assessment rate is de minimis. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is not zero or de minimis. Where either the respondent's ad valorem weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is zero or de minimis, 16 we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

    14See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    15 In these preliminary results, the Department applied the assessment rate calculation method adopted in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

    16See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

    For entries 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 such entries at the rate for the PRC-wide entity.17 Additionally, 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 rate) will be liquidated at the rate for the PRC-wide entity.18

    17Id.

    18Id.

    In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated antidumping duties, where applicable.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for 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 each specific company listed in the final results of review, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is de minimis, then cash deposit rate will be zero); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in the completed segment of this proceeding for the most recent period, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific cash deposit rate; (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 the rate for the PRC-wide entity; 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 that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: February 26, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum: 1. Summary 2. Background a. Initiation b. Respondent Selection c. Questionnaires d. Scope of the Order 3. Discussion of the Methodology a. Preliminary Determination of No Shipments b. Non-Market Economy Country c. Separate Rates d. Weighted-Average Dumping Margin for Non-Examined Separate Rate Companies e. Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data f. Facts Available for Normal Value g. Date of Sale h. Comparisons to Normal Value i. U.S. Price j. Normal Value k. Currency Conversion 4. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-04729 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-009] Calcium Hypochlorite From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty New Shipper Review; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATE:

    Effective Date: March 4, 2016.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is initiating a new shipper review (“NSR”) of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on calcium hypochlorite from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) with respect to Jingmei Chemical Products Sales Co., Ltd. (“Jingmei Chemical”). The period of review (“POR”) for this NSR is May 27, 2014, through December 31, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Frances Veith, 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: 202-482-4295.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The CVD order on calcium hypochlorite from the PRC published in the Federal Register on January 30, 2015.1 Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(b), we received a request for a NSR of the order from Haixing Jingmei Chemical.2 Jingmei Chemical certified that it is the exporter of the subject merchandise upon which the request is based and that Haixing Eno Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Eno Chemical”) is the producer of the subject merchandise.3

    1See Calcium Hypochlorite From the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 80 FR 5082 (January 30, 2015) (“Order”).

    2See Jingmei Chemical's letter to the Department regarding, “Calcium Hypochlorite from the People's Republic of China Entry of Appearance and Request for New Shipper Review,” dated November 20, 2015 (“NSR Request”).

    3Id., at 3 and Exhibit 1.

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii)(A) and (B), Jingmei Chemical and Eno Chemical each certified that they did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”).4 In addition, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Jingmei Chemical and Eno Chemical each certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, it has never been affiliated with any PRC exporter or producer who exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POI, including those respondents not individually examined during the investigation.5

    4Id., at Exhibit 1.

    5Id.

    In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Jingmei Chemical submitted documentation establishing the following: (1) The date on which the subject merchandise was first entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption; (2) the volume of its first shipment and subsequent shipments, if any; and (3) the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.6 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(v), Jingmei Chemical certified that it informed the government of the PRC that it will be required to provide a full response to the Department's questionnaire.7 On February 2, 2016, the Department issued a pre-initiation supplemental questionnaire to Jingmei Chemical,8 to which Jingmei provided a timely response.9

    6See NSR Request at 3-4 and Exhibit 2.

    7Id., at Exhibit 1.

    8See Letter to Jingmei from the Department titled “Calcium Hypochlorite from the People's Republic of China: Request for New Shipper Review,” dated February 2, 2016.

    9See Jingmei's pre-initiation supplemental questionnaire response regarding, “Calcium Hypochlorite from the People's Republic of China Response to Department's Question About First Sale,” February 8, 2016.

    Finally, the Department conducted a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) database query and confirmed the price and quantity reported of the sale by Jingmei Chemical that formed the basis for this new shipper request.10

    10See Memorandum to the File from Frances Veith, Senior International Trade Analyst, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, regarding “Calcium Hypochlorite from the People's Republic of China; U.S. Imports of Calcium Hypochlorite,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Period of Review

    The Department's regulations state, in 19 CFR 351.214(g)(2), that the POR for a CVD NSR will be the same period as that specified in 19 CFR 351.213(e)(2), which states that the Department normally will cover entries of subject merchandise during the most recently completed calendar year. However, 19 CFR 351.213(e)(2)(ii) provides that for requests received during the first anniversary month after publication of an order, the review will cover entries or exports during the period from the date of suspension of liquidation to the end of the most recently completed calendar or fiscal year. Accordingly, the POR is May 27, 2014, through December 31, 2015.

    Initiation of New Shipper Review

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.214(b), and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), and based on the evidence provided by Jingmei Chemical, we find that its request meets the threshold requirements for initiation of the NSR for shipments of calcium hypochlorite from the PRC produced by Eno Chemical and exported by Jingmei Chemical.11 If the information supplied by Jingmei Chemical is found to be incorrect or insufficient during the course of this proceeding, the Department may rescind the review for Jingmei Chemical or apply facts available pursuant to section 776 of the Act, depending on the facts on the record.

    11See Memorandum to the File, through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, from Frances Veith, Senior International Trade Analyst, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, titled “Initiation of CVD New Shipper Review: Calcium Hypochlorite from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Absent a determination that the new shipper review is extraordinarily complicated, the Department intends to issue the preliminary results of this NSR within 180 days from the date of initiation and the final results within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results are issued.12

    12See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i).

    We will instruct CBP to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of this review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the subject merchandise from the requesting company in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Because Jingmei Chemical certified that Eno Chemical produced the subject merchandise that Jingmei Chemical exported, the sales of which are the basis for the NSR request, we will instruct CBP to permit the use of a bond only for subject merchandise that Eno Chemical produced and Jingmei Chemical exported.

    Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in this NSR should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 19 CFR 351.306.

    This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.214, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

    Dated: February 29, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04844 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments

    Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States.

    Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and be postmarked on or before March 24, 2016. Address written comments to Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Room 3720.

    Docket Number: 15-044. Applicant: University of Pittsburgh, 116 Atwood Street, Suite 201, Pittsburgh, PA 15260. Instrument: Scios Dual Beam Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: Scios, Czech Republic. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to reveal the surface and sub-surface microstructure metrics of structural materials such as steels, Ni-based superalloys, Al-, Ti-, Mn-base and other specialty alloys, functional materials based on ceramic, metal and semiconducting thin films, particulates and composites. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: December 15, 2015.

    Docket Number: 15-047. Applicant: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave., Boston, MA 02210. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: JEOL, LTD., Japan. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to study a wide range of biomolecules with the overall objective of better understanding the biological processes underlying normal and abnormal (cancer) biological activity. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: December 15, 2015.

    Docket Number: 15-049. Applicant: University of Maryland College Park, 2125 J. M. Patterson, College Park, MD 20742. Instrument: Laser lithography system Photonic Professional GT and accessories. Manufacturer: Nanoscribe GmbH, Hermon Von Hermholtz Platz 1, Germany. Intended Use: The fundamental capabilities of the instrument target the nanoscale fabrication of complex 3-dimensional polymer components and systems. The instrument will be used for the characterization and optimization of fabrication resolution and precision for specific applications and device and system level characterization of components manufactured using the nanoscribe tool. It will be used to perform research into the nanoscale patterning of photoactive polymer materials, including epoxy-based photoresists. Unique features of this instrument include two photon polymerization of various UV-curable photoresists, two photon exposure of common positive tone photoresists, and the highest resolution available for a 3D printer. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: December 7, 2015.

    Docket Number: 15-054. Applicant: University of Connecticut Health Center, 263 Farmington Ave., Farmington, CT 06030. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to investigate the organization of various organs and tissues obtained from mice. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: November 24, 2015.

    Docket Number: 15-056. Applicant: St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, 262 Danny Thomas Place, Memphis, TN 38105. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to study cell and tissue cultures, model systems and human tissue biopsies. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: December 15, 2015.

    Docket Number: 15-059. Applicant: Rutgers University, 136 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NK 08854. Instrument: Low Temperature Scanning Tunneling Microscope. Manufacturer: Unisoku, Japan. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to prepare atomically flat and clean surfaces of samples with proper heat treatment, measure crystal surface's electronic structure with ultimate spatial and energy resolution, observe quantum phenomena accompanied with temperature or magnetic field change at the atomic scale, find the atomic origin of quantum phenomena in strongly correlated materials and control the quantum phenomena by material deposition or atom manipulation. Techniques will include making and maintaining ultra-high vacuum, lowering the temperature by using cryogenic liquids, heating of samples in the vacuum chamber by electron beam heating, cleaving of samples at low temperature, vacuum material evaporation, and scanning probe techniques to get electronic structures of the specimen (scanning tunneling microscopy, scanning tunneling spectroscopy, tip treatment or atom manipulation). Unique features of this instrument include operation temperature of lower than 5K with liquid helium, ultra high vacuum at 1.3x10 8 Pa (9.8x10 11 Torr), high magnetic field supplied superconducting magnet with a maximum 8 Tesla field perpendicular to the sample plane, preparation chamber with direct current heating up to 1300C and e-beam heating up to 1500C, IS 40C1 Sputter Cleaning Ion Source with gas inlet package, MAN-SLT cooling and cleaving manipulator, and UHV multi-element miniature evaporator ME series. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: December 15, 2015.

    Docket Number: 15-060. Applicant: Kent State University, 1425 University Esplanade, Kent, OH 44242. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI company, the Netherlands. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to characterize various kinds of solid state materials and fabricate nanostructures and devices. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: December 8, 2015.

    Dated: February 25, 2016. Gregory W. Campbell, Director of Subsidies Enforcement, Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04843 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE479 Endangered Species Act; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    We, NMFS, announce a public meeting of a review of our recovery program under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The purpose of the review is to ensure that recovery program priorities and implementation are aligned with resources and mission mandates; enhance and align strategic management of NMFS regulatory programs; and provide transparency in the operation of NMFS recovery program.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held Tuesday April 19, 2016, through Thursday April 21, 2016, at 9 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the NOAA Science Center, 1301 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone: 301-713-1010.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Therese Conant, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8456.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the ESA, section 4(f) requires the Secretary to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and threatened species. Those recovery plans must include objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would lead to a determination that the species be removed from the list, site-specific management actions necessary to achieve the plan's goal for the conservation of the species, and estimates of the time and costs to carry out the measures identified in the plan.

    We currently have final recovery plans for 47 species and draft recovery plans for five species. Recovery plans are not started or are under development for 39 species. The objective of the recovery program review is to determine if the current recovery planning process results in recovery plans that are effective roadmaps for recovering the species as evidenced by whether the plans are being implemented by NMFS and stakeholders, resulting in progress towards meeting the recovery criteria so that the species may be delisted. This review will evaluate, within the context of current budget constraints, the efficacy of the recovery planning process, including the quality of the recovery plans, the implementation of recovery actions, and the monitoring of recovery progress. This review will provide recommendations to improve recovery plans and the recovery planning and implementation process to increase the likelihood of recovering species.

    The meeting is open to the public all day, and the public will have an opportunity to provide verbal or written comments in one-hour sessions each day. Exact times for the public comment sessions are not known, but will be scheduled after 2 p.m. each day.

    Special Accommodations

    This public meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other accommodations should be directed to Therese Conant (see ADDRESSES) as soon as possible, but no later than 7 business days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

    Dated: February 29, 2016. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04793 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Hearings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public hearings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold public hearings for the Council's Blueline Tilefish Amendment.

    DATES:

    Written comments will be accepted until 11:59 p.m. Wednesday, March 30, 2016. The hearings will be held between March 21, 2016 and March 29, 2016 as described below.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be sent by any of the following methods:

    • Email to the following address: [email protected]; Include “Blueline Tilefish Comments” in the subject line;

    • Mail or hand deliver to Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, Delaware 19901. Mark the outside of the envelope “Blueline Tilefish Comments”; or

    • Fax to (302) 674-5399.

    There will be four hearings with the following dates/times/locations:

    1. Monday March 21, 2016, 6 p.m. Dare County Administration Building, Commissioners Meeting Room, 954 Marshall C. Collins Drive, Manteo, NC 27954; telephone: (252) 475-5700.

    2. Tuesday March 22, 2016, 7 p.m. Hilton Virginia Beach Oceanfront, 3001 Atlantic Ave, Virginia Beach, VA 23451; telephone: (757) 213-3001.

    3. Monday, March 28, 2016, 7 p.m. Hilton Suites Oceanfront, 3200 Baltimore Ave., Ocean City, MD 21842; telephone: (410) 289-6444.

    4. Tuesday, March 29, 2016, 7 p.m. Hilton Garden Inn Lakewood, 1885 Route 70, Lakewood, NJ 08701; telephone: (732) 262-5232.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331; Web site: www.mafmc.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Council has initiated an amendment to the Golden Tilefish Fishery Management Plan to begin management and conservation of blueline tilefish in the Mid-Atlantic. Measures include options for establishing a Mid-Atlantic blueline tilefish unit, establishing status determination criteria, commercial/for-hire/private permitting and reporting, establishment of a monitoring committee, framework adjustment procedures, specification process (including risk policy), commercial/recreational allocations, commercial/recreational trip/possession limits, essential fish habitat designation, and catch accountability measures. A public hearing document will be posted to the Council's Web site, www.mafmc.org, on or before March 14, 2916. The Council will consider the public's comments and testimony at its April 2016 Council Meeting, when it will take final action regarding adding blueline tilefish to the Golden Tilefish Fishery Management Plan.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: March 1, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04858 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Habitat Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 9 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Crowne Plaza Providence Warwick (Airport), 801 Greenwich Avenue, Warwick, RI 02886; phone: (401) 732-6000; fax: (401) 732-0261.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda

    The Committee plans to review habitat-related sections of five-year Council research priorities and forward recommendations to the Scientific and Statistical Committee. They will also receive update on framework adjustment to develop clam dredge access areas in Council-proposed Omnibus Habitat Amendment management areas. The committee will continue development of Omnibus Deep-Sea Coral Amendment; discuss goals and objectives of action, review list of coral zones and Plan Development Team (PDT) recommended updates and recommend modified alternatives to Council as appropriate; discuss range of management measures for coral zones and recommend modified alternatives to Council as appropriate; review preliminary PDT summary of fishing activities within coral zones; Discuss timeline for action and work plan. The Committee may also receive an update on the Northeast Regional Ocean Plan. Other business will be discussed as necessary.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 1, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04859 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Addition AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Addition to the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds a service to the Procurement List that will be provided by the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 3, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Addition

    On 1/29/2016 (81 FR 5009), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed addition to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agency to furnish the service and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will provide the service to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing a small entity to provide the service to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List:

    Service Service Type: Base Supply Center Service Mandatory for: U.S. Army, Fort Wainwright, AK Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: RLCB, Inc., Raleigh, NC Contracting Activity: Dept. of the Army, 0413 AQ HQ, HQ PARC, Fort Wainwright, AK Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04811 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add products and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and delete products previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before March 3, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Additions

    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products and service listed below from the nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following products and service are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 10659—Container Set, Soup and Salad, Includes Shipper 20659 Mandatory Source of Supply: Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Inc., Winston-Salem, NC NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 849—Whisk, Wire Looped Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Cincinnati Association for the Blind, Cincinnati, OH Mandatory for: Military commissaries and exchanges in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 51, 51-6.4. Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency, Fort Lee, VA Distribution: C-List Service Service Type: Custodial Service Mandatory For: U.S. Air Force, Air Force Institute of Technology/Air Force Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: CW Resources, Inc., New Britain, CT Contracting Activity: Dept. of the Air Force, FA8601 AFLCMC PZIO, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH Deletions

    The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 941—Cloth, Dish, Knitted Cotton, 4 pack Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Lions Services, Inc., Charlotte, NC NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 354—Multipurpose Food Dicer Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency, Fort Lee, VA NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7530-00-NIB-0496—Index Tabs, Mylar Reinforced 7530-00-NIB-0497 7530-00-NIB-0498 7530-00-NIB-0499 7530-00-NIB-0500 7530-00-NIB-0501 7530-00-NIB-0502 7530-00-NIB-0503 7530-00-NIB-0504 Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: South Texas Lighthouse for the Blind, Corpus Christi, TX Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 9320-00-NSH-0001—Foam Cutouts Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Epilepsy Association of Georgia, Warner Robins, GA Contracting Activity: Dept. of the Air Force, FA8501 AFSC PZIO, Robins AFB, GA. Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04810 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection 3038-0107, Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the renewal of collection of certain information by the Commission's Office of Consumer Outreach (“OCO”). Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed or renewal of a collection of information and to allow 60 days for public comment. The Commission is soliciting comments for the renewal of its generic information collection that will help the CFTC satisfy responsibilities under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”), found in Section 748 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The generic information collection will provide the OCO a means to gather qualitative consumer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner to facilitate service delivery.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before May 3, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery,” and Collection Number 3038-0107, by any of the following methods:

    • The Agency's Web site, at http://comments.cftc.gov/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.

    Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail above.

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

    Please submit your comments using only one method.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.1

    1 17 CFR 145.9.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nisha Smalls, Office of Consumer Outreach, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418-5895; FAX: (202) 418-5541; email: [email protected] and refer to this Federal Register notice.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the CFTC is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below.

    Title: Generic Clearance for Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.

    Abstract: In accordance with section 748 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the OCO anticipates undertaking a variety of service delivery-focused activities over the next few years which include consumer outreach and information-sharing with stakeholders that are responsive to stakeholders' needs and sensitive to changes in the consumer market. The proposed information collection activity will use similar methods for information collection or otherwise share common elements, and provide a means to gather qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful information on perceptions and opinions. The solicitation of information on delivery of consumer services will address such areas as appropriate messages, effective message delivery methods, effective event outreach tactics and characteristics, new outreach program ideas and content, and current consumer beliefs, psychographics and social norms that will assist the agency in developing outreach and communications campaigns. Since these systems will use similar methods for information collection or otherwise share common elements, the OCO is proposing a generic clearance for this process which will allow the OCO to implement these systems and meet the obligations of the PRA without the delays of the normal clearance process. Collection methods may include focus groups and surveys as well as other relevant collection methods that meet the conditions appropriate for a generic clearance as outlined below. The OCO will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:

    • The collections are voluntary;

    • The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondent, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;

    • The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;

    • Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;

    • Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;

    • Information gathered is intended to be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the Commission (if released, the Commission must indicate the qualitative nature of the information);

    • Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and

    • Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

    With respect to the collection of information, the Commission invites comments on:

    • The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Burden Statement

    Type of Review: Generic Clearance Request.

    Affected Public: Individuals and Households, Businesses and Organization, State, Local or Tribal governments.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Estimated number of Respondents/Affected Entities: 1,440.

    Estimated average number of responses: 10 per year.

    Estimated total average annual burden on respondents: 14,400 responses.

    Frequency of collection: Once per request.

    Average minutes per response: 120.

    Estimated total annual burden hours requested: 28,800 hours.

    There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: March 1, 2016. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04812 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 15-80] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah A. Ragan or Heather N. Harwell, DSCA/LMO, (703) 604-1546/(703) 607-5339.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 15-80 with attached Policy Justification.

    Dated: March 1, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN04MR16.002 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 15-80 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: The Government of Pakistan

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $564.68 million Other $134.36 million TOTAL $699.04 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services Under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    Eight (8) F-16 Block 52 aircraft (two (2) C and six (6) D models), with the F100-PW-229 increased performance engine Fourteen (14) Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS)

    Non-MDE items included in this request are eight (8) AN/APG-68(V)9 radars, and eight (8) ALQ-211(V)9 Advanced Integrated Defensive Electronic Warfare Suites (AIDEWS). Additionally, this possible sale includes spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated cost of MDE is $564.68 million. The total estimated cost is $699.04 million.

    (iv) Military Department: Air Force (X7-D-5A7)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: FMS Case SAF—$1.4B-24 Oct 06

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: 11 February 2016

    * as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION The Government of Pakistan—F-16 Block 52 Aircraft

    The Government of Pakistan has requested a possible sale of:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    Eight (8) F-16 Block 52 aircraft (two (2) C and six (6) D models), with the F100-PW-229 increased performance engine Fourteen (14) Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS)

    Non-MDE items included in this request are eight (8) AN/APG-68(V)9 radars, and eight (8) ALQ-211(V)9 Advanced Integrated Defensive Electronic Warfare Suites (AIDEWS). Additionally, this possible sale includes spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated cost of MDE is $564.68 million. The total estimated cost is $699.04 million.

    This proposed sale contributes to U.S. foreign policy objectives and national security goals by helping to improve the security of a strategic partner in South Asia.

    The proposed sale improves Pakistan's capability to meet current and future security threats. These additional F-16 aircraft will facilitate operations in all-weather, non-daylight environments, provide a self-defense/area suppression capability, and enhance Pakistan's ability to conduct counter-insurgency and counterterrorism operations.

    This sale will increase the number of aircraft available to the Pakistan Air Force to sustain operations, meet monthly training requirements, and support transition training for pilots new to the Block-52. Pakistan will have no difficulty absorbing these additional aircraft into its air force.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    Contractors have not been selected to support this proposed sale. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Pakistan.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 15-80 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. This sale involves the release of sensitive technology to Pakistan. The F-l 6C/D Block 50/52 weapon system is UNCLASSIFIED, except as noted below. The aircraft uses the F-16 airframe and features advanced avionics and systems. It contains the Pratt and Whitney F-100-PW-229 engine, AN/APG-68V(9) radar, digital flight control system, external electronic warfare equipment, Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF), LINK-16 datalink, and software computer programs.

    2. Sensitive and/or classified (up to SECRET) elements of the proposed F-16C/D include hardware, accessories, components, and associated software: AN/APG-68V(9) Radar, Have Quick I/II Radios, AN/APX-113 AIFF with Mode IV capability, AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures (Chaff and Flare) set, LINK-16 Advanced Data Link Group A provisions only, Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System, Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS), ALQ-21 l(V)9 Advanced Integrated Defensive Electronic Warfare Suite (AIDEWS) without Digital Radio Frequency Memory, AN/ALQ-213 Countermeasures Set, Modular Mission Computer, Have Glass I/II without infrared top coat, Digital Flight Control System, F-100 engine infrared signature, and Advanced Interference Blanker Unit. Additional sensitive areas include operating manuals and maintenance technical orders containing performance information, operating and test procedures, and other information related to support operations and repair. The hardware, software, and data identified are classified to protect vulnerabilities, design and performance parameters and other similar critical information.

    3. The AN/APG-68(V)9 is the latest model of the APG-68 radar and was specifically designed for foreign military sales. This model contains the latest digital technology available for a mechanically scanned antenna, including higher processor power, higher transmission power, more sensitive receiver electronics, and an entirely new capability, Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), which creates higher resolution ground maps from a much greater distance than previous versions of the APG-68. Complete hardware is classified CONFIDENTIAL, major components and subsystems are classified CONFIDENTIAL, software is classified SECRET, and technical data and documentation are classified up to SECRET.

    4. The AN/ARC-238 radio with HAVE QUICK II is a voice communications radio system. The AN/ARC-238 employs cryptographic technology that is classified SECRET. Classified elements include operating characteristics, parameters, technical data, and keying material.

    5. The AN/APX-113 AIFF with Mode IV system is classified up to SECRET when operational evaluator parameters are loaded into the equipment. Classified elements of the AIFF system include software object code, operating characteristics, parameters, and technical data.

    6. The Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Low Volume Terminal (MIDS-LVT) is an advanced Link-16 command, control, communications, and intelligence (C31) system incorporating high-capacity, jam-resistant, digital communication links for exchange of near real-time tactical information, including both data and voice, among air, ground, and sea elements. MIDS-LVT is intended to support key theater functions such as surveillance, identification, air control, weapons engagement coordination, and direction for all services and allied forces. The system will provide jamming-resistant, wide-area communications on a Link-16 network among MIDS and Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS) equipped platforms. The MIDS/LVT and MIDS on Ship Terminal hardware, publications, performance specifications, operational capability, parameters, vulnerabilities to countermeasures, and software documentation are classified CONFIDENTIAL. The classified information to be provided consists of that which is necessary for the operation, maintenance, and repair (through intermediate level) of the data link terminal, installed systems, and related software.

    7. The Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) is a modified HGU-55/P helmet that incorporates a visor-projected Heads-Up Display (HUD) to cue weapons and aircraft sensors to air and ground targets. A Helmet Vehicle Interface (HVI) interacts with the aircraft system bus to provide signal generation for the helmet display. This provides significant improvement for close combat targeting and engagement. The hardware is UNCLASSIFIED; technical data and documents are classified up to SECRET.

    8. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware or software source code in this proposed sale, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of systems with similar or advanced capabilities. The benefits to be derived from this sale in the furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives, as outlined in the Policy Justification, outweigh the potential damage that could result if the sensitive technology were revealed to unauthorized persons.

    9. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

    10. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

    11. All defense articles and services are approved for release to the Government of Pakistan.

    [FR Doc. 2016-04860 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 15-82] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah A. Ragan or Heather N. Harwell, DSCA/LMO, (703) 604-1546/(703) 607-5339.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 15-82 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: March 1, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN04MR16.001 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 15-82 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $72.5 million Other $82.4 million Total $154.9 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    Five (5) MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) Block 0 to Block 1B Baseline 2 upgrade kits

    Also included are the following non-MDE items: five (5) local control stations, spare and repair parts, upgrade and conversion of the kits, support and test equipment, personnel training and training equipment, publications, software and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of program and logistics support. The estimated cost is $154.9 million.

    (iv) Military Department: Navy (SR-P-LCR)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: FMS Case: SR-P-SAT, 24 Mar 74, $147.8 million

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: 10 February 2016

    * as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Kingdom of Saudi Arabia-MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) Block 1B Baseline 2 Kits

    The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has requested a sale for the upgrade and conversion of five (5) MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) Block 0 systems to the Block 1B Baseline 2 configuration. The Block 0 systems are currently installed on four (4) Royal Saudi Naval Forces (RSNF) Patrol Chaser Missile (PCG) Ships (U.S. origin) in their Eastern Fleet and one (1) system is located at its Naval Forces School. Also included are; five (5) local control stations, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, personnel training and training equipment, publications, software, and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of program and logistics support. The total estimated value of MDE is $72.5 million. The overall total estimated value is $154.9 million.

    This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a strategic regional partner, which has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East. This acquisition will enhance regional stability and maritime security and support strategic objectives of the United States.

    The proposed sale will provide Saudi Arabia with self-defense capabilities for surface combatants supporting both national and multi-national naval operations. The sale will extend the life of existing PCG Class ships. Saudi Arabia will use the enhanced capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defense. Saudi Arabia will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this equipment, services, and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The prime contractor will be Raytheon Missiles Systems of Tucson, Arizona. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Saudi Arabia; however, contractor engineering and technical services may be required on an interim basis for installations and integration.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 15-82 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology

    1. The MK 15 CIWS Phalanx Block 1B is a fast reaction detect-through-engage combat system that provides terminal defense against low-flying, high speed, anti-ship missiles; slow speed general purpose aircraft, helicopters, and small surface craft; and rockets, artillery, and mortars. The system is an automatic, self-contained unit consisting of a search and track radar, digitalized fire control system, and electro-optical thermal imager, and a stabilization system, as well as a 20mm M61A1 gun subsystem. CIWS Block 0 provides terminal defense capability but is no longer in the U.S. Navy inventory decreasing its sustainability. By comparison, the CIWS Block 1B upgrade included in this sale would add surface mode and enhanced anti-air warfare capabilities.

    a. There is no Critical Program Information associated with the MK 15 CIWS Phalanx hardware, technical documentation, or software. The highest classification of the hardware to be exported is UNCLASSIFIED. The highest classification of the technical documentation to be exported is CONFIDENTIAL. The highest classification of software to be exported is UNCLASSIFIED.

    2. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    3. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

    4. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to Saudi Arabia.

    [FR Doc. 2016-04823 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 16-14] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah A. Ragan or Heather N. Harwell, DSCA/LMO, (703) 604-1546/(703) 607-5339.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-14 with attached Policy Justification.

    Dated: February 29, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN04MR16.000 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 16-14 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as Amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $ 0 million Other $200 million Total $200 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has requested a possible sale of three years of support services by the United States Military Training Mission to Saudi Arabia (USMTM). USMTM is the Security Cooperation Organization (SCO) responsible for identifying, planning, and executing U.S. Security Cooperation training and advisory support for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Ministry of Defense.

    (iv) Military Department: U.S. Army (ABT, Basic Case)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: SR-B-ABS-A01; $90M; implemented 30 Dec 13

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee. etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: None

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: 17 February 2016

    * as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Kingdom of Saudi Arabia—Support Services

    The Government of Saudi Arabia has requested a possible sale of support services by the United States Military Training Mission to Saudi Arabia (USMTM). USMTM is the Security Cooperation Organization (SCO) responsible for identifying, planning, and executing U.S. Security Cooperation training and advisory support for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Ministry of Defense. The estimated cost is $200 million.

    This proposed sale will enhance the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of an important partner which has been and continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.

    This proposed sale will provide the continuation of Technical Assistance Field Teams (TAFT) and other support for USMTM services to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The proposed sale supports the United States' continued commitment to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's security and strengthens U.S.-Saudi Arabia strategic partnership. Sustaining the USMTM supports Saudi Arabia in deterring hostile action and increases U.S.—Saudi Arabia military interoperability. Saudi Arabia will have no difficulty absorbing this support.

    The proposed sale will not alter the basic military balance in the region. It will support Combatant Command initiatives in the region by enabling Saudi Arabia's efforts to combat aggression and terrorism.

    There is no prime contractor associated with this proposed sale. There are no known offset agreements in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will approve the permanent or temporary assignment of up to 202 case-funded U.S. Government or contractor personnel to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. Defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    [FR Doc. 2016-04706 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2016-OS-0018] Privacy Act of 1974; Notice of a Computer Matching Program AGENCY:

    Defense Manpower Data Center, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a computer matching program.

    SUMMARY:

    Subsection (e)(12) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), requires agencies to publish advance notice of any proposed or revised computer matching program by the matching agency for public comment. The Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) of the Department of Defense (DoD), as the matching agency under the Privacy Act is hereby giving notice to the record subjects of a computer matching program between the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and DMDC that their records are being matched by computer. The purpose of this match concerns Reserve pay reconciliation.

    DATES:

    This proposed action will become effective April 4, 2016 and matching may commence unless changes to the matching program are required due to public comments or by Congressional or by Office of Management and Budget objections. Any public comment must be received before the effective date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

    * Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    * Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mrs. Mary Fletcher at telephone (703) 571-0070.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to subsection (o) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), the DMDC and VA have concluded an agreement to conduct a computer matching program between the agencies. The purpose of this agreement is to verify eligibility for DoD/United States Coast Guard (USCG) members of the Reserve forces who receive VA disability compensation or pension in addition to receiving military pay and allowances when performing reserve duty. The parties to this agreement have determined that a computer matching program is the most efficient, expeditious, and effective means of obtaining and processing the information needed by the VA to identify those individuals who are receiving both VA compensation or pension and DoD/USCG payments for those periods when they are performing reserve duty. By law, the individual must waive his or her entitlement to VA disability compensation or pension if he or she desires to receive DoD/USCG pay and allowances for the period of duty performed. This matching agreement will result in an accurate reconciliation of such payments by permitting the VA to determine which individuals are being paid by DoD/USCG for duty performed and are being paid VA disability compensation or pension benefit for the same period of time without a waiver on file with the VA. If this reconciliation is not done by computer matching, but is done manually, the cost would be prohibitive and most dual payments would not be detected.

    A copy of the computer matching agreement between VA and DMDC is available upon request to the public. Requests should be submitted to Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Attn: Chief, Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010 or to the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefit Administration, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420.

    Set forth below is the notice of the establishment of a computer matching program required by paragraph 6.c. of the Office of Management and Budget Guidelines on computer matching published in the Federal Register at 54 FR 25818 on June 19, 1989.

    The matching agreement, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, and an advance copy of this notice was submitted on February 11, 2016, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget pursuant to paragraph 4d of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, `Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records about Individuals,' dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

    Dated: March 1, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. Notice of a Computer Matching Program Between the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense for Verification of Disability Compensation A. Participating Agencies

    Participants in this computer matching program are the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) of the Department of Defense (DoD). The VA is the source agency, i.e., the activity disclosing the records for the purpose of the match. The DMDC is the specific recipient activity or matching agency, i.e., the agency that actually performs the computer matching.

    B. Purpose of the Match

    The purpose of this agreement is to verify eligibility for DoD/United States Coast Guard (USCG) members of the Reserve forces who receive VA disability compensation or pension to also receive military pay and allowances when performing reserve duty.

    The VA will provide to DMDC identifying information on all VA recipients receiving a VA disability compensation or pension. DMDC will match the information with its reserve military pay data and provide for each match (hit) the number of training days, by fiscal year, for which the veteran was paid. The VA will use this information to make, where appropriate, necessary VA payment adjustments.

    C. Authority for Conducting the Match

    The legal authority for conducting the matching program for use in the administration of VA's Compensation and Pension Benefits Program is contained in 38 U.S.C. 5304(c), Prohibition Against Duplication of Benefits, provides that VA disability compensation or pension based upon his or her previous military service shall not be paid to a person for any period for which such person receives active service pay. 10 U.S.C. 12316, Payment of certain Reserves While on Duty, further provides that a reservist who is entitled to disability payments due to his or her earlier military service and who performs duty for which he or she is entitled to DoD/USCG compensation may elect to receive for that duty either the disability payments or, if he or she waives such payments, the DoD/USCG compensation for the duty performed.

    D. Records To Be Matched

    The systems of records maintained by the respective agencies under the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, from which records will be disclosed for the purpose of this computer match are as follows:

    The DMDC will use the system of records identified as DMDC 01, entitled “Defense Manpower Data Center Data Base,” last published in the Federal Register at November 23, 2011, 76 FR 72391.

    The VA will use the system of records identified as “Compensation, Pension, Education and Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Records-VA” (58 VA 21/22/28), republished in its entirety in the Federal Register at July 19, 2012, 77 FR 42593.

    E. Description of Computer Matching Program

    The VA will submit to DMDC an electronic data of all VA pension and disability compensation beneficiaries as of the end of September. Upon receipt of the data, DMDC will match by SSN with reserve pay data as submitted to DMDC by the military services and the USCG. Upon a SSN match, or a “hit,” of both data sets, DMDC will provide VA the individual's name and other identifying data, to include the number of training days, by fiscal year, for each matched record. Training days are the total of inactive duty drills paid plus active duty days paid.

    The hits will be furnished to VA, which will be responsible for verifying and determining that the data in the DMDC electronic files is consistent with the VA files and for resolving any discrepancies or inconsistencies on an individual basis. VA will initiate actions to obtain an election by the individual of which pay he or she wishes to receive and will be responsible for making final determinations as to positive identification, eligibility for, or amounts of pension or disability compensation benefits, adjustments thereto, or any recovery of overpayments, or such other action as authorized by law.

    The electronic data provided by the VA will contain information on approximately 4.2 million pension and disability compensation recipients.

    The DMDC reserve pay data contains information on approximately 890,000 DoD and 10,000 USCG reservists who received pay and allowances for performing authorized duty.

    VA will furnish DMDC the name and SSN of all VA pension and disability compensation recipients and DMDC will supply VA the name, SSN, date of birth, and the number of training days by fiscal year of each reservist who is identified as a result of the match.

    F. Inclusive Dates of the Matching Program

    This computer matching program is subject to public comment and review by Congress and the Office of Management and Budget. If the mandatory 30 day period for comment has expired and no comments are received and if no objections are raised by either Congress or the Office of Management and Budget within 40 days of being notified of the proposed match, the computer matching program becomes effective and the respective agencies may begin the exchange at a mutually agreeable time and thereafter on a quarterly basis. By agreement between VA and DMDC, the matching program will be in effect for 18 months with an option to renew for 12 additional months unless one of the parties to the agreement advises the other by written request to terminate or modify the agreement.

    G. Address for Receipt of Public Comments or Inquiries

    Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    [FR Doc. 2016-04832 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-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 San Francisco Bay to Stockton (John F. Baldwin and Stockton Ship Channels) Navigation Improvement Study, San Francisco Bay, CA AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Intent.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) San Francisco District, the Port of Stockton, and the Contra Costa County Water Agency are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) to evaluate the efficiency of the movement of goods along the existing deep-draft navigation route extending from the San Francisco Bay to the Port of Stockton. This Notice of Intent (NOI) represents a supplemental notice to the March 12, 2008, NOI released for the San Francisco Bay to Stockton Navigation Improvement Study. This supplemental NOI also provides an update to the description of the study and discusses current phasing of the project. Because of the amount of time that has passed since 2008, this supplemental NOI is being released to notify the public that work will begin on an EIS/EIR, which is anticipated to be issued for public review in 2016. This NOI also re-opens the public scoping period.

    The 2008 NOI discussed the project as a single navigation improvement study/project, proposing to deepen the John F. Baldwin channel from the West Richmond Channel to New York Slough Channel to a maximum depth of −45 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) and the Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel to a maximum depth of −40 feet MLLW.

    The forthcoming EIS/EIR proposes to reevaluate the unconstructed portions of the original project described in the 1965 Chief of Engineers Report (House Document 89-208) and authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-298), which will be referred to in the EIS/EIR as Phase I (or the proposed project). Additional study authority exists for the entire channel from San Francisco Bay to Stockton, provided by the 2014 United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Committee Resolution and specifying “navigation, ecosystem restoration, flood risk reduction, and other water related resource purposes.” This additional study authority will be discussed programmatically in the EIS/EIR.

    The study area for the overall project consists of two reaches: The Western Reach and Eastern Reach. The Western Reach extends from Central San Francisco Bay to Avon and includes the West Richmond Channel, Pinole Shoal Channel, and Bulls Head Reach portion of the Suisun Bay Channel. The Eastern Reach extends from Avon to the Port of Stockton and includes the remaining portions of the Suisun Bay Channel (east of Avon), New York Slough Channel, and the Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel. The Western Reach is authorized to a depth of −45 feet mean lower low water (MLLW), but is currently maintained to −35 feet MLLW. Additional deepening of the Eastern Reach requires separate Congressional authorization for construction.

    The forthcoming EIS/EIR for which this NOI is prepared proposes to separate the overall project into two separate phases (Phase I and Phase II) under a navigation improvement programmatic analysis. Under the programmatic analysis, two reaches and two phases are identified.

    Phase I of the study is a single purpose navigation improvement project to evaluate incremental deepening to a maximum depth of −40 feet MLLW in the Western Reach. Phase II is a subsequent multipurpose navigation and ecosystem restoration study that would evaluate deepening the Eastern Reach to a maximum depth of −40 feet MLLW. Phase II will also revisit if further deepening of Western Reach up to its authorized depth of −45 feet MLLW is warranted. The Eastern Reach is maintained at its authorized depth of −35 feet MLLW, and any additional deepening in this reach will require a new project authorization through a subsequent Water Resources Development Act (WRDA).

    The EIS/EIR will include both a project-level feasibility analysis for implementation of Phase I and a programmatic-level analysis for Phase II. Analysis of Phase II will be conducted using only existing information (i.e., additional studies or data collection will not be conducted). Additional project-level feasibility analysis of Phase II will require execution of a separate Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement with the local sponsor and pending receipt of federal study funds.

    DATES:

    Submit comments concerning this notice on or before April 4, 2016. There will be no additional public meeting in conjunction with this scoping period.

    ADDRESSES:

    Mail written comments concerning this notice to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, Planning Branch, ATTN: Cynthia J. Fowler, 1455 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-1398. Comment letters should include the commenter's physical mailing address, the project title, and the USACE file number in the subject line.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cynthia J. Fowler, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, Planning Branch, 1455 Market Street, San Francisco CA 94103-1398, (415) 503-6870, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As previously mentioned, the USACE intends to prepare an EIS to reevaluate incremental deepening of the Western Reach and programmatically assess a multipurpose project involving deepening and ecosystem restoration in both the Western and Eastern Reaches. The Port of Stockton is the lead agency and local sponsor in preparing the EIR. The USACE and the Port of Stockton have agreed to jointly prepare an EIS/EIR to optimize efficiency and avoid duplication. The EIS/EIR is intended to be sufficient in scope to address the federal, state, and local requirements and environmental issues concerning the proposed activities and permit approvals.

    Project Area and Background Information: The San Francisco Bay to Stockton Navigation Improvement Project includes the John F. Baldwin and Stockton Ship Channels, which extend 75 nautical miles from the Pacific Ocean, just outside the Golden Gate, to the Port of Stockton. Modern vessels crossing the channels can require up to 55 feet of draft when fully laden. Given that these channels are maintained at −35 feet MLLW, most vessels must be “light-loaded” (i.e., less than fully loaded with cargo) to navigate the channels with sufficient under-keel clearance. Light-loading increases the cost of transportation and, in turn, the cost of the shipped products because more trips must be made to carry the same volume of cargo. Light-loading is also inefficient, requiring more ships to carry cargo than if ships could travel with full loads.

    The study area includes the entire extent of the federal navigation channels occurring in the Western and Eastern reaches, which are defined as follows:

    Western Reach. This area includes the West Richmond Channel, Pinole Shoal Channel, Carquinez Strait, and the Bulls Head Reach portion of the Suisun Bay Channel. Avon (just east of the Benicia-Martinez Bridge) separates the Western Reach from the Eastern Reach. Western Reach is currently maintained at −35 feet MLLW, although the channels have an authorized depth of −45 feet MLLW.

    Eastern Reach. This area includes the remaining portions of the Suisun Bay Channel (i.e., Suisun Bay Channel east of Avon and New York Slough) and all of the Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel (DWSC). The Eastern Reach is also maintained at a depth of −35 feet MLLW.

    The Phase I project-level alternatives described below are anticipated to be analyzed in the Draft EIS/EIR. Phase II will be evaluated at a programmatic level because of uncertainties associated with its scope, size, and other details.

    No Action, in which dredging to deepen the Western Reach would not occur and all construction-related activities would be avoided. Maintenance dredging would continue annually or on an as-needed basis and the federal standard placement sites would continue to be used.

    Deepening to −37 feet MLLW, which would deepen the Western Reach to a depth of −37 feet MLLW with up to 2 feet of overdepth for a maximum depth of −39 feet MLLW. To account for rapid shoaling, an approximately 800-foot long sediment trap would be constructed at Bulls Head Reach by dredging up to an additional 6 feet (including 2 feet of overdepth) to −43 feet MLLW.

    Deepening to −38 feet MLLW, which would deepen the Western Reach to a depth of −38 feet MLLW with up to 2 feet of overdepth for a maximum depth of −40 feet MLLW. Under this alternative, an approximately 800-foot long sediment trap at Bulls Head Reach would be constructed by dredging up to an additional 6 feet (including 2 feet of overdepth) to −44 feet MLLW.

    Under both deepening alternatives, dredged material is expected to be placed at one or more permitted and economically feasible beneficial reuse sites.

    Purpose and Need: The purpose of the Phase I study is to evaluate more efficient deep-draft navigation via incremental deepening of the Western Reach in a manner that minimizes adverse environmental effects. A potential subsequent Phase II multipurpose project involving deepening and ecosystem restoration in both the Western and Eastern Reaches will also be discussed programmatically. The purpose of Phase II is also to evaluate efficient deep-draft navigation and beneficial use opportunities using material generated from the deepening project. The need for the Phase I and Phase II studies is to address vessel restrictions imposed by the existing channel depths, which are inadequate to accommodate vessels with drafts exceeding −35 feet MLLW.

    Issues: The detailed environmental analysis will consider the effect of maintaining or deepening the Western Reach on biological resources, sediments, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, water quality, geology, sediments, hydraulics and hydrology, hazards, noise, utilities, navigation, environmental justice, transportation, land use, cultural and historic resources, aesthetics, recreation, and socioeconomic effects, as well as cumulative impacts and other specific potential environmental issues of concern. Where existing information is sufficiently available, the EIS/EIR will also consider the effects of both phases.

    Scoping Process: The USACE is seeking participation of all interested federal, state, and local agencies, Native American groups, and other concerned private organizations or individuals through this public notice. The purpose of the public scoping period is to solicit comments regarding the potential impacts, environmental issues, and alternatives associated with the proposed action to be considered in the Draft EIS/EIR; identify other significant issues; provide other relevant information; and recommend mitigation measures. The public comment period is anticipated to run from March 4 to April 4, 2016.

    The public will have an additional opportunity to comment once the Draft EIS/EIR is released, which is anticipated to be in the summer of 2016. The USACE will announce availability of the Draft EIS/EIR in the Federal Register and other media, and the USACE and Port of Stockton will provide a 45-day review period for the public, organizations, and agencies to review and comment on the Draft EIS/EIR. All interested parties should respond to this notice and provide a current address if they wish to be notified of the Draft EIS/EIR circulation.

    John C. Morrow, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army, District Engineer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04758 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD Sunshine Act Notice AGENCY:

    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Public Hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (Board) public hearing described below. The Board invites any interested persons or groups to present any comments, technical information, or data concerning safety issues related to the matters to be considered.

    DATES:

    Session I: 5:00 p.m.-6:30 p.m., Session II: 6:45 p.m.-9:00 p.m., March 22, 2016.

    Place:

    Santa Fe Community Convention Center, 201 West Marcy Street, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501. Parking will be available at no cost.

    Status:

    Open. The Board has determined that an open hearing furthers the public interests underlying both the Government in the Sunshine Act and the Board's enabling legislation.

    Matters to be Considered:

    In this public hearing, the Board wishes to gather information regarding the hazards to the public and workers posed by the management of transuranic (TRU) waste at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) as well as the Department of Energy's (DOE) plans to address those hazards. The Board will also examine DOE's actions taken or planned to resolve known inadequacies in the current safety basis of the various facilities that manage or store TRU waste at LANL, and actions to improve TRU waste management at LANL in response to the challenges caused by the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) accident and the associated investigation findings.

    A senior Board technical staff employee will present information to the Board regarding TRU waste management at LANL, including safety issues identified at Area G including issues with inappropriately remediated nitrate salt-bearing waste, corrective actions resulting from the WIPP accident, and federal oversight. The Board will then receive testimony from senior officials from DOE Headquarters and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Headquarters regarding federal oversight of LANL transuranic waste management. After a brief recess, the Board will receive testimony from DOE and NNSA Los Alamos Field Office leadership as well as LANL leadership regarding technical resolution of safety issues. Following the public comment period, the hearing will conclude with statements from senior officials from DOE and NNSA as well as the Board Chairman. The public hearing portion of this proceeding is authorized by 42 U.S.C. 2286b.

    FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Welch, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (800) 788-4016.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public participation in the hearing is invited during the public comment period of the agenda. The Board is setting aside time for presentations and comments from the public. Persons interested in speaking during the public comment period are encouraged to pre-register by submitting a request in writing to the Board's address listed above or by telephone to the Office of the General Counsel at (202) 694-7062 prior to close of business on March 18, 2016. The Board asks that commenters describe the nature and scope of their oral presentations. Those who pre-register will be scheduled to speak first. Individual oral comments may be limited by the time available, depending on the number of persons who register. At the beginning of the hearing, the Board will post a list of speakers at the entrance to the hearing room. Anyone who wishes to comment or provide technical information or data may do so in writing, either in lieu of, or in addition to, making an oral presentation. The Board Members may question presenters to the extent deemed appropriate. Public participation in the hearing will be subject to the participation criteria posted on the Board's Web site with the hearing agenda. Written comments and documents will be accepted at the hearing or may be sent to the Board's Washington, DC, office. The Board will hold the hearing record open until April 22, 2016, for the receipt of additional materials.

    The hearing will be presented live through Internet video streaming. A link to the presentation will be available on the Board's Web site (www.dnfsb.gov). A transcript of the hearing, along with a DVD video recording, will be made available by the Board for inspection and viewing by the public at the Board's Washington office and at the Department of Energy's (DOE) public reading room at the DOE Federal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. The Board specifically reserves its right to further schedule and otherwise regulate the course of the hearing, to recess, reconvene, postpone, or adjourn the hearing, conduct further reviews, and otherwise exercise its authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

    Dated: March 1, 2016. Joyce L. Connery, Chairman.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04928 Filed 3-2-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Hispanic-Serving Institutions STEM and Articulation Program AGENCY:

    Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Overview Information

    Hispanic-Serving Institutions STEM and Articulation Program

    Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2016.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.031C.

    DATES:

    Applications Available: March 4, 2016.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: May 3, 2016.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: July 5, 2016.

    Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The Hispanic-Serving Institutions STEM and Articulation Program supports eligible Hispanic-Serving institutions (as defined in section 502 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1101a)) (HSIs) in developing and carrying out activities described in section 503(b) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1101b(b)) to increase the number of Hispanic and low-income students attaining degrees in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM).

    Background: Given the growth in the Hispanic population, taking steps to increase the number of Hispanic students with STEM credentials is critical to the future workforce and economy of the United States. Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 1 project that jobs in occupations related to STEM will grow to more than nine million between 2012 and 2022. This represents an increase of about one million jobs over 2012 employment levels. Additionally, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that Latinos accounted for just 6.5 percent of the STEM workforce in 2011, even though they made up about 17 percent of the U.S. population. The number of Hispanic students graduating with a postsecondary degree has increased in recent years; however, these students continue to be significantly underrepresented in the total number of students earning STEM credentials. In 2013 Hispanic students accounted for nine percent of students earning STEM degrees and certificates, with the majority of such Hispanic students coming from HSIs.2

    1 Vilorio, D. (2014, March). STEM 101: Intro to tomorrow's jobs. Occupational Outlook Quarterly. Retrieved from www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2014/spring/art01.pdf.

    2Excelencia in Education. (2015). Finding Your Workforce: Latinos in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM). Washington, DC: Excelencia in Education.

    These data demonstrate the need for comprehensive support programs that promote educational opportunities in STEM fields for Hispanics. The Department has promoted college retention, affordability, and completion, especially for minority and low-income students, through various policy initiatives. This competition specifically acknowledges the importance of student-centered programs that will increase the number of Hispanic and low-income students who graduate with degrees in STEM fields, as well as the need to promote strong articulation and transfer models, leading to more transfer students attaining STEM field degrees.

    In recent years, the Department has emphasized the importance of promoting evidence-based practices through our grant competitions. In an effort to focus on promising strategies that have been the subject of research and evaluation as a way to enhance the effectiveness of work supported by funded applicants with Federal dollars, and to improve outcomes for students participating in our programs, we have included competitive preference priorities encouraging applicants to model their proposed projects on evidence-based strategies. For applicants that address a competitive preference priority, we award one additional point if the activities or strategies are supported by a study that meets the evidence of promise standard or three additional points if the activities or strategies are supported by a study (or studies) that meet the moderate evidence of effectiveness standard.

    Applicants must demonstrate that the research cited is relevant to the proposed project activities or strategies. In assessing the relevance of the research cited to the proposed project, the Secretary will consider, among other factors, the portion of the requested funds that will be dedicated to the evidence-based strategies or activities. In addition, in an effort to help generate evidence about effective intervention strategies and best practices that lead to increased completion rates at two- and four-year HSIs, particularly for STEM credentials, we have included a selection criterion awarding additional points for applications that propose rigorous evaluation methods for their proposed projects.

    Priorities: In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), Absolute Priority 1 is from the list of authorized activities in the statute (see section 503(b)(5) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1101b(b)(5)). In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(iv), Absolute Priority 2 is from section 371(b)(2)(B) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1067q(b)(2)(B)). In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(ii), the competitive preference priorities are from 34 CFR 75.226.

    Absolute Priorities: For FY 2016 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet both priorities.

    These priorities are:

    Absolute Priority 1

    An application that proposes to develop or enhance tutoring, counseling, and student service programs designed to improve academic success, including innovative and customized instruction courses (which may include remedial education and English language instruction) designed to help retain students and move the students rapidly into core courses and through program completion.

    Absolute Priority 2

    An application that proposes activities to increase the number of Hispanic and other low-income students attaining degrees in the STEM fields and proposes to develop model transfer and articulation agreements between two-year HSIs and four-year institutions in STEM fields.

    Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2016 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award one additional point to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 1 and three additional points to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 2. Applicants may address only one of the competitive preference priorities and must clearly indicate in their application which competitive preference priority they are addressing. Applicants that address Competitive Preference Priority 2, but whose applications do not meet the moderate evidence of effectiveness standard, may still be considered under Competitive Preference Priority 1 to determine whether their applications meet the evidence of promise standard.

    These priorities are:

    Competitive Preference Priority 1. (One additional point) Applications supported by evidence of effectiveness that meets the conditions set out in the definition of “evidence of promise.”

    Competitive Preference Priority 2. (Three additional points) Applications supported by evidence of effectiveness that meets the conditions set out in the definition of “moderate evidence of effectiveness.”

    Definitions: These definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1.

    Evidence of promise means there is empirical evidence to support the theoretical linkage(s) between at least one critical component and at least one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice. Specifically, evidence of promise means the conditions in both paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this definition are met:

    (i) There is at least one study that is a—

    (A) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias;

    (B) Quasi-experimental design study that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations; or

    (C) Randomized controlled trial that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations.

    (ii) The study referenced in paragraph (i) of this definition found a statistically significant or substantively important (defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger), favorable association between at least one critical component and one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice.

    Logic model (also referred to as theory of action) means a well-specified conceptual framework that identifies key components of the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice (i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the relationships among the key components and outcomes, theoretically and operationally.

    Note:

    In developing logic models, applicants may want to use resources such as the Pacific Education Laboratory's Education Logic Model Application (www.relpacific.mcrel.org/PERR.html or http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED544779.pdf) to help design their logic model.

    Moderate evidence of effectiveness means one of the following conditions is met:

    (i) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practices being proposed that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations, found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (with no statistically significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the study or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works Clearinghouse), and includes a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or practice.

    (ii) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations, found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (with no statistically significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the study or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works Clearinghouse), includes a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or practice, and includes a large sample and a multi-site sample.

    Note:

    Multiple studies can cumulatively meet the large and multi-site sample requirements as long as each study meets the other requirements in this paragraph.

    Multi-site sample means more than one site, where site can be defined as a local educational agency, locality, or State.

    Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental design by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations (but not What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations).

    Randomized controlled trial means a study that employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, schools, or districts to receive the intervention being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the intervention (the control group). The estimated effectiveness of the intervention is the difference between the average outcome for the treatment group and for the control group. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations.

    Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) (or the ultimate outcome if not related to students) the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice is designed to improve; consistent with the specific goals of a program.

    Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice that includes a logic model.

    What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards means the standards set forth in the What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 3.0, March 2014), which can be found at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.

    Program Authority:

    20 U.S.C. 1067q(b)(2)(B).

    Although the HSI STEM and Articulation Program authorized under section 371 of the HEA is not part of the Developing HSIs Program authorized by title V of the HEA, the eligibility and activity provisions under the Developing HSIs Program apply to the HSI STEM and Articulation Program pursuant to section 371(a)(2) and (b)(2)(B) of the HEA.

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment 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.

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.

    II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

    Estimated Available Funds: $91,773,000.

    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2017 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

    Estimated Range of Awards: $700,000-1,200,000.

    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $775,000.

    Estimated Number of Awards: 109.

    Note:

    The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

    Project Period: Up to 60 months.

    III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: (a) IHEs that qualify as eligible HSIs are eligible to apply under the HSI STEM and Articulation Program. To be an eligible HSI, an IHE must—

    (i) Have an enrollment of needy students, as defined in section 502(b) of the HEA (section 502(a)(2)(A)(i) of the HEA; 20 U.S.C. 1101a(a)(2)(A)(i));

    (ii) Have, except as provided in section 522(b) of the HEA, average educational and general expenditures that are low, per full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate student, in comparison with the average educational and general expenditures per FTE undergraduate student of institutions that offer similar instruction (section 502(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the HEA; 20 U.S.C. 1101a(a)(2)(A)(ii));

    Note:

    The notice announcing the FY 2016 process for designation of eligible institutions, and inviting applications for waiver of eligibility requirements, was published in the Federal Register on November 19, 2015 (80 FR 72422). Only institutions that the Department determines are eligible, or are granted a waiver, may apply for a grant in this program.

    (iii) Be accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association that the Secretary has determined to be a reliable authority as to the quality of education or training offered, or making reasonable progress toward accreditation, according to such an agency or association (section 502(a)(2)(A)(iv) of the HEA; 20 U.S.C. 1101a(a)(2)(A)(iv));

    (iv) Be legally authorized to provide, and provide within the State, an educational program for which the institution awards a bachelor's degree, or be a junior or community college (section 502(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the HEA; 20 U.S.C. 1101a(a)(2)(A)(iii)); and

    (v) Have an enrollment of undergraduate FTE students that is at least 25 percent Hispanic students at the end of the award year immediately preceding the date of application (section 502(a)(5)(B) of the HEA; 20 U.S.C. 1101a(a)(5)(B)).

    Note:

    Institutions that have been identified as meeting the requirements to be an “eligible institution” for purposes of title V of the HEA as described in the Federal Register notice published on November 19, 2015, including the requirement that it have at least 25 percent Hispanic enrollment, do not need to submit any additional eligibility information but must submit a grant application. Institutions that have been identified as meeting the basic requirements to be an eligible institution except for the requirement for 25 percent Hispanic enrollment must submit documentation to demonstrate that they meet that requirement. The institution must submit either: The data the institution submitted to the Department in response to the IPEDS surveys for Fall 2014 or the data submitted by the institution to the State. See the application package for more information regarding eligibility documentation.

    An institution that is required to submit documentation of its percentage of Hispanic student enrollment but does not do so will not be eligible to apply for a grant. An institution that meets the basic requirements of an eligible institution but does not demonstrate that it meets the requirement for 25 percent Hispanic enrollment is also not eligible to apply for a grant.

    (b) An eligible HSI that submits multiple applications may only be awarded one grant.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching unless the grantee uses a portion of its grant for establishing or improving an endowment fund. If a grantee uses a portion of its grant for endowment fund purposes, it must match those grant funds with non-Federal funds (section 503(c)(2) of the HEA; 20 U.S.C. 1101b(c)(2)).

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Request for Application Package: Everardo Gil or Jeffrey Hartman, Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 7E311, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 219-7000 or (202) 502-7607 or by email: [email protected] or [email protected]

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the program contact person listed in this section.

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this program.

    Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria, the absolute priorities, and the competitive preference priorities that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We have established the following mandatory page limits for all applications:

    • If you are not addressing a competitive preference priority, you must limit your application narrative to no more than 50 pages.

    • If you are addressing one of the competitive preference priorities, you must limit your application narrative to no more than 55 pages.

    Please include a separate heading for the absolute priorities and for the competitive preference priority, if you address one.

    For the purpose of determining compliance with the page limits, each page on which there are words will be counted as one full page. Applicants must use the following standards:

    • A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Page numbers and an identifier may be within the 1″ margins.

    • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, except titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, captions and all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. These items may be single-spaced. Charts, tables, figures, and graphs in the application narrative count toward the page limit.

    • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). However, you may use a 10-point font in charts, tables, figures, graphs, footnotes, and endnotes.

    • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.

    The page limit applies to all of the application narrative section, including your complete response to the selection criteria, the absolute priorities, and a competitive preference priority. However, the page limit does not apply to Part I, the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424); the Department of Education Supplemental Information form (SF 424); Part II, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524) and budget narrative; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page project abstract. If you include any attachments or appendices not specifically requested in the application package, these items will be counted as part of your application narrative for purposes of the page-limit requirement.

    3. Submission Dates and Times:

    Applications Available: March 4, 2016.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: May 3, 2016.

    Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery, please refer to Other Submission Requirements in section IV of this notice.

    We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.

    Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: July 5, 2016.

    4. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this program.

    5. Funding Restrictions: (a) General. We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    (b) Applicability of Executive Order 13202. Applicants that apply for construction funds under the HSI STEM and Articulation Program must comply with Executive Order 13202, as amended. This Executive order provides that recipients of Federal construction funds may not “require or prohibit bidders, offerors, contractors, or subcontractors to enter into or adhere to agreements with one or more labor organizations, on the same or other construction project(s)” or “otherwise discriminate against bidders, offerors, contractors, or subcontractors for becoming or refusing to become or remain signatories or otherwise to adhere to agreements with one or more labor organizations, on the same or other related construction project(s).” Projects funded under this program that include construction activity will be provided a copy of this Executive order and will be asked to certify that they will adhere to it.

    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the Department of Education, you must—

    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry), the Government's primary registrant database;

    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and

    d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.

    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site: http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.

    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.

    The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

    Note:

    Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through, Grants.gov.

    If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.

    Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.

    In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.

    7. Other Submission Requirements: Applications for grants under the HSI STEM and Articulation Program must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.

    a. Electronic Submission of Applications.

    Applications for grants under the HSI STEM and Articulation Program, CFDA number 84.031C, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

    We will re