Federal Register Vol. 81, No.90,

On January 18, 2011, the President issued Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” to ensure that Federal regulations seek more affordable, less intrusive means to achieve policy goals, and that agencies give careful consideration to the benefits and costs of those regulations. To that end, the Executive order requires, among other things, that:

• Agencies propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; and that agencies tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; and that, consistent with applicable law, agencies select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity).

• The regulatory process encourages public participation and an open exchange of views, with an opportunity for the public to comment.

• Agencies coordinate, simplify, and harmonize regulations to reduce costs and promote certainty for businesses and the public.

• Agencies consider low-cost approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility.

• Regulations be guided by objective scientific evidence.

Additionally, the Executive Order directs agencies to consider how best to promote retrospective analyses of existing rules. Specifically, agencies were required to develop a plan under which the agency will periodically review existing regulations to determine which should be maintained, modified, strengthened, or repealed to increase the effectiveness and decrease the burdens of the agency's regulatory program. DOE's plan and its subsequent update reports can be accessed at http://energy.gov/gc/services/open-government/restrospective-regulatory-review.

The Department is committed to maintaining a consistent culture of retrospective review and analysis. DOE will continually engage in review of its rules to determine whether there are burdens on the public that can be avoided by amending or rescinding existing requirements. To that end, DOE is publishing this RFI to again explicitly solicit public input. In addition, DOE is always open to receiving information about the impact of its regulations. To facilitate both this RFI and the ongoing submission of comments, interested parties can identify regulations that may be in need of review at the following White House Web site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/engage. DOE has also created a link on the Web page of DOE's Office of the General Counsel to an email in-box for the submission of comments, [email protected].

While the Department promulgates rules in accordance with the law and to the best of its analytic capability, it is difficult to be certain of the consequences of a rule, including its costs and benefits, until it has been tested. Because knowledge about the full effects of a rule is widely dispersed in society, members of the public are likely to have useful information and perspectives on the benefits and burdens of existing requirements and how regulatory obligations may be updated, streamlined, revised, or repealed to better achieve regulatory objectives, while minimizing regulatory burdens. Interested parties may also be well-positioned to identify those rules that are most in need of review and, thus, assist the Department in prioritizing and properly tailoring its retrospective review process. In short, engaging the public in an open, transparent process is a crucial step in DOE's review of its existing regulations.

The Department's dedication to involve the public in the regulatory process includes a number of ongoing successful public engagement efforts. These efforts include seeking public input on the retrospective review process, posting comments on our Web page to encourage the public to share their thoughts on the comments of others, and considering input received through a dedicated retrospective review email address. These efforts encourage public engagement in the retrospective review process, and provide the ability for the public to comment and engage in a dialog on the improvement of DOE regulations.

The Department has developed another innovative way to engage the public in the regulatory review process. The Department has tasked the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) to assist DOE in the retrospective review process. ASRAC was created as an advisory committee to provide advice and recommendations on the development of standards and test procedures for residential appliances and commercial equipment, certification and enforcement of standards, and product labeling. ASRAC is comprised of representatives from industry, utilities, energy efficiency/environmental advocacy groups, and consumer groups. As a part of the retrospective regulatory review process, the Department has tasked ASRAC to identify particular rules for which revision would have the most positive impact and potential improvement to the regulatory process. ASRAC meetings are also open to the public and notice of ASRAC meetings are published in the Federal Register. ASRAC has also been tasked with writing a report that details their recommendations for the regulatory review process. ASRAC held two meetings at which retrospective regulatory review was on the agenda. Involving ASRAC in the regulatory review process will provide the public with another means to help the Department determine the regulations that could benefit the most from retrospective review.

The Department highlights the examples below as retrospective review successes resulting from public engagement in the regulatory process. For further details and additional examples, the public is invited to review DOE's previous update reports, available at http://www.energy.gov/gc/services/open-government/restrospective-regulatory-review. New retrospective successes from DOE's March 2016 and July 2015 reports are described below.

(1) DOE published a proposed rule to amend its regulations for the timely coordination of Federal Authorizations for proposed interstate electric transmission facilities pursuant to section 216(h) of the Federal Power Act. This rulemaking will improve the pre-application procedures and result in more efficient processing of applications. The proposed rule implements a number of Presidential directives, including the Presidential Memorandum on “Speeding Infrastructure Development through More Efficient and Effective Permitting and Environmental Review” (August 31, 2011), Executive Order 13604, “Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects” (March 22, 2012), the Presidential Memorandum on “Modernizing Federal Infrastructure Review and Permitting Regulations, Policies, and Procedures ” (May 17, 2013, and the Presidential Memorandum on “Transforming our Nation's Electric Grid Through Improved Siting, Permitting, and Review” (June 7, 2013).

(2) DOE published a final rule amending the administrative requirements for grants and cooperative agreements with for-profit organizations. Specifically, the rule modifies title provisions and requirements related to the handling of real property and equipment acquired with federal funds. The rule also adds provisions related to export control requirements and supporting U.S. manufacturing, reporting on utilization of subject inventions, novation of financial assistance agreements, and changes of control of recipients. The rule will reduce the burden on grant recipients because they will need to file only UCC-1s and will not have to negotiate a separate “priority” term in their individual grant agreements. As part of its retrospective review efforts, DOE will continue to consider input from affected parties on ways to reduce burdens on its grant recipients and entities with which DOE enters cooperative agreements.

(3) DOE issued a comprehensive update of regulations in 10 CFR part 810 concerning Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities, making the regulations consistent with current global civil nuclear trade practices and nonproliferation norms. DOE has also initiated a process improvement program to reduce the public burden associated with nuclear technology export authorizations, to reduce specific authorization processing time, and to create a guide to part 810 and an electronic application and tracking (e-810) system. Since the Part 810 final rule went into effect on March 25, 2015, DOE has created guidance and FAQs, which are available online. As a result of the rule revisions, DOE estimates a net benefit, for the period 2013-2030, of $19,896,142 per year at a 7-percent discount rate and $19,253,076 per year at a 3-percent discount rate. The process improvement program is expected to reduce the time needed for DOE to process nuclear export authorizations and provide more transparency to submitters regarding process steps and the associated time needed to complete each step.

The following list of questions is intended to assist in the formulation of comments and not to restrict the issues that may be addressed. In addressing these questions or others, DOE requests that commenters identify with specificity the regulation or reporting requirement at issue, providing legal citation where available. The Department also requests that the submitter provide, in as much detail as possible, an explanation why a regulation or reporting requirement should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed, as well as specific suggestions of ways the Department can better achieve its regulatory objectives.

(1) How can the Department best promote meaningful periodic reviews of its existing rules and how can it best identify those rules that might be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed?

(2) What factors should the agency consider in selecting and prioritizing rules and reporting requirements for review?

(3) Are there regulations that are or have become unnecessary, ineffective, or ill advised and, if so, what are they? Are there rules that can simply be repealed without impairing the Department's regulatory programs and, if so, what are they?

(4) Are there rules or reporting requirements that have become outdated and, if so, how can they be modernized to accomplish their regulatory objectives better?

(5) Are there rules that are still necessary, but have not operated as well as expected such that a modified, stronger, or slightly different approach is justified?

(6) Does the Department currently collect information that it does not need or use effectively to achieve regulatory objectives?

(7) Are there regulations, reporting requirements, or regulatory processes that are unnecessarily complicated or could be streamlined to achieve regulatory objectives in more efficient ways?

(8) Are there rules or reporting requirements that have been overtaken by technological developments? Can new technologies be leveraged to modify, streamline, or do away with existing regulatory or reporting requirements?

(9) How can the Department best obtain and consider accurate, objective information and data about the costs, burdens, and benefits of existing regulations? Are there existing sources of data the Department can use to evaluate the post-promulgation effects of regulations over time? We invite interested parties to provide data that may be in their possession that documents the costs, burdens, and benefits of existing requirements.

(10) Are there regulations that are working well that can be expanded or used as a model to fill gaps in other DOE regulatory programs?

The Department notes that this RFI is issued solely for information and program-planning purposes. Responses to this RFI do not bind DOE to any further actions related to the response. All submissions will be made publically available on http://www.regulations.gov.

The basic premise underlying the D-SNAP and this proposed rule is that when a disaster occurs (and after commercial channels of food distribution are operating again) there is an increased and immediate need for nutrition assistance for families that have suffered loss of income and/or incurred additional costs due to the disaster. SNAP is not designed to take disaster-related expenses into account in determining eligibility. SNAP eligibility requirements typically do not match the sudden (but temporary) needs of households affected by disaster, and SNAP's procedural requirements make it difficult for States to handle the large number of people suddenly in need of immediate assistance. Thus, it may be necessary to implement a D-SNAP that uses a different set of rules to determine need and issue benefits.

D-SNAP provides temporary food assistance for households affected by a disaster when there is a Presidential disaster declaration that includes the provision of individual assistance. Currently, D-SNAP provides one month of benefits to eligible disaster survivors and can facilitate the issuance of supplemental SNAP benefits for currently certified households. To be eligible for D-SNAP, a household must live (or in some cases, work) in the identified disaster area, have been affected by the disaster, and meet certain D-SNAP eligibility criteria. D-SNAP is designed for situations where a large number of households have disaster-related expenses not contemplated when an individual applies for SNAP.

The primary responsibility for providing emergency food assistance rests with the State agency. Currently, utilizing FNS Guidance, State agencies design their own D-SNAP Plan, evaluate the need for a D-SNAP or another feeding program should a disaster strike, submit to FNS a detailed request to operate a D-SNAP, effectively implement the D-SNAP, ensure program integrity in D-SNAP operations, submit daily reports, perform post-disaster reviews and report their findings to FNS.

In the discussion of the proposed provisions in this rule, we use the following acronyms or other abbreviations to stand in for certain words or phrases:

FNS can provide disaster nutrition assistance in three ways:

• Provide USDA purchased foods for shelters and other mass feeding sites (42 U.S.C. 5180);

• Provide USDA commodity (food) assistance for distribution directly to households in need in certain limited circumstances (42 U.S.C.5180);

• Approve a State D-SNAP operation and provide funding for 100 percent of disaster benefits and 50 percent of State administrative costs. FNS supports the State's efforts to provide D-SNAP benefits by providing policy guidance, training, and technical assistance to State agencies as they plan, implement, and assess their D-SNAP activities (42 U.S.C. 5179).

All three types of assistance may be needed for disaster victims throughout or at different points of time following the disaster. However, households cannot simultaneously receive both D-SNAP benefits and commodity assistance.

Under the Stafford Act the President is authorized to declare a “major disaster” when requested to do so by the Governor of a state stuck by a natural disaster. The President may direct Federal agencies to support States' response efforts and assist in the distribution of food and other consumable supplies.

After consultation with FEMA, the Secretary also has the authority to establish temporary emergency standards of eligibility for victims of a disaster if they are in need of temporary food assistance, and commercial channels of food distribution were disrupted, but have again become available. FNS has generally approved States' requests for D-SNAP under Stafford Act authority when areas affected by disasters have received a Presidential disaster declaration that includes an individual assistance declaration, since this establishes the need for assistance at the household level.

The Stafford Act provides the Secretary of Agriculture with the authority to operate a D-SNAP when affected areas have received a Presidential major disaster declaration for individual assistance (IA) and when commercial channels of food distribution are available. Section (5)(h) of the Act provides the Secretary with the authority to establish temporary emergency standards of eligibility for households who are survivors of a disaster that disrupts commercial channels of food distribution, after those channels have been restored. The Act requires that the Secretary establish a disaster task force to assist States in the implementation and operation of a D-SNAP and send members to the disaster site if cost-effective. The Act also requires that the regulations address replacement benefits for households currently certified in SNAP that experience food loss, and provides for the adjustment of issuance and reporting requirements in the D-SNAP.

Under Section 11(e)(14) of the Act, as part of a State agency's overall Plan of Operation, the State agency is required to specify a plan for providing SNAP for households that are victims of a disaster and that such plan shall include, but not be limited to, procedures for informing the public about the disaster program and how to apply for its benefits. The plan should also give consideration to coordinating efforts with other Federal and private relief agencies, as well as local government officials.

The Department published the interim rule in 1981, at 46 FR 8922-01 (January 27, 1981) (amended in 1991 and 2005), which established the Department's authority to approve temporary emergency standards of eligibility for disaster victims without regard to Section 4(c) of the Act or the procedures set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). Based on this authority, as disasters have occurred, the Department has approved the specific procedures to be used, depending on the circumstances of each particular disaster. The procedures in the interim rulemaking (that was never published as a final rule) for certifying disaster-affected households and issuing D-SNAP benefits initially served as a basis for D-SNAP guidance to States. FNS guidance has since evolved and has been updated as necessary based on experience and States' needs.

The proposed rule does not address the D-SNAP task force. FNS employs staff at its national office and in its regional offices that work with State staff, and coordinate with other Federal agencies in preparing for disasters. FNS staff assists with D-SNAP operations as appropriate, including going on-site in many instances. While these staffs change over time in response to the need for disaster-related activity, they constitute the flexible type of task force contemplated by the Act. Thus, there is no need to regulate this provision of the Act.

The interim regulations currently in effect state that:

• The Secretary shall, after consultation with the official empowered to exercise the authority provided for by the Stafford Act, establish temporary emergency standards of eligibility for the duration of the emergency for households who are victims of a disaster which disrupts commercial channels of food distribution, if such households are in need of temporary food assistance and if commercial channels of food distribution have again become available to meet the temporary food needs of such households.

• Such standards as are prescribed for individual emergencies may be promulgated without regard to section 4(c) of this Act or the procedures set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553.

• In addition to establishing temporary emergency standards of eligibility, the Secretary shall provide for emergency allotments to eligible households to replace food destroyed in a disaster. Such emergency allotments would be equal to the value of the food actually lost in such disaster but not greater than the applicable maximum monthly allotment for the household size.

• The Secretary may also approve alternate methods for issuing food stamp benefits during a disaster when reliance on Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) systems is impracticable.

The Department has learned several lessons over the years. First, each disaster situation is different and it is important to provide States flexibility in requesting a D-SNAP that will meet the needs of the disaster victims and is compatible with the State's plans and administration. Second, disaster planning and preparation are critical to a timely and well coordinated response to different disaster situations. Third, State monitoring and reporting on program operations and integrity must be integrated into the planning and implementation of any D-SNAP.

This proposed rule primarily addresses several aspects of the D-SNAP, including:

This proposed rule is intended to provide as much flexibility as possible in the design of each D-SNAP operation while establishing consistent rules for requesting, monitoring and reporting on the D-SNAP. The reason for this is the varied and unpredictable nature of each disaster. While there are similarities among disasters, each set of circumstances is different enough that any attempt to limit State and FNS flexibility could cause delays in Federal and State response time in providing benefits to the victims of disasters. Thus, regulations that inherently seek to standardize policy and procedures, regardless of specific circumstances, can become problematic when the circumstances call for flexibility. In this proposal, the Department provides a basic framework for D-SNAP that sets clear expectations for State and local administrators while still allowing as much flexibility as possible. Furthermore, the Department is attempting to provide responsible fiscal controls of the disaster benefits while ensuring that benefits are provided to eligible applicants during disasters.

Yes, FNS provides detailed guidance which can be found on the FNS Web site at http://www.fns.usda.gov/disasters/response/D-SNAP_Handbook/D-SNAP_handbook.pdf. This guidance is based upon lessons learned by FNS and States' best practices in several types of disasters. It is designed to assist States in all aspects of the D-SNAP. Adherence to this guidance can improve preparedness, expedite approval of requests and reduce the potential for waste and fraud in D-SNAP operations.

D-SNAP timing varies with the unique circumstances of each disaster, but begins after there has been a Presidentially-declared disaster for IA and commercial channels of food distribution have been restored so families are able to purchase and prepare food.

IA is financial or direct assistance to individuals and families whose property has been damaged or destroyed as a result of a Presidentially-declared disaster, and whose losses are not covered by insurance. The decision to designate an area as eligible for IA is made by FEMA. The IA is intended to help households with critical expenses that cannot be covered in other ways.

FNS proposes to approve the operation of D-SNAP under Stafford Act authority when affected areas have received a Presidential disaster declaration for IA because receipt of an individual assistance declaration is indicative of households' need for food assistance in the affected area. However, since D-SNAP is intended to meet households' immediate needs, States would be required to implement D-SNAP within a reasonable time period following the IA declaration. FNS is reluctant to approve requests for D-SNAP that are made after the immediate need for food assistance has passed.

FNS provides 100 percent of disaster benefits and 50 percent of State administrative costs.

The Department proposes that the primary responsibility for providing emergency food assistance continue to rest with the States. State agencies would continue to design their own D-SNAP Plan, evaluate the need for a D-SNAP or another feeding program when a disaster strikes, submit a detailed request to FNS to operate a D-SNAP, effectively implement the D-SNAP, ensure program integrity in D-SNAP operations, submit daily reports, perform post-disaster reviews, and report their findings to FNS.

Eligibility criteria vary depending upon the disaster, the demographics of the affected jurisdictions and States' D-SNAP requests. FNS has exercised its disaster authority to waive SNAP eligibility restrictions, streamline States' D-SNAP operations and ensure that families in the affected areas are served as efficiently as possible.

D-SNAP provides a full month's allotment to disaster affected households who may not normally qualify for or participate in SNAP. The allotment for a household is equal to the maximum monthly allotment for the household size provided under SNAP.

D-SNAP allotments are updated yearly and available on the FNS Web site. In order to serve disaster affected households already participating in SNAP and residing in areas approved to operate a D-SNAP, States may supplement the SNAP benefit up to the maximum allotment for the household size.

The Department proposes that States may only accept applications for D-SNAP benefits from households not participating in SNAP and requests for supplements only from households currently certified in SNAP during the approved application period. FNS has generally approved application periods of 7 consecutive days (business days at the State's option), though States have the option to request more or fewer days in the D-SNAP request. FNS proposes to continue with this approach. The State should also inform FNS, as part of the D-SNAP request, whether applications will be accepted on Saturday and/or Sunday. If the State is accepting requests for supplements from households currently certified in SNAP over the phone and mailing the forms to the household, the required affidavit attesting to the loss of food purchased with SNAP benefits must requested during the application period.

The Department proposes that the benefit period be a 30-day period approved by FNS for each D-SNAP. The benefit period is the period during which disaster-related expenses are to be counted; the start date is used to determine household composition and resources. Only income received, expenses incurred and resources that are accessible during the benefit period are considered in determining D-SNAP eligibility. The benefit period begins on the first date of the disaster generally referred to as the “Incident Period” identified in the Presidential Disaster Declaration.

The Department proposes that any modifications to a D-SNAP be approved by FNS in writing. For example, if a State agency determines that the initial benefit period requested is not appropriate, it may request a modification of the benefit period start/end dates. This could, for example, accommodate disaster related expenses incurred in preparation for the disaster. However, once the application period has commenced the benefit period could not be changed. Doing so would introduce unnecessary complexity and potential inequity into the D-SNAP.

If demand for D-SNAP benefits increases or remains high during the initially approved application period, FNS may consider a State's request for an extension of the application period. States requesting an extension should address the ongoing demand for assistance and any program integrity concerns in their request.

To be eligible for D-SNAP, the Department proposes that an applicant household must first meet basic criteria, including: (1) Residency; (2) Household Composition; (3) Adverse effects due to the disaster; and (4) Income requirements.

Under this proposed rule, the household must have lived in the disaster area at the time of the disaster. However, States may also choose to extend eligibility to those who worked in the disaster area at the time of the disaster. When submitting their D-SNAP requests, States should specify if they will serve households that (a) lived in the disaster area, or (b) lived or worked in the disaster area.

The Department proposes that D-SNAP household composition be established based upon persons who live, purchase food, and prepare meals together on the date of the first day of the disaster benefit period, which will be considered to be the earliest date that households are in need. This rulemaking proposes that the benefit period begin on the date of the disaster or the date of any mandatory evacuation preceding the disaster.

The Department proposes that disaster-related adverse effects include three categories:

○ Loss or inaccessibility of income involving a reduction or termination of income, or a significant delay in receipt of income.

○ Inaccessibility of liquid resources, including situations in which the household is unable to access cash resources for a portion of the disaster benefit period.

○ Disaster related expenses that the household has incurred during the disaster benefit period that result from the effects of the disaster.

The FNS Disaster SNAP Guidance provides specific expenses that shall be considered disaster related, and States can propose other reasonable expenses in their disaster request.

The Department proposes that the income of households that meet the residency, household composition and adverse effect criteria be measured against the D-SNAP gross income limit (DGIL) in order to determine eligibility. The DGIL is explained below.

Unlike SNAP, which includes separate tests for income and resources, the Department proposes that D-SNAP would group income and resources together under one test. This is the method that is already being used in D-SNAP. To determine a household's D-SNAP income:

• Add all income received or expected to be received during the benefit period to accessible liquid resources (liquid resources include cash on hand, and funds in accessible checking and saving accounts on the first day of the benefit period);

• Subtract the value of unreimbursed disaster related expenses incurred during the disaster benefit period from the income/liquid resource amount (any reimbursements received or anticipated to be received by the household during the benefit period, including insurance and FEMA payments would reduce the allowable disaster-related expense amount); and

• Compare the result compared to the DGIL and if it is less than or equal to the DGIL, the household would be eligible for D-SNAP benefits.

The Department proposes that D-SNAP income would be the net (take-home) pay of all household members during the benefit period, including:

• Wages a household actually receives after taxes and all other payroll withholding (including contributions to 401(k) or other inaccessible accounts, automatic payments to creditors, etc.);

• Public assistance payments or other unearned income; and

• Net self-employment income.

As determined by the State agency, income that has been delayed for a substantial portion of the benefit period due to the disaster would be considered inaccessible.

For example, household X consists of four people who are not currently participating in SNAP. Their household was impacted by the disaster and they apply for D-SNAP. One individual is employed and receives monthly take-home pay of $1200, after payroll taxes and health insurance premium are taken out. The other individual receives $850 in TANF benefits each month. The household's total income for D-SNAP purposes is $1200 + $850 = $2050.

The Department proposes that the following be deemed as not accessible liquid resources:

• Retirement accounts;

• Disaster insurance payments;

• Disaster assistance received or expected to be received during the benefit period; and

• Payments from Federal, state or county/local government agencies or disaster assistance organizations (including disaster-related Unemployment Compensation).

Inaccessible liquid resources would also include otherwise liquid resources that are temporarily inaccessible (for instance, because a bank with a household's certificate of deposit is closed due to the disaster) during the benefit period. In the Department's experience, this is an infrequent occurrence, as households can usually access their resources via online banking or ATMs even if bank branches are closed in the affected area. For example, on the day the disaster struck, household X had $50 in cash, and $250 in its checking account, with an additional $300 in a savings account. The funds in these accounts are accessible. The household has applied for FEMA assistance for the property damage it incurred. The household's total accessible liquid resources are $50 + $250 + $300 = $600, since the FEMA assistance will not be received before the benefit period ends. Their household's total accessible liquid resources are $50 + $250 + $300 = $600.

The Department proposes to calculate each year's disaster gross income limit by adding together the SNAP maximum monthly net income limit, the SNAP maximum standard income deduction amount, and the SNAP maximum capped shelter expense deduction for each household size. Together, these amounts establish a simplified process to determine if households are in need of assistance that is grounded in the SNAP income methodology and standards for determining eligibility. For household X in the above examples, the total D-SNAP “income” of $2650 ($2050 + $600), would be compared to the DGIL for a household of four to determine eligibility for D-SNAP.

The Department proposes that, to be eligible, households must either plan on purchasing food during the disaster benefit period, or have already purchased food during the benefit period. This would clearly apply to most households, other than with very large disasters where households may remain in shelters and be served through congregate feeding throughout the benefit period.

These are expenses that the household has incurred during the disaster benefit period due to the disaster. Eligible expenses would include the following, plus any other reasonable disaster-related expenses determined by the State agency:

In the past, all of the above expenses would be deductible if they have been or are anticipated be paid during the benefit period unless the household receives or anticipates receiving a reimbursement for these expenses during the benefit period, in which case only any remaining obligation expense is deductible. The Department's practice to date has been only to allow a deduction for expenses which are paid during the benefit period. Consequently, bills paid by credit card or other payments over time have not been allowed as deductions. The Department is now proposing to allow deductions for expenses that are incurred during the benefit period even if those expenses will be paid after the benefit period. The Department believes that this policy would be more equitable since households that incur similar disaster related expenses should not be treated differently simply because they pay using a credit card instead of cash or a check. The Department is interested in receiving comments on this proposed change.

In conjunction with the options discussed below, the Department proposes that States may also choose to consider households that have experienced food loss as their only disaster-related expense to be eligible for the D-SNAP. The State would use available information such as power outage maps showing affected homes or zip codes to determine if allowing eligibility based upon food-loss alone is appropriate. Households reporting excessively large amounts of food loss, or any other questionable information, would be referred to fraud investigators or senior staff for further review.

This proposed rule would provide States the following two options in determining if households have disaster-related expenses and the amount of the expense to use in determining D-SNAP income. The option selected would be identified in the State's D-SNAP request.

• Use of the disaster-related expenses identified above and in the FNS Disaster SNAP Guidance. Under this option, states may choose to have food-loss only or food loss plus one additional disaster related expense in order to be eligible.

• Use of a Disaster Standard Expense Deduction (DSED). For households with $100 or more in deductible disaster-related expenses (including food loss), the DSED would be added to the disaster gross income limit and households whose take-home pay plus available liquid resources is less than or equal to this amount (DSED+DISASTER GROSS INCOME LIMIT) would qualify for D-SNAP benefits. Because the DSED is designed to capture food loss along with other disaster-related expenses, such as loss of income and damage to or destruction of property, as noted earlier, it could not be applied to cases in which food loss is the only disaster-related expense.

The DSED that has been used by several States is based upon information gathered from actual disaster-related expenses reported in a prior D-SNAP. As proposed in this rulemaking, only households with actual, unreimbursed disaster-related expenses equal to or greater than $100 would qualify for the DSED. Households with deductible disaster-related expenses that fall below the $100 threshold would have their eligibility determined using their actual expenses. If a household has disaster expenses which exceed the DSED for its size, the State may, at its option, use actual expenses to determine eligibility.

The Department proposes that the loss of food due to the disaster be considered a disaster-related expense and that including “food loss alone” as a criterion for eligibility be optional and be addressed in the D-SNAP request to FNS. It is important to note that households currently certified in SNAP can always request the replacement of lost food that was purchased with their SNAP benefits under standard SNAP rules. Food lost or spoiled due to the disaster or extended power outage is always considered a disaster expense.

The Department proposes that verification rules be eased (relative to SNAP) to reduce administrative burdens and to reflect the reality that due to the nature of a disaster, households and eligibility workers may not have access to usual verification sources. Proposed verification requirements for D-SNAP in the proposed rule are three-tiered:

• Identity must be verified;

• Verification of residency and household composition must be attempted in all cases, and must be pursued if questionable; and

• Loss/inaccessibility of income or liquid resources and food loss must be verified if questionable.

Such verification shall be performed in accordance with the requirements at 7 CFR 273.2(f).

The Department proposes that States check for duplicate information up front or accept applications and inform applicants that eligibility is contingent upon a subsequent duplicate check. States would be required to screen all household members for duplicate participation in:

The Department proposes in § 280.1(b) that the State Disaster Plan must include the following information:

• Agencies and Responsibilities. This would identify State and Federal government agencies with responsibilities for disaster assistance, including a description of responsibilities for each agency.

• Points of Contact. This would provide names, positions, and phone numbers of county/local, State and Federal government officials, and their back-ups, who are key contact persons during a disaster (including the State agency disaster coordinator).

• Community Partners and Roles. This would identify private disaster relief agencies within the State, such as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, or community groups, and a description of their roles in D-SNAP implementation.

• Staffing and Resources. This would identify staffing and related resources available to assist in a disaster, and how they will be mobilized to target disaster areas in need. It would also explain how the State/counties will manage the increased administrative burden associated with running a D-SNAP and SNAP operations simultaneously.

• Application System. This would describe application systems to be used for D-SNAP household management, including any workarounds to the SNAP system, considerations associated with running SNAP and D-SNAP operations concurrently, compliance with D-SNAP reporting requirements, etc.

• Issuance System. This would describe benefit issuance systems to be used for D-SNAP household management.

• EBT Card Stock. This would identify EBT card stock available, type of cards to be used, steps and timeline for ordering additional cards, and any special procedures or resources that will be needed to meet SNAP and D-SNAP issuance timeframes.

• Application Sites. This would describe site selection procedures, including potential application/issuance sites for disasters that vary in size and scope, and any agreements in place with those locations. If D-SNAP will operate out of local offices, it would explain how application sites will handle running D-SNAP and SNAP concurrently.

• Data. This would identify general demographic data that can help the agency tailor its response to a disaster. It would identify resources and contact information for disaster impact data, including preliminary data assessments, flood maps, or electrical outage data.

• Public Information and Outreach. This would describe public information strategy to ensure that timely, accurate information reaches eligible households. It would outline roles, expectations, and responsibilities of any SNAP outreach partners included in the State Outreach Plan that will assist with D-SNAP.

• Retailer Communication. This would describe procedures to notify retailers of new waivers (see discussion of the potential for hot foods below) and new D-SNAP households.

• Procedures to Reduce Applicant Hardship. This would outline steps the State will take to reduce hardship for D-SNAP applicants and SNAP caseload, including provisions for security, human needs, language services, elderly/disabled, etc.

• Certification Process. This would describe the specifics of the certification process, including potential application sites, staffing, separation of eligibility and issuance, and how application sites will manage large crowds. If online applications are to be used by workers or households, the plan would describe that process and back-up systems in place if the online system is not available.

• Use of a DSED and the income limits.

• Reasonable Accommodations for Individuals with Disabilities. This would describe what special accommodations will be made for individuals with disabilities at the application and issuance sites. This section may also include special accommodations to provide program access to individuals with disabilities beyond those required at application and issuance sites, such as transportation services or home visits, as determined by the State agency on a case by case basis, but without imposing an undue burden on the State agency.

• Household Materials. This would include sample household application and household notices in various languages.

• Issuance Process. This would describe how benefits will be made available within 72 hours of D-SNAP application and how to ensure continuation of SNAP certification, issuance, and other actions concurrently. It would indicate how the State will monitor stock levels and ensure sufficient EBT card stock. It would describe EBT card on-site or mail issuance procedures and reconciliation, as well as security procedures, including how D-SNAP benefits will be tracked separately from SNAP benefit issuance. Plans would need to adhere to FNS reconciliation guidelines so benefits posted to accounts can be compared to benefits issued by the State eligibility system.

• Security and Fraud Prevention Plan. This would describe how the State will ensure security and mitigate the risk of fraud, including a specific plan for handling applications submitted by State agency employees, procedures for handling questionable applications, process for checking all household members for duplicate participation, and any onsite security.

• Disaster Reporting and Post-Disaster Review Report. This would describe procedures to ensure that required federal reporting and post-disaster review report will be complete and timely. This would include daily reporting.

Disaster plans should also address any circumstances unique to the State which may affect D-SNAP operations, including: Coordination of resources among County-level administrations; serving isolated populations, the development of “work-arounds” to allow SNAP systems to accommodate D-SNAP operations; and, contingency plans for local offices located in flood plains or otherwise subject to closure.

Conforming amendments are proposed in 7 CFR 272.2(a), 272.2(d), and 272.2(e) to acknowledge the Disaster component of the State agency's overall State plan.

To ensure that necessary advance preparations are current, the Department proposes in § 280.1(b) of this rulemaking that State agencies be required to review their existing Disaster Plan on at least an annual basis and submit a revision, if a substantive change is being made, or a notice of no substantive change, for FNS approval by the 15th of August each year or another negotiated due date approved by FNS. As specified in § 280.8(f), State agencies would be required to amend the plan if deficiencies are found in a D-SNAP post-disaster review. If plans are not changed from the prior submissions, States would be able to submit letters to this affect rather that a complete plan.

The Department proposes that, at a minimum, States be required to provide D-SNAP training to management in each SNAP local office and call center. While FNS encourages that training be as complete and inclusive as practical, at least one manager (perhaps a D-SNAP coordinator) from each SNAP office must be included in whatever training the State deems appropriate.

While there is a variety of programming that could be in place to be ready in preparation for a disaster and improve operational efficiency, each State is expected to make such choices based upon their administrative needs and system capabilities. The exception to this general expectation is that the Department proposes to require that every State have the ability to check for duplicate participation for all household members, as well as conduct reconciliation of D-SNAP benefits and generate the reports required by this rule. This includes being able to track disaster benefits separately from SNAP benefit issuance. States would also need to have a method in place to allow for tracking of multiple D-SNAPs simultaneously should they be struck by two disasters within a short timeframe. States also must adhere to FNS reconciliation requirements so that they can compare benefits posted to accounts to benefits issued by the State eligibility system.

The Department proposes that D-SNAP requests be submitted with a signed cover memorandum from the State that includes a thorough explanation of the components listed below. Well-documented requests can be considered and approved more quickly—clearly a priority in a disaster situation. It is proposed that each D-SNAP request include:

• A description of the disaster—what happened, dates it occurred, the affected area.

• The geographic area and explanation of any differences between the area included in the presidential declaration and the requested area in which to operate the D-SNAP.

• The start and end dates of the application period. If it will be staggered, give dates for each county/area. Note if application sites will be open over the weekend or for extended hours.

• The start and end dates of the 30-day benefit period. The start of the benefit period should generally match the first day of the “incident period” on the disaster declaration. If not, the State should explain the reason for the difference.

• Whether a DSED is being used and how it is structured.

• Whether only households that lived in the disaster area will be eligible for D-SNAP or if households that worked in the disaster area will also be eligible.

• Whether “food loss alone” will be a criterion for eligibility.

• Whether supplements will be automatic or individual (by affidavit of disaster) for currently participating SNAP households. If automatic, the request would need to describe who is eligible and include supporting data. Supporting data may include but is not limited to an estimate of the value of issuances for automatic supplements. If individual, the request would need to include information on the process for requesting supplements—by phone/mail affidavit, electronically, or in person at a local office/D-SNAP application site.

• The estimated total number of people, homes, businesses, etc., impacted by the disaster, as well as estimates of anticipated D-SNAP applicants and number of currently certified SNAP households expected to be served, along with an explanation of how the estimates were derived.

• A description of issuance procedures, the number of EBT cards on hand, and plans for requesting, receiving, and distributing additional cards as needed. The request would need to indicate whether D-SNAP cards can be replaced if lost or stolen.

• A description of the plans for publicity, application sites, and security/crowd control.

• Plans for utilizing staff from other program areas, counties, or States, as appropriate. The request would need to indicate number of staff available and how staff/supervisors will be distributed among the application sites.

• A description of application sites, security/crowd control, and procedures to ensure program access and reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.

• A description of when and how program information will be disseminated to the public. This would include a list of partner organizations involved and describe the responsibilities of each, including role of volunteers, if applicable. It is important that sufficient time be allowed to notify the public prior to the start of the program. Examples of partner activities include providing D-SNAP information on behalf of the State or providing onsite application assistance.

• A description of the fraud prevention strategies and security measures in place.

• A description of the recipient claim procedures and thresholds to be followed if they differ from regulations at § 273.18 or the State's FNS-approved procedures for handling recipient claims in SNAP.

• A description of the procedures that will be used for identifying and handling applications by State agency/State employees.

• Draft press releases, sample application, preliminary damage assessments, and map of disaster area. In addition to these required items, other supporting documentation may be included.

Since the purpose of D-SNAP is to meet households' immediate needs, the request should be submitted to allow for implementation of D-SNAP within a reasonable amount of time following the IA declaration. In addition, it should be submitted to FNS at least several days prior to the planned implementation date to allow time for FNS review and approval. Most importantly, the State should allow sufficient time to effectively publicize the availability of D-SNAP for the affected population prior to implementation. The Department is interested in receiving comments on whether there is a need to establish a standard time frame for submission of requests for D-SNAP relative to the projected implementation date.

Sometimes, States' approved requests for D-SNAP need modification. As with the initial submission, the Department is proposing that States must submit written, signed requests for changes to an approved D-SNAP. These requests, and their corresponding approvals, would generally be approved more quickly than the initial waiver, since much of the information about the disaster is already known. The three most likely types of changes to the D-SNAP are listed below, along with an explanation of each.

Expansion—After initial approval, a State may want to expand operations because an additional county is in need of the program. While the application period in the expanded area may differ from what was originally approved, the benefit period will generally remain the same. In such cases, the State should submit to FNS a request for expansion, detailing the impact of the disaster in the new area, the application period, and the anticipated number of applicants and currently certified SNAP households that will be served. If the benefit period will change, for example, because flooding due to the same storms struck another County at a later date, the new benefit period's dates and justification should also be included.

Extension—In some cases, States may find that their initial application period is not sufficient to serve all eligible households, and so they may wish to request that the application period be extended. Requests to extend the D-SNAP application period must be submitted with sufficient time for FNS review and approval prior to the end of the initial application period and must be accompanied with justification of the need for additional time. Once the application period has ended and operations have closed, further extensions would not be permitted.

Modification—A request to change an aspect of the D-SNAP other than those mentioned above is known as a modification. Most modifications, including any that would affect applicant eligibility, can only be made prior to the start of the application period to ensure that the eligibility criteria are applied equitably to all applicants. Occasionally, modifications may be made after D-SNAP operations have begun, such as when a State that was originally approved for individual supplements decides to issue automatic supplements in a certain area. Because of the limited window of time in which most modifications can be requested, FNS encourages State agencies to carefully consider their program options prior to submitting the initial request.

There are operational and policy issues that, while are related to the disaster situation, are not included under the authority of the D-SNAP and so are not addressed in this proposed rule. The one exception is the extension of the timeframe to report a loss and request replacement of food purchased with SNAP benefits as addressed below. While this proposed rule only addresses the waiver for Timely Reporting of Food Loss, three additional waivers are also discussed, for informational purposes only, because they are the most frequently requested and approved relative to D-SNAP operations.

Timely Household Reporting of Food Loss—SNAP regulations at § 274.6 require that replacement issuances be provided to current SNAP recipients only if a household reports a loss of food purchased with SNAP benefits to the State within 10 days of the date the food is destroyed in a household misfortune. This waiver has allowed the State agency to extend the amount of time households have to report the loss of food purchased with SNAP benefits beyond 10 days. The Department proposes to change the reporting timeframe for the loss of food purchased with SNAP benefits from 10 days to 30 days when the President issues a major disaster declaration for IA. In all other cases, the 10-day timeframe would remain intact.

Automatic/Mass Replacements—Per SNAP regulations at § 274.6, replacement benefits are available (by affidavit) to SNAP households anytime they experience an adverse effect causing them to lose food purchased with their benefits. This waiver allows the automatic replacement of a certain percentage of a household's benefit (depending on the time of the month, the State's benefits issuance cycle, and the type of disaster) for all participating households within the disaster area, without the need to submit individual requests. This waiver may be granted without a D-SNAP approval or IA designation. This waiver does not remove the responsibility of local offices to process individual affidavits before or after the waiver implementation as required by § 274.6(a).

Hot Foods—A waiver of the hot foods exclusion in the Act allows SNAP households to purchase hot, prepared foods at authorized retailers with their EBT cards. FNS has the authority to grant this waiver provided that an IA declaration has been issued. The coverage of this waiver may extend to areas beyond those that received D-SNAP approval if households that lived in the disaster area have been displaced or temporarily relocated to other parts of the State.

Expunging D-SNAP benefits—State agencies may request to use a shorter timeframe (typically 90 days) for expunging benefits for D-SNAP-only households. Following the implementation of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110-246, this waiver requires approval from FNS. State agencies that wish to implement this waiver must submit it along with their D-SNAP requests. Any State operating under this waiver must inform D-SNAP-only households of the timeframe for expunging benefits. This waiver may only be used when the State has received approval to operate a D-SNAP and an IA declaration has been issued. A prerequisite for this waiver is the ability of the State automated system to identify the disaster cases and benefits separately from SNAP cases (this is required for FNS reporting as well).

The Department proposes to require that each State be prepared to issue D-SNAP benefits through its EBT system during an emergency. As noted earlier, EBT issuance is also proposed as a required component of State Disaster Plans. As such, a State's D-SNAP issuance plan should incorporate procedures for:

• Ensuring that approved households have benefits available, including EBT cards, and Personal Identification Numbers (PINs), and that their benefits are available no more than 72 hours from when the application was filed, unless there is questionable information on the application that requires verification. In these latter situations the State may extend the 72-hour time frame for making benefits available to no more than a total of seven days from the date of application.

• Accessing sufficient card stock to operate a D-SNAP.

• Replacing households EBT cards that are lost in a disaster as soon as possible but within the card replacement timeframes required at 7 CFR 274.6(b). If the normal EBT replacement process is to mail the replacement card to the household's home, and the disaster response requires card delivery to a disaster issuance site or alternative address in a non-disaster area, the State must be able to override the EBT system.

The Department proposes that when SNAP households lose their EBT cards in a disaster, the EBT disaster system design have procedures for providing currently certified SNAP cases with replacement cards as soon as possible, but always within the card replacement timeframes required at 7 CFR 274.6(b). Specifically, current SNAP regulations require State agencies to make replacement EBT cards available for pick up, or to place the card in the mail, within two business days following notice by the household to the State agency that the card has been lost, stolen or damaged. However, under a D-SNAP situation, the Department proposes to require State agencies to make reasonable efforts to replace EBT cards sooner if possible; the Department is not requiring a specific or more stringent timeframe for making card replacements under D-SNAP situations in order to provide States and their EBT processors some flexibility in unpredictable situations. However, the Department also wishes to ensure that clients receive their cards as soon as possible under circumstances in which the household may have not only lost their card, but all their food as well. The Department welcomes comments on whether or not a more specific and stricter card replacement timeframe should be implemented for D-SNAP situations.

The Department is proposing that the State be required to develop a system for reconciling both cards and benefits. Cards shipped from a central location would be required to be tracked until distributed locally to households. Each issuance site would be required to maintain a beginning and ending inventory and track new cards received, total cards available, and cards issued. If the State assigns PINs, they must also account for PIN mailers or envelopes to ensure adequate security, except when the PIN is formulated by some other means, such as from the Primary Account Number (which is a number on the EBT card and encoded onto the card to identify the State and EBT account holder.) The State would also be required to:

• Reconcile the number of cards set-up with EBT accounts and the number of cards issued and then research and explain any discrepancies;

• Track D-SNAP benefits separately from SNAP benefit issuance; and

• Adhere to FNS reconciliation guidelines so that they can compare benefits posted to accounts with benefits issued by the State eligibility system.

The Department recognizes that SNAP households will often need replacement benefits or supplements. As noted earlier in the discussion of the D-SNAP request, currently certified SNAP households are not eligible for D-SNAP, but those affected by the disaster are generally eligible for a supplemental issuance.

Supplements are additional benefits issued to SNAP households affected by the disaster in amounts that bring the households' benefit level up to the maximum allotment for their household size. Supplemental benefits provide parity between new D-SNAP households and SNAP households. By virtue of their participation in SNAP, the food needs of SNAP households are already known. The request to issue individual or automatic supplements (see below), and the supporting justification, must be included in the State's D-SNAP request. By addressing the needs for SNAP households immediately, and prior to the start of D-SNAP operations, overcrowding of SNAP participants seeking service at D-SNAP locations can be minimized.

Under this proposed rule, the State agency must decide if it is most appropriate to issue supplemental benefits on an individual basis, via the filing of an affidavit by the household, or automatically, to all currently certified SNAP households in a designated area. To obtain an individual supplement, households are required to complete an affidavit of disaster impact. For this reason, individual supplements work best in areas where there is a small-scale disaster and applicant volume is not anticipated being very high. For individual supplements to be effective, the State agency must have the capacity to handle the individual requests for supplements, and issue the supplemental benefits, while it is also taking D-SNAP applications.

Automatic supplements are additional benefits issued to all currently certified SNAP households in a defined geographic area and are appropriate when the majority of that area is impacted by a disaster. They are intended to help SNAP households deal with the impact of the disaster and generally work best when the State agency is able to clearly identify areas in which households share the adverse effects of the disaster, such as the loss of electrical power. Automatic issuance can help the State agency quickly and efficiently meet the needs of SNAP households, while freeing up staff and resources to direct toward the population of new D-SNAP applicants.

The Department is proposing that States include their desire to issue automatic supplements in their D-SNAP requests and demonstrate their ability to effectively target the benefits to geographic areas that were heavily impacted by the disaster. Any SNAP households not designated to receive automatic supplements, that were living in the area approved to operate D-SNAP and experienced disaster losses, may still request supplemental benefits via an affidavit of disaster. As with replacements benefits (discussed below), requests for automatic supplements must be accompanied by supporting data which indicates that a majority of the population in a given area has suffered an adverse effect as a result of the disaster. States should work closely with FNS to determine how to best find, use and evaluate available information in a post-disaster situation. This can include information from power companies, flood maps, or FEMA assessments.

Replacement benefits are always available on an individual basis to SNAP households that lose food purchased with their benefits in a household misfortune. However, replacement issuances shall be provided to current SNAP recipients only if a household reports a loss of food purchased with SNAP benefits orally or in writing to the State within 10 days of the date the food is destroyed in a household misfortune. The Department is proposing that the 10-day timeframe to report a loss of food purchased with SNAP benefits be extended to 30 days when there is a major disaster declared under 7 CFR part 280. Reports will be considered timely if made to the State agency within 30 days of the date the food is destroyed. Household misfortunes such as mass power outages and flood and structural damage would qualify. In all other cases, the 10-day timeframe to report a loss of food would remain the same.

As discussed earlier, the automatic/mass replacement requires a waiver that allows a State agency to replace a portion/percentage of currently certified households' monthly SNAP allotments in a disaster without the requirement that a household request a replacement individually, and travel to a local office to sign an affidavit of disaster. With this option/waiver, households would not have the added burden of signing paperwork and local offices would not have to process cases manually for each household needing a benefit replacement.

As with automatic supplements, approval of the mass replacement waiver typically requires a majority of the residences in the disaster area (county, zip code) to have lost power or be in another way affected by the disaster, resulting in the loss of food purchased with their benefits. Outages of four hours or more are typically considered. The replacement percentage is not fixed and generally depends on the time of the month in which the disaster took place as well as the State's issuance schedule. The extent and type of disaster (e.g., flooding or power outages), perishables/non-perishables, and consumption, are also factors in determining the percentage of benefits to be replaced. In preparing requests for mass replacements, States need to assess the extent of the losses and provide justification for the percentage they request. Further, a mass replacement waiver does not remove the responsibility of local offices to process individual affidavits before or after the waiver implementation as required by 7 CFR 274.6(a).

The Department proposes that States operating a D-SNAP submit a daily report to FNS. Daily reports are used to monitor progress, troubleshoot problem areas, inform FNS policy officials, ensure that adequate funds are available in States' letters of credit and provide information to allow responses to inquiries from the media and other government agencies. The State agency would be required to begin submitting reports on the day following the first day of D-SNAP operations and continue submitting the reports on a daily basis until all applications are processed. FNS is proposing that all States utilize a daily reporting template provided by FNS in its D-SNAP guidance. Data would be submitted by county, as indicated in the template provided in FNS' D-SNAP guidance. The reports would contain:

1. Number of D-SNAP applications received

2. Number of new D-SNAP households approved

3. Number of new D-SNAP persons approved

4. Number of SNAP households receiving supplements

5. Number of people previously certified for SNAP approved for supplements

6. Number of new D-SNAP households denied

7. Number of SNAP households receiving replacement issuance

8. Value of new D-SNAP benefits approved

9. Value of SNAP supplements approved

10. Value of SNAP replacement issuance

11. Average benefit per new D-SNAP household

12. Average benefit per SNAP household

13. Any additional information the State believes FNS should be aware of

In addition to the quantitative data above, the inclusion of any qualitative information on challenges the State may have encountered with the daily reports will help keep State and Federal policymakers up to date on the situation on the ground.

In addition to the daily report, the Department proposes that the following be required from States with approved D-SNAPs:

Form FNS-292B, Report of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Benefit Issuance for Disaster Relief—Within 45 days of the termination of a D-SNAP operation, the State agency would be required to submit its final disaster figures on form FNS-292B. All reports would be submitted electronically in the Food Programs Reporting System (FPRS). Form FNS 292B would contain the following issuance data for D-SNAP operations:

• Number of new households issued D-SNAP benefits

• Total number of new persons issued D-SNAP benefits

• Number of households certified in SNAP that were issued supplements

• Total value of benefits issued to D-SNAP households and supplements issued to SNAP households.

The FNS-292B report would not include the value of any replacements issued. States would report the value of replacements on the FNS 388 Monthly Issuance Report.

Form FNS-388, Monthly Issuance Report—Form FNS-388 would reflect disaster issuance and participation figures, including replacement benefits. Replacement benefits should be reported for the month for which they are intended.

Form FNS-209, Status of Claims Against Households Report—In the remarks section of the FNS-209, State agencies would be required to indicate the number of D-SNAP claims established and collected. D-SNAP claims must be identified on backup documentation in accounting systems for form FNS-209.

• Form FNS-46, Issuance Reconciliation Report—States would be required to report D-SNAP issuance and returns in the Issuance and Returns section of form FNS-46. Forms FNS-46 and FNS-388 should reconcile with the reported net issuance.

Post-disaster Report—The Department is proposing that a post-disaster review report be required and that it be comprised of four parts: Comprehensive review, individual case reviews, problem analysis, and proposed improvements to the disaster plan. The comprehensive review should begin with an overview of the D-SNAP operation, including where and when it took place, how it was staffed, and the total number of applications approved and amount of benefits issued. The State should then describe the systems or methods employed, document any major issues (i.e. problems or challenges) encountered in any of the areas below, and discuss the interventions used to address those issues.

• Certification systems

• Fraud control

• Issuance

• Public information and outreach

• Program accessibility

• Security

The Department is proposing that individual case reviews include: A sample of approved D-SNAP cases; a sample of actions taken to deny applications for D-SNAP benefits; and a review of all approved applications for State agency employees. The review of approved cases would include: A case record review; an interview with the participant; verification of each element of eligibility for the State's D-SNAP program including identity, residency, income, household size and disaster related expenses; a determination of eligibility for disaster assistance; and an analysis of errors.

The Department proposes that States with 10,000 or more approved D-SNAP households (excluding State employees) select a sample of 400 approved cases for review. States with less than 10,000 but more than 300 approved D-SNAP households would select a sample of between 300 and 400 cases as shown below. States with 300 or fewer households would review all cases.

The Department is proposing that a sample of 100 denied D-SNAP applications be reviewed to identify errors made in not providing benefits to eligible households. If there are fewer than 100 denied applications, all denied applications would be reviewed. Finally, the Department is proposing that States be required to review 100 percent of all State agency employee applications—approved and denied.

For all three types of case reviews, no cases would be dropped from the review results for any reason and the State would be required to report information gathered from all case reviews.

State agencies would be required to submit the post disaster report containing the results of the reviews, the problem analysis, and proposed improvements (that would be included in their next D-SNAP plan submission) within 6 months of the close of each D-SNAP operation.

Along with the duplicate participation and verification discussed above, the Department proposes that additional safeguards should be built into D-SNAP operations.

An important aspect of fraud prevention is appropriate internal controls. To ensure that only eligible households receive benefits and that the amount of benefits issued is accurate, the Department is proposing that States operating a D-SNAP be required to:

• Input information for all household members into the eligibility determination system to prevent individuals from obtaining benefits as a member of more than one household.

• Input denied applications into the eligibility determination system each day, so that households that are denied and later reapply are detected and referred to fraud prevention staff. Note that such households may be eligible if their circumstances have changed.

• Check for duplicate participation by any individual applying for D-SNAP using onsite or offsite computer databases (or in disasters with very few applicants, hardcopy participant lists). Update computer database participant lists every day.

• Refer households without required verification or with inconsistent information to onsite investigators or highly-experienced staff for review.

The Department recognizes that State agency employees may be legitimately eligible for D-SNAP benefits. States should take care to balance encouragement of eligible employees to apply for program benefits with the risk of employee fraud. The Department proposes that States be required to take these special measures to prevent employee fraud:

• Use separation of duties for certification and issuance.

• Include a question on the D-SNAP application asking if anyone in the household (or its authorized representative) is employed by the State, State SNAP agency, or County, if applicable.

• Utilize supervisors or investigators to conduct employee certification interviews.

• Audit all State agency employee applications and publicize that policy. The proposed rule would require the State to review all applications from its employees and to communicate that to employees up front.

Since the rules governing the determination of D-SNAP benefits differ significantly from the SNAP, D-SNAP cases are not subject to QC review and are not included when determining SNAP timeliness and payment accuracy rates. This is specified in 7CFR 275.11(f) (1). This is why the Department is proposing that States be required to conduct a comprehensive review of general program performance and reviews of individual cases.

The Department is proposing that if a household receives D-SNAP benefits to which it was not entitled, the State agency must establish a claim against the household consistent with the claims collection requirements of SNAP regulations. Claims must be established as soon as possible after the close of the disaster operation. States may also either follow their FNS-approved procedures and thresholds for establishing claims in SNAP for claims arising from D-SNAP, or include alternate procedures or thresholds in their D-SNAP request.

If a claim is established against a household for an overpayment of SNAP benefits, the Department proposes that this amount may not be collected from the D-SNAP allotment. However, claims based upon D-SNAP over-issuances can be collected through a repayment agreement or through offsets against SNAP issuances.

The Department proposes that close out of D-SNAP Operations includes the following:

• Close out the D-SNAP application/issuance sites;

• Transition eligible cases to SNAP;

• Submit issuance reporting and reconciliation;

• Pursue fair hearings, claims and restored benefits; and

• Submit post-disaster report.

The proposed rule would require that:

• Any household who applied for D-SNAP benefits and was denied benefits may request a fair hearing;

• A household which has requested a fair hearing is entitled to an immediate onsite supervisory review;

• Households not satisfied with the outcome of this review retain the right to request a fair hearing through the normal process; and

• The number of fair hearings is reported on form FNS-366B, Program Activity Statement.

SNAP regulations require State agencies to issue restored benefits to households when benefits were lost due to an agency error and when a denial of benefits is subsequently reversed. The Department proposes that this requirement also apply to D-SNAP benefits; State agencies should follow their normal procedures for issuance in such cases. The State's eligibility system must clearly indicate that an issuance was a restored D-SNAP benefit.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

This proposed rule has been designated a not significant regulatory action. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This proposed rule has been designated as not significant by OMB, therefore, no Regulatory Impact Analysis is required.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires Agencies to analyze the impact of rulemaking on small entities and consider alternatives that would minimize any significant impacts on small entities. Pursuant to that review, FNS Administrator, Audrey Rowe, has certified that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact on small entities. State agencies that administer SNAP will be affected to the extent they choose to implement major changes in program operations. State agencies will also be affected to the extent they perform ME reviews of large, medium and small project areas.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the Department generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, of $146 million or more (when adjusted for 2015 inflation; GDP deflator source: Table 1.1.9 at http://www.bea.gov/iTable) in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Department to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.

This rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and Tribal governments or the private sector of $146 million or more in any one year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

SNAP is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.551. For the reasons set forth in the final rule in 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V and related notice (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), this Program is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.

Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments. Where such actions have federalism implications, agencies are directed to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories called for under section (6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132. FNS has considered the impact of this rule on State and local governments and has determined that this rule does not have federalism implications. This proposed rule does not impose substantial or direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, under Section 6(b) of the Executive order, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.

While FNS did not seek direct consultation with State officials on this proposed rule, FNS staff works with several different States' staff on D-SNAP requests and operations every year. This has provided valuable feedback on the need for flexibility in program design and operations. In addition, FNS regional offices host periodic training meetings and review States' D-SNAP plans. These interactions provide insights into the challenges States face and are reflected in this proposed rule.

The primary intent of this NPRM is to improve clarity for States in their planning for and requests to implement a D-SNAP. This should help ensure timely approval of requests and improved Federal/State coordination in responding to disaster situations. The NPRM is also intended to inform States of their responsibilities in reporting and monitoring D-SNAP. The USDA Office of Inspector General has recommended publication of regulations for the D-SNAP to improve controls over D-SNAP operations and reduce the potential for threats to program integrity.

The Department believes that the proposals in this rulemaking would provide the necessary clarity and structure for D-SNAP planning, requests, and reporting while maintaining the needed flexibility for States. In drafting this NPRM, FNS considered its impact on State and local agencies. In addition, the Department is seeking comments on those areas of discretion and will use those comments to inform its decision making before issuing final regulations.

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule, when published as a final rule, is intended to have preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full implementation. This proposed rule is not intended to have retroactive applicability unless so specified in the “Effective Date” paragraph of the final rule. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rulemaking or the application of its provisions, all applicable administrative procedures must be exhausted.

This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that 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.

FNS has assessed the impact of this proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have Tribal implications that require tribal consultation under EO 13175. On February 18, 2015 the agency held a webinar for tribal participation and comments. During the comment period, FNS did not receive any comments on the proposed rule. If a Tribe requests consultation, FNS will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided for those changes, additions and modifications identified herein that are not expressly mandated by Congress.

FNS has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with the Department Regulation 4300-4, “Civil Rights Impact Analysis,” to identify and address any major civil rights impacts the rule might have on minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. After a careful review of the rule's intent and provisions, and the characteristics of SNAP participants, FNS has determined that an important impact of this proposed rule will be to help alleviate the adverse effects of disasters on certain protected classes. All data available to FNS indicate that protected individuals have the same opportunity to participate in D-SNAP as non-protected individuals. FNS specifically prohibits the State and local government agencies that administer SNAP from engaging in actions that discriminate based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, disability, marital or family status (SNAP's nondiscrimination policy can be found at 7 CFR 272.6 (a)). Where State agencies have options, and they choose to implement a certain provision, they must implement it in such a way that it complies with the regulations at 7 CFR 272.6.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; see 5 CFR part 1320) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve all collections of information by a Federal agency from the public before they can be implemented. Respondents are not required to respond to any collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. This proposed rule contains requirements that are subject to review and approval by OMB; therefore, FNS has submitted a new information collection request under OMB Control No: 0584-NEW Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (D-SNAP) Plans, Procedures, and Reports which contains the proposed reporting burden from adoption of the proposals in the rule, for OMB's review and approval. The estimated burden for the information collections in the proposed rulemaking accompanying this request will be merged into the approved OMB Control Numbers listed in the following sections, contingent upon OMB approval. When the information collection requirements have been approved, FNS will publish a separate action in the Federal Register announcing OMB's approval. The D-SNAP certification burden for State participation is included in the currently approved reporting burden under the OMB Control No. 0584-0064, SNAP: Applications, Periodic Reports, and Notices (expiration date: 4/30/2016), which includes all information collection activities associated with the certification of participating and applicant households. Under SNAP regulations, States are responsible for designing their own forms (this burden is included in OMB No. 0584-0064 and will not be duplicated here) including the application for D-SNAP assistance used by individual households. The burden associated with Statewide D-SNAP plans is included in the currently approved burden for OMB Control No. 0584-0083, SNAP: Operating Guidelines, Forms, and Waivers, Program and Budget Summary Statement (expiration date 04/30/2017), which includes all the information collection activities associated with the preparation, review, and submission of updated D-SNAP plans by State agencies. The burden associated with the submission of State agency requests to operate a D-SNAP to FNS is included under the currently approved burden for OMB Control No. 0584-0336, SNAP: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance for Victims of Disaster (expiration date 11/30/2015).

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, attention: Desk Officer for FNS, Washington, DC 20503. Please also send a copy of your comments to Sasha Gersten-Paal, Branch Chief, Certification Policy Branch, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302. For further information, or for copies of the information collection package, please contact Sasha Gersten-Paal at the above address or via email at [email protected].

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. These proposed changes are contingent upon OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. When the information collection requirements have been approved, FNS will publish a separate action in the Federal Register announcing OMB's approval.

Comments on the information collection pursuant to this proposed rule must be received by July 11, 2016.

Title: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (D-SNAP) Plans, Procedures, and Reports.

OMB Number: 0584-NEW.

Expiration Date: N/A.

Type of Request: Information Collection Request.

Abstract: The Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (1974), as amended by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Assistance Act (1988) (enclosed), and Section (5)(h) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) provides the Secretary of Agriculture with the authority to establish temporary emergency standards of eligibility for households who are survivors of a disaster that disrupts commercial channels of food distribution after those channels have been restored.

This proposed rule would establish the requirements for planning, requesting and monitoring D-SNAP while maintaining State flexibility in program design within the basic eligibility requirements for D-SNAP. This information collection accounts for information that State agencies are required to provide to FNS in support of a request to operate a D-SNAP. As this proposed rule merely codifies practices State agencies already perform, it will have minimal impact on the State agency workloads.

Respondents: 53 State agencies.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 53 annual reviews of D-SNAP plan; 5 updates of D-SNAP plan; 9 D-SNAP requests; 45 D-SNAP daily reports; 9 D-SNAP post-Disaster reports.

The Department is proposing in this rulemaking that States would be required to review their existing Disaster Plan on at least an annual basis, and when applicable, submit a revision or a notice of no change, by the 15th of August each year. As the majority of States have already prepared disaster plans, the Department estimates that it will take an average of 6.58 staff hours per State each year to review their Disaster Plans, for a total burden of 349 hours (53 States × 1 time annually = 53 total annual response × 6.58 hours = 349 hours). The Department further estimates that on average five of these States will update their plans and require an additional 2.5 hours to do so, for an annual total of 12.5 burden hours. Once approved by OMB, this proposed burden will be merged with the currently approved burden for OMB Control No. 0584-0083, SNAP: Operating Guidelines, Forms, and Waivers, Program and Budget Summary Statement (expiration date 04/30/2017), which includes all the information collection activities associated with the preparation, review, and submission of updated D-SNAP plans by State agencies.

The number of disasters that occur annually and the average number of households affected by the disasters cannot be predicted. For example, during the period from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2014, the number of State requests for disaster programs ranged from 3 to 23 requests per year. However, the Department estimates an average of 9 State agencies will submit 1 D-SNAP request per year to operate D-SNAPs for a total annual request of 9 applications per year. A D-SNAP request normally contains a request to waive the normal SNAP operating procedures and outlines the State's proposed procedures including: Description of incident; geographic area; application period; benefit period; eligibility criteria; currently certified SNAP households eligibility; affected population; electronic benefit card issuance process; logistical plans for D-SNAP rollout; staffing; public information outreach; duplicate participation check process; fraud prevention strategies; and employee application procedures. It is estimated that preparation of a request under the proposed rule will require approximately 10 staff hours for each State, for a total of 90 burden hours. Once approved by OMB, this proposed burden will be merged with the currently approved burden for OMB Control No. 0584-0083, SNAP: Operating Guidelines, Forms, and Waivers, Program and Budget Summary Statement (expiration date 04/30/2017).

In addition, the Department is proposing that States operating a D-SNAP must submit a daily report to FNS. Daily reports are used to monitor progress, troubleshoot problem areas, inform FNS policy officials, ensure that adequate funds are available, and respond to inquiries from the media and other government agencies. The State agency should begin submitting reports on the day following the first day of D-SNAP operations and continue submitting the reports on a daily basis until the end of the application period—typically five days. It is estimated that 0.5 hours will be required to prepare each daily report. Therefore, the burden would be 22.5 total hours for these reports (nine disasters × five reports x 0.5 hours = 22.5). The Department further proposes that a post-disaster report be submitted that includes four parts: a comprehensive review, individual case reviews, problem analysis, and proposed improvements. It is estimated that this report will require 0.5 hours to complete so the total burden for nine disaster reports would be 4.5 hours. FNS will not require a standardized form or specific format for daily reports or post-disaster reports, due to the dynamic nature of emergency situations and the need to quickly respond to conditions on the ground. Once approved by OMB, this proposed burden will be merged with the currently approved burden for OMB Control No. 0584-0083, SNAP: Operating Guidelines, Forms, and Waivers, Program and Budget Summary Statement (expiration date 04/30/2017).

No new recordkeeping burden is estimated.

The average burden per respondent is summarized in the following chart, with an estimated total annual burden of 478 hours. However as noted above, States have been performing many of these practices for years, so the actual new burden would be significantly less.

FNS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L 107-347) to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies that provide increased opportunities for citizen access to government information and services and for other purposes.

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR parts 272, 274, and 280 are proposed to be amended as follows:

Background

The regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-75, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests within the United States.

The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Argentina has requested that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) amend the regulations to allow lemons (Citrus limon L.) from the northwest region of Argentina (the Provinces of Catamarca, Jujuy, Salta, and Tucumán) to be imported into the continental United States. Northwest Argentina is the main lemon-producing region in Argentina, and different pests occur there than those that occur in other citrus-producing areas in Argentina.

In evaluating Argentina's request, we prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) and risk management document (RMD). Copies of the PRA and the RMD may be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, viewed in the reading room listed above under ADDRESSES, or viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

The PRA, titled “Risk Assessment for the Importation of Fresh Lemon (Citrus limon (L.) Burm. f.) Fruit from Northwest Argentina into the Continental United States” analyzes the potential pest risk associated with the importation of fresh lemons into the continental United States from northwest Argentina.

A quarantine pest is defined in § 319.56-2 of the regulations as a pest of potential economic significance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled. The PRA identifies nine pests of quarantine significance present in Argentina that could follow the pathway for lemons from northwest Argentina to the continental United States. They are:

• Brevipalpus californicus (Banks), the citrus flat mite; B. obovatus Donnadieu, the scarlet tea mite; and B. phoenicis (Geijskes), the false spider mite. These mites (referred to in this document as the Brevipalpus spp. mites) are potential vectors of citrus leprosis virus (CiLV), a quarantine pest present in Argentina;

• B. chilensis Baker, the Chilean false red mite;

• Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann), the Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly);

• Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Milliére), the honeydew moth;

• Elsinoë australis Bitanc. & Jenkins 1936, the causal agent of sweet orange scab disease (SOS);

• Gymnandrosoma aurantianum (Lima), the citrus borer; and

• Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri (ex Hasse) Gabriel et al. 1989, the causal agent of citrus canker disease (Xcc).

The PRA derives plant pest risk potentials for these pests by estimating the likelihood of introduction of each pest into the continental United States through the importation of lemons from northwest Argentina. The PRA considers four of the pests to have a high pest risk potential (B. chilensis, C. capitata, C. gnidiella, and G. aurantianum), and five to have a medium risk potential (the Brevipalpus spp. mites, E. australis, and Xcc).

Based on the findings of the PRA, APHIS has determined that measures beyond standard port-of-entry inspection are necessary in order to mitigate the risk associated with the importation of fresh lemons from northwest Argentina into the continental United States. These measures are listed in the RMD and are used as the basis for the requirements of this proposed rule.

Therefore, we are proposing to amend the regulations to allow the importation of commercial consignments of fresh lemons from northwest Argentina into the continental United States, subject to a systems approach. Requirements of the systems approach, which would be added to the regulations as a new § 319.56-76, are discussed in the following sections.

Proposed paragraph (a) of § 319.56-76 would set out general requirements for fresh lemons from northwest Argentina destined for export to the continental United States.

Proposed paragraph (a)(1) of § 319.56-76 would require the NPPO of Argentina to provide an operational workplan to APHIS that details the systems approach activities that the NPPO of Argentina and places of production and packinghouses registered with the NPPO of Argentina would, subject to APHIS approval of the workplan, implement to meet the proposed requirements. An operational workplan is an arrangement between APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine program and officials of the NPPO of a foreign government that specifies in detail the phytosanitary measures that will comply with U.S. regulations governing the import or export of a specific commodity. Operational workplans apply only to the signatories and establish detailed procedures and guidance for the day-to-day operations of specific import/export programs. Operational workplans also establish how specific phytosanitary issues are dealt with in the exporting country and make clear who is responsible for dealing with those issues. Operational workplans require APHIS approval.

If the operational workplan is approved, APHIS would be directly involved with the NPPO of Argentina in monitoring and auditing the systems approach implementation. Such monitoring could involve site visits by APHIS personnel.

Proposed paragraph (a)(2) of § 319.56-76 would require the lemons considered for export to the continental United States to be grown by places of production that are registered with the NPPO of Argentina and that have been determined to be free from B. chilensis in accordance with the proposed regulations. We discuss the proposed protocol for considering a production site free from B. chilensis later in this document.

Proposed paragraph (a)(3) of § 319.56-76 would require the lemons to be packed for export to the continental United States in pest-exclusionary packinghouses that are registered with the NPPO of Argentina.

Registration of places of production and packinghouses with the NPPO of Argentina would ensure that the NPPO exercises oversight of these locations and that the places of production and packinghouses continuously follow the provisions of the export program. It would also facilitate traceback in the event that lemons from Argentina are determined to be infested with quarantine pests.

Proposed paragraph (a)(4) of § 319.56-76 would require the NPPO of Argentina to maintain all forms and documents pertaining to registered places of production and packinghouses for at least 1 year and, as requested, provide them to APHIS for review. Such forms and documents would include (but would not be limited to) records regarding fruit fly trapping in registered places of production and records regarding pest detections in registered places of production and registered packinghouses. Based on APHIS' review of the records, we may monitor places of production and packinghouses, as we deem warranted.

Proposed paragraph (a)(5) of § 319.56-76 would require lemons from Argentina to be imported into the continental United States in commercial consignments only. Noncommercial shipments are more prone to infestations because the commodity is often ripe to overripe, could be of a variety with unknown susceptibility to pests, and is often grown with little or no pest control. Commercial consignments, as defined in § 319.56-2 of the regulations, are consignments that an inspector identifies as having been imported for sale and distribution. Such identification is based on a variety of indicators, including, but not limited to: Quantity of produce, type of packaging, identification of place of production or packinghouse on the packaging, and documents consigning the fruits or vegetables to a wholesaler or retailer. For purposes of the proposed regulations, in order for a consignment to be considered a commercial consignment, fruit in the consignment would have to be practically free of leaves, twigs, and other plant parts, except for stems less than 1 inch long and attached to the fruit. We currently require most other fruits and vegetables imported into the United States from foreign countries to be imported in commercial consignments as a mitigation against quarantine pests of those commodities.

Proposed paragraph (a)(6) of § 319.56-76 would require the identity of each lemon from Argentina destined for export to the continental United States to be maintained throughout the export process, from the place of production to the arrival at the port of entry in the continental United States. The operational workplan would have to authorize the means of identification used that allows the lot to be traced back to its place of production. This requirement would facilitate traceback in the event that quarantine pests are discovered in a lot of lemons destined for export to the United States. This, in turn, would help ensure that timely remedial measures are taken to address the plant pest risk at the place of production and preclude the further export of infested fruit from that place of production.

Proposed paragraph (a)(7) of § 319.56-76 would require lemons from Argentina to be harvested green and within the time period of April 1 and August 31. If the lemons are harvested yellow or harvested outside of that time period, they would have to be treated for Medfly in accordance with 7 CFR part 305 and the operational workplan. As documented in the RMD, lemons are a poor host of Medfly, and research has shown that harvesting them green during that time period, when Medfly populations are low in Argentina, is an effective mitigation against Medfly.

Within part 305, § 305.2 provides that approved treatment schedules for Medfly and other quarantine pests are set forth in the Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual, found online at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/treatment.pdf. The manual currently specifies that cold treatment according to schedule T107-a is effective in neutralizing Medfly on citrus. If lemons from Argentina are harvested yellow, or outside of the prescribed time period, they would have to be treated according to this approved schedule.

Proposed paragraph (a)(8) of § 319.56-76 would provide that lots of lemons destined for export to the continental United States must be safeguarded during movement from registered places of production to registered packinghouses as specified by the operational workplan. Such safeguarding could include the use of pest-proof screens or tarpaulins to cover the lots during transit, or other similar measures approved by APHIS and the NPPO of Argentina.

Proposed paragraph (a)(9) of § 319.56-76 would require each consignment of lemons imported from Argentina into the continental United States to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Argentina with an additional declaration stating that the requirements in the proposed regulations have been met and consignments have been inspected and found free of Brevipalpus spp. mites, B. chilensis, C. capitata, C. gnidiella, and G. aurantianum.

The proposed systems approach would require places of production to meet certain requirements and take certain measures to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests to lemons destined for export to the continental United States. Proposed paragraph (b) of § 319.56-76 would contain these requirements and measures.

Proposed paragraph (b)(1) of § 319.56-76 would require that, prior to each harvest season, registered places of production of lemons destined for export to the continental United States must be determined by APHIS and the NPPO of Argentina to be free from B. chilensis based on biometric sampling conducted in accordance with the operational workplan. If a single B. chilensis mite is discovered as a result of such sampling, the place of production would not be considered free from B. chilensis for that harvest season. Each place of production would have only one opportunity per harvest season to be considered free of B. chilensis, and certification of B. chilensis freedom would only last one harvest season.

Currently, APHIS authorizes the importation of several commodities from Chile, including kiwi, clementines, mandarins, and tangerines, subject to confirmation, using a similar sampling method, that places of production for those commodities have a low prevalence for B. chilensis. The biometric sampling used to establish freedom from B. chilensis would be modeled on the sampling protocols currently used in Chile to establish places of production of low pest prevalence for B. chilensis.

Under the proposed biometric sampling protocol, between 1 and 30 days before harvest, 100 random samples of fruit would have to be collected from each registered place of production. The samples would then have to washed, placed on a mesh sieve, sprinkled with liquid soap and water solution, washed with water at high pressure, and washed with water at lower pressure. Once this cleaning process is repeated twice, the contents of the sieves would have to be placed on a petri dish and examined for B. chilensis.

Proposed paragraph (b)(2) of § 319.56-76 would require registered places of production to remove plant litter and fallen debris from groves in accordance with the operational workplan. It would also prohibit fallen fruit from being included in field containers of fruit brought to the packinghouse to be packed for export. Plant litter, fallen debris, and fallen fruit are especially susceptible to quarantine pests.

Proposed paragraph (b)(3) of § 319.56-76 would require registered places of production to trap for Medfly in accordance with the operational workplan. The operational workplan would specify the types of traps and baits that must be used, the minimum number of traps per acre that must be deployed, the requisite distance between each trap, and the intervals at which the traps must be serviced. The NPPO would have to keep records regarding the placement and monitoring of all traps, as well as records of all pest detections in these traps, and provide the records to APHIS, as requested.

Proposed paragraph (b)(4) of § 319.56-76 would require registered places of production to carry out any additional grove sanitation and phytosanitary measures specified for the place of production by the operational workplan. Depending on the location, size, and plant pest history of the grove, these could include surveying protocols, safeguarding of trees, application of pesticides and fungicides, or other measures.

Proposed paragraph (b)(5) of § 319.56-76 would require the NPPO of Argentina to visit and inspect registered places of production regularly for signs of infestations and to allow APHIS to monitor these inspections. These inspections would have to start no more than 30 days before harvest and continue until the end of the export season.

Proposed paragraph (b)(6) of § 319.56-76 would provide that if APHIS or the NPPO of Argentina determines that a registered place of production has failed to follow the requirements of the regulations, the place of production would be excluded from the export program until APHIS and the NPPO of Argentina jointly agree that the place of production has taken appropriate remedial measures to address the plant pest risk.

Proposed paragraph (c) of § 319.56-76 would set forth requirements for mitigation measures that would have to occur at registered packinghouses.

Proposed paragraph (c)(1) of § 319.56-76 would require that, while a registered packinghouse is in use for packing lemons for export to the continental United States, the packinghouses may only accept lemons that are from registered places of production and that have been produced in accordance with proposed § 319.56-76. Lemons from other places of production may be produced under conditions that are less stringent than those of this proposed rule, and may therefore be a pathway for the introduction of quarantine pests into the packinghouses.

Proposed paragraph (c)(2) of § 319.56-76 would require lemons to be packed within 24 hours of harvest in a registered pest-exclusionary packinghouse or stored in a degreening chamber in the registered pest-exclusionary packinghouse. The lemons would have to be packed for shipment to the continental United States in insect-proof cartons or containers, or covered with insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulin. These safeguards would have to remain intact until the lemons arrive in the United States, or the consignment would not be allowed to enter the United States. These requirements collectively would aid in preventing the lemons from becoming infested with plant pests during or subsequent to packing.

Proposed paragraph (c)(3) of § 319.56-76 would require the lemons to be washed, brushed, and surface disinfected for E. australis and Xcc in accordance with the operational workplan, treated with an APHIS-approved fungicide, and waxed. Section 301.75-7 requires citrus fruit from areas of the United States that are quarantined for Xcc to be treated at packinghouses for Xcc. Additionally, a December 2010 Federal Order for the interstate movement of citrus fruit from areas of the United States that are quarantined for E. australis requires the fruit to be washed, disinfected, treated, and waxed at packinghouses in order for a certificate to be issued authorizing the unrestricted interstate movement of the fruit within the United States.1 Accordingly, this requirement would be generally consistent with current domestic requirements.

Proposed paragraph (c)(4) of § 319.56-76 would require the NPPO of Argentina or officials authorized by the NPPO of Argentina to visually inspect a biometric sample of each consignment for quarantine pests, wash the lemons in the sample, and inspect the filtrate for B. chilensis in accordance with the operational workplan. In addition to identifying lemons infested with B. chilensis, this method of visual inspection would be able to detect any signs or symptoms of Brevipalpus spp. mites on the lemons.

A portion of the fruit would then have to be cut open and inspected for evidence of quarantine pests. Cutting the fruit open would allow inspectors to determine whether the fruit is infested with Medflies or C. gnidiella or G. aurantianum larvae.

If a single C. gnidiella or G. aurantianum in any stage of development is found on the lemons, the entire consignment would be prohibited from export to the United States, and the registered place of production that produced the lemons would be suspended from the export program until APHIS and the NPPO of Argentina jointly agree that the place of production has taken appropriate remedial measures to address plant pest risk.

If a single B. chilensis or Brevipalpus spp. mite in any stage of development is found on the lemons, the entire consignment would be prohibited from export, and the registered place of production that produced the lemons may be suspended from the export program, pending an investigation.

If a single immature Medfly is found in or with the lemons, the lemons would have to be treated in accordance with 7 CFR part 305 and the operational workplan, and the registered place of production that produced the lemons in the consignment may be suspended from the export program, pending an investigation.

We would not require remedial measures to be taken if fruit is determined to be symptomatic for E. australis or Xcc because we have determined that fruit that is symptomatic for these pathogens and that has been subject to the treatment and processing protocol specified in proposed paragraph (c)(3) of § 319.56-76 is not a pathway for the spread of the pathogens. This is reflected in our conditions for the interstate movement of citrus fruit that is symptomatic for E. australis or Xcc.

Proposed paragraph (c)(5) of § 319.56-76 would provide that, if APHIS or the NPPO of Argentina determines that a registered packinghouse has failed to follow the requirements of the regulations, the packinghouse would be excluded from the export program until APHIS and the NPPO of Argentina jointly agree that the packinghouse has taken appropriate remedial measures to address the plant pest risk.

Proposed paragraph (d) of § 319.56-76 would provide that consignments of lemons from Argentina will be inspected at the port of entry to the United States, and that, if any quarantine pests are discovered on the lemons during this inspection, the entire lot in which the quarantine pest was discovered would be subject to appropriate remedial measures to address this risk.

The regulations in § 319.28(a) prohibit the importation of citrus from Argentina, as well as from eastern and southeastern Asia, Japan, Brazil, Paraguay, and other designated areas. However, paragraphs (b) through (e) of § 319.28 set out various exceptions to this prohibition. To allow the importation of lemons from northwestern Argentina under § 319.56-76, we propose adding a new paragraph (e) to § 319.28 stating that the prohibition does not apply to lemons from northwest Argentina that meet the requirements of § 319.56-76. To accommodate the addition of the new paragraph (e) in § 319.28, we would redesignate current paragraphs (e) through (i) as (f) through (j), respectively.

Paragraph (a)(1) of § 319.28 provides that importation of fruits and peels of the genera and varieties listed in that paragraph is allowed from the Provinces 2 of Catamarca, Jujuy, Salta, and Tucumán in Argentina because those Provinces are considered to be free of Xcc. However, we now consider Xcc to be present in those Provinces. Therefore, we would remove that statement.

Finally, paragraph (a)(2) of § 319.28 currently prohibits the importation of lemons from Argentina, among other countries, to prevent the introduction of SOS within the United States. We would remove this prohibition.

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

We have prepared an economic analysis for this rule. The economic analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis, as required by Executive Order 12866, and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that examines the potential economic effects of this proposed rule on small entities, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The economic analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, in the reading room (see ADDRESSES above for more information), or on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

The analysis examines potential economic impacts on small domestic entities of allowing the importation of fresh lemons from northwest Argentina into the continental United States. A systems approach to pest risk mitigation would provide phytosanitary protection against pests of quarantine significance. Economic effects of the rule for both U.S. producers and consumers are not expected to be significant. While producers' welfare would be negatively affected, welfare gains for consumers would outweigh producer losses, resulting in a net benefit to the U.S. economy.

In the United States, commercial lemon production takes place in California and Arizona. For the 2013/14 season, lemon-bearing acres totaled 54,500 (California 46,000, Arizona 8,500). In the same season, the value of U.S. production of lemons was $647 million, 92 percent earned by California's growers and 8 percent by Arizona's growers. Over the five seasons, 2008/09 to 2012/13, U.S. fresh lemon production averaged about 497,350 metric tons (MT) per year. Over the same period, annual imports averaged about 45,751 MT and exports averaged about 95,574 MT. Because of the provisions of the rule, we expect that most lemons will be exported from April 1 to August 31, a period that coincides roughly with the months in which U.S. lemon exports are declining and imports are increasing.

Effects of the proposed rule are estimated using a partial equilibrium model of the U.S. lemon sector. Annual imports of fresh lemon from Argentina are expected to range between 15,000 and 20,000 MT, with volumes averaging 18,000 MT. Quantity, price, and welfare changes are estimated for these three import scenarios.

If the United States were to import 18,000 MT of fresh lemon from Argentina and there were no displacement of lemon imports from other countries, the price would decrease by an estimated 4 percent. Consumer welfare gains of about $25 million would outweigh producer welfare losses of about $22 million, resulting in a net welfare gain of about $3 million. The 15,000 MT and 20,000 MT scenarios show similar effects.

More reasonably, partial import displacement would occur, and price and welfare effects would be proportional to the net increase in U.S. lemon imports. If one-half of the quantity of fresh lemon imported from Argentina were to displace U.S. fresh lemon imports from elsewhere, then for the 18,000 MT scenario the price decline would be about 2 percent; consumer welfare gains and producer welfare losses would be about $12.2 million and $10.9 million, respectively, yielding a net welfare benefit of about $1.3 million.

The majority of businesses that may be affected by the proposed rule are small entities, including lemon producers, packers, wholesalers, and related establishments. APHIS welcomes public comment in order to better determine the extent to which U.S. small entities may be affected by this proposed rule.

This proposed rule would allow lemons to be imported into the continental United States from northwest Argentina. If this proposed rule is adopted, State and local laws and regulations regarding lemons imported under this rule would be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh lemons are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public and would remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this proposed rule is adopted, no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Please send written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-2014-0092. Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No. APHIS-2014-0092, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, Room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250.

This proposed rule would allow the importation of lemons from northwest Argentina that have been produced in accordance with the requirements of a systems approach. This action would require information collection activities, such as an operational workplan, production site and packinghouse registration and recertification, pest-free determination, recordkeeping, monitoring of traps, NPPO inspection, identification, treatment records, and a phytosanitary certificate.

We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond (such as 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).

Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.07356 hours per response.

Respondents: Producers, importers of lemons, the NPPO of Argentina.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 76.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 52.40.

Estimated annual number of responses: 3,983.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 293 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the EGovernment Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

The addition reads as follows:

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-2016-6414; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-175-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.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-12, dated June 23, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The MCAI states:

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-2016-6414.

We reviewed Section 03-19, Unreliable Airspeed, Revision 63, dated February 13, 2015, of Chapter 3, Emergency Procedures, in the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-2B19 Airplane Flight Manual CSP A-012, Revision 64B, dated December 8, 2015. The service information describes procedures to guide the crew to stabilize the airplane's airspeed and attitude for continued safe flight when a loss of all air data information has occurred in the flight deck. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type designs.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 500 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 $42,500, or $85 per product.

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.

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.

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

We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued AD No. CF-2013-26, dated September 24, 2013, to correct an unsafe condition for certain serial-numbered Bell Model 430 helicopters. Transport Canada advises that bolt part number (P/N) MS21250-08083, which replaced bolt P/N 20-065-08083 in 2009, has a retirement life of 5,000 hours. However, the retirement life for the replacement bolt was inadvertently omitted from the limitations section of the Bell 430 maintenance manual. Transport Canada advises that this situation, if not corrected, could result in failure of a bolt and loss of control of the helicopter. Transport Canada AD No. CF-2013-26 requires reviewing the helicopter records to determine if bolt P/N MS21250-08083 is installed, creating a historical service record, and establishing an airworthiness life of 5,000 hours air time.

This helicopter has been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Canada, Transport Canada, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

We reviewed Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 430-12-47, dated November 14, 2012 (ASB). The ASB states that original bolt P/N 20-065-08083 has a retirement life of 5,000 hours but has been replaced by standard bolt P/N MS21250-08083, which does not have a life limit listed in the maintenance manual. The purpose of the ASB is to establish a life limit of 5,000 hours for the replacement bolt. Bell specifies reviewing the aircraft records back to January 2009 to determine which part-numbered bolts are installed. If a replacement bolt P/N MS21250-08083 is installed, the ASB specifies using data from aircraft records to create a historical service record for the replacement bolts and reflecting the 5,000 hours life limit. The ASB also specifies updating the Bell 430 maintenance manual.

This proposed AD would require within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS), revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the applicable maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) by establishing a life limit of 5,000 hours TIS for each bolt P/N MS21250-08083. This proposed AD would also require determining the number of hours TIS for each bolt and using the helicopter's hours if the hours TIS of a bolt is unknown. This proposed AD would also require removing from service each bolt that has reached or exceeded its life limit.

The proposed AD would require compliance within 10 hours TIS, while the Transport Canada AD requires compliance within 60 days.

We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 43 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 cost of $85 per work-hour, we estimate reviewing and revising the records would require 1 work-hour for a cost of about $85 per helicopter and $3,655 for the U.S. fleet. We estimate replacing a bolt that has exceeded its life limit would require 0.5 work-hour plus $290 for a replacement bolt, for a total cost of $333 per bolt.

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.

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, 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 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 proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

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-2016-6415; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-178-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.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-20, dated July 21, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes. The MCAI states:

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-2016-6415.

We reviewed Section 03-19, Unreliable Airspeed, Revision 15, dated March 16, 2015, of Chapter 3, Emergency Procedures, in the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-2C10 Airplane Flight Manual CSP B-012, Revision 16A, dated November 6, 2015. The service information describes procedures to guide the crew to stabilize the airplane's airspeed and attitude for continued safe flight when a loss of all air data information has occurred in the flight deck. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type designs.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 269 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 $22,865, or $85 per product.

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.

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.

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

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-2016-6417; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-134-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.

The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).

Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.

In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, combination of failures, and unacceptable (failure) experience. For all three failure criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action.

We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

We have received multiple reports of fuel pump housing electrical connector failures related to ingress of airplane fluids. Currently installed fuel pump housing electrical connectors have 18 month repetitive inspection requirements related to AD 2011-11-05, Amendment 39-16704 (76 FR 31462, dated June 1, 2011) (“AD 2011-11-05”), and AD 2002-13-10, Amendment 39-12798 (67 FR 45053, dated July 8, 2002) (“AD 2002-13-10”). An improved fuel pump housing electrical connector has been developed to supersede the currently installed fuel pump housing electrical connector. Additionally, a secondary option has been developed that allows the operator to replace the fuel pump housing. In addition to the new fuel pump housing electrical connector, the use of environmentally sealed terminal lugs will help to prevent the wicking of airplane fluids into the fuel pump wires and the fuel pump housing electrical connector. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the fuel pump housing electrical connector, causing a potential ignition source in a fuel tank and consequent fire or explosion.

We reviewed the following service information.

• Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-264, dated May 15, 2015. The service information describes procedures for replacement of the fuel pump housing electrical connector with a new fuel pump housing electrical connector or replacement of the fuel pump housing. The service information also describes procedures for inspections for proper operation and corrective actions if necessary.

• Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-146, dated May 15, 2015. The service information describes procedures for replacement of the fuel pump housing electrical connector with a new fuel pump housing electrical connector or replacement of the fuel pump housing. The service information also describes procedures for inspections for proper operation and corrective actions if necessary.

• Crane Aerospace & Electronics, Hydro-Aire, Inc. Service Bulletin 60-843/845-28-2, dated October 1, 2014. The service information describes procedures for a general visual inspection of the protective cap and replacement if necessary.

• Appendixes B, C, and D of Boeing Trijet Special Compliance Item Report MDC-02K1003, Revision O, dated April 15, 2015, which include Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs), Airworthiness Limitation Instructions (ALIs), and short-term extensions.

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.

AD 2000-22-21, Amendment 39-11969 (65 FR 69658, dated November 20, 2000) (“AD 2000-22-21”), applies to all The Boeing Company Model DC-10, Model MD-10, and Model MD-11 series airplanes. AD 2000-22-21 requires revising the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to ensure that the flight crew is advised of appropriate procedures for disabling certain fuel pump electrical circuits following failure of a fuel pump electrical connector. For certain airplanes, AD 2000-22-21 also requires revising the AFM to prohibit resetting of tripped fuel pump circuit breakers. AD 2000-22-21 was prompted by reports of four incidents on McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 and MD-11 series airplanes, in which a short circuit occurred in the electrical connector between the power lead and the housing of a fuel pump. The circuit breaker did not trip in any of these incidents because the electrical arcing that occurred was shorter in duration than necessary for the circuit breaker to detect the arcing and open the circuit. We issued AD 2000-22-21 to prevent continued arcing following a short circuit of the fuel pump electrical connector, which could damage the conduit that protects the power lead inside the fuel tank, and result in the creation of a potential ignition source in the fuel tank.

AD 2002-13-10 applies to certain The Boeing Company Model DC-10-10, -10F, -15, -30, -30F, -30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), -40, and -40F airplanes; Model MD-10-10F and -30F airplanes; and Model MD-11 and -11F airplanes. AD 2002-13-10 requires repetitive tests for electrical continuity and resistance and repetitive inspections to detect discrepancies of the fuel boost/transfer pump connectors; and corrective actions, if necessary. AD 2002-13-10 was prompted by reports of five instances of failed connectors in the fuel boost/transfer pump circuit on The Boeing Company Model DC-10 and MD-11 series airplanes. We issued AD 2002-13-10 to prevent arcing of connectors in the fuel boost/transfer pump circuit, which could result in a fire or explosion of the fuel tank.

AD 2003-07-14, Amendment 39-13110 (68 FR 17544, dated April 10, 2003), applies to a single The Boeing Company Model DC-10-30 airplane. AD 2003-07-14 requires repetitive tests for electrical continuity and resistance and repetitive inspections to detect discrepancies of the fuel boost/transfer pump connectors; and corrective actions, if necessary. AD 2003-07-14 was prompted by reports of five instances of failed connectors in the fuel boost/transfer pump circuit on certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 and MD-11 series airplanes. We issued AD 2003-07-14 to prevent arcing of connectors in the fuel boost/transfer pump circuit, which could result in a fire or explosion of the fuel tank.

AD 2008-06-21 R1, Amendment 39-16100 (74 FR 61504, November 25, 2009), applies to all McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model DC-10-10 and DC-10-10F airplanes, Model DC-10-15 airplanes, Model DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes, Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes, Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes, and Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. AD 2008-06-21 R1 requires revising the FAA-approved maintenance program, or the Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, as applicable, to incorporate new AWLs for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. For certain airplanes, AD 2008-06-21 R1 also requires the initial accomplishment of a certain repetitive AWL inspection to phase in that inspection, and repair if necessary. AD 2008-06-21 R1 clarifies the intended effect of the AD on spare and on-airplane fuel tank system components. AD 2008-06-21 R1 was prompted by a design review of the fuel tank system. We issued AD 2008-06-21 R1 to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

AD 2011-11-05 applies to all The Boeing Company Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, DC-10-40F; Model MD-10-10F, MD-10-30F, MD-11, and MD-11F airplanes. AD 2011-11-05 requires replacing the fuel pump housing electrical connector assembly with a new part and doing repetitive inspections for continuity, resistance, and insulation resistance, and doing corrective actions if necessary. AD 2011-11-05 was prompted by reports of failures of a certain fuel pump housing electrical connector. We issued AD 2011-11-05 to detect and correct insulation resistance degradation and arcing in the potted backside of the electrical connector assembly of the fuel boost/transfer pump housing, which could compromise its performance and cause an ignition source in the fuel tank, resulting in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

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

This proposed AD would require replacement of the fuel pump housing electrical connector or replacement of the fuel pump housing. This proposed AD would also require, for certain airplanes, a general visual inspection of the protective cap and replacement if necessary. This proposed AD would also require repetitive inspections for proper operation of the fuel pump and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD would also require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new airworthiness limitations.

This proposed AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections) and CDCCLs. Compliance with these actions and CDCCLs is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (l) of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Notwithstanding any other maintenance or operational requirements, components that have been identified as airworthy or installed on the affected airplanes before accomplishing the revision of the airplane maintenance or inspection program specified in this proposed AD, do not need to be reworked in accordance with the CDCCLs. However, once the airplane maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by this proposed AD, future maintenance actions on these components must be done in accordance with the CDCCLs.

The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Corrective actions” correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 246 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition replacement and corrective actions specified in this proposed AD.

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.

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.

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

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-2016-6426; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-023-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.

We have received reports of intergranular cracks on the front spar chord lugs of the outboard horizontal stabilizer. The cracks have been found along the axis of the front spar chord and in the lug faces, lug bores, and lug spot-face surfaces. The stabilizer front spar chords are an extrusion made from 7075-T6511 aluminum. This material is susceptible to stress corrosion in a corrosive environment where residual machining stresses are present and where the material finish and sealant have degraded. A single joint failure will significantly reduce the remaining fatigue life in the rear spar. A dual failure of the upper and lower front spar joints of the horizontal stabilizer could cause stabilizer instability, adversely affect controllability of the airplane, and adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1092, dated August 7, 2015. The service information describes procedures for doing inspections for corrosion and cracking of the front spar chord lugs of the horizontal stabilizer, and inspections for corrosion of the lug bores. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We 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.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6426.

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1092, dated August 7, 2015, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:

• In accordance with a method that we approve; or

• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 346 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

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

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.

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.

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

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-5872; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-11-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM 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 NPRM.

We received a report of a significant fan rub event involving a GE GEnx-1B Performance Improvement Program 2 (PIP2) engine. The fan rub was caused by partial fan ice shedding. Asymmetric ice shedding can cause large fan imbalances leading to heavy tip rubs. The fan case geometry on PIP2 engines makes these engines susceptible to heavy fan tip rubs. This can cause substantial damage to the engine and an in-flight non-restartable power loss. We are using calendar time for compliance in this AD because the failure mode is caused by exposure to specific environmental and operational conditions. This defines the overall fleet risk in terms of calendar time, rather than engine cycles or hours.

This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the fan blades and the load reduction device, loss of power to one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and loss of the airplane.

We reviewed GE GEnx-1B Service Bulletin (SB) 72-0314 R00, dated April 1, 2016. The SB describes procedures for increasing the clearance of the fan stator module assembly. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We are proposing this NPRM 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.

This NPRM would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 89 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 40 hours per engine to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of this proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $302,600.

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.

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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

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

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

I. Background

FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Tobacco Product Master Files.” This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices (GGP) regulation (§ 10.115 (21 CFR 10.115)). This guidance is being implemented without prior public comment because the Agency has determined that prior public participation is not feasible or appropriate (§ 10.115(g)(2)). The Agency made this determination because immediate implementation of the guidance is needed to assist in addressing a public health issue. Although this guidance document is immediately in effect, it remains subject to comment in accordance with the Agency's GGP regulation.

The guidance document provides recommendations to industry on TPMFs. TPMFs are voluntary submissions to FDA that contain information about a tobacco product. TPMFs are used to permit the person who owns the TPMF (TPMF owner) to authorize other persons to rely on information in the TPMF to support a submission to FDA without the TPMF owner having to disclose that information to other persons. Authorization to reference a TPMF may be especially useful to manufacturers or applicants preparing premarket submissions, such as substantial equivalence reports, for new tobacco products. Other parties who obtain a right of reference from a TPMF owner can reference information in a TPMF that the TPMF owner does not want to make public, but that the other party would otherwise need to develop on its own to make a complete submission to FDA. The guidance provides information on how to establish a TPMF, including what to submit and where to submit the TPMF.

The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on TPMFs. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

This guidance refers to collections of information described in FDA's final rule on Deeming Tobacco Products To Be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act; Restrictions on the Sale and Distribution of Tobacco Products and Required Warning Statements for Tobacco Products. The collections of information in the final rule are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As required by the PRA, FDA has published an analysis of the information collection provisions elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register and has submitted them for OMB approval.

This guidance also refers to previously approved collections of information. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in section 905(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0673; the collections of information in sections 904(a)(1), (c) and 905(b), (c), (d), (h), (i) of the FD&C Act have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0650; the collections of information in section 904(a)(4) of the FD&C Act have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0654; the collections of information in 21 CFR 1107.1(b) and (c), 21 CFR 25.40, and section 905(j)(1)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0684; the collections of information in sections 904(a)(3) and 904(c)(1) of the FD&C Act have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0732; and the collections of information in section 910 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0775.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain an electronic version of the guidance at either http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/default.htm.

FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “FDA Deems Certain Tobacco Products Subject to FDA Authority, Sales and Distribution Restrictions, and Health Warning Requirements for Packages and Advertisements, Small Entity Compliance Guide.” This guidance is intended to help small businesses understand and comply with FDA's implementation of the final rule entitled “Deeming Tobacco Products To Be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act; Restrictions on the Sale and Distribution of Tobacco Products and Required Warning Statements for Tobacco Products” (Deeming rule), which is published elsewhere in this edition of the Federal Register. Specifically, this guidance is intended to help small businesses understand how to comply with FDA's final rule deeming tobacco products to be subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FD&C Act”), as amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (“Tobacco Control Act”). The Deeming rule extends FDA's authority in Chapter IX of the FD&C Act to include all tobacco products, except accessories of newly deemed tobacco products. The Deeming rule also prohibits the sale of covered tobacco products to individuals under the age of 18, prohibits vending machine sales unless sold in adult-only facilities, and requires the display of health warning statements on cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and covered tobacco product packages and in advertisements.

In compliance with section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121), FDA is making available this SECG stating in plain language the legal requirements of the Deeming final rule, set forth in 21 CFR parts 1100, 1140, and 1143.

FDA is issuing this SECG as a level 2 guidance, consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain an electronic version of the guidance at either http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/default.htm.

I. Background

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Premarket Tobacco Product Applications for Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems.”

On June 22, 2009, the President signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) (Pub. L. 111-31) into law. The Tobacco Control Act amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) and granted FDA authority to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect public health generally and to reduce tobacco use by minors. Under section 901(b) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387a(b)), FDA's tobacco product authorities in chapter IX of the FD&C Act apply to all cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco and to any other tobacco products that the Secretary of Health and Human Services by regulation deems to be subject to chapter IX. Concurrently with issuing this draft guidance, FDA is publishing elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, its final rule, “Deeming Tobacco Products To Be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act; Restrictions on the Sale and Distribution of Tobacco Products and Required Warning Statements for Tobacco Products” (Deeming rule) to deem all products meeting the statutory definition of “tobacco product” in section 201(rr) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(rr)), except accessories to newly deemed tobacco products, to be subject to chapter IX of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387 through 387u).

Under section 910 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387j), persons seeking to market a new tobacco product (as defined in section 910(a)(1) of the FD&C Act) must first submit a PMTA to FDA and obtain a marketing authorization order, unless FDA has issued an order that the new tobacco product is substantially equivalent to a tobacco product commercially marketed in the United States as of February 15, 2007, or the new tobacco product is exempt from demonstrating substantial equivalence pursuant to the reasons outlined in section 905(j)(3) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387e(j)(3)). The ENDS products that are the subject of this draft guidance likely would be considered new tobacco products.

Given the relatively new presence of ENDS on the U.S. market, FDA anticipates that many manufacturers of these new tobacco products will seek a marketing authorization order by filing a PMTA. This draft guidance explains, among other things, products to which the guidance applies, when a PMTA is required, general procedures for review of an ENDS PMTA, what information the FD&C Act requires applicants to submit in a PMTA, and what information FDA recommends applicants submit in an ENDS PMTA to show whether permitting such new tobacco product to be marketed is appropriate for the protection of the public health.

FDA is issuing this draft guidance consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on PMTAs for ENDS. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

This draft guidance refers to collections of information described in FDA's Deeming rule, which this draft guidance is intended to interpret. The collections of information in the Deeming rule are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As required by the PRA, FDA has published an analysis of the information collection provisions elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register and has submitted them for OMB approval.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain an electronic version of the draft guidance at either http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/default.htm.

I. Background

FDA is announcing the availability of a revised guidance for industry entitled “Requirements for the Submission of Data Needed to Calculate User Fees for Domestic Manufacturers and Importers of Tobacco Products; Small Entity Compliance Guide” for the final user fee rules published July 10, 2014 (79 FR 39302). Also, published elsewhere in this edition of the Federal Register, FDA issued a final rule to amend 21 CFR part 1150 (part 1150) to require domestic manufacturers and importers of cigars and pipe tobacco to submit to FDA information needed to calculate the amount of user fees assessed under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). FDA issued this user fee final rule together with the final rule, “Deeming Tobacco Products To Be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act; Restrictions on the Sale and Distribution of Tobacco Products and Required Warning Statements for Tobacco Products” (Deeming rule), which deems all products that meet the statutory definition of “tobacco product,” except accessories of the newly deemed tobacco products, to be subject to the FD&C Act. The Deeming rule, among other things, subjects domestic manufacturers and importers of cigars and pipe tobacco to the FD&C Act's user fee requirements. Consistent with the Deeming rule and the requirements of the FD&C Act, this user fee final rule requires the submission of the information needed to calculate user fee assessments for each manufacturer and importer of cigars and pipe tobacco to FDA. In compliance with section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121), FDA is making available this revised SECG stating in plain language the legal requirements of the user fee final regulations set forth in part 1150.

FDA is issuing this revised SECG as a level 2 guidance, consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain an electronic version of the guidance at either http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/default.htm.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The collection of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking has been previously reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) under control number 1545-1191. The estimated average annual recordkeeping burden per recordkeeper is 10 hours. The estimated reporting burden is being reported under Form 5472 (OMB # 1545-0123).

The collection of information in this proposed regulation is in sections 1.6038A-1 through 1.6038A-3 and 1.6038A-5. This information is required in order to provide the IRS with improved access to information that it needs to satisfy its obligations under U.S. tax treaties, tax information exchange agreements, and similar international agreements, as well as to strengthen the enforcement of U.S. tax laws. The likely respondents are foreign-owned domestic entities that are disregarded as separate from their owners.

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.

Sections 301.7701-1 through 301.7701-3 (“the entity classification regulations”) classify a business entity with two or more members as either a corporation or a partnership, and a business entity with a single owner as either a corporation or an entity disregarded as separate from its owner (“disregarded entity”). Certain domestic business entities, such as limited liability companies (“LLCs”), are classified by default as partnerships (if they have more than one member) or as disregarded entities (if they have only one owner) but are eligible to elect for federal tax purposes to be classified as corporations. Under special rules, an entity that is otherwise disregarded is not disregarded for certain excise and employment tax purposes. Section 301.7701-2(c)(2)(iv) and (v).

Some disregarded entities are not obligated to file a return or obtain an employer identification number (“EIN”). In the absence of a return filing obligation (and associated record maintenance requirements) or the identification of a responsible party as required in applying for an EIN, it is difficult for the United States to carry out the obligations it has undertaken in its tax treaties, tax information exchange agreements and similar international agreements to provide other jurisdictions with relevant information on U.S. entities with owners that are tax resident in the partner jurisdiction or otherwise have a tax nexus with respect to the partner jurisdiction.

Section 6001 of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) provides that every person liable for any tax imposed by the Code, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe, and that whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person or by regulations, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such records, as the Secretary deems sufficient to show whether or not such person is liable for tax. Thus, the Treasury Department and the IRS have broad authority under section 6001 of the Code to promulgate regulations to require the keeping of records and the reporting of information by persons who may be liable for any tax. The Code also requires many categories of persons to file returns, even if no tax is owed in a particular year. For example, all corporations organized in the United States must file annual income tax returns, which may include schedules requiring the identification of owners exceeding specified ownership thresholds. Moreover, foreign corporations engaged in a trade or business in the United States (“U.S. trade or business”) must file annual income tax returns. Section 6012(a)(2); section 1.6012-2. Domestic partnerships must file information returns with schedules identifying each partner. Section 6031; section 1.6031(a)-1. In addition, domestic corporations that are at least 25% foreign-owned are subject to specific information reporting and record maintenance requirements. Section 6038A.

All entities, including disregarded entities, must have an EIN to file a required return. Section 6109(a)(1); see section 301.6109-1(a)(1)(ii)(C) and (b). An entity must also have an EIN in order to elect to change its classification. An entity that accepts its default classification and is not required to file a return need not obtain an EIN. Because a domestic single-member LLC is classified as a disregarded entity by default rather than by election and has no separate federal tax return filing requirements, there is typically no federal tax requirement for it to obtain an EIN. Other applicable federal or state laws may require an entity to obtain an EIN. For example, pursuant to federal law, financial institutions in the United States generally require an entity to have an EIN to open an account. See 31 CFR 1020.220(a)(1)(i)(A)(4).

An entity obtains an EIN by filing Form SS-4, Application for Employer Identification Number, in which the entity must identify a responsible party. The instructions to Form SS-4 define “responsible party” for an entity (including a disregarded entity) that is not traded on a public exchange or registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as “the individual who has a level of control over, or entitlement to, the funds or assets in the entity that, as a practical matter, enables the individual, directly or indirectly, to control, manage, or direct the entity and the disposition of its funds and assets.” The entity must also report any subsequent change in the responsible party. See section 301.6109-1(d)(2)(ii).

When an entity, such as an LLC, is classified as a corporation or a partnership for tax purposes, general ownership and accounting information is available to the IRS through the return filing and EIN application requirements. However, a disregarded entity is not subject to a separate income or information return filing requirement. Its owner is treated as owning directly the entity's assets and liabilities, and the information available with respect to the disregarded entity depends on the owner's own return filings, if any are required. For a disregarded entity that is formed in the United States and wholly owned by a foreign corporation, foreign partnership, or nonresident alien individual, generally no U.S. income or information return must be filed if neither the disregarded entity nor its owner received any U.S. source income or was engaged in a U.S. trade or business during the taxable year. Moreover, if a disregarded entity only receives certain types of U.S. source income, such as portfolio interest or U.S. source income that is fully withheld upon at source, its owner may not have a U.S. return filing requirement. Even in cases when the disregarded entity has an EIN, as well as in cases when income earned through a disregarded entity must be reported on its owner's return (for example, income from a U.S. trade or business), it may be difficult to associate the income with the disregarded entity based solely on the owner's return.

Although ownership and accounting information is generally available under the reporting requirements established by the U.S. federal tax system with respect to many types of domestic entities, the absence of specific return filing and associated recordkeeping requirements for foreign-owned, single-member domestic entities hinders law enforcement efforts and compliance with international standards of transparency and cooperation in the area of tax information exchange. These difficulties have been noted in reviews of the U.S. legal system by international organizations, including the Financial Action Task Force and the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, which is affiliated with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The lack of ready access to information on ownership of, and transactions involving, these entities also makes it difficult for the IRS to ascertain whether the entity or its owner is liable for any federal tax.

In general, section 6038A imposes reporting and recordkeeping requirements (together with certain procedural compliance requirements) on domestic corporations that are 25-percent foreign-owned. They are required to file an annual return on Form 5472, Information Return of a 25% Foreign-Owned U.S. Corporation or a Foreign Corporation Engaged in a U.S. Trade or Business (Under Sections 6038A and 6038C of the Internal Revenue Code), with respect to each related party with which the reporting corporation has had any “reportable transactions.” See section 1.6038A-2. These corporations must keep the permanent books of account or records as required by section 6001 that are sufficient to establish the accuracy of the federal income tax return of the corporation, including information, documents, or records to the extent they may be relevant to determine the correct U.S. tax treatment of transactions with related parties. See section 1.6038A-3.

These proposed regulations would amend section 301.7701-2(c) to treat a domestic disregarded entity that is wholly owned by one foreign person as a domestic corporation separate from its owner for the limited purposes of the reporting and record maintenance requirements (including the associated procedural compliance requirements) under section 6038A. As with the existing special rules with respect to employment and excise taxes, these proposed regulations would not alter the framework of the existing entity classification regulations, including the treatment of certain entities as disregarded. These regulations are intended to provide the IRS with improved access to information that it needs to satisfy its obligations under U.S. tax treaties, tax information exchange agreements and similar international agreements, as well as to strengthen the enforcement of U.S. tax laws.

Because the proposed regulations would treat the affected domestic entities as foreign-owned domestic corporations for the specific purposes of section 6038A under the proposed regulations, and because such entities are foreign-owned, they would be reporting corporations within the meaning of section 6038A. Consequently, they would be required to file the Form 5472 information return with respect to reportable transactions between the entity and its foreign owner or other foreign related parties (transactions that would have been regarded under general U.S. tax principles if the entity had been, in fact, a corporation for U.S. tax purposes) and would also be required to maintain records sufficient to establish the accuracy of the information return and the correct U.S. tax treatment of such transactions. In addition, because these entities would have a filing obligation, they would be required to obtain an EIN by filing a Form SS-4 that includes responsible party information.

To ensure that such entities are required to report all transactions with foreign related parties, these regulations would specify as an additional reportable category of transaction for these purposes any transaction within the meaning of section 1.482-1(i)(7) (with such entities being treated as separate taxpayers for the purpose of identifying transactions and being subject to requirements under section 6038A) to the extent not already covered by another reportable category. The term “transaction” is defined in section 1.482-1(i)(7) to include any sale, assignment, lease, license, loan, advance, contribution, or other transfer of any interest in or a right to use any property or money, as well as the performance of any services for the benefit of, or on behalf of, another taxpayer. For example, under these proposed regulations, contributions and distributions would be considered reportable transactions with respect to such entities. Accordingly, a transaction between such an entity and its foreign owner (or another disregarded entity of the same owner) would be considered a reportable transaction for purposes of the section 6038A reporting and record maintenance requirements, even though, because it involves a disregarded entity, it generally would not be considered a transaction for other purposes, such as making an adjustment under section 482. The penalty provisions associated with failure to file the Form 5472 and failure to maintain records would apply to these entities as well.

The proposed regulations would also provide that the exceptions to the record maintenance requirements in section 1.6038A-1(h) and (i) for small corporations and de minimis transactions will not apply to these entities.

Consistent with the changes contemplated by these proposed regulations, the IRS is also considering modifications to corporate, partnership, and other tax or information returns (or their instructions) to require the filer of these returns to identify all the foreign and domestic disregarded entities it owns.

The proposed regulations would impose a filing obligation on a foreign-owned disregarded entity for reportable transactions it engages in even if its foreign owner already has an obligation to report the income resulting from those transactions—for example, transactions resulting in income effectively connected with the conduct of a U.S. trade or business. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on possible alternative methods for reporting the disregarded entity's transactions in such cases.

The regulations are proposed to be applicable for taxable years ending on or after the date that is 12 months after the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register.

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 assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) and (d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby certified that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. This certification is based on the fact that these regulations will primarily affect a small number of foreign-owned domestic entities that do not themselves otherwise have a U.S. return filing requirement, and that the requirement to file a return for these entities will not impose a significant burden on them. Pursuant to section 7805(f), this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small entities.

Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the Addresses heading. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on aspects of the proposed rules for which additional guidance is desired. All comments will be available at www.regulations.gov or upon request. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, then notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the Federal Register.

The principal author of these regulations is Ronald M. Gootzeit, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and part 301 are proposed to be amended as follows:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FR Federal Register NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section SEFCRI South East Florida Coral Reef Initiative U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

On December 1, 2015, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Study and request for comments (80 FR 75020) advising that we were evaluating an amendment to the Miami Anchorage (33 CFR 110.188) that would divide the anchorage into two separate anchorage areas. The possible modification of the anchorage area was designed in coordination with local stakeholders in an effort to mitigate damage to coral that may be caused by vessels anchoring. Comments provided by these stakeholders, academic research, and environmental reports addressed a number of options to potentially reduce the likelihood of damage to the Florida Reef in the Miami Anchorage. Those documents, which may be found in the docket, influenced this Coast Guard's selection of the anchorage modification proposed in this notice.

In response to the Notice of Study, the Coast Guard received four comments. The first comment was from the non-profit organization, Miami Waterkeeper. Miami Waterkeeper supports the modifications to the anchorage area as those modifications would both better protect threatened species and critical coral habitat and still allow for safe navigation.

The second comment came from the National Marine Fisheries Service—Habitat Conservation Division (NFMS). NMFS stated that they support relocating the anchorage area in order to reduce continued degradation of the coral reef and, ultimately, allow for restoration of the reef.

The third comment was from NOAA. On December 1, 2015, NOAA submitted a comment to verify the coordinates of the possible amended anchorage area listed in the notice. The coordinates for the location of the amended anchorage areas were published incorrectly. The latitudinal coordinates were inadvertently published in the longitude column and vice versa. However, the numerical coordinates published in the chart was correct. The error has been corrected in this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

The final comment came from Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). FDEP commented that the Coast Guard erred when it stated the genesis for the division of the anchorages was a SEFCRI report. While the SEFCRI report was instrumental to the evaluation of the current Miami Anchorage, the two anchorage solution was originally discussed in an academic paper authored by Lauren Waters, a FDEP employee. This paper can be found in the docket.

The comments received in response to the notice were positive or addressed non-substantive errors in the notice. The Coast Guard is therefore proceeding with a proposal to revise the Miami Anchorage under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071, 33 CFR 1.05-1 and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

The Coast Guard proposes to revise the Miami Anchorage by dividing the anchorage into two separate anchorage areas and clarifying text throughout the regulation. This revision is intended to reduce threats to protected coral without compromising the ability of vessels to anchor safely. Although the two separate anchorages encompass a smaller area, they allow for the facilitation of safe anchorage of both shallow and deep draft vessels. The amended coordinates would establish two anchorages with a combined area of approximately 1.5 square miles thereby reducing the total anchorage area by approximately 3 square nautical miles. The amended anchorage areas would be established with the following coordinates:

Additional minor revisions to the Miami Anchorage regulation are also proposed to pluralize the anchorage grounds that would be established and to clarify existing regulation text.

We developed this proposed 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.

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 NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This regulatory action determination is based on relatively minor changes to the existing Miami Anchorage regulation. This proposed regulation would create two separate anchorage areas with a combined total of 1.5 square miles of anchorage; while this does reduce the total anchorage area, the ability of shallow and deep draft vessels to safely anchor should not be impacted. This proposed regulation would clarify other regulatory text, but no other substantive changes are proposed.

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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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 proposed 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination 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 proposed rule involves reducing an anchorage. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(f) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:

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

On April 25, 2015, the City of New Smyrna Beach requested that the Coast Guard review the current operating schedule for the Coronado Beach (George Musson) Bridge (SR 44) to determine whether a change could be made to improve vehicle traffic flow in the area. The bridge owner, Florida Department of Transportation, was also consulted on this issue and it concurred with the recommendation to change the current schedule requiring an opening every 20 minutes to a schedule requiring an opening every 30 minutes all days of the week.

The George Musson Bridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 845, at New Smyrna Beach, FL is a double leaf bascule bridge. It has a vertical clearance of 24 feet in the closed position at mean high water and a horizontal clearance of 90 feet.

Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.261(h), the Coronado Beach bridge (SR 44), also known as the George Musson Bridge, at mile 845 at New Smyrna Beach, FL shall open on signal, except that from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m., each day of the week, the draw need only open on the hour, twenty minutes past the hour and forty minutes past the hour. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 499.

The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.261, paragraph h, regarding the operation of the George Musson/Coronado Beach (SR 44) Bridge, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 845, at New Smyrna Beach, FL. The proposed regulation would allow the bridge to open twice an hour rather than three times an hour to reduce vehicle traffic backups. In addition to changing the operating schedule, this regulation would add the local name of this bridge, George Musson, to the CFR. This regulation change will not have a significant impact on navigation in this area.

As per, 33 CFR 117.261(a) General: Public vessels of the United States and tugs with tows must be passed through the drawspan of each drawbridge listed in this section at anytime. These proposed changes will meet the reasonable needs of vessel traffic passing through the Bridge while taking into account the reasonable needs of other modes of transportation. Vessels not requiring an opening may pass at any time.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the limited impact that it is anticipated to have on vessel traffic on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. This proposed rule will change the opening schedule from three times an hour to two times an hour. Currently, bridge logs show that the Bridge generally opens twice an hour because vessel traffic volumes do not require three openings per hour. Therefore, there should be no actual change to the number of bridge openings per hour. Also, vessels that can transit under the bridge without an opening may do so. Emergency vessels and tugs with tows can still request openings at any time.

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 certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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 proposed 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

We have analyzed this proposed 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 preliminary 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 proposed rule involves the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are 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. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive order FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

The City of Beaufort, South Carolina requested that the bridge owner and the U.S. Coast Guard modify the operating schedule for Lady's Island Bridge to reduce vehicular traffic in the City of Beaufort and surrounding communities. On February 17th, 2015, Coast Guard Sector Charleston Waterways Management (WWM) staff observed the Lady's Island Bridge operations between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. During the observation period, the staff discussed potential changes with the Bridge owner, South Carolina Department of Transportation. Additionally, WWM met with the Beaufort County South Carolina traffic manager to discuss bridge opening impacts.

On August 5th, 2015, a Temporary Deviation, entitled, “Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Little River to Savannah River,” was published in the Federal Register [USCG-2015-0343] [80 FR 46492] to evaluate whether changing the bridge opening schedule would assist in reducing traffic congestion. This deviation was in effect through November 3rd, 2015.

During the deviation period the Coast Guard received six comments, five of which recommended retaining the operating schedule currently found at 33 CFR 117.911(f). One comment proposed a bridge opening during the morning and afternoon vehicular traffic rush hours. Based on the Coast Guard's observation of bridge use during peak traffic hours, the existing schedule would continue to create an unreasonable amount of vehicle traffic during morning and afternoon commutes and generally during daylight hours. One comment further suggested not changing the existing schedule during certain times of the year when increased vessel traffic is expected. The Coast Guard adopted this proposal because would meet the reasonable needs of navigation.

The Lady's Island Bridge in Beaufort, South Carolina has a vertical clearance of 30 feet at Mean High Water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge schedule can be found in 33 CFR 117.911(f).

The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.911(f). This proposed regulation would modify timeframes the bridge may remain closed. It would extend the morning closure period, when the bridge is authorized to remain closed, by an additional half hour and the afternoon closure period by an additional hour. It would also set an hourly opening schedule between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. when the Bridge will open on the hour, thereby reducing hourly openings from twice an hour to once an hour during daytime hours, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. This proposed regulation would reduce vehicle backups without unreasonably restricting vessel traffic, thereby balancing the needs of both modes of transportation. No changes to the existing regulation will be implemented during the months of April, May, October and November because higher vessel traffic volumes exist during these time periods. At all other times, this bridge will open on signal.

The South Carolina Department of Transportation, the bridge owner, has no objections to this proposed schedule.

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

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 NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This regulatory action determination is based on vessels being able to plan voyages that require transiting the bridge during the scheduled opening periods or, when capable of doing so, vessels may transit under the bridge at any time.

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 certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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 proposed 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 above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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

We have analyzed this proposed 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 preliminary 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 proposed rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are 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. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking § Section Symbol U.S.C. United States Code FDOT Florida Department of Transportation AICW Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

The East and West 79th Street Bridges currently open on signal, pursuant to 33 CFR 117.5, which results in frequent openings that restrict vehicle traffic during the day, especially during morning and afternoon rush hour traffic. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the bridge owner, and the City of North Bay Village requested a change to the current operating schedule for both bridges to allow for scheduled openings twice an hour during peak traffic times. Bridge logs indicate these bridges open up to four times an hour or more during peak travel times, which results in frequent vehicular traffic disruptions.

This proposed regulation would reduce vehicle traffic backups without unreasonably restricting vessel traffic by scheduling two openings per hour during peak traffic times, thereby balancing the needs of both modes of transportation.

Additionally, other bridges on this section of the Intracoastal Waterway and Miami Channel open two times per hour. The proposed scheduled openings will align the 79th Street bridge openings with other bridges on the Intracoastal, namely, the Broad Causeway Bridge to the North (33 CFR 117.261(mm)) and The Venetian Causeway Bridge to the South (33 CFR 117.261(nn)), thereby allowing vessels to plan voyages during opening times and vehicles to schedule commutes around these openings.

The East 79th Street Bridge across Miami Beach Channel, Miami, FL has a vertical clearance of 25 feet at MHW in the closed to navigation position and a horizontal clearance of 60 feet between fenders.

The West 79th Street Bridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway mile 1084.6, Miami, FL has a vertical clearance of 25 feet at MHW in the closed to navigation position and a horizontal clearance of 90 feet between fenders.

The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.261. The Coast Guard will add paragraph (mm1) to this section. Under this proposed regulation, the draw of the West 79th Street Bridges, at Miami, Florida would open twice an hour, once on the hour and once on the half-hour, Monday through Friday between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. During nights and weekends and on Federal holidays, the Bridge would open on signal.

The Coast Guard further proposes to add section 117.304 to title 33 of the CFR. This section will be entitled “Miami Beach Channel” and would add the schedule for the East 79th Street Bridge that will be identical to the proposed schedule for the West 79th Street Bridge stated above.

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

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 NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This regulatory action determination is based on vessels being able to plan voyages that require transiting the bridge during the scheduled opening periods or, when capable of doing so, vessels may transit under the bridge at any time. This rule will further meet the reasonable needs of navigation while taking into consideration the reasonable needs of vehicular traffic.

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 certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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 proposed 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 above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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

We have analyzed this proposed 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 preliminary 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 proposed rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are 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. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

I. What are the actions EPA is proposing? II. Fine Particulate Matter and the NAAQS III. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's May 16, 2011, and September 5, 2013, SIP submittals addressing NSR requirements? A. North Carolina's SIP Submittal Changes Regarding the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule B. North Carolina's SIP Submittal Changes Regarding the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule C. North Carolina's Miscellaneous SIP Submittal Changes Regarding the NSR Program IV. What is EPA's analysis of the PSD elements for North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submittals? A. PSD Elements for Infrastructure Submittals for the 2008 Lead, 2008 8-Hour Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS B. PSD Elements for Infrastructure Submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS V. Incorporation by Reference VI. Proposed Actions VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What are the actions EPA is proposing?