57008 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

expertise on the negotiating working 

group for the purpose of developing a 

rule that is legally and economically 

justified, technically sound, fair to all 

parties, and in the public interest. All 

meetings are open to all stakeholders 

and the public, and participation by all 

is welcome within boundaries as 

required by the orderly conduct of 

business. Considerations are still being 

made for additional membership, but 

the current Members of the LV Group 

are as follows: 

• Tim Ballo (Earthjustice). 

• Scott Beck (Lakeview Metals). 

• Eric Petersen (AK Steel). 

• Gary Fernstrom (PG&E). 

• Andrew DeLaski (ASAP). 

• Robin Roy (NRDC). 

• Steve Nadel (ACEEE). 

• Eduardo Robles (Eaton). 

• Robert Greeson (Federal Pacific). 

• Vijay Tendulkar (ONYX Power). 

• Chad Kennedy (Schneider). 

• John Caskey (NEMA). 

• Millure David (Metglas). 

• John Cymbalsky (U.S. Department 

of Energy). 

• Mark Stoering (Xcel Energy). 

Purpose of the Meeting: To launch the 

process of seeking consensus on a 

proposed rule for setting standards for 

the energy efficiency of low-voltage dry 

type distribution transformers, as 

authorized by the Energy Policy 

Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C) and 

6317(a). 

Tentative Agenda: The meeting will 

start at 9 a.m. and will conclude at 

5 p.m. on Wednesday, September 28, 

2011, in room 8E–089 at DOE’s, 

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. 

The tentative meeting agenda includes 

introductions, agreement on facilitator 

and rules of procedure, presentations 

from DOE consultants on the results of 

their revised analysis of alternative 

candidate standard levels, and 

identification of the issues to be 

addressed by the negotiations, and any 

outstanding data needs. 

Public Participation: Members of the 

public are welcome to observe the 

business of the meetings and to make 

comments related to the issues being 

discussed at appropriate points, when 

called on by the moderator. The 

facilitator will make every effort to hear 

the views of all interested parties, 

within limits, required for the orderly 

conduct of business. To attend the 

meeting and/or to make oral statements 

regarding any of the items on the 

agenda, e-mail erac@ee.doe.gov no later 

than 5 p.m., Thursday, September 22, 

2011. Please include ‘‘LV Work Group 

092811’’ in the subject line of the 

message. An early confirmation of 

attendance will help facilitate access to 

the building more quickly. In the e-mail, 

please provide your name, organization, 

citizenship and contact information. 

Space is limited. 

Anyone attending the meeting will be 

required to present government-issued 

identification. Foreign nationals will be 

required, per DOE security protocol, to 

complete a questionnaire, no later than, 

one week prior to the meeting, 

Thursday, September 22, 2011. 

Participation in the meeting is not a 

prerequisite for submission of written 

comments. ERAC invites written 

comments from all interested parties. If 

you would like to file a written 

statement with the committee, you may 

do so either by submitting a hard or 

electronic copy before or after the 

meeting. Electronic copy of written 

statements should be e-mailed to 

erac@ee.doe.gov. 

Minutes: The minutes of the meeting 

will be available for public review at 

http://www.erac.energy.gov. 

Issued at Washington, DC, on September 8, 

2011. 

LaTanya R. Butler, 

Acting Deputy Committee Management 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–23634 Filed 9–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Part 252 

[Docket No. DOT–OST–2011–0044] 

RIN 2105–AE06 

Smoking of Electronic Cigarettes on 

Aircraft 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Transportation is proposing to amend 

its existing airline smoking rule to 

explicitly ban the use of electronic 

cigarettes on all aircraft in scheduled 

passenger interstate, intrastate and 

foreign air transportation. The 

Department is taking this action because 

of the increased promotion of electronic 

cigarettes and the potential health and 

passenger comfort concerns that they 

pose in an aircraft. The Department is 

also considering whether to extend the 

ban on smoking (including electronic 

cigarettes) to charter flights of air 

carriers (i.e. U.S. carriers) and foreign air 

carriers with aircraft that have a 

designed seating capacity of 19 or more 

passenger seats. 

DATES: Comments should be filed by 

November 14, 2011. Late-filed 

comments will be considered to the 

extent possible. 

ADDRESSES: You may file comments 

identified by the docket number DOT– 

OST–2011–0044 by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Ave., SE., Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. E.T., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal Holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Instructions: You must include the 

agency name and docket number DOT– 

OST–2010–XXXX or Regulatory 

Identification Number (RIN) for the 

rulemaking at the beginning of your 

comment. All comments will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received in any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment if 

submitted on behalf of an association, a 

business, or labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78), or you may visit http:// 

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov or to the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura E. Jennings, Trial Attorney, Office 

of the Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 

20590, 202–366–9342 (phone), 202– 

366–7152 (fax), laura.jennings@dot.gov. 

You may also contact Blane A. Workie, 

Deputy Assistant General Counsel, 

Office of the Assistant General Counsel 

for Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., 

SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202–366– 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 57009 

9342 (phone), 202–366–7152 (fax), 

blane.workie@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Throughout this proposed rule, we 

use the terms ‘‘air carrier’’ and ‘‘foreign 

air carrier’’ as defined in 49 U.S.C. 

40102, in which ‘‘air carrier’’ is a citizen 

of the United States undertaking to 

provide air transportation, and a 

‘‘foreign air carrier’’ is a person, not a 

citizen of the United States, undertaking 

to provide foreign air transportation. 

The current statutory ban on smoking 

in scheduled interstate, intrastate, and 

foreign air transportation derives from 

the Wendell H. Ford Aviation 

Investment and Reform Act for the 21st 

Century or ‘‘AIR–21’’ (Pub. L. 106–181), 

which was signed into law on April 5, 

2000. It included section 708, 

‘‘Prohibitions Against Smoking on 

Scheduled Flights,’’ and was codified as 

49 U.S.C. 41706. Section 41706 states: 

(a) Smoking prohibition in intrastate and 

interstate air transportation.—An individual 

may not smoke in an aircraft in scheduled 

passenger interstate air transportation or 

scheduled passenger intrastate air 

transportation. 

(b) Smoking prohibition in foreign air 

transportation.—The Secretary of 

Transportation shall require all air carriers 

and foreign air carriers to prohibit smoking 

in any aircraft in scheduled passenger foreign 

air transportation. 

(c) Limitation on applicability.— 

(1) In general.—If a foreign government 

objects to the application of subsection (b) on 

the basis that subsection (b) provides for an 

extraterritorial application of the laws of the 

United States, the Secretary shall waive the 

application of subsection (b) to a foreign air 

carrier licensed by that foreign government at 

such time as an alternative prohibition 

negotiated under paragraph (2) becomes 

effective and is enforced by the Secretary. 

(2) Alternative prohibition.—If, pursuant to 

paragraph (1), a foreign government objects to 

the prohibition under subsection (b), the 

Secretary shall enter into bilateral 

negotiations with the objecting foreign 

government to provide for an alternative 

smoking prohibition. 

(d) Regulations.—The Secretary shall 

prescribe such regulations as are necessary to 

carry out this section. 

On June 9, 2000, the Department 

amended 14 CFR part 252, titled 

Smoking Aboard Aircraft, to implement 

section 41706. See 65 FR 36772. As a 

result, part 252 today bans the smoking 

of tobacco products on all scheduled 

passenger flights of air carriers, and on 

all scheduled passenger flight segments 

of foreign air carriers between points in 

the U.S. and between the U.S. and 

foreign points. Foreign air carriers may 

request and obtain a waiver from this 

requirement provided that an alternative 

smoking prohibition resulting from 

bilateral negotiations is in effect. Part 

252 also addresses smoking on charter 

flights. It permits carriers operating 

single entity charters to allow smoking 

throughout the aircraft but requires a 

no-smoking section for each class of 

service on other charter flights where 

smoking is not banned. 

Electronic cigarettes were introduced 

into the market in recent years. Because 

of the increasing promotion and 

availability of electronic cigarettes the 

issue has been raised as to whether the 

statutory ban on smoking in section 

41706 and existing regulatory 

prohibition on the smoking of tobacco 

products in part 252 apply to electronic 

cigarettes. The Department views the 

statutory and regulatory ban on smoking 

to be sufficiently broad to include the 

use of electronic cigarettes. While we 

view the statutory ban on smoking in 

section 41706 to cover electronic 

cigarettes as the statutory authority for 

this NPRM, we are, nonetheless, not 

solely relying on section 41706, which 

prohibits smoking aboard aircraft, but 

also another statute, as was true when 

we amended Part 252 to implement 

section 41706. This statute, 49 U.S.C. 

41702, mandates that an air carrier shall 

provide safe and adequate interstate air 

transportation. We invite all interested 

persons to comment. 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

This NPRM proposes to amend part 

252 to define smoking as the smoking of 

tobacco products or use of electronic 

cigarettes that are designed to deliver 

nicotine or other substances to a user in 

the form of a vapor. The Department 

does not intend for the definition to 

include the use of a device such as a 

nebulizer that delivers a medically 

beneficial substance to a user in the 

form of a vapor. Typically electronic 

cigarettes, also called ‘‘e-cigarettes,’’ are 

designed to look like traditional 

cigarettes. E-cigarettes are sometimes 

also made to look like cigars and pipes, 

and even everyday products such as 

pens. 

Studies show thousands of people use 

electronic cigarettes daily, and the 

products generate an estimated $100 

million annually in sales. Some are 

marketed as being permissible in places 

where cigarette use is prohibited. 

Through Congressional correspondence, 

anecdotal evidence, and online sources, 

including blogs, the Department has 

been made aware that some airline 

passengers have used or have attempted 

to use electronic cigarettes on board 

commercial flights. This NPRM 

proposes an explicit ban on the use of 

electronic cigarettes that would apply to 

all forms of the products, including but 

not limited to: Electronic cigars, pipes, 

and devices designed to look like 

everyday products such as pens and 

USB memory sticks. 

The Department views its current 

regulatory ban on smoking of tobacco 

products on passenger flights to be 

sufficiently broad to include the use of 

electronic cigarettes. The recent 

decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the DC Circuit, Sottera, Inc. v. Food 

& Drug Administration, 627 F.3d 891 

(D.C. Cir. 2010), supports the 

Department’s view that electronic 

cigarettes are often tobacco products. In 

that decision, the Court held that ecigarettes and other products made or 

derived from tobacco can be regulated 

as ‘‘tobacco products’’ under the Family 

Smoking Prevention and Tobacco 

Control Act of 2009 (Tobacco Control 

Act). The Tobacco Control Act broadly 

defines tobacco products as extending to 

‘‘any product made or derived from 

tobacco.’’ However, if the products are 

marketed for therapeutic purposes, the 

court determined that they will then be 

regulated as drugs and/or devices under 

the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 

The Department is proposing in this 

NPRM to explicitly ban the use of 

electronic cigarettes on aircraft as there 

has been some confusion over whether 

the Department’s ban on smoking of 

tobacco products includes a ban on use 

of electronic cigarettes. We see no 

reason to treat electronic cigarettes any 

differently than traditional cigarettes. 

The purpose behind the statutory ban 

on smoking aboard aircraft and the 

regulatory ban in part 252 on smoking 

tobacco products was to improve air 

quality within the aircraft, reduce the 

risk of adverse health effects on 

passengers and crewmembers, and 

enhance aviation safety and passenger 

comfort. Electronic cigarettes are 

generally designed to look like and to be 

used in the same manner as 

conventional cigarettes. Although a 

vapor, rather than smoke, is produced, 

the products require an inhalation and 

exhalation similar to smoking cigarettes. 

We are unaware of sufficient studies on 

the health impact on third parties from 

these vapors to conclude that they 

would not negatively impact the air 

quality within the aircraft and/or 

increase the risk of adverse health 

effects on passengers and crewmembers. 

Each e-cigarette consists of three 

parts: The replaceable cartridge, which 

most often contains liquid nicotine but 

may contain other chemicals, the 

atomizer or heating element, and the 

battery and electronics. See Sottera Inc. 

v. Food & Drug Administration, 627 

F.3d 891, 893 (D.C. Cir 2010). The 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
57010 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

atomizer or heating element vaporizes 

the liquid inside the cartridge, and the 

battery and electronics power the 

atomizer and monitor air flow. Id. When 

the user inhales, the electronics detect 

the air flow and activate the atomizer, 

the liquid nicotine is vaporized, and the 

user inhales the vapor. Id. 

Some electronic cigarette companies 

have claimed that their products are safe 

because they reportedly do not contain 

carcinogens or tar or produce secondhand smoke, as there is no combustion 

in their use. According to these 

arguments, while the vapor looks and 

feels, and may taste, like smoke 

produced by burning traditional tobacco 

products, its chemistry differs from the 

smoke produced from burning 

conventional tobacco products. The 

principal liquid ingredient is propylene 

glycol, which is widely used as a 

moistening food additive and an aid to 

vaporization. However, some research, 

conducted on non-asthmatic people, has 

shown that exposure to propylene 

glycol mist from artificial smoke 

generators may cause acute ocular and 

upper airway irritation, and in a few 

cases people reacted with cough and 

slight airway obstruction. See G 

Wieslander, D Norba ̈ck, and T Lindgren, 

‘‘Experimental exposure to propylene 

glycol mist in aviation emergency 

training: Acute ocular and respiratory 

effects,’’ Occupational and 

Environmental Medicine 2001; 58:649– 

655. Further, in a recent New England 

Journal of Medicine article, ‘‘E-Cigarette 

or Drug-Delivery Device? Regulating 

Novel Nicotine Products,’’ it was noted 

that the safety of inhaling propylene 

glycol has not been studied in humans. 

365;3: 193–95. 

Researchers at the University of 

California, Riverside, published a study 

on December 7, 2010, in which they 

evaluated five electronic cigarette 

brands. See Anna Trtchounian & Prue 

Talbot, ‘‘Electronic nicotine delivery 

systems: Is there a need for regulation?’’ 

Tobacco Control, December 7, 2010. The 

study found design flaws, lack of 

adequate labeling, and concerns over 

quality control and health issues with 

respect to the products. One primary 

observation was that electronic cigarette 

cartridges leak, which could expose 

nicotine to children, adults, and the 

environment. The study concluded that 

electronic cigarettes are potentially 

harmful and should be removed from 

the market until their safety can be 

adequately evaluated. Moreover, the 

New England Journal of Medicine article 

discussed above echoed some of these 

concerns, noting that testing of 

cartridges revealed poor quality control, 

marked variability in nicotine content, 

as well as significant deviations from 

the content claimed on the label. 365;3: 

194–95. 

Numerous public health experts also 

have voiced concerns over electronic 

cigarettes. Reacting to the University of 

California, Riverside, study, a research 

administrator from the University of 

California Tobacco-Related Disease 

Research Program stated, ‘‘More 

research on e-cigarettes is crucially 

needed to protect the health of ecigarette users and even those who do 

not use e-cigarettes. Contrary to the 

claims of the manufacturers and 

marketers of e-cigarettes being ‘safe,’ in 

fact nothing is known about the toxicity 

of the vapors generated by these ecigarettes.’’ See ScienceDaily.com, 

‘‘Electronic Cigarettes are Unsafe and 

Pose Health Risks, Study Finds, http:// 

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/ 

12/101203141932.htm (last visited Mar. 

8, 2011). The American Legacy 

Foundation issued a statement in May 

2009 stating, ‘‘We do not yet know all 

of the ingredients in these products and, 

accordingly, the impact of those 

ingredients on the health of people who 

‘smoke’ e-cigarettes or the people 

around them.’’ A December 2010 

editorial in the American Journal of 

Public Health called for removal of ecigarettes from the market, pending 

rigorous safety testing. 

We note that Amtrak has banned the 

use of electronic smoking devices on 

trains and in any area where smoking is 

prohibited, the Air Force Surgeon 

General issued a memorandum 

highlighting the safety concerns 

regarding electronic cigarettes and 

placed them in the same category as 

tobacco products, and the U.S. Navy has 

banned them below decks in 

submarines. Moreover, several states 

have taken steps to ban either the sale 

or use of electronic cigarettes, in the 

absence of federal regulation. 

The purpose behind the statutory ban 

on smoking aboard aircraft and the 

regulatory ban in Part 252 on smoking 

tobacco products was to improve air 

quality within the aircraft, reduce the 

risk of adverse health effects on 

passengers and crewmembers, and 

enhance aviation safety and passenger 

comfort. The object of the proposed rule 

is to prevent introduction of a new 

potential source of contamination to the 

cabin environment that could 

potentially endanger the welfare of 

nonsmokers who are now protected 

from all such exposure. Consistent with 

this underlying purpose, we are 

proposing this NPRM. There is a lack of 

scientific data and knowledge with 

respect to the ingredients in electronic 

cigarettes. The quantity and toxicity of 

exhaled vapors have not been studied. 

Releasing a vapor that may contain 

harmful substances or respiratory 

irritants in a confined space, especially 

to those who are at a higher risk, is 

contrary to the purpose and intent of the 

statutory and regulatory ban on smoking 

aboard aircraft. 

In light of the unknown health risks 

with the use of electronic cigarettes by 

individuals who ‘‘smoke’’ them or the 

people around them and the growing 

availability and use of electronic 

cigarettes, the Department is proposing 

this amendment to Part 252 to explicitly 

ban the use of electronic cigarettes 

aboard aircraft. The Department seeks 

comments on the following: (1) Whether 

the definition of ‘‘smoking’’ in the 

proposed rule text is too broad in that 

it may unintentionally include 

otherwise permissible medical devices 

that produce a vapor; (2) concerns over, 

and benefits of, the proposal to clarify 

the prohibition in Part 252 to explicitly 

cover electronic cigarettes; and (3) any 

other information or data that are 

relevant to the Department’s decision. 

The Department is also considering 

whether to extend the ban on smoking 

(including electronic cigarettes) to 

charter flights of air carriers and foreign 

air carriers between points in the U.S. 

and between the U.S. and any foreign 

point with aircraft that have a designed 

seating capacity of 19 or more passenger 

seats. Under the current part 252, air 

carriers operating single-entity charters 

may permit smoking throughout the 

aircraft (i.e., they are not required to 

have a no-smoking section) if such a 

request is made by the charterer, 

provided that each passenger on such 

flights is given notice of the smoking 

procedures for the flight at the time he 

or she first makes arrangements to take 

the flight. See 14 CFR 252.19. Part 252 

permits air carriers to allow smoking on 

other types of charter flights as long as 

the following is provided: (1) A nosmoking section for each class of 

service, (2) a sufficient number of seats 

in each no-smoking section to 

accommodate all persons in that class of 

service who desire to be seated in that 

section, (3) expansion of no-smoking 

sections to meet passenger demand, and 

(4) special provisions to ensure that if a 

no-smoking section is placed between 

smoking sections, the nonsmoking 

passengers are not unreasonably 

burdened. See 14 CFR 252.7. The 

Department is considering banning 

smoking on charter flights with 19 or 

more passenger seats in part out of 

concern about the health effects of 

second hand smoke on flight attendants 

aboard such flights. For aircraft with 

fewer than 19 passenger seats, no flight 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 57011 

attendant is required. See 14 CFR 

121.391, 14 CFR 125.269, and 14 CFR 

135.107. The Department seeks 

comment on the benefits and drawbacks 

of extending the smoking ban to charter 

flights of U.S. and foreign carriers 

between the U.S. and any foreign point 

with aircraft that have a seating capacity 

of 19 or more. We invite all interested 

persons to comment on the issues raised 

in this notice. 

We note that we are not addressing in 

this rulemaking any other safety-related 

issues that may exist with the use of 

electronic cigarettes aboard aircraft (e.g., 

possible interference with the 

navigation or communication systems of 

the aircraft or potential hazards 

associated with the batteries that power 

electronic cigarettes). In addition to the 

Office of the Secretary, the Federal 

Aviation Administration regulates 

smoking aboard aircraft. The FAA, 

under its safety mandate, has rules to 

address the safety problems that can 

develop when people on board aircraft 

violate the statutory ban on smoking 

and try to conceal their smoking. The 

FAA rules also address passenger 

information signs and passenger 

briefings used to inform passengers of 

the smoking prohibition. See 14 CFR 

121.317, 14 CFR 129.29, and 14 CFR 

135.127. Our final action will be based 

on the comments and supporting 

evidence filed in this docket and on our 

own analysis. 

Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This action has been determined to be 

significant under Executive Order 12866 

and the Department of Transportation’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. It 

has been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget under that 

Order. We find that the benefits of the 

proposal exceed its costs. 

In 2009, there were a total of 73 U.S. 

carriers and 101 foreign air carriers 

providing service covered by the present 

rule. In total, these carriers operated 782 

million passenger departures. These 

passengers and carriers and their 

employees have all benefited from 

protection by the existing rule against 

the injurious effects of secondhand 

smoke. They have also benefited from 

inclusion of e-cigarettes in the smoking 

prohibition to the extent that exhaled 

vapors may be harmful (whether or not 

including components of nicotine). The 

proposed rule would offer incremental 

benefits in limiting potential pollution 

resulting from the mistaken supposition 

that e-cigarettes are not covered by the 

current no-smoking rules. As the market 

for these devices expands, the number 

of misinformed passengers and the 

difficulty of reducing confusion over the 

use of these devices would likely grow 

without this rulemaking. 

Costs of enforcement should be 

negligible at this time. By making the 

prohibition explicit and public, the 

Department will relieve carriers of much 

of the burden of policing violations and 

explaining the rule to passengers who 

mistakenly believe that use of ecigarettes is allowed. The present 

system for notifying passengers of the 

prohibition should need little 

modification, although notice that ecigarettes are not exempt might be 

appropriate at certain times, either 

orally or otherwise. While a small 

fraction of passengers may suffer from 

nicotine withdrawal, they would still 

have access to alternative methods of 

nicotine replacement such as gum or 

patches that do not release 

contaminants into the environment. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to section 605 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 

U.S.C. 605(b), as amended by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement and 

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), DOT 

certifies that this rulemaking will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The NPRM would impose no new duties 

or obligations on small entities. 

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This action will not have a substantial 

direct effect on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and therefore will 

not have federalism implications. 

D. Executive Order 13084 

This notice has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13084 (‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’). 

Because the provision on which we are 

seeking comment would not 

significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of the Indian tribal 

governments or impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on them, the 

funding and consultation requirements 

of Executive Order 13084 do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires 

that DOT consider the impact of 

paperwork and other information 

collection burdens imposed on the 

public and, under the provisions of PRA 

section 3507(d), obtain approval from 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for each collection of 

information it conducts, sponsors, or 

requires through regulations. DOT has 

determined that there are no 

information collection requirements 

associated with this NPRM. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Department has determined that 

the requirements of Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

do not apply to this rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 252 

Air carriers, Aircraft, Consumer 

protection, Foreign air carriers, 

smoking. 

Issued this 2nd day of September 2011, in 

Washington, DC. 

Susan L. Kurland, 

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 

International Affairs. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Department proposes to 

amend 14 CFR part 252 as follows: 

PART 252—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

Part 252 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 101–164; 49 U.S.C. 

40102, 40109, 40113, 41701, 41702, 41706, as 

amended by section 708 of Pub. L 106–181, 

41711, and 46301. 

2. Section 252.1 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 252.1 Purpose. 

This part implements a ban on 

smoking on air carrier and foreign air 

carrier flights in scheduled intrastate, 

interstate and foreign air transportation. 

It also addresses smoking on charter 

flights. Nothing in this part shall be 

deemed to require air carriers or foreign 

air carriers to permit smoking aboard 

aircraft. 

3. Section 252.3 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 252.3 Definitions. 

As used in this part: 

Air carrier means a carrier that is a 

citizen of the United States undertaking 

to provide air transportation as defined 

in 49 U.S.C. 40102. 

Foreign air carrier means a carrier that 

is not a citizen of the United States 

undertaking to provide foreign air 

transportation as defined in 49 U.S.C. 

40102. 

No-smoking section and no-smoking 

area means an area where smoking of 

tobacco products or use of electronic 

cigarettes and similar products that are 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
57012 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

designed to deliver nicotine or other 

substances to a user in the form of a 

vapor is prohibited. 

Smoking means the smoking of 

tobacco products or use of electronic 

cigarettes and similar products designed 

to deliver nicotine or other substances 

to a user in the form of a vapor. It does 

not include the use of a device such as 

a nebulizer that delivers a medically 

beneficial substance to a user in the 

form of a vapor. 

4. Section 252.4 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 252.4 Smoking ban: air carriers. 

Air carriers shall prohibit smoking on 

all scheduled passenger flights. 

5. Section 252.8 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 252.8 Extent of smoking restrictions. 

The restrictions on smoking described 

in §§ 252.4 through 252.7 shall apply to 

all locations within the aircraft. 

[FR Doc. 2011–23673 Filed 9–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Prisons 

28 CFR Part 524 

[BOP–AB60–P] 

RIN 1120–AB60 

Progress Reports Rules Revision 

AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau 

of Prisons (Bureau) proposes to remove 

from regulations and/or modify two 

types of progress reports: Transfer 

reports and triennial reports. 

DATES: Comments are due by November 

14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to the 

Rules Unit, Office of General Counsel, 

Bureau of Prisons, 320 First Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20534. You may view 

an electronic version of this rule at 

http://www.regulations.gov. You may 

also comment via the Internet to the 

Bureau at BOPRULES@BOP.gov or by 

using the http://www.regulations.gov 

comment form for this regulation. When 

submitting comments electronically you 

must include the BOP Docket No. in the 

subject box. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Qureshi, Office of General 

Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 

307–2105. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Posting of Public Comments 

Please note that all comments 

received are considered part of the 

public record and made available for 

public inspection online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Such information 

includes personal identifying 

information (such as your name, 

address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter. 

If you want to submit personal 

identifying information (such as your 

name, address, etc.) as part of your 

comment, but do not want it to be 

posted online, you must include the 

phrase ‘‘Personal Identifying 

Information’’ in the first paragraph of 

your comment. You must also locate all 

the personal identifying information 

you do not want posted online in the 

first paragraph of your comment and 

identify what information you want 

redacted. 

If you want to submit confidential 

business information as part of your 

comment but do not want it to be posted 

online, you must include the phrase 

‘‘Confidential Business Information’’ in 

the first paragraph of your comment. 

You must also prominently identify 

confidential business information to be 

redacted within the comment. If a 

comment has so much confidential 

business information that it cannot be 

effectively redacted, all or part of that 

comment may not be posted on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Personal identifying information 

identified and located as set forth above 

will be placed in the agency’s public 

docket file, but not posted online. 

Confidential business information 

identified and located as set forth above 

will not be placed in the public docket 

file. If you wish to inspect the agency’s 

public docket file in person by 

appointment, please see the ‘‘For 

Additional Information’’ paragraph. 

In this document, the Bureau 

proposes to remove from regulations 

and/or modify two types of progress 

reports: Transfer reports and triennial 

reports. 

Section 524.41, entitled ‘‘Types of 

progress reports,’’ lists several types of 

progress reports prepared for nonBureau entities, such as for parole 

hearings, pre-release, final (prepared 90 

days before an inmate’s release to a term 

of supervision), and for other reasons 

(such as upon court request or a 

clemency review). The current 

regulations also identify two types of 

progress reports that were primarily 

intended for internal Bureau purposes: 

Those prepared when inmates transfer 

to community confinement or another 

institution, and those prepared 

triennially if not more frequently done 

for any other reason. 

Transfer Reports. The current 

regulations define ‘‘transfer report’’ as 

one prepared on an inmate 

recommended and/or approved for 

transfer to community confinement or to 

another institution and whose progress 

has not been summarized within the 

previous 180 days. The Bureau proposes 

to modify this definition to indicate that 

transfer reports will only be prepared on 

inmates transferring to non-Bureau 

facilities. 

Current Bureau practice and advances 

in technology have obviated the need to 

prepare a specific paper report when an 

inmate is transferred between Bureau 

facilities. When an inmate is transferred, 

all pertinent information regarding the 

progress of an inmate being transferred 

has already been updated in the 

Bureau’s computer system, which staff 

may access at all Bureau facilities and 

in community confinement. It is, 

therefore, unnecessary for a separate 

and specific progress report to be 

prepared by staff at the transferring 

Bureau facility for staff at the receiving 

Bureau facility, when receiving facility 

staff can easily access this information 

themselves. 

However, when an inmate is 

transferring outside the Bureau, to a 

state facility, non-Bureau community 

confinement, or other non-Bureau 

facility, staff at that facility may not 

have access to the Bureau’s computer 

system. Therefore, it would be necessary 

for Bureau staff to prepare a transfer 

report detailing an inmate’s progress in 

the Bureau facility for the benefit of staff 

at the non-Bureau facility. 

Triennial Reports. The Bureau also 

proposes to delete triennial reports as a 

type of progress report. Current 

regulations state that a progress report 

will be prepared on each designated 

inmate at least once every 36 months if 

not previously generated for another 

reason. 

Before the development of this 

internal Bureau computer information 

network, triennial reports were a 

necessary tool used to provide staff with 

specific inmate information. As 

explained above, however, current 

Bureau practice and advances in 

technology have obviated the need to 

prepare a specific progress report every 

36 months, because all information 

regarding an inmate’s progress is 

continually updated in the Bureau’s 

computer system, which staff may 

access at all Bureau facilities. 

Executive Order 12866 

This rule falls within a category of 

actions that the Office of Management 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS