Federal Register Vol. 80, No.110,

Discussion: NRCS implements WBP in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 1301 et seq. (the Water Bank Act). The purpose of the program is to conserve water, preserve and improve the condition of migratory waterfowl habitat and other wildlife resources, and secure other wildlife benefits through 10-year land use agreements with landowners and operators in important migratory waterfowl nesting and breeding areas. Unlike other Federal wetland laws, the Water Bank Act defines wetlands in accordance with Department of the Interior Circular 39, “Wetlands of the United States.” WBP agreements encompass inland fresh wetland areas (types 1 through 7) as described in Circular 39, artificially developed inland fresh water areas that meet the description of inland fresh wetland areas (types 1 through 7), and other wetland types designated by the Secretary.

Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 6962(b)(1), NRCS assumed responsibility for administering WBP and promulgated in September 1997 the current regulations at 7 CFR part 633 for implementation of WBP under NRCS. The current WBP regulation limits enrollment to “privately-owned” wetlands only. However, the term “privately-owned” is not defined in the regulation and such limitation is not required by statute.

Since Tribal lands are a distinct category of land, NRCS is revising its regulations to clarify that “privately-owned” wetlands include lands owned by Indian Tribes, and are therefore eligible for enrollment. NRCS believes that issuance of a final rule without a public comment period is appropriate because this is a non-controversial change to an existing regulation to remove a current impediment to providing assistance to Indian Tribes and their members.

Tribal lands are an important component of the wetland landscape in States where NRCS currently offers enrollment (Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota). Therefore, to ensure WBP is meeting its program purposes, consistent with statute, NRCS is revising the regulation to identify Tribal lands as eligible for enrollment.

Executive Order 12866: This document does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action as specified in Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act: It has been determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not applicable to this rule because NRCS is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other provision of law, to publish a notice of proposed rule-making with respect to the subject matter of this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act: No substantive changes have been made in this final rule which affect the recordkeeping requirements and estimated burdens previously reviewed and approved under Office of Management and Budget control number 0578-0013.

Executive Order 13175: NRCS has determined that this action will remove an impediment to providing WBP assistance to Indian Tribes. Given its modest funding, NRCS has determined this regulation will not have a significant direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, or on either the relationship or distribution of powers and responsibilities between the Federal Government and the Indian Tribes. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Although the consultation requirements do not apply, the agency has developed an outreach and collaboration plan that it will implement as it develops its conservation program policy, and NRCS will incorporate WBP information where appropriate.

Executive Order 13132: Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to conform to principles of Federalism in the development of its policies and regulations. NRCS has determined that this final rule will conform to Federalism principles. In particular, the final rule will not impose any compliance cost on the States; and will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities on the various levels of government.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 1532 (Title II, Sec. 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995), NRCS assessed the effects of this rulemaking action on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the public. This action does not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local or Tribal governments, or anyone in the private sector, and therefore, a statement under 2 U.S.C. 1532 is not required.

Federal Domestic Assistance Program: The title and number of the Federal Domestic Assistance Program, as found in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, to which this rule applies is Water Bank Program 10.062.

Background

On June 27, 2012, CFM International (CFM) applied for a type certificate for their new LEAP-1A and -1C engine models. The LEAP engine models are high-bypass-ratio engines that incorporate a novel and unusual design feature—new woven composite fan blades. The woven composite fan blades will have significant differences in material property characteristics when compared to conventionally designed fan blades using non-composite metallic materials.

Special conditions are required to ensure that the LEAP-1A and -1C woven composite design fan blades account for the differences in material properties and failure modes relative to conventional single-load path metallic blades. In addition, different containment requirements may be applied provided CFM shows that the blade design below the inner annulus flow path line provides multiple load paths and crack arresting features that prevent delamination or crack propagation to blade failure during the life of the blade.

These special conditions are necessary because the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the new woven composite design fan blades.

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, CFM must show that the LEAP-1A and -1C engine models meet the applicable provisions of the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application, except as detailed in paragraphs 21.101(b) and (c). The FAA has determined the following certification basis for the LEAP-1A and -1C engine models:

1. 14 CFR part 33, “Airworthiness Standards: Aircraft Engines,” dated February 1, 1965, with Amendments 33-1 through 33-32, dated September 20, 2012.

If the FAA finds that the regulations in effect on the date of the application for the change do not provide adequate or appropriate safety standards for the LEAP-1A and -1C engine models because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the engine model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that engine model be amended later to include any other engine model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other engine model under § 21.101.

In addition to complying with the applicable product airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the LEAP-1A and -1C engine models must comply with the fuel venting and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

The LEAP-1A and -1C engine models will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

The LEAP-1A and -1C engine models will incorporate woven composite fan blades. The woven composite fan blades will have significant differences in material property characteristics when compared to conventionally designed fan blades using non-composite metallic materials. Composite material design provides the capability to incorporate multiple load paths and crack arresting features that prevent delamination or crack propagation to blade failure during the life of the blade.

The woven composite fan blades are a novel and unusual design feature that requires additional airworthiness standards for type certification of the LEAP-1A and -1C engine models.

A notice of proposed special conditions, No. 33-14-02-SC, for the CFM LEAP-1A and—1C engine models was published in the Federal Register on Friday, November 14, 2014 (79 FR 68137). No comments were received and the special conditions are adopted as proposed.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the LEAP -1A and -1C engine models. Should CFM apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model on the same type certificate incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on LEAP-1A and -1C engine models. It is not a rule of general applicability and applies only to CFM, who requested FAA approval of this engine feature.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for CFM LEAP-1A and -1C engine models.

In addition to the airworthiness standards in 14 CFR part 33, effective February 1, 1965, with Amendments 33-1 through 33-32 applicable to the LEAP-1A and -1C engine models, CFM will:

(a) Conduct an engine fan blade containment test with the fan blade failing at the inner annulus flow path line instead of at the outermost retention groove.

(b) Substantiate by test and analysis, or other methods acceptable to the FAA, that a fan disk and fan blade retention system with minimum material properties can withstand, without failure, a centrifugal load equal to two times the maximum load the retention system could experience within approved engine operating limitations. The fan blade retention system includes the portion of the fan blade from the inner annulus flow path line inward to the blade dovetail, the blade retention components, and the fan disk and fan blade attachment features.

(c) Using a procedure approved by the FAA, establish an operating limitation that specifies the maximum allowable number of start-stop stress cycles for the fan blade retention system. The life evaluation must include the combined effects of high-cycle and low-cycle fatigue. If the operating limitation is less than 100,000 cycles, that limitation must be specified in Chapter 5 of the Engine Manual Airworthiness Limitations Section. The procedure used to establish the maximum allowable number of start-stop stress cycles for the fan blade retention system will incorporate the integrity requirements in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of these special conditions for the fan blade retention system.

(1) An engineering plan, which establishes and maintains that the combinations of loads, material properties, environmental influences, and operating conditions, including the effects of parts influencing these parameters, are well known or predictable through validated analysis, test, or service experience.

(2) A manufacturing plan that identifies the specific manufacturing constraints necessary to consistently produce the fan blade retention system with the attributes required by the engineering plan.

(3) A service management plan that defines in-service processes for maintenance and repair of the fan blade retention system, which will maintain attributes consistent with those required by the engineering plan.

(d) Substantiate by test and analysis, or other methods acceptable to the FAA, that the blade design below the inner annulus flow path line provides multiple load paths and crack arresting features that prevent delamination or crack propagation to blade failure during the life of the blade.

(e) Substantiate that during the service life of the engine, the total probability of an individual blade retention system failure resulting from all possible causes, as defined in § 33.75, will be extremely improbable with a cumulative calculated probability of failure of less than 10−9 per engine flight hour.

(f) Substantiate by test or analysis that not only will the engine continue to meet the requirements of § 33.75 following a lightning strike on the composite fan blade structure, but that the lightning strike will not cause damage to the fan blades that would prevent continued safe operation of the affected engine.

(g) Account for the effects of in-service deterioration, manufacturing variations, minimum material properties, and environmental effects during the tests and analyses required by paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of these special conditions.

(h) Propose fleet leader monitoring and field sampling programs that will monitor the effects of engine fan blade usage and fan blade retention system integrity.

(i) Mark each fan blade legibly and permanently with a part number and a serial number.

Discussion

We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 95-26-11, Amendment 39-9469 (60 FR 66870, December 27, 1995). AD 95-26-11 applied to all Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model L-1011 series airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on November 17, 2014 (79 FR 68377). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on April 14, 2014 (79 FR 20819). The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the fittings that attach the aft pressure bulkhead to the fuselage stringers, repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the fittings and of the splice tab of the aft pressure bulkhead, repetitive inspections for cracking of certain aft fuselage skin panels, a structural modification, a post-modification inspection program, and corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM was prompted by a determination that the fittings at stringer attachments to the upper region of the aft pressure bulkhead are subject to WFD. The SNPRM proposed to reduce the post-structural modification repetitive inspection interval. We are issuing this AD to prevent simultaneous failure of multiple stringer end fittings through fatigue cracking at the aft pressure bulkhead, which could lead to rapid decompression of the airplane.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the SNPRM (79 FR 68377, November 17, 2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the SNPRM (79 FR 68377, November 17, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM (79 FR 68377, November 17, 2014).

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

We reviewed Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-105, Revision 3, dated May 31, 2013. The service information describes procedures for inspections for cracking of the stringer end fittings at the aft pressure bulkhead, corrective actions, and a modification that includes replacement of the stringer end fittings of certain stringers with new fittings. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 26 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, 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 resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, 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 them 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 rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

On January 16, 2014, we issued AD 2014-02-08, Amendment 39-17736 (79 FR 5257, January 31, 2014) for Agusta Model A109C, A109S, and A109K2 helicopters, and certain serial-numbered Model A109E and AW109SP helicopters. AD 2014-02-08 required repetitively inspecting the lock wires securing the T/R locking nut to determine whether any lock wires are missing or damaged, installing a second lock wire if only one was installed, and reassembling the housing and slider group of the T/R rotating controls as terminating action for the inspections. AD 2014-02-08 was prompted by reports of loosening T/R locking nuts. Those actions are intended to prevent failure of the T/R and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

AD 2014-02-08 was prompted by AD No. 2012-0195-E, dated September 24, 2012, and corrected September 25, 2012, issued by EASA, the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for certain Agusta Model A109E, A109LUH, A109S, AW109SP, A109C, and A109K2 helicopters. EASA advised of the T/R locking nut loosening on Model A109 helicopters and that one or both of the lock wires securing the locking nut were either damaged or absent from the T/R. EASA states that this condition could lead to failure of the T/R function and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. AD No. 2012-0195-E requires repetitively inspecting the lock wires and removing and reassembling the housing and slider group of the T/R rotating controls, which is terminating action for the inspections.

Since we issued AD 2014-02-08 (79 FR 5257, January 31, 2014), a failure of a T/R duplex bearing ring nut installation occurred after the housing and slider group of the T/R rotating controls had been reassembled. Therefore, we are superseding AD 2014-02-08 to remove the reassembly as terminating action. Because of additional reports of the loosening of the bearing locking nut and the increased risk of failure of a lock wire, we are retaining the 25-hour TIS inspection. We are also requiring a daily pilot check to enhance detection of a failure of a T/R duplex bearing ring nut installation. AD 2014-02-18 did not apply to certain serial-numbered helicopters because the terminating action had already been performed on those models. Because we have determined that the terminating action does not correct the unsafe condition, we have expanded the applicability to include all serial-numbered helicopters for the Model A109C, A109S, A109K2, A109E, and AW109SP. EASA has not changed any of the requirements in its AD, and Agusta has not revised its service information.

We have also corrected the design holder's name from AgustaWestland S.p.A. to Agusta S.p.A., as specified by the current FAA type certificate.

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

Agusta issued Bollettino Tecnico (BT) Nos. 109-134, 109EP-121, 109S-48, 109K-54, and 109SP-051, all dated September 21, 2012, for Model A109C, A109E, A109S, A109K2, and AW109SP helicopters. These BTs specify inspecting for the presence and condition of the two locking wires. The BTs also specify if one lock wire is present and no damage is reported, installing a second lock wire. The BTs specify if one or both of the lock wires are damaged, removing and disassembling the housing and slider group of the T/R controls.

This AD expands the applicability to include all serial-numbered helicopters. This AD retains the initial and repetitive inspections required by AD 2014-02-08 (79 FR 5257, January 31, 2014) and retains the requirement to remove and reassemble the housing and slider group of the T/R rotating controls if one or both lock wires are damaged. This AD also requires a daily pilot check of each lock wire securing the T/R locking nut. An owner/operator (pilot) may perform the required visual check and must enter compliance with the applicable paragraph of the AD into the helicopter maintenance record in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1) through (4) and 14 CFR 91.417(1)(2)(v). A pilot may perform this check because it involves only looking at the visible area of the lock wire securing the T/R locking nut to the housing. This check is an exception to our standard maintenance regulations.

This AD requires a daily pilot check of the lock wire, while the EASA does not. The EASA AD requires removing and reassembling the housing and slider group of the T/R rotating controls as terminating action, regardless of whether the lock wire is damaged, and this AD does not. The EASA AD applies to certain serial-numbered helicopters, and this AD applies to all serial-numbered helicopters of each model.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 122 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is estimated to be $85 per work-hour. Inspecting the lock wire takes about 0.25 work-hour, and the required parts cost is negligible, for a cost per helicopter of $22 and a total cost to U.S. operators of $2,684 per inspection cycle. Removing and reassembling the housing and slider group of the T/R rotating controls requires about 8 work-hours for a cost per helicopter of $680.

Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adopting this rule because the previously described unsafe condition can adversely affect the controllability of the helicopter. Since cases of loosening of the T/R duplex bearing locking nut continue to occur, we are requiring a daily pilot check, which must be performed within 24 hours.

Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 23, 2014 (79 FR 63341).

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-15, dated June 6, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0754-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 63341, October 23, 2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 63341, October 23, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 63341, October 23, 2014).

Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-29-34, dated May 9, 2013, with the attached Parker Service Bulletin 82910012-29-431, dated October 22, 2012. This service information describes procedures to inspect the lid assembly of the MLG alternate extension system reservoir for correct assembly and corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 173 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $58,820, or $340 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 2 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $170 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0754; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, 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 resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, 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 them 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 rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

This AD action was prompted by EAD No. 2014-0040-E, dated February 19, 2014, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for certain AgustaWestland S.p.A. Model AB 412 and AB 412 EP helicopters. EASA advises that a crack was found in an adapter, part number (P/N) 412-040-622-101, installed on a Model AB 412 EP helicopter. EASA further advises that the condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to T/R drive shaft failure, possibly resulting in reduced control of the helicopter. To address this unsafe condition, the EASA EAD requires repetitive inspections of adapters, P/N 412-040-622-101 and P/N 412-040-623-101, for a crack and replacing a cracked adapter. EASA also requires reporting and sending the cracked adapter to AgustaWestland for investigation.

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

AgustaWestland issued Bollettino Tecnico No. 412-139, dated February 19, 2014 (BT), for Model AB412 helicopters serial number (S/N) 25801 through 25900, and Model AB412EP helicopters S/N 25901 and subsequent. The BT states AgustaWestland received a report of a crack in an adapter, P/N 412-040-622-101, installed on a Model AB412EP helicopter. The BT also states that the investigation to determine the root causes of the crack is in progress and the BT may be revised according to the investigation results. The BT specifies a one-time inspection of the adapter, P/N 412-040-622-101 and P/N 412-040-623-101, for the presence of cracks, and if there is a crack, replacing the drive shaft assembly. The BT also specifies reporting a cracked adapter and sending affected parts to AgustaWestland. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

This AD requires an initial and recurring visual inspection of the adapter, P/N 412-040-622-101 and P/N 412-040-623-101, installed on certain Model AB412 and AB412 EP helicopters. If there is a crack in an adapter, this AD requires removing the adapter from service before further flight. This AD also requires visually inspecting an adapter before installation.

The EASA EAD requires reporting and sending any cracked adapter to AgustaWestland, whereas this AD does not.

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

There are no costs of compliance with this AD because there are no helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry.

There are no helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry. Therefore, we believe it is unlikely that we will receive any adverse comments or useful information about this AD from U.S. Operators.

Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary because there are none of these helicopters on the U.S. Registry and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42 and ATR72 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2014 (79 FR 48107). The NPRM was prompted by reports of fuel quantity indication malfunctions caused by fuel probe failure. The NPRM proposed to require identifying the part number and serial number of the fuel probes, and replacing the probes if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent fuel probe failure, which could lead to undetected fuel starvation and consequent dual engine in-flight flame-out.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0075R1, dated April 24, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42 and ATR72 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0568-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM (79 FR 48107, August 15, 2014) and the FAA's response to the comment.

Empire Airlines requested that we revise the NPRM (79 FR 48107, August 15, 2014) to include revised service information. Zodiac Aerospace issued Service Bulletin 766983-28-002, Revision 1, dated March 24, 2014, to correct certain part numbers. Empire stated that this change will negate the necessity for an alternative method of compliance request.

We agree to include the latest service information in this AD, although the correct part numbers were identified in table 1 to paragraph (g) in the NPRM (79 FR 48107, August 15, 2014), which will remain in this AD. We have also added new paragraph (k) in this AD to allow the use, before the effective date of this AD, of Zodiac Aerospace Service Bulletin 766983-28-002, dated October 15, 2013, for identifying part numbers to define serviceable parts. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

We have revised the NPRM (79 FR 48107, August 15, 2014) to include the most updated contact information for the service information required by this AD, which is: Zodiac Aerospace, Technical Publication Department, 61 Rue Pierre Curie—CS20001, 78373 Plaisir Cedex, France; phone: +33 (0)1 61 34 19 24; fax: +33 (0)1 61 34 21 13; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.zodiacaerospace.com.

We have revised the NPRM (79 FR 48107, August 15, 2014) by removing “Services Europe” from the service information citations, which does not need to be included in the service information citations in this AD.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 48107, August 15, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 48107, August 15, 2014).

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

Zodiac Aerospace has issued Service Bulletin 766983-28-002, Revision 1, dated March 24, 2014. The service information describes procedures for an inspection for a potential splice conductor soldering defect, and installing a new splice conductor. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 81 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $13,770, or $170 per product.

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0568; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

Discussion

On September 15, 2014, at 79 FR 54925, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Airbus Helicopters Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, and AS355F2 helicopters with a certain flowmeter installed. The NPRM proposed to require, within 750 hours time-in-service, removing the flowmeter from each engine, replacing the fuel hose with part number (P/N) 704A34-416-029 for the left-hand (LH) engine and P/N 704A34-416-030 for the right-hand (RH) engine, removing the flowmeter indicator, and disabling the flowmeter electrical connections. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent obstruction of the fuel supply to the flowmeter, which could result in engine flame-out and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2013-0205, dated September 9, 2013, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter (now Airbus Helicopters) Model AS355 E, AS355 F, AS355 F1, and AS355 F2 helicopters with modification 350A070791 (installation of the Fueltron flowmeter), except helicopters with modification 355A085801 (removal of the Fueltron flowmeter). EASA advises, after landing, an AS355 helicopter experienced an uncontrolled flame-out of the No. 1 engine caused by particle contamination in the fuel that obstructed the Fueltron flowmeter. EASA further states that because the flowmeter installation is identical on both engines, this condition could lead to flame-out of both engines in flight, possibly resulting in reduced control of the helicopter. EASA AD No. 2013-0205 requires removing the flowmeter from each engine, modifying the fuel line system with new fuel lines, removing the flowmeter indicator, and disabling the flowmeter electrical connections. Since we issued the NPRM (79 FR 54925, September 15, 2014), the title of the approving official for Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) has changed. Thus, we have revised the title of the approving official from the Manager of the Regulations and Policy Group to the Manager of the Safety Management Group.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (79 FR 54925, September 15, 2014).

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

We consider this AD to be an interim action. The design approval holder is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.

Eurocopter issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AS355-28.00.20, Revision 0, dated June 6, 2013, for Model AS355 E, AS355 F, AS355 F1, and AS355 F2 helicopters, which describes procedures for removing and disabling the Fueltron flowmeter installation. The ASB corresponds to Eurocopter modification 355A085801. This information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

We estimate that this AD will affect 47 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, removing the flowmeter installation requires about 4 work-hours, and required parts cost about $1,600, for a cost per helicopter of $1,940 and a total cost of $91,180 for the fleet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On June 7, 2013, at 78 FR 34282, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bell Model 206L-3 and 206L-4 helicopters. The NPRM proposed to require installing a placard on the instrument panel below the dual tachometer and revising the Operating Limitations section of the Model 206L-3 and 206L-4 RFMs by inserting pages that limit steady-state operations between speeds of 71.8% and 91.5%. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent turbine failure, engine power loss, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

The NPRM was prompted by TCCA AD No. CF-2005-28R1, dated June 14, 2007, to correct an unsafe condition for certain Model 206L-3 and 206L-4 helicopters. TCCA, which is the aviation authority for Canada, advises of several failures of third stage turbine wheels used in Rolls-Royce 250-C30S and 250-C47B engines. According to TCCA, Rolls-Royce determined that detrimental vibrations can occur within a particular range of turbine speeds, and may be a contributing factor to these failures. Bell has revised the RFM and provided a corresponding decal to inform pilots to avoid steady-state operations between 71.8% and 91.5% turbine speeds. The TCCA AD requires amending the RFMs, advising pilots of the change, and installing a decal as described in Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 206L-05-134, dated June 8, 2005, or later revisions.

On October 3, 2014, at 79 FR 59695, the Federal Register published our supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM), which proposed to revise the applicability and change the procedures for updating the RFM. The SNPRM proposed adding Bell Model 206L-1 helicopters with Engine Upgrade Kit part number (P/N) 206-706-520 installed, to the applicability. Engine Upgrade Kit P/N 206-706-520 replaces the Rolls-Royce 250-C28B engine with a Rolls-Royce 250-C30P engine. The condition causing the failures of third stage turbine wheels used in Rolls-Royce 250-C30S and 250-C-47B engines could also exist in Rolls-Royce 250-C30P engines. The SNPRM also proposed removing Bell Model 206L-3 and 206L-4 helicopters having Rolls-Royce 250-C20R engines installed under STC No. SR00036SE from the applicability because that engine is not affected by the unsafe condition. The SNPRM also proposed changing the procedures for modifying the RFM Limitations Section from inserting revised RFM pages to inserting a copy of this AD into the RFM or by making pen and ink changes.

We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the SNPRM (79 FR 59695, October 3, 2014) but we received no comments.

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

The TCCA AD requires compliance within 10 calendar days; this AD requires compliance within 30 days. This AD is applicable to Model 206L-1 helicopters with Engine Upgrade Kit P/N 206-706-520 installed because the same unsafe condition exits on this model, and the TCCA AD is not.

Bell issued ASB No. 206L-05-134, Revision A, dated April 9, 2007, which describes procedures for installing a placard on the instrument panel below the main rotor RPM (Nr)/power turbine RPM (N2) dual tachometer and for inserting the RFM changes into the flight manual. Revision A of the ASB was issued to exclude Bell Model 206L-3 and 206L-4 helicopters with 250-C20R engines installed under STC No. SR00036SE from the requirements of the ASB.

We estimate that this AD will affect 616 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Based on an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, amending the RFM requires about 0.5 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of about $43 and a cost to U.S. operators of $26,488. Installing the decal requires about 0.2 work-hour, and required parts cost $20, for a cost per helicopter of $37 and a cost to U.S. operators of $22,792. Based on these estimates, the total cost of this AD is $80 per helicopter and $49,280 for the fleet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

On December 15, 2014, at 79 FR 74037, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Sikorsky Model 269D and Model 269D Configuration A helicopters with a certain part-numbered ring carrier assembly installed. The NPRM proposed to require reducing the life limit of the ring carrier assembly from 6,000 hours time-in-service (TIS) to 5,000 hours TIS by revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the applicable maintenance manual and by removing from service any ring carrier assembly that exceeded the new life limit. The NPRM was prompted by the discovery of a crack in the ring gear carrier assembly, which extended around the entire circumference of the flange and intersected some of the bolt holes but did not propagate “bolt hole to bolt hole.” A metallurgical evaluation determined that fretting caused multiple origin fatigue cracking on the ring gear carrier assembly. The proposed requirements were intended to reduce the life of the ring gear carrier assembly to prevent failure of the main rotor transmission, loss of engine power to the main rotor, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (79 FR 74037, December 15, 2014).

We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Sikorsky issued 269D Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB DB-040A, Revision A, dated December 4, 2012, to implement a reduction in service life of the ring gear carrier assembly, part number 269A5194, from 6,000 flight hours to 5,000 flight hours.

We estimate that this AD will affect 16 helicopters of U.S. Registry.

We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. We estimate a minimal cost to change the life limit of the ring gear. If required, we estimate it would take 27.5 hours to replace a ring gear carrier assembly at $85 per work hour. Required parts would cost $7,591 for a total of $9,929 per helicopter.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

On July 23, 2014, at 79 FR 42719, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain serial-numbered Sikorsky Model S-92A helicopters. The NPRM proposed to require inserting an RFM Supplement into the applicable RFM, and depending on the helicopter's serial number, installing an MGB failed pump sensor and vacuum switch wiring, installing an MGB oil auto bypass system, activating AMS 7.1 software to show a new MGB “OIL OUT” visual warning, and updating the EGPWS software to include an aural annunciation of a complete oil pressure loss condition.

The proposed AD was prompted by one accident and one in-service oil leakage incident where it was discovered during subsequent investigations that the pilot failed to activate the bypass valve within 5 seconds of the oil pressure dropping below 35 psi, as required by the RFM. Both accident and incident investigations found that the pilot activated the bypass valve well beyond the 5 seconds. The manual operation of the bypass valve within 5 seconds of the oil pressure dropping below 35 psi has proven not to be a realistic expectation. The proposed requirements were intended to alert and prevent MGB oil loss, which could lead to failure of the MGB and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Sikorsky commented that it supported issuing the AD but felt portions of the “Discussion” section in the preamble of the NPRM (79 FR 42719, July 23, 2014) needed clarification.

We agree with some of the commenter's language regarding the function of the MGB oil auto bypass system. However, the commenter has not requested that we change the proposed rule.

We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

We reviewed Sikorsky S-92A Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) Supplement No. 45, Part I, dated July 30, 2012. The RFM supplement provides preflight checks and emergency procedures for the oil pump failure indicating system and the MGB auto bypass. This information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Sikorsky has issued the following service information:

• Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 92-63-024C, Revision C, dated October 7, 2011, for certain serial-numbered helicopters specifies installing a main module input gear box switch assembly and modifying the MGB vacuum switch wiring. Before making the modification, the ASB states an AMS 4.1 or greater version must first be installed and the following Customer Service Notices (CSN) completed: CSN 92-068C, Revision C, dated March 27, 2012, and CSN 92-069A, Revision A, dated November 10, 2011.

• ASB 92-63-027, Basic Issue, dated January 21, 2013, for certain serial-numbered helicopters specifies installing an MGB oil pressure automatic bypass system, activating an MGB “OIL OUT” visual warning in the AMS 7.1 software, and performing systems operational checkout procedures. Before or when installing the MGB oil pressure auto bypass system, the ASB states the following must be complied with: CSN 92-089, Basic Issue, dated January 10, 2013; ASB 92-34-002, Basic Issue, dated January 21, 2013; and ASB 92-63-024C, Revision C, dated October 7, 2011.

• ASB 92-34-002, Basic Issue, dated January 21, 2013, for certain serial-numbered helicopters with certain part-numbered EGPWS installed, specifies installing EGPWS updated software version 030, which adds an MGB “OIL OUT” aural warning, in accordance with Honeywell International, Inc., Service Bulletin 965-1595-34-23, Revision 0, dated March 13, 2012. Before or during installation of the updated software, the ASB states the following must be complied with: ASB 92-63-027, Basic Issue, dated January 21, 2013, and CSN 92-089, Basic Issue, dated January 10, 2013.

This AD requires compliance within 500 hours time-in-service, and the service information specifies certain dates and calendar times.

We estimate that this AD will affect 44 helicopters of U.S. Registry.

We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per hour. The work hours and required parts costs are estimated as follows:

• .5 work hour to insert the RFM Supplement into the RFM.

• 8 work hours plus $2,200 for required parts to install an MGB failed pump sensor;

• 4 work hours plus $250 for required parts to install MGB vacuum switch wiring;

• 71.7 work hours plus $4,100 for required parts to install an MGB oil pressure auto bypass system;

• 1 work hour to activate AMS 7.1; and

• 1 work hour plus $500 for required parts to install EGPWS software.

The total cost of compliance for all actions will be about $14,377 per helicopter and $632,588 for the U.S. fleet.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it is merely an editorial change to the legal descriptions of V-31, V-36, V-98, V-164 and V-252 to reflect changes in the Canadian route structure.

This action amends VOR Federal airways V-31, V-36, V-98, V-164 and V-252 as a result of the Windsor-Toronto-Montreal (W-T-M) and Northeast United States Cross-border Airspace Modernization and Redesign initiative. NavCanada, in an effort to transition to an Area Navigation (RNAV) route system, removed a number of conventional airways, many of which crossed the United States/Canadian border. The airways listed above with the exception of V-98 were part of that initiative that became effective on November 13, 2014 (79 FR 57758). Canadian segments of V-98 were subsequently removed by Canada in January 2015. Coordination for the modification of the Federal airways listed above was not completed in time for inclusion in the November 13, 2014, docket action. Currently, the United States has issued regulatory Notices to Airman (NOTAM) classifying the segments of the above listed airways lying within Canadian airspace as “not authorized.”

This action is required to match the changes in the Canadian route structure. It will enhance safety within the National Airspace System and will facilitate a seamless air traffic route system between the two countries.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by removing those former route segments in Canadian airspace from the descriptions of VOR Federal airways V-31, V-36, V-98, V-164 and V-252. This action aligns the United States airways with route changes instituted by Canada as part of NavCanada's W-T-M project.

The following is a summary of the specific changes by route. Where new navigation aid radials are designated, both True and Magnetic degrees are stated. Otherwise, only True degrees are shown.

V-31 The segment between the intersection of the Rochester 279° and the Toronto, Canada 150° radials is removed and a new end point formed by the intersection of the Rochester 279° and the Buffalo, NY 023°(T)/031°(M) radials is inserted.

V-36 The segments between Thunder Bay, ON, Canada and the intersection of the Toronto and Buffalo radials is removed, The amended route extends between Buffalo, NY and the intersection of the LaGuardia, NY 310° and the Stillwater, NJ 043° radials as currently published.

V-98 The segments between Windsor, ON, Canada and St. Jean, PQ, Canada are removed.

V-164 The segment between Toronto, ON, Canada and Buffalo, NY is removed. The amended route extends between Buffalo and East Texas, PA as currently published.

V-252 The segment between Toronto, ON, Canada and the intersection of the Toronto 116° and the Geneseo, NY 305° radials is removed. A new start point formed by the intersection of the Buffalo, NY 023°(T)/031°(M) and the Geneseo 305° radials is inserted. The remainder of the route to Dupont, DE, is unchanged,

In the regulatory text, below, only True degrees are listed when defining radials.

Since this action involves removing from the descriptions of VOR Federal airways V-31, V-36, V-98, V-164 and V-252, those route segments in Canada that have previously been cancelled, I find that notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Domestic VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal Airways listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 311k. This airspace action consists of editorial changes only and is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

The DGN fishery is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species, which was prepared by the Pacific Fishery Management Council and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq., by regulations at 50 CFR part 660.

A final rule to add regulations at 50 CFR part 660, subpart K, to require use of a NMFS-approved VMS and to institute a 48-hour pre-trip call-in notification requirement for DGN vessel owners and operators, was published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2015 (80 FR 10392). The requirements of that final rule, other than the collection-of-information requirements associated with VMS requirements, were effective on March 30, 2015. Because OMB approval of the collection-of-information requirements had not been received by the date that the final rule was published, the effective date of the VMS requirements was delayed.

OMB approved the collection-of-information requirements contained in the final rule on May 5, 2015. Accordingly, this final rule makes effective the collection-of-information requirements at § 660.705 and § 660.713, which were amended in the February 26, 2015, final rule.

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

This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) under OMB Control Number 0648-0498. The public reporting burden for compliance with the these requirements is estimated to include a one-time, 4-hour response time for installing a VMS unit and a 1-hour response time annually to maintain and repair a unit. Activation and exemption reports are estimated to average 5 minutes per response, including time to review instructions for, and prepare and submit the reports.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection-of-information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 15 CFR part 902 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce the marine event special local regulation for the annual Bullhead City River Regatta in 33 CFR 100.1102, Table 1, Item 16 on August 8, 2015, from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1102, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this regulated area of the Colorado River unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This document is issued under authority 33 CFR 100.1102 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and local advertising by the event sponsor.

If the Coast Guard determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, then a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor will grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

The City of San Francisco has requested a temporary change to the operation of the 3rd Street Drawbridge, mile 0.0, over China Basin, at San Francisco, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 3 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw opens on signal if at least one hour notice is given, as required by 33 CFR 117.149. Navigation on the waterway is recreational.

The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on July 26, 2015, to allow participants to cross the bridge during the San Francisco Marathon. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.160 on the specified dates and times as indicated in Table 1.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.160, vessels may not enter the safety zones unless given permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Spectator vessels may transit outside the safety zones but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of other vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.160(a) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notification in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide mariners with advanced notification of enforcement periods via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts. If the COTP determines that a safety zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this document, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the safety zone.

The Coast Guard will enforce the four safety zones in San Diego Bay for the Big Bay Boom Fourth of July Fireworks Display in 33 CFR 165.1123, Table 1, Item 5 from 8:30 p.m. to 10 p.m.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1123, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within the four 1,000 foot regulated area safety zones located in San Diego Bay from Shelter Island to the Embarcadero, specifically located around each tug and barge, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the safety zones may request permission from the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or designated representative. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area, but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 33 CFR 165.1123. In addition to this publication in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and local advertising by the event sponsor. If the Coast Guard determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, then a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in San Diego Bay for the Coronado Glorietta Bay Fourth of July Fireworks Display listed in 33 CFR 165.1123, Table 1, Item 3 from 8:30 p.m. to 10 p.m.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1123, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within the 800 foot regulated area safety zone around the tug and barge unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the safety zone may request permission from the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or designated representative. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area, but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 33 CFR 165.1123. In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and local advertising by the event sponsor.

If the Coast Guard determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, then a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor will grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

On October 24, 2014 (79 FR 63591), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Rhode Island. The NPR proposed approval of Rhode Island's revised Air Pollution Control Regulation 11, “Petroleum Liquids Marketing and Storage,” that had been amended to allow the decommissioning of Stage II vapor recovery systems and to strengthen Stage I vapor recovery requirements. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) on December 13, 2013 and also included a demonstration that the decommissioning of Stage II vapor recovery systems at gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs) is consistent with the Clean Air Act and EPA guidance.

A detailed discussion of Rhode Island's December 13, 2013 SIP revision and EPA's rationale for proposing approval of the SIP revision were provided in the NPR and will not be restated in this notice, except to the extent relevant to our responses to public comments we received on our proposal.

EPA received one comment on the NPR from Ted Tiberi, ARID Technologies, Inc. That comment is summarized below with EPA's response.

Comment: The commenter stated its opposition to EPA's proposed approval of Rhode Island's revised Air Pollution Control Regulation 11. The commenter believes the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(l) demonstration included in Rhode Island's December 13, 2013 SIP submittal is flawed and that there are significant emission reduction losses (i.e. “increased emissions”) resulting from the removal of the Stage II program requirements in Rhode Island. The commenter submitted graphs and calculations in support of its claims, purporting to show the levels of foregone emissions reduction that would result from implementation of Rhode Island's SIP revision request. The commenter also asserts that the increased emissions represent a significant environmental, health and safety risk, and that a disproportionate share of the risks will be borne by motorists refueling vehicles not equipped with onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) systems.

Response: EPA disagrees with ARID Technologies' assertion that Rhode Island's CAA section 110(l) demonstration is flawed and that there will be impermissibly significant increased emissions from this action. Rhode Island's section 110(l) demonstration was performed in accordance with EPA's final rule determining that ORVR is now in widespread use in the national motor vehicle fleet (77 FR 28772, May 16, 2012) and EPA's “Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures” (EPA-457/B-12-001, August 7, 2012), hereafter, EPA's August 7, 2012 Guidance (a copy of this guidance has been placed in the public docket for this action).

The Rhode Island rule allows GDFs to decommission Stage II systems as of December 25, 2013, and requires GDFs to decommission their Stage II systems by the end of 2017 unless, by December 22, 2017, a GDF is equipped with an ORVR-compatible Stage II system or installs air pollution control systems to control tank excess vent emissions resulting from Stage II systems that are incompatible with ORVR. Such GDFs, with Stage II systems operational beyond the December 22, 2017 date, are required to continue to operate and maintain their Stage II vapor recovery systems in accordance with Rhode Island's regulations, until the time when such Stage II vapor recovery system is ever decommissioned. Appendix Table A-1 of EPA's August 7, 2012 Guidance illustrates that by the end of 2017, about 87% of the vehicles in the national motor vehicle fleet will be equipped with ORVR. The number of ORVR-equipped vehicles in Rhode Island will likely be even higher due to Rhode Island having a more accelerated motor vehicle fleet turnover when compared to the national motor vehicle fleet.1 Appendix Table A-1 also illustrates that by the end of 2017, over 90% of gasoline dispensed nationally will be to ORVR-equipped vehicles, which is also likely to be higher in Rhode Island due to a newer motor vehicle fleet. At that point in time, since a vast majority of Rhode Island vehicles being refueled at gasoline dispensing facilities will be equipped with ORVR systems, the ORVR systems will be controlling the volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, making Stage II vapor recovery systems a redundant, and potentially incompatible, emissions control technology in Rhode Island. Therefore, removing the Stage II systems is not expected to result in a significant emissions increase, but is expected to avoid emissions increases resulting from the incompatibility of some Stage II systems with ORVR controls.

EPA also disagrees with the comment that the increased emissions the commenter asserts will result from removal of Stage II controls represent a significant environmental, health and safety risk. EPA's August 7, 2012 Guidance states that “EPA believes it is reasonable to conclude that the incremental emissions control that Stage II achieves beyond ORVR is de minimis if it is less than 10 percent of the area-wide emissions inventory associated with refueling highway motor vehicles.” As noted in the NPR, Rhode Island appropriately calculated the increase in refueling-associated emissions from the decommissioning of Stage II systems in 2013 as 7.2 percent, thus meeting this de minimis threshold. As also noted in the NPR, the increase in emissions from Stage II system decommissioning calculated by Rhode Island for 2013 (69 tons of VOC) are only about 0.3 percent of the total anthropogenic VOC emissions in Rhode Island (see EPA's 2011 National Emissions Inventory database Version 1 at www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html). Also, as explained in EPA's ORVR rulemaking and in EPA's August 7, 2012 Guidance, these foregone emissions reductions in the near term continue to diminish rapidly over time as ORVR phase-in continues. Therefore, since the de minimis criteria discussed in EPA's August 7, 2012 Guidance have been met, EPA is approving Rhode Island's SIP revision.

Furthermore, we note that Rhode Island's revised Regulation 11 also includes new Stage I vapor recovery requirements that will lead to additional emission reductions. Specifically, the regulation requires GDFs to upgrade their Stage I vapor recovery systems to CARB-certified Stage I Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) systems or a Stage I vapor recovery system composed of EVR system components (Stage I EVR component systems). The upgrade to Stage I EVR systems or Stage I EVR component systems is required upon facility start-up for facilities beginning operation or installing a fuel storage tank as of December 25, 2013. In addition, as of December 25, 2013, any component of a pre-existing Stage I vapor recovery system that is replaced is required to be replaced with a CARB-certified Stage I EVR component. The Rhode Island regulation further requires that all Stage I systems be CARB-certified Stage I EVR systems or Stage I EVR component systems by December 25, 2020. CARB-certified Stage I EVR systems have been certified to achieve a 98 percent reduction in VOC emissions, as compared to 95 percent for pre-EVR Stage I systems. Thus, when pre-EVR Stage I systems in Rhode Island are replaced with CARB-certified Stage I EVR systems, a greater emission reduction will be achieved. Also, when a component of a pre-EVR Stage I system is replaced with a CARB-certified Stage I EVR component, a somewhat greater reduction is expected to be achieved. These additional reductions will further mitigate any temporary declining emissions increases, which are already de minimis, resulting from removal of Stage II equipment.

Finally, with respect to the graphs and calculations submitted as part of ARID Technologies' comments, we note that, in some cases, differing assumptions were used by the commenter as compared to those used by Rhode Island. For example, the ARID Technologies calculations assume a Stage II vapor recovery efficiency of 75 percent, whereas Rhode Island used a more conservative figure of 70 percent. EPA's August 7, 2012 Guidance states that Stage II control efficiencies are typically in the range of 60-75 percent. Assuming a higher Stage II efficiency would result in a higher estimate of foregone emission reductions. However, in some cases, the assumptions and/or the basis or references for the assumptions used in the commenter's calculations are not stated. Therefore, we are not, at this time, assessing the appropriateness of each of the individual calculations included in the ARID Technologies documents but instead note that the commenter's summary result of 400,000 lbs (or 200 tons) of hydrocarbon emissions in 2013 (see slide 8 of the commenter's presentation), although higher than the Rhode Island estimate of 69 tons referenced above, is still only about 0.9 percent, i.e., less than one percent, of the 22,248 tons of total annual anthropogenic VOC emissions in Rhode Island (see EPA's 2011 National Emissions Inventory database Version 1 at www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html). As also noted above, these foregone emission reductions are highest in 2013 and diminish rapidly over time. Finally, the commenter does not assert or demonstrate that the foregone emissions reductions based on his assumptions would exceed the de minimis criteria discussed in EPA's August 7, 2012 Guidance.

EPA is approving Rhode Island's December 13, 2013 SIP revision. Specifically, EPA is approving the amended Rhode Island Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 11, “Petroleum Liquids Marketing and Storage,” and incorporating it into the Rhode Island SIP. EPA is approving this SIP revision because it meets all applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA guidance, and it will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning National Ambient Air Quality Standards attainment and reasonable further progress or with any other applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act.

Rhode Island's December 13, 2013 SIP revision satisfies the “comparable measures” requirement of CAA section 184(b)(2), because as stated in EPA's August 7, 2012 Guidance, “the comparable measures requirement is satisfied if phasing out a Stage II control program in a particular area is estimated to have no, or a de minimis, incremental loss of area-wide emissions control.” As noted in the NPR, Rhode Island's SIP revision met de minimis criteria outlined in EPA's August 7, 2012 Guidance. In addition, since emissions are de minimis, the anti-back sliding requirements of CAA section 110(l) have also been satisfied.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference Rhode Island's revised Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 11 described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 10, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

Biomass materials, which include wood residue and wood products, animal manure (including litter and other bedding materials), vegetative agricultural materials as well as silvicultural materials, can be used as fuel burned to provide heat and power. New technologies and environmental initiatives have recently increased the use of biomass material for combustion in the State of Maryland. Therefore, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) has established emission standards for the combustion of biomass fuel by developing a new Code of Maryland (COMAR) regulation, COMAR 26.11.09.12—“Standards for Biomass Fuel-Burning Equipment Greater Than 350,000 British Thermal Units (Btu)/Hour (hr) Heat Input.” The typical type of equipment that is regulated under this new regulation is a boiler, however, it also applies to process heaters and other applications. On March 25, 2015 (80 FR 15709), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland proposing approval of provisions for biomass fuel-burning equipment.

On January 12, 2015, MDE submitted to EPA a SIP revision concerning new biomass fuel-burning provisions in COMAR 26.11.09.12 and revised provisions in COMAR 26.11.09.10 for inclusion in the Maryland SIP. The SIP submittal also includes revisions to COMAR 26.11.09.01 (February 22, 2011, 76 FR 9650), .04 (November 3, 1992, 57 FR 49651), .06 (July 6, 2005, 70 FR 38774), .07 (November 3, 1992, 57 FR 49651), and .09 (May 1, 2003, 68 FR 23206), which were previously included in the Maryland SIP. The new regulation, COMAR 26.11.09.12, Standards for Biomass Fuel-Burning Equipment Equal to or Greater Than 350,000 Btu/hr, establishes particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxide (NOX) emission limits (see Table 1) and requirements (such as compliance and record keeping and reporting) for biomass fuel-burning equipment. According to MDE, small biomass boilers will need to install PM emission controls; however the NOX emission rates for biomass fuel-burning equipment can be achieved through efficient system design and do not require add-on pollution controls. MDE also asserted that new biomass fuel-burning equipment would be subject to standards based on federal maximum achievable control technology (MACT), generally available control technology (GACT), and best available control technology (BACT) analysis. Other specific requirements and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and the Technical Support Document (TSD) with Docket ID number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0089 and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.

EPA is approving a revision to the Maryland SIP pertaining to provisions for biomass fuel-burning equipment in accordance with CAA section 110. EPA's review of this material indicates that MDE's regulations will result in reductions in PM and NOX, helping Maryland to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and PM.

In this rulemaking action, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Maryland rules regarding the definitions and requirements for biomass fuel-burning equipment in COMAR 26.11.09.01, .04, .06, .07, .09, .10, and .12. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the EPA Region III office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 10, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.

This action pertaining to biomass fuel-burning equipment may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA revised the lead NAAQS, lowering the level from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 0.15 μg/m3 calculated over a three-month rolling average. EPA established the NAAQS based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures to lead emissions.

Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS; this designation process is described in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. On November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71033), EPA promulgated initial air quality designations for the 2008 lead NAAQS, which became effective on December 31, 2010, based on air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2007-2009, where there was sufficient data to support a nonattainment designation. Designations for all remaining areas were completed on November 22, 2011, based on air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2008-2010. Effective December 31, 2010, the Lyons Area was designated as nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. This designation triggered a requirement for Pennsylvania to submit a SIP revision with a plan for how the Lyons Area would attain the 2008 lead NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31, 2015.

Designation of an area as nonattainment starts the process for a state to develop and submit to EPA a SIP revision under title I, part D of the CAA. This SIP revision must include, among other elements, a demonstration of how the NAAQS will be attained in the nonattainment area as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the date required by the CAA, together with a base year emissions inventory, reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, and contingency measures for failure to meet RFP and attainment deadlines. Under CAA section 172(b), a state has up to three years after an area's designation as nonattainment to submit its SIP revision to EPA.

On December 29, 2014 (79 FR 77911), EPA took final action to determine that the Lyons Area (comprised of Kutztown Borough, Lyon Borough, Maxatawny Township, and Richmond Township) has ambient air quality monitoring data that shows the Area meets the 2008 lead NAAQS. This clean data determination was based upon quality assured, quality controlled and certified ambient air monitoring data that shows the Area has monitored attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS based on the calendar years 2009-2011 data. Pursuant to EPA's Clean Data Policy, once EPA finalizes a clean data determination, the requirements for the Area to submit an attainment demonstration, RACM, a RFP plan, and contingency measures for failure to meet RFP and attainment deadlines are suspended for so long as the Area continues to attain the 2008 lead NAAQS.

Since 1995, EPA has applied its interpretation under the Clean Data Policy in many rulemakings, suspending certain attainment-related planning requirements for individual areas, based on a determination of attainment. However, EPA notes that a final determination of attainment does not suspend requirements not related to attaining the NAAQS, such as the emissions inventory requirement found in CAA section 172(c)(3), which requires submission and approval of an inventory of actual emissions of lead from all sources in the nonattainment area (i.e., base year emissions inventory).

On February 9, 2015, Pennsylvania submitted a formal revision to its SIP that consists of the lead base year emissions inventory for the Lyons Area for the 2008 lead NAAQS.

States are required under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA to develop comprehensive, accurate and current emissions inventories of all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the nonattainment area. These inventories provide a detailed accounting of all emissions and emission sources by precursor or pollutant. In the November 12, 2008 lead NAAQS rulemaking, EPA finalized the guidance related to the emissions inventories requirements. The current regulations are located at 40 CFR 51.117(e), and include, but are not limited to, the following requirements:

• States must develop and periodically update a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources affecting ambient lead concentrations;

• The SIP inventory must be approved by EPA as a SIP element and is subject to public hearing requirements; and

• The point source inventory upon which the summary of the baseline for lead emissions inventory is based must contain all sources that emit 0.5 or more tons of lead per year.

For the base-year inventory of actual lead emissions, EPA recommends using either 2010 or 2011 as the base year for the contingency measure calculations, but does provide flexibility for using other inventory years if states can show another year is more appropriate.1 For lead SIPs, the CAA requires that all sources of lead emissions in the nonattainment area must be submitted with the base-year inventory. In today's action, EPA is approving the base year emissions inventory SIP revision submitted by Pennsylvania on February 9, 2015, (hereinafter also referred to as “Pennsylvania's submission”) as required by section 172(c)(3).

EPA guidance for emissions inventory development provides that actual emissions should be used for purposes of the base year inventory.2 On February 9, 2015, Pennsylvania submitted to EPA the 2011 base year emissions inventory for the lead point sources located within the Lyons Area. The Lyons Area has the following point sources of lead emissions: East Penn Manufacturing Company's Richmond Township Facility; East Penn Manufacturing Company's Kutztown Facility; and McConway & Torley Kutztown Foundry. PADEP requires larger emitting facilities to report production figures and emission calculations annually. Throughput data are multiplied by emission factors based on source classification codes (SCC) to develop emission estimates.

PADEP submitted EPA's 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) v2 data for nonpoint source lead emissions. The nonpoint source values for the Lyons Area were calculated using Berks County data apportioned by population, of which 4.1 percent (%) is included in the Lyons Area. EPA reviewed the results, procedures, and methodologies for Pennsylvania's submission and found them to be reasonable for calculating the lead base year inventory for CAA section 172(c)(3) and in accordance with 40 CFR 51.117(e). A more detailed description of the SIP submittal and EPA's evaluation is included in a Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared in support of this rulemaking action. A copy of the TSD is available, upon request, from the EPA Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document or is also available electronically within the Docket for this rulemaking action.

EPA is approving Pennsylvania's submission consisting of the base year emissions inventory for the Lyons Area for the 2008 lead NAAQS. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on August 10, 2015 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by July 9, 2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 10, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking action. This action to approve Pennsylvania's base year emissions inventory for the Lyons Area may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

On January 7, 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a final rule establishing a permanent certification program for the purposes of testing and certifying health information technology (“Establishment of the Permanent Certification Program for Health Information Technology,” 76 FR 1262) (“Permanent Certification Program final rule”). The permanent certification program was renamed the “ONC HIT Certification Program” in a final rule published on September 4, 2012 (77 FR 54163) (“2014 Edition EHR Certification Criteria final rule”). In the proposed rule entitled “2015 Edition Health Information Technology (Health IT) Certification Criteria, 2015 Edition Base Electronic Health Record (EHR) Definition, and ONC Health IT Certification Program Modifications” (80 FR 16804, 16806), we propose to further rename the program as the “ONC Health IT Certification Program.”

In the preamble of the Permanent Certification Program final rule, we stated that a person or entity may submit a test procedure or test tool (to note, which includes any associated test data) to the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (the National Coordinator) to be considered for approval and use by NVLAP accredited testing laboratories. “The submission should identify the developer of the test tool and/or test procedure; specify the certification criterion or criteria that is/are addressed by the test tool and/or test procedure; and explain how the test tool and/or test procedure would evaluate a Complete EHR's, EHR Module's, or if the applicable, and other type of HIT's compliance with the applicable certification criterion or criteria. The submission should also provide information describing the process used to develop the test tool and/or test procedure, including any opportunity for the public to comment on the test tool and/or test procedure and the degree to which public comments were considered.” (76 FR 1280) We also stated that “[i]n determining whether to approve a test tool and/or test procedure for purposes of the permanent certification program, the National Coordinator will consider whether it is clearly traceable to a certification criterion or criteria adopted by the Secretary; whether it is sufficiently comprehensive (i.e., assesses all required capabilities) for NVLAP-accredited testing laboratories to use in testing a Complete EHR's, EHR Module's, or other type of HIT's compliance with the certification criterion or criteria adopted by the Secretary; whether an appropriate public comment process was used during the development of the test tool and/or test procedure; and any other relevant factors.” (76 FR 1280)

During the time in which the ONC Health IT Certification Program has operated, health IT developers have suggested that testing efficiencies could be achieved if the ONC Health IT Certification Program were to leverage operational testing and certification, such as the ePrescribing (eRX) network testing (and certification). As indicated by the previously recited ONC policy, the National Coordinator is open to approving test procedures, test tools, and test data that meet the outlined approval requirements above for an applicable adopted certification criterion or criteria. By way of this document, we strongly encourage persons or entities to submit such test procedures, test tools, and test data to ONC if they believe such procedures, tools, and data could be used to meet ONC's certification criteria and testing approval requirements. We also note that there is no programmatic prohibition on the approval of multiple test procedures, test tools, and test data for a certification criterion or criteria.

The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes blueline tilefish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and NMFS prepared the FMP, and the FMP is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

NMFS implemented management measures for blueline tilefish in Amendment 32 to the FMP for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (Amendment 32) (80 FR 16583, March 30, 2015). Amendment 32 contains management measures that end overfishing of blueline tilefish in the South Atlantic.

NMFS is required to close the recreational sector for blueline tilefish when the recreational ACL is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register, as specified in 50 CFR 622.193(z)(2)(i). The recreational ACL for blueline tilefish in 2015 is 17,791 lb (8,070 kg), round weight. NMFS has determined that the recreational ACL for South Atlantic blueline tilefish has been reached. Accordingly, the recreational sector for South Atlantic blueline tilefish is closed effective June 10, 2015, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2016, the start of the next fishing year. However, as described in 50 CFR 622.183(b)(7), the recreational sector for blueline tilefish is also closed from January 1 through April 30, and September 1 through December 31, each year. Therefore, the recreational sector may not harvest blueline tilefish until May 1, 2016.

During the closure, the bag and possession limits for blueline tilefish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ are zero. Additionally, NMFS closed the commercial sector for blueline tilefish effective April 7, 2015, upon reaching the commercial ACL (80 FR 18551, April 7, 2015). Therefore, on June 10, 2015, no commercial or recreational harvest of blueline tilefish from the South Atlantic EEZ is permitted for the remainder of 2015. The commercial sector for blueline tilefish reopens on January 1, 2016.

The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of blueline tilefish and the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(z)(2)(i) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

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

This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the recreational sector for blueline tilefish constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such prior notice and opportunity for public comment are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the regulations at 50 CFR 622.193(z)(2)(i) have already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because there is a need to immediately implement this action to protect blueline tilefish, since the capacity of the recreational sector allows for rapid harvest of the recreational ACL. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established recreational ACL.

For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) governing the harvest of BFT by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27 subdivides the U.S. BFT quota recommended by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) among the various domestic fishing categories, per the allocations established in the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (2006 Consolidated HMS FMP) (71 FR 58058, October 2, 2006), as amended by Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (Amendment 7) (79 FR 71510, December 2, 2014), and in accordance with implementing regulations.

NMFS is required, under § 635.28(a)(1), to file a closure notice with the Office of the Federal Register for publication when a BFT quota is reached or is projected to be reached. On and after the effective date and time of such notification, for the remainder of the fishing year or for a specified period as indicated in the notification, retaining, possessing, or landing BFT under that quota category is prohibited until the opening of the subsequent quota period or until such date as specified in the notice.

The 2015 BFT fishing year, which is managed on a calendar-year basis and subject to an annual calendar-year quota, began January 1, 2015. The Angling category season opened January 1, 2015, and continues through December 31, 2015. The currently codified Angling category quota is 168.6 mt, of which 3.9 mt is allocated for the harvest of large medium and giant (trophy) BFT from the regulatory area by vessels fishing under the Angling category quota, with 1.3 mt allocated for each of the following areas: North of 39°18′ N. lat. (off Great Egg Inlet, NJ); south of 39°18′ N. lat. and outside the Gulf of Mexico; and in the Gulf of Mexico. Trophy BFT measure 73 inches (185 cm) curved fork length or greater.

Reported landings from the NMFS Automated Catch Reporting System and the North Carolina Tagging Program total approximately 2 mt and NMFS has determined that the codified Angling category southern area trophy BFT subquota has been reached and that a closure of the southern area trophy BFT fishery is warranted at this time. Therefore, retaining, possessing, or landing large medium or giant BFT south of 39°18′ N. lat. and outside the Gulf of Mexico by persons aboard vessels permitted in the HMS Angling category and the HMS Charter/Headboat category must cease at 11:30 p.m. local time on June 7, 2015. This closure will remain effective through December 31, 2015. This action is intended to prevent any further overharvest of the Angling category southern area trophy BFT subquota, and is taken consistent with the regulations at § 635.28(a)(1).

NMFS has considered the fact that it is in the process of proposing a rule that would implement and give domestic effect to the 2014 ICCAT recommendation on western Atlantic BFT management, which increased the U.S. BFT quota for 2015 and 2016 by 14 percent from the 2014 level. The domestic subquotas to be proposed in that action would result from application of the allocation process established in Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP to the increased U.S. quota, and would include an increase in the southern trophy BFT quota from the currently codified 1.3 mt to a total of 1.5 mt. However, because current landings exceed both the currently codified and the anticipated proposed quota for the Angling category southern area, closure of the southern area trophy BFT fishery needs to occur regardless of the proposed quota increase.

If needed, subsequent Angling category adjustments will be published in the Federal Register. Information regarding the Angling category fishery for Atlantic tunas, including daily retention limits for BFT measuring 27 inches (68.5 cm) to less than 73 inches and any further Angling category adjustments, is available at hmspermits.noaa.gov or by calling (978) 281-9260.

HMS Angling and HMS Charter/Headboat category permit holders may catch and release (or tag and release) BFT of all sizes, subject to the requirements of the catch-and-release and tag-and-release programs at § 635.26. Anglers are also reminded that all BFT that are released must be handled in a manner that will maximize survival, and without removing the fish from the water, consistent with requirements at § 635.21(a)(1). For additional information on safe handling, see the “Careful Catch and Release” brochure available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/.

The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons:

The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, as amended, provide for inseason retention limit adjustments and fishery closures to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. The closure of the southern area Angling category trophy fishery is necessary to prevent any further overharvest of the southern area trophy fishery subquota. NMFS provides notification of closures by publishing the notice in the Federal Register, emailing individuals who have subscribed to the Atlantic HMS News electronic newsletter, and updating the information posted on the Atlantic Tunas Information Line and on hmspermits.noaa.gov.

These fisheries are currently underway and delaying this action would be contrary to the public interest as it could result in excessive trophy BFT landings that may result in future potential quota reductions for the Angling category, depending on the magnitude of a potential Angling category overharvest. NMFS must close the southern area trophy BFT fishery before additional landings of these sizes of BFT accumulate. Therefore, the AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment. For all of the above reasons, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.

This action is being taken under 50 CFR 635.28(a)(1), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council prepared the Summer Flounder, Scup, Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A (general provisions), G (summer flounder), H (scup), and I (black sea bass). General regulations governing fisheries of the Northeastern U.S. also appear at 50 CFR part 648. Amendment 9 to the FMP which established conservation and management measures for the black sea bass fishery, also established a process by which the Council could recommend that Special Management Zones (SMZs) be established.

In 2011, the Delaware Fish and Wildlife Department (DFW) requested and the Council recommended that five Delaware artificial reef sites be designated as SMZs according to the provisions of the FMP.

These artificial reefs are currently permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The FMP provides authority to implement SMZs around artificial reefs. SMZ-designated areas are used to provide for specialized fishery management regulations around artificial reefs to reduce user conflicts, protect reef habitat, and control fishing off the artificial reefs.

The SMZ request noted that the DFW received complaints from hook-and-line anglers about fouling of their fishing gear in commercial pots and lines on ocean reef sites for more than 10 years. The request also noted that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Sportfish Restoration Program (SRP) had notified DFW that these gear conflicts are not consistent with the objectives of the SRP program, which provides funding for the building and maintenance of the artificial reefs. The FWS requires that state artificial reef programs be able to limit gear conflicts by state regulations in state waters or by SMZs for sites in the EEZ. The Council reviewed DFW's request through its specific process for recommending SMZ measures to NMFS for rule making. All meetings are open to the public and meeting related materials are publicly available. Extensive background on the SMZ management measures recommendation process is not repeated here but can be found in § 648.18 and in the proposed rule for these measures (79 FR 35141). After completing its initial review, the Council recommended to NMFS that all five Delaware artificial reefs be established as SMZs. The Council also recommended that the SMZ areas be enlarged beyond their original COE permit areas by 500 yards (0.46 km) to enhance enforcement. Additionally, the Council recommended that in the established areas of the SMZs, all vessels would only be allowed to conduct fishing with hook and line and spear (including the taking of fish by hand). NMFS subsequently reviewed the Council's recommendations through the development of an EA and published a proposed rule on June 19, 2014 (79 FR 35141) that had an initial 45-day comment period. The comment period on the proposed rule was later extended (79 FR 41530) for an additional 15 days. See Comments and Responses section of this preamble for additional details.

NMFS proposed the Council's measures, applicable in the Federal waters of the EEZ and to all vessels as follows:

1. All five Delaware artificial reefs be established as SMZs;

2. The SMZ areas be enlarged beyond their original COE permit areas by 500 yards (0.46 km) for enforcement purposes; and

3. Within the established areas of the SMZs, all vessels would only be allowed to conduct fishing with hook and line and spear (including taking of fish by hand).

The New England Fishery Management Council and commercial fishermen commented on the proposed rule that implementing an SMZ at the most offshore artificial reef site (site 14) could have serious negative effects on the scallop fishery in that it would restrict scallop dredging in a highly productive scallop fishing area. Also, the DFW requested that the 0.46-km area enlargement for enforcement not be implemented because doing so would enlarge (approximately double) the size of the SMZs to cover other structures not intended to be part of the artificial reefs. DFW also stated that SMZ area enlargements for enforcement would negatively impact more commercial fishing activities and were not necessary to enforce the SMZs. In response to concerns from the scallop fleet, and because no artificial reef materials have yet been placed at site 14, DFW withdrew its request for an SMZ at that site. Also, at its August meeting (during the comment period for the proposed rule) the Mid-Atlantic Council reconsidered its recommendations for the SMZs and withdrew its requests for an SMZ at site 14 and for each SMZ to be enlarged 0.46 km for enforcement purposes. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission also supported the Mid-Atlantic Council and DFW's requested changes to the proposed rule.

NMFS has made two changes from the proposed rule: (1) SMZ site 14 is not being implemented and (2) the proposed 0.46-km enlargement to enhance enforcement on the four remaining SMZs is not being implemented as had been proposed. These changes are being made as a result of the comments received on the June 19, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 35141). The final boundaries for the SMZs are in Federal waters and shown in Figure 1.

The SMZ sites are bounded by the following coordinates specified as follows:

On June 19, 2014 (79 FR 35141), NMFS published proposed SMZ measures for a 45-day public notice and comment, and then extended the public comment period for 15 additional days on July 16, 2014 (79 FR 41530). NMFS received 16 categories of comments from 12 individuals and/or associations during the comment period on the proposed rule. The comments were from: Four individuals; two industry groups (the Recreational Fisheries Alliance and the Fisheries Survival Found); the Mid-Atlantic Council; the New England Council; the Commission, the State of Delaware Coastal Programs and Department of Natural Resources; and the New Jersey Department of Fish and Wildlife. Two commenters supported implementing measures as proposed and two commenters objected to any implementation of the proposed measures. The majority of comments including the State of Delaware and the Mid-Atlantic Council (the initial requesters of the SMZs) supported the measures being implemented in this final rule.

Comment 1: The Mid-Atlantic Council, the Commission, the State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources, the New England Council, and the Fisheries Survival Fund, requested that NMFS not implement an SMZ at artificial reef site 14. The site does not currently have any artificial reef structure on the bottom. Commenters stated that restricting fishing gear there may have negative impacts on fisheries that use mobile gear, especially the scallop fishery.

Response: NMFS agrees and is not implementing an SMZ at reef site 14 at this time. Because there is currently no artificial reef structure at site 14, and because multiple groups have requested site 14 be withdrawn from the SMZ final measures, NMFS sees no need for designating an SMZ at site 14.

Comment 2: The Mid-Atlantic Council, the Commission, the State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources, Delaware Coastal Programs, and a member of the public requested that NMFS not implement the 0.46-km buffer (enforcement area) around the artificial reefs permit boundaries. Commenters stated this would approximately double the size of the SMZs to cover other structures not intended to be part of the artificial reefs and negatively impact more commercial fishing activities.

Response: NMFS agrees, and is not implementing the 0.46-km enlarged enforcement area in this final rule. If enforcement issues arise over the ability to determine if vessels are fishing in or outside the SMZs, NMFS may need to revisit implementing a larger SMZ area around the artificial reefs.

Comment 3: The New Jersey Department of Fish and Wildlife commented it was not in favor of the 0.46-km enlarged enforcement area around the artificial reefs COE permit boundaries, stating it was too excessive. Their comment suggested that a 250-yard (0.23-km) enlarged enforcement area be used instead.

Response: As noted in response to comment 2, NMFS has determined that the enlarged enforcement area is not necessary and therefore the final rule implements no enforcement buffer around the SMZs.

Comment 4: Five commenters (including the Recreational Fisheries Alliance) supported implementation of the SMZs to eliminate gear conflicts and provide recreational fisheries access to the artificial reefs. Two commenters were in support of implementing SMZs at all five artificial reef sites and three commenters supported implementing SMZs at all sites except for artificial reef site 14.

Response: NMFS agrees. The SMZs are intended to reduce the commercial/recreational gear conflicts on the artificial reefs, and help ensure unimpeded access to the artificial reefs for recreational and commercial hook and line fishing. However, for reasons stated above, NMFS is implementing SMZs at all proposed artificial reef sites except site 14.

Comment 5: One commenter contended that the proposed action was not consistent with § 648.148, stating that the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) says the SMZ would prohibit or restrain specific types of gear types, without identification of the specific gear types noted in the proposed rule.

Response: NMFS disagrees; § 648.148 states that the recipient of a COE permit for an artificial reef, fish attraction device, or other modification of habitat for purposes of fishing may request that an area surrounding and including the site be designated by the Council as an SMZ. The SMZ will prohibit or restrain the use of specific types of fishing gear that are not compatible with the intent of the permitted area. This action would restrict use of all commercial gears other than hook and line (or taking of fish by hand), which is allowable under § 648.148. This is compatible with the intent of the Delaware artificial reefs which were built with Sportfish Restoration Program (SRP) Funds.

Comment 6: One commenter stated the proposed rule did not make clear the intent of the Delaware artificial reef program and what fishing gears should be incompatible with that program. The commenter contended that the intent of the reefs is listed under 33 U.S.C. 2101(a)(5). They further stated that prohibiting gear types on the reef is a major change of the original intent the reefs were permitted under, and the public should be granted another comment period.

Response: NMFS disagrees. The reefs were built with SRP funding to enhance recreational fishing. COE regulations at 33 U.S.C. 2101(a)(5) are designed to permit artificial reefs for the benefit of commercial and recreational fishing. All reefs need not be built to simultaneously benefit commercial and recreational fishing. However, in this case, the SMZs would benefit recreational fishing, and hook and line commercial fishing. NMFS provided ample opportunity for public comment, extending the comment period from 45 to 60 days. In addition, the SMZs were discussed at multiple Council and Commission meetings. An additional comment period on the intent of the reef program or the SMZ measures is not needed. However, when the Delaware artificial reef program COE permit for the artificial reefs is renewed or if there are further regulatory actions for the SMZs, the public will have further opportunity to comment on the SMZs, reefs and their intent, or both.

Comment 7: One commenter stated that the Council's monitoring committee failed to consider all applicable law as required by § 648.146(a)(4) and did not mention the National Fisheries Enhancement Act of 1984 (NFEA).

Response: The monitoring committee was aware of the NFEA, but saw no issues to report on or mention in its report. NMFS considered the NFEA in the development of the EA and the proposed rule for the SMZs, and concluded that implementing the SMZ's did not conflict with the NFEA.

Comment 8: One Commenter stated that the SMZs will be in violation of the NFEA under 33 U.S.C. 2101(a)(5) because it will not increase fishing opportunities for commercial fishermen, will not allow increased production of fisheries products (conchs, lobsters), and will not increase fuel efficiency of commercial fishermen.

Response: NMFS disagrees. All reefs need not be built to simultaneously benefit commercial and recreational fishing. Under the NFEA, it states that properly designed, constructed, and located artificial reefs can enhance the habitat and diversity of fishery resources; enhance United States recreational and commercial fishing opportunities; increase the production of fishery products in the United States; increase the energy efficiency of recreational and commercial fisheries; and contribute to the United States and coastal economies. Implementing SMZs for the Delaware artificial reefs will increase recreational and commercial hook and line fisheries opportunities, and likely increase energy efficiency of the recreational fleet (by reducing their search time for high quality fishing areas) and contribute to the United States and coastal economies. The Delaware reefs were built with SRP funds to specifically enhance recreational fisheries.

Comment 9: One commenter stated that the SMZ will be in violation of the NFEA because it says artificial reefs shall be managed in a manner which will facilitate access and utilization by commercial fishermen. The stated SMZ measures inhibit rather than facilitate commercial fishing.

Response: NMFS disagrees. The SMZ measures are not in violation of the NFEA which provides guidance that permit artificial reefs to be built for the benefit of commercial and recreational fishing. Under the NFEA, all reefs need not be built to simultaneously benefit commercial and recreational fishing. However, the SMZs implemented under this rule will enhance commercial hook and line fishing on the artificial reefs.

Comment 10: One commenter stated that the catch record for Delaware's 27 licensed commercial hook and line fishermen shows they do not utilize these artificial reefs. Therefore, to allow hook and line only is not viable and a violation of 33 U.S.C. 2102(2).

Response: NMFS disagrees. The NFEA set standards for artificial reefs that they be based on the best scientific information available, be sited and constructed, and subsequently monitored and managed in a manner which will:

(1) Enhance fishery resources to the maximum extent practicable;

(2) Facilitate access and utilization by United States recreational and commercial fishermen;

(3) Minimize conflicts among competing uses of waters covered under this chapter and the resources in such waters;

(4) Minimize environmental risks and risks to personal health and property; and

(5) Be consistent with generally accepted principles of international law and shall not create any unreasonable obstruction to navigation.

Under the NFEA, all artificial reefs need not be built to simultaneously benefit commercial and recreational fishing. In the case of the Delaware artificial reefs, there is a need to minimize recreational and commercial fishing conflicts and ensure the recreational fleet access to the reefs that were built with SRP funding. Some of the commercial gears deployed on the artificial reefs (fish pots and buoys) may currently be physically inhibiting the use of commercial hook and line fishing on the reefs. Delaware's hook and line commercial fishermen may not currently be fishing the artificial reefs, but they will have the option to fish the reefs without conflict with stationary commercial gears once the SMZs are implemented.

Comment 11: One commenter stated that the word “among” is used in the NFEA when saying artificial reefs shall be utilized in a manner which will minimize conflicts among competing users, 33 U.S.C. 2101(3). The commenter contended that the SMZ measures limits use to two groups (hook and line and spear) and therefore violates the NFEA.

Response: NMFS disagrees; the SMZ's will allow continued use among all to fish the artificial reefs. They will just be limited in the type of gear they can use. Anyone with proper commercial fishing permits may continue to fish on the artificial reefs using hook and line or taking by hand, and private, charter, and party recreational vessels may continue to fish the artificial reefs with hook and line gear.

Comment 12: One commenter stated that the SMZs would violate the NFEA, which states that reefs shall be managed in a manner which will minimize conflicts among competing users. The commenter contended that by eliminating the use of commercial gear types (pots) and allowing only angling and spear, there are no competing uses of the reefs.

Response: NMFS disagrees. Under the NFEA, all artificial reefs need not be built to simultaneously benefit commercial and recreational fishing. In the case of the Delaware artificial reefs, there is a need to minimize recreational and commercial fishing conflicts, and ensure the recreational fleet access to the reefs that have been built with SRP funding. Also, under the SMZ measures commercial hook and line fishermen may choose to compete for use of the artificial reefs.

Comment 13: One commenter stated that FWS threating to withdraw funding unless reef access/usage rules are put in place is akin to bribery. The commenter suggested that the Federal prosecutor should be called to investigate. The commenter also stated the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) was put in a similar situation by FWS where SRP funds could be withdrawn, and in that case New Jersey elected not to enact SMZs.

Response: The FWS does provide SRP funding to DFW to support its artificial reef program. The SRP is supported by the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act, which uses funds provided by excise taxes on sport fishing equipment and motorboat fuels. NMFS understands from the FWS that only projects that benefit recreationally important finfish species are eligible for SRP funding. The development and maintenance of artificial reefs in marine waters is just one type of project supported by SRP. These funds are also used for research and survey work, boat ramp construction, aquatic resources education programs, fish hatcheries, aquatic habitat improvement, land acquisition for recreational fishing access, and many other types of projects. The role of the FWS is to distribute these funds and make sure they are spent according to the law and regulations under (50 CFR part 80). While NMFS understands the NJDEP can no longer use SRP funding for its artificial reef program, it still receives its full SRP allocation for other appropriate SRP eligible projects.

SRP funds are apportioned to states based on their relative number of licensed anglers and land and water area. Delaware and New Jersey are both minimum apportionment states, so they each receive one percent of funds available each year. This was $3.2 million in fiscal year 2014. Like all other states, Delaware and New Jersey decide how to spend their SRP funds. Delaware requested and received $595,500 of Federal funds for artificial reef work for 2014. If SMZs are not designated on artificial reefs off Delaware, then the FWS may withhold future SRP funds from the DFW artificial reef program. Thus, SRP funds would not be allowed to be used on the reefs due to the continuing conflicts with commercial fishermen. This is in accordance with SRP regulations (50 CFR part 80). If that were to happen, then Delaware will likely be reminded by FWS to spend its SRP funds on other eligible projects.

Comment 14: One commenter was against building artificial reefs. The commenter stated artificial reefs are created for use as cheap dumping grounds and are making our oceans garbage dumps. The commenter also stated artificial reefs are a deterrent to a healthy ocean.

Response: NMFS considers that the Delaware Artificial Reef Program is being conducted responsibly and successfully with extensive regulatory oversight. State artificial reef programs and their permitting, such as the Delaware Artificial Reef Program, are among the most heavily regulated activities conducted in our bays and coastal oceans. NMFS took the lead in 1984, by writing the National Artificial Reef Plan (subsequently updated by the joint Commission/Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission artificial reef committees in 2007). This framework described the characteristics of acceptable reef material. Materials of opportunity must be durable, stable, and non-toxic. These guidelines have led to the banning of some materials used in the 1970's such as unballasted tires, and wooden or fiberglass vessels, resulting in ecologically sound artificial reefs since the mid-1980s. All Atlantic coast states with artificial reef programs have written state artificial reef plans, modeled after the National Artificial Reef Plan. State reef coordinators are members of the Commission's Artificial Reef Committee and meet periodically to learn from one another's experience resulting in less trial and error in selecting materials and building reefs. All state reef programs are permitted through state agencies dealing with sub-aqueous lands, historical and cultural affairs or coastal management and through the COE on the Federal level. Materials are approved or banned by the COE during the permitting process. NMFS, FWS, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have input through the COE into this process. When a new, unanticipated material becomes available for reefing, input is sought from EPA and other agencies and the material may then be listed as acceptable for reef building in the COE permit. In Delaware, the following agencies have had input on the Delaware Reef Program state and Federal permits and have been satisfied with the activities and materials used: Delaware Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs; Delaware Division of Water Resources Wetlands Section; Delaware Coastal Management Program; COE; FWS; NMFS; and EPA.

Regarding vessels that are used in artificial reef building, Delaware has worked closely with EPA to eliminate toxins. Delaware routinely exceeds the best management practices for reefing of vessels, developed by the Commission's Artificial Reef Committee. Delaware artificial reefs comply with the provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act.

NMFS assures artificial reefs are not “a deterrent to a healthy ocean.” Artificial reefs provide a unique community which is especially rare in the Mid-Atlantic region. Monitoring has shown an increase in available food for fish per square foot on the Delaware artificial reefs. The artificial reefs can increase fishing opportunities and provide economic benefits to coastal communities.

Comment 15: One commenter requested that NMFS exempt mobile bottom-tending gears from any restriction in the site 14 SMZ. The commenter correctly stated there is currently no artificial reef in Area 14. The commenter further stated that implementing an SMZ at this time that would restrict mobile gear would create adverse impacts on the scallop fishery with no associated benefits.

Response: NMFS agrees. The final rule does not implement an SMZ at Site 14 (see response to comment 1). Both Delaware and the Mid-Atlantic Council have withdrawn their requests for SMZ status for site 14.

Comment 16: One commenter stated that NMFS is trying to hide the publication of the SMZ proposed rule from the public, by not putting a notice of its publication on its Web site.

Response: NMFS gave appropriate time and notice for the public to comment. NMFS published the SMZ proposed rule in the Federal Register (79 FR 35141) on June 19, 2014, with a comment period to August 4, 2014; posted a story about the proposed rule on its Greater Atlantic Region (GARFO) Web page on June 24, 2014; and on July 16, 2014, extended the comment period an additional 15 days to August 19, 2014 (79 FR 41530). The rule was available on the Federal government's e-rulemakeing portal, regulations.gov. Links to the rule and associated EA were on the GARFO Web site, http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

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

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that Federal agencies analyze the expected impacts of a rule on small business entities, including consideration of disproportionate and/or significant adverse economic impacts on small entities that are directly regulated by the action. As part of the analysis, Federal agencies must also consider alternatives that minimize impacts on small entities while still accomplishing the objectives of the rule. The required analysis is used to inform the agency, as well as the public, of the expected impacts of the various alternatives included in the rule, and to ensure the agency considers other alternatives that minimize the expected impacts while still meeting the goals and objectives of the action, and that are still consistent with applicable law. Section 604 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 604, requires Federal agencies to prepare a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for each final rule.

Major issues on the proposed action were raised in five ways:

1. The New England Council and the commercial industry was concerned that implementing an SMZ at the most offshore artificial reef site would have serious negative effects on the scallop fishery.

2. The DFW requested that the 500-yard (0.46 km) buffer areas area (enlargements for enforcement) not be implemented because they would approximately double the size of the SMZs to cover other structures not intended to be part of the artificial reefs;

3. The DFW also stated that the SMZ 0.46-km area enlargements would negatively impact more commercial fishing activities and were not necessary to enforce the SMZs.

4. In response to concerns from the scallop fleet, and because no artificial reef materials have yet been place at site 14, DFW withdrew its request for an SMZ at that site.

5. At its 2014 August meeting, which was during the comment period for the proposed rule, the Mid-Atlantic Council reconsidered its recommendations for the SMZs and withdrew its requests for an SMZ at site 14 and for each SMZ to be enlarged by 0.46 km for enforcement purposes.

Based on the comments received on the proposed rule and the Mid-Atlantic Council's revised recommendations, site 14 has been dropped from SMZ implementation, and each of the remaining four artificial reef SMZ are not extended by 0.46 km (see comment 2 in COMMENTS AND RESPONSES for this rule for more information). The SMZs are implemented to have the same size and retain the same boundaries as prescribed on their respective artificial reef site COE permit.

These changes from the proposed rule to the final rule will reduce impacts on the scallop fishery because site 14 is dropped providing them access to that area and removing the extended 0.46- km enforcement area from the remaining four artificial reefs SMZs will provide more ability to all commercial vessels to fish nearer the artificial reefs than was proposed.

The Small Business Administration (SBA) updated its standards (effective July 14, 2014 (79 FR 33647; June 12, 2014)) to increase what defines a small fishing business, based on gross revenues as: A finfish business of up to $20.5 million, a commercial shellfishing business of up to $5.5 million, and a for-hire recreational fishing businesses of up to $7.5 million. Pursuant to the RFA, and prior to SBA's June 12 interim final rule, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis was developed for this action using SBA's former size standards. NMFS has reviewed the analyses prepared for this action in light of the new size standards. Under either the former, lower size standards, or newer higher standards, all entities considered as possibly subject to this action are considered small entities (excepting one large entity that operated at site 14, but site 14 has been dropped from this action). Thus all entities affected by the final rule are considered small under the new standards. NMFS has determined that the new size standards do not affect analyses prepared for this action. All affected entities would still be considered small under the new or old standard. In January 2015, because of the changes from the proposed rule to the final rule regarding site 14, the size of the SMZs, and the new SBA standards, NMFS updated its original IRFA analysis. The January 2015 IRFA conforms to the updated standards, does not include site 14, and applies to the smaller size SMZs created under this final rule.

This rule applies to all Federal permit holders except recreational for-hire permit holders. Thus, the affected business entities of concern are businesses that hold commercial Federal fishing permits with the exception of those that fish with hook and line. While all business entities that hold commercial Federal fishing permits could be directly affected by these regulations, not all business entities that hold Federal fishing permits fish in the areas identified as potential SMZs. Those who actively participate, i.e., land fish, in the areas identified as potential SMZs would be the group of business entities that are directly impacted by the regulations.

The number of possible affected entities (those with a fishing history in the SMZs) are described in Table 1, through an enumeration of the number of commercial fishing vessels with recent activity within the four reef sites (sites 9, 10, 11, and 13), by gear type.

During 2008, 2009, and 2010, four vessels reported landings from within the artificial reef sites (Table 1). Because of the uncertainty of reporting vessel areas fished with VTRs, impacts for vessels fishing within the artificial reef areas and beyond to 0.46 km were also considered. Only two commercial vessels reported landings within 0.46 km of the reef sites in each of these years, one vessel reported landings in two of the three years, and 12 vessels reported landings in only one of the three years. This implies a total of eight unique vessels, excluding site 14, which is not included, reported landings within the artificial reef sites during the full 3-year period.

Total revenue earned by these business was derived from both shellfishing and finfishing, but the highest percentage of average annual revenue for the majority of the businesses was from shellfishing. Of the 14 unique fishing business entities potentially estimated to be affected because of reporting VTRs within 0.46 km of the artificial reefs around the 4 reef sites, 8 entities earned the majority of their total revenues (i.e., from all species and areas fished) from landings of shellfish, and 6 entities earned the majority of the their total revenues from landings of finfish. Thus, eight of the potentially affected businesses are classified as shellfishing business entities and six as finfishing business entities.

Average annual gross revenue estimates calculated from the most recent 3 years of available Northeast region dealer data (2010-2012) indicate that under the preferred alternative, 14 of the 14 potentially affected business entities are considered small (8 shellfish and 6 finfish).

Under the preferred alternative, only three vessels show VTR operations within the artificial reef areas with no vessels obtaining more than 9 percent of its revenue from fishing within the artificial reef boundaries (Table 1).

This action does not introduce any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.

Site 14 has been dropped from SMZ implementation, and each of the remaining four artificial reefs SMZ are implemented without the additional enforcement buffer. The SMZs are implemented to have the same size and retain the same boundaries as prescribed on their respective artificial reef site COE permit. These changes from the proposed rule minimizes impacts on the commercial vessels (small entities) that fish near the artificial reefs by allowing them to retain as much of their traditional fishing grounds as possible.

Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, we will send a small entity compliance guide to all Federal permit holders affected by this action. In addition, copies of this final rule and guide (i.e., information bulletin) are available from NMFS online at http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:

NMFS published a final rule (79 FR 19015, April 7, 2014), that established a Trap Transfer Program for Lobster Conservation Management Areas 2, 3, and the Outer Cape, consistent with the recommendations of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission in its Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster. This program will allow Federal permit holders to buy and sell all or part of a permit's trap allocation for these three areas to other Federal permit holders.

The final rule deferred the Trap Transfer Program's implementation date until the Commission completed the development of a centralized trap transfer database. A complete centralized database is needed to ensure that states and the agency are using the same consolidated and verified information at the beginning and end of the trap transfer period. At the time the final rule published, the trap transfer database was incomplete and we elected to defer implementation of the Trap Transfer Program until the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP), in collaboration with us, the Commission, and the states, could complete the comprehensive database. Database development has been completed and it has been tested by state and Federal partners. The database is now ready to track trap transfers.

Accordingly, we are ready to announce that the trap transfer application period will be from August 1 through September 30 of each year. All Federal permit holders requesting transfers for fishing year 2016 must apply to NMFS in writing no earlier than August 1, 2015, and no later than September 30, 2015. Applications received after September 30, 2015, will not be processed. A copy of the trap transfer application is available at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/aps/forms.html. We will approve or deny trap transfer applications pursuant to the regulations at 50 CFR 697.27 (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title50/50cfr697_main_02.tpl). We urge all permit holders to be aware of these regulations before entering into trap transfer agreements. Approved trap transfers will not be effective until the start of the 2016 fishing year.