30218 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1Existing DOE regulations require testing to 

ensure compliance with energy conservation 

standards. 

to employees of the importer across the 

enterprise, whether they interface with 

CBP or customs brokers or whether they 

are the employees who file certifications 

for the importer in CCMS. For DOE to 

adopt this approach, the importer would 

have to provide the same identifier in 

the corresponding CCMS report. DOE 

also welcomes comments as to other 

alternatives that would minimize 

importer burden while still allowing 

DOE to confirm that a covered import 

does not belong to a basic model that 

DOE has previously found to be 

noncompliant. 

Commenters have expressed concern 

with respect to DOE’s proposal to 

require certain information related to 

covered products or equipment that are 

a component of another finished 

product, due to the fact that an importer 

may use more than one basic model of 

component part in its finished product, 

and may not know which basic model 

is contained in a given shipment. DOE 

notes that the purpose of this proposal 

is to allow quick identification by CBP 

of a noncompliant product. DOE 

welcomes comments on alternatives, 

including alternatives that would 

reduce importer burden, such as 

allowing the importer to identify the 

range of possible component part basic 

models, but importers should be aware 

that this approach could potentially 

result in a greater impact by having CBP 

stop shipments that may not contain 

noncompliant products due to the 

importer’s choice to group multiple 

basic models into a single identifier. 

In addition, DOE understands that 

characterizing its proposed requirement 

as a ‘‘certificate of admissibility’’ may 

have created the mistaken impression 

that it was proposing a conformity 

assessment procedure as described in 

the Technical Barriers to Trade 

Agreement administered by the World 

Trade Organization. DOE wishes to 

emphasize, however, that it is not 

proposing to mandate any additional 

testing 1 or to require submission of 

information unnecessarily redundant of 

that already provided in accordance 

with those regulations. Instead, DOE 

only seeks in its proposal to collect the 

minimum information necessary to trace 

the covered import to the certified basic 

model to which it belongs. 

Moreover, it is not DOE’s intent to 

delay in any way the importation of any 

covered product or equipment, aside 

from that for which DOE has already, 

separately, made a final determination 

that the basic model to which the 

covered import belongs is not compliant 

with applicable energy conservation 

standards. The importation of such a 

product is already prohibited. In 

addition, DOE notes that, although the 

information it proposes to collect would 

allow it to determine whether a covered 

import has been properly certified to 

DOE in CCMS, DOE is not proposing to 

delay the importation of a covered 

product subject to energy conservation 

standards solely due to a failure to 

certify the covered import. With this in 

mind, DOE welcomes comments on 

possible alternatives to the term 

‘‘certification of admissibility’’ in 

reference to what is, in essence, a 

limited collection of information for 

purposes of traceability. 

Finally, DOE seeks comments on 

alternatives to the proposed compliance 

date for the rule of 2 years after the date 

of publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register, such as a delayed or 

phased-in compliance date. 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information in response to the NOPR 

received no later than June 15, 2016. 

DOE will consider any comments in 

response to the NOPR received by 

midnight of June 15, 2016, and deems 

any comments received by that time to 

be timely submitted. Based on the 

comments received, DOE will determine 

whether it will need to issue a 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking or proceed to a final rule. 

Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

Any comments submitted must 

identify the NOPR for Import Data 

Collection, and provide docket number 

EERE–2015–BT–CE–0019 and/or 

regulatory information number (RIN) 

number 1990–AA44. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: ImportData2015CE0019@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

and/or RIN in the subject line of the 

message. 

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

CD. It is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD. It is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2015-BT-CE0019. This Web page will contain a link 

to the docket for this notice on the 

regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov 

Web page will contain simple 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or to request 

a public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 6, 2016. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2016–11468 Filed 5–13–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 93 

[Docket No.: FAA–2014–1073; Notice No. 

16–03] 

RIN 2120–AJ89 

Slot Management and Transparency 

for LaGuardia Airport, John F. 

Kennedy International Airport, and 

Newark Liberty International Airport 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), U.S. Department 

of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The DOT is withdrawing a 

previously published Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that 

would have replaced the Orders limiting 

scheduled operations at John F. 

Kennedy International Airport (JFK), 

Newark Liberty International Airport 

(EWR), and LaGuardia Airport (LGA) 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 30219 

with longer-term limits on scheduled 

and unscheduled operations at JFK, 

EWR, and LGA, and requested comment 

on options to establish a secondary 

market for the purchase, sale, lease, or 

trade of slots at these airports, as well 

as procedures that would codify the 

review of slot transactions arising from 

the secondary market for public interest 

and anti-competitive effects. 

DATES: As of May 16, 2016, the NPRM 

published on January 8, 2015 (80 FR 

1274) is withdrawn. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 2006, 

the FAA issued an Order imposing 

temporary limits on operations at LGA 

(71 FR 77854), and in 2008, issued 

Orders imposing temporary limits on 

operations at JFK (73 FR 3510) and EWR 

(73 FR 29550). These Orders have been 

extended and are in effect until October 

29, 2016. On April 6, 2016, the FAA 

announced that the current Order at 

EWR will expire on October 29, 2016, 

and that EWR will be a Level 2, 

schedule-facilitated airport under the 

Worldwide Slot Guidelines effective for 

the Winter 2016 scheduling season (81 

FR 19861). By this same announcement, 

the FAA indicated that slot-controlled 

restrictions at JFK and LGA remain 

necessary and that the FAA will extend 

these Orders, by separate Federal 

Register notices, until October 27, 2018. 

On January 8, 2015, the FAA and DOT 

published an NPRM (80 FR 1274) that 

would replace the FAA’s Orders 

limiting scheduled operations at JFK, 

EWR, and LGA with a long-term 

comprehensive approach to slot 

management at these airports. The 

NPRM proposed the continuation of the 

limits on scheduled and unscheduled 

operations in place at each of these 

airports under the Orders, and would 

have required use of an allocated slot 

80% of the time for the same flight or 

series of flights. The NPRM also 

requested public comment about five 

alternatives for a secondary market for 

the purchase, sale, lease, or trade of 

slots and proposed procedures to codify 

the exercise of DOT’s existing authority 

to review slot transactions for anticompetitive and public interest effects 

arising from those secondary market 

transactions that would have been 

permitted by the implementation of a 

bulletin board for the proposed 

secondary market. 

Since the FAA and DOT first initiated 

this rulemaking effort there have been 

significant changes in circumstances 

affecting New York City area airports, 

including changes in competitive effects 

from ongoing industry consolidation, 

slot utilization and transfer behavior, 

and actual operational performance at 

the three airports. Furthermore, the FAA 

recently announced that slot controls 

are no longer needed at EWR (81 FR 

19861). The NPRM proposed an 

approach to manage slots and the 

efficient use of airspace at JFK, EWR, 

and LGA that would have treated all 

three New York City area airports 

similarly. In light of the changes in 

market conditions and operational 

performance, and particularly the 

potential impact of EWR’s change in 

status, the Department is withdrawing 

the NPRM to allow for further 

evaluation of these changes. Withdrawal 

of this NPRM (80 FR 1274, January 8, 

2015) does not preclude the agency from 

issuing future rulemakings on this issue, 

nor does it commit the agency to any 

course of action in the future. The FAA 

will continue to monitor the operational 

performance at these airports. Further, if 

the Department detects unfair or 

anticompetitive behavior, we will not 

hesitate to continue to use our existing 

authority to take corrective action. We 

will also continue to cooperate with the 

U.S. Department of Justice on any 

reviews it undertakes. 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), 40101, 40103, 40105, and 

41712 in Washington, DC on May 6, 

2016. 

Jenny T. Rosenberg, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 

International Affairs. 

Nan Shellabarger, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Policy, 

International Affairs, and Environment. 

[FR Doc. 2016–11455 Filed 5–13–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Parts 117 and 507 

[Docket No. FDA–2016–D–1164] 

Qualified Facility Attestation Using 

Form FDA 3942a (for Human Food) or 

Form FDA 3942b (for Animal Food); 

Draft Guidance for Industry; 

Availability; Agency Information 

Collection Activities; Proposed 

Collection; Comment Request 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Notification of availability. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA, we, or Agency) is 

announcing the availability of a draft 

guidance for industry entitled 

‘‘Qualified Facility Attestation Using 

Form FDA 3942a (for Human Food) or 

Form FDA 3942b (for Animal Food).’’ 

This draft guidance explains our current 

thinking on how to determine whether 

a business is a ‘‘qualified facility’’ that 

is subject to modified requirements 

under our rule entitled ‘‘Current Good 

Manufacturing Practice, Hazard 

Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive 

Controls for Human Food’’ (the 

Preventive Controls for Human Food 

Rule) or under our rule entitled 

‘‘Current Good Manufacturing Practice, 

Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based 

Preventive Controls for Food for 

Animals’’ (the Preventive Controls for 

Animal Food Rule). This draft guidance 

also explains our current thinking on 

how a business would submit Form 

FDA 3942a attesting to its status as a 

qualified facility under the Preventive 

Controls for Human Food Rule and how 

a business would submit Form FDA 

3942b attesting to its status as a 

qualified facility under the Preventive 

Controls for Animal Food Rule. We also 

are announcing an opportunity for 

public comment on the proposed 

collection of information embodied in 

Forms FDA 3942a and 3942b. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), Federal Agencies are required to 

publish notice in the Federal Register 

concerning each proposed collection of 

information and allow 60 days for 

public comment in response to the 

notice. 

DATES: Although you can comment on 

any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 

10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that we consider 

your comment on this draft guidance 

before we begin work on the final 

version of the guidance, submit either 

electronic or written comments by 

November 14, 2016. Submit either 

electronic or written comments on the 

proposed collection of information by 

July 15, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

as follows: 

Electronic Submissions 

Submit electronic comments in the 

following way: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Comments submitted electronically, 

including attachments, to http://

www.regulations.gov will be posted to 

the docket unchanged. Because your 

comment will be made public, you are 

solely responsible for ensuring that your 

comment does not include any 

confidential information that you or a 

third party may not wish to be posted, 

such as medical information, your or 

anyone else’s Social Security number, or 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS