Federal Register Vol. 80, No.190,

Authority for This Rulemaking

The Department of Transportation (DOT) is responsible for developing transportation policies and programs that contribute to providing fast, safe, efficient, and convenient transportation under § 101 of Title 49, United States Code (49 U.S.C.). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA, we, us, or our) is an agency of DOT. The FAA has general authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety, including minimum standards for articles and for the design, material, construction, quality of work, and performance of aircraft, aircraft engines, and propellers under 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 44104, and 44701.

The FAA is amending its regulations governing certification procedures for products and articles, and its requirements for identification and registration marking. These changes improve the quality standards applicable to manufacturers and help to ensure that products and articles are produced as designed and safe to operate. For those reasons, these amendments are a reasonable and necessary exercise of our rulemaking authority and obligations.

This final rule changes certification and marking requirements for products and articles. In particular, this final rule:

• Requires applicants for a production approval and production approval holders (PAHs) to identify an accountable manager;

• Allows a production certificate (PC) holder to manufacture and install interface components (IC) under certain conditions and limitations;

• Clarifies that a PAH must ensure that each supplier-provided product, article, or service conforms to the PAH's requirements;

• Requires a PAH to establish a supplier-reporting process for products, articles, or services released from or provided by a supplier and subsequently found not to conform to the PAH's requirements;

• Allows a PAH that establishes an FAA-approved process in its quality system to issue authorized release documents (using FAA Form 8130-3) for new and used aircraft engines, propellers, and articles produced by that PAH; and

• Excludes fixed-pitch wooden propellers from the requirement that a propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub be marked using an approved fireproof method.

Regulations pertaining to certification requirements for products and articles are in part 21 of Title 14 of Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). Marking requirements are in 14 CFR part 45.

This final rule requires applicants for a production approval and production approval holders (PAHs) to identify an accountable manager who is responsible for, and has authority over, a PAH's operations. This individual would also serve as a PAH's primary contact with the FAA. Additionally, this amendment requires PAHs to amend, where applicable, the documents required by §§ 21.135, 21.305, and 21.605 to reflect the appointment of an accountable manager.

This final rule allows a production certificate 1 (PC) holder to manufacture and install interface components (IC) under certain conditions and limitations. This final rule defines an IC as an article that serves as a functional interface between an aircraft and an aircraft engine, between an aircraft engine and a propeller, or between an aircraft and a propeller. Under this rule, an IC is designated as such by the type certificate (TC) or the supplemental type certificate (STC) holder who controls the approved design data for that article.

This final rule clarifies that a PAH must ensure that each supplier-provided product, article, or service conforms to the PAH's requirements. This final rule also requires a PAH to establish a supplier-reporting process for products, articles, or services released from or provided by a supplier and subsequently found not to conform to the PAH's requirements. A PAH's reporting system may require suppliers to report nonconformances to the PAH directly, or to other suppliers in the supply chain.

This final rule allows a PAH that establishes an FAA-approved process in its quality system to issue authorized release documents (using FAA Form 8130-3) for new and used aircraft engines, propellers, and articles produced by that PAH. This provision allows PAHs privileges similar to those afforded European- and Canadian-approved manufacturers.

This final rule amends part 45 to exclude fixed-pitch wooden propellers from the requirement that a propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub be marked using an approved fireproof method. This exclusion allows manufacturers to mark their products in a practical manner that takes account of the inherent nature of wooden propellers.

This final rule amends the title of part 21 to include articles. The title is now “Certification Procedures for Products and Articles.”

The provisions of this final rule (1) are minimal cost, (2) impose no additional costs because the provisions clarify only, or are current practice, or (3) are voluntary and therefore inherently cost-beneficial. Our analysis described in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regulatory evaluation has not changed. The FAA received no comments to the docket on the NPRM regulatory evaluation.

Part 21 of 14 CFR contains the FAA's regulations concerning certification procedures for products, articles, and parts. Since the FAA codified part 21 in 1964, it has been amended numerous times. Additionally, the origins of many part 21 regulations can be traced to the Civil Air Regulations codified in 1937.

When part 21 was first codified, most manufacturers of aviation products and articles had a small, local supplier base. Production certificate holders oversaw the manufacture of replacement parts, and the international market for aviation products was relatively small. As a result, for many years the U.S. had few bilateral agreements with other countries for the export and import of aviation products, and these agreements were limited in scope.

Today, aviation products are manufactured world-wide. The number of suppliers has increased dramatically, and these suppliers manufacture an increasing percentage of a given product or article. Furthermore, due to the global nature of manufacturing, forming business partnerships and agreements across large geographic areas is now a common strategy to lower costs, share risks, and expand markets. Manufacturers collaborate globally to reduce duplicate requirements for shared suppliers. Accordingly, the international market for aviation products and the production of replacement parts under parts manufacturer approvals (PMAs) have increased dramatically.

In recognition of these and other related considerations, the FAA published an NPRM, Changes to Production Certificates and Approvals, on February 27, 2014, 79 FR 11012. The NPRM proposed numerous rule changes to part 21, primarily to subparts A (General) and G (Production Certificates). For greater detail on the FAA's initial proposal, including additional background information and a more complete statement of the problem, refer to the NPRM.

In response to the FAA's NPRM, we received comments from 19 commenters, raising 32 issues. Commenters included aviation manufacturers and equipment manufacturers, such as Boeing, Garmin, General Electric, HEICO, Textron, Timken, and Williams International; industry groups and associations, such as Aerospace Industry Association (AIA), Aviation Suppliers Association (ASA), and Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA); and numerous individuals. The comments covered five main topics and a range of various responses to the rulemaking proposal, which are discussed in more detail below.

This final rule makes two amendments to § 21.137(c)(1) & (2). First, as proposed, § 21.137(c)(1), which previously required a PAH to develop procedures to ensure that a supplier-provided product or article conforms to its approved design, now also requires those procedures to account for supplier-provided services. Second, as proposed, the standard for supplier control is revised in both § 21.137(c)(1) & (2) to require suppliers to furnish products, articles, or services that conform to the PAH's requirements. Prior to this final rule, supplier-provided goods and services had to conform to FAA-approved design data.

HEICO recommended amending the proposed § 21.137(c)(1) to include services provided to a design approval holder. The commenter noted that many design approval holders outsource portions of the overall design process and these `services' must also be properly controlled. The commenter's recommendation is outside the scope of this rulemaking, which focuses on production approvals and PAH activities, and not on design approval certification activities. PAHs are not responsible, under § 21.137, for design approval holder activities.

ASA and MARPA recommended that, in addition to requiring a PAH to require suppliers to provide products, articles, or services to meet the PAH requirements, the FAA should also continue to allow a PAH to accept products, articles, or services that conform to the PAH's approved design. The commenters' rationale was that this final rule creates two separate rules with respect to conformity of products and articles; one standard for when a company is acting as a supplier, and another standard when it is acting as a distributor. The commenters claimed that an entity functioning as a supplier to a PAH would be required to ensure that the product or article conformed to the PAH's requirements. However, if that same entity, operating as a distributor, were to sell their products in the aftermarket as replacement parts, for instance to a repair station or an air carrier, they would still be required to ensure that the product or article conforms to its approved design. Both commenters suggested that this situation could result in confusion and unintended harm to suppliers, and recommended revising proposed § 21.137(c)(1) to allow products, articles, or services to conform to either the PAH's requirements or the approved design.

The FAA disagrees with the recommendation. With respect to the commenters' claim that this final rule creates two separate rules for suppliers and distributors in the aftermarket, we presume that the commenters used the term “aftermarket distributor” to mean that the distributor is acting as a supplier to an entity other than a PAH. Regardless, this provision does not create two separate standards. All suppliers to any purchaser continue to be bound by contract to the terms of any relevant purchase order. In the case of suppliers to a PAH, the final rule removes the requirement to report deliveries that conform to the purchase order but do not conform to the PAH's final approved design. Aftermarket distributors who are not suppliers, on the other hand, are outside of the scope of part 21. The FAA does not regulate aftermarket distributers under these regulations.

The commenters also suggested that, under this final rule, a supplier providing the same part with different specifications to both a PAH and an aftermarket customer, such as a maintenance provider, could be at risk of inadvertently sending design-conforming parts (intended for the aftermarket customer) to a PAH, instead of parts that met the PAH's unique specifications. The commenters suggested that the supplier in that situation should not be punished for providing an article that conforms to its approved design.

The FAA disagrees with the comment that this change will punish any supplier who provides nonconforming products, articles, or services. This provision is not intended as a means to punish suppliers. The FAA does not directly regulate suppliers; instead, this final rule requires that a PAH's quality system include a supplier-reporting system. Under this final rule, a PAH must establish procedures for supplier reporting of supplier-provided products, articles, or services that deviate from the requirements of the PAH's purchase order. This gives a PAH flexibility to determine the appropriate level of reporting because it is the PAH and only the PAH who knows what is needed, and in what condition, for the production process. To clarify, this final rule does not require a PAH to report to the FAA those supplier nonconformances that remain within the PAH's quality system.

Relatedly, ASA and MARPA stated that the proposed rule could indirectly require a supplier to report nonconformance higher up the supply chain, even when the supplier provided a product or article that conformed to its approved design. The commenters again recommended that the final rule allow suppliers to provide products or articles that conform to either the PAH's requirements or the approved design.

The FAA disagrees with the recommendation. This final rule replaces the existing requirement that a supplier-provided product, article, or service conform to the PAH's approved design with a requirement that it conform to the PAH's requirements. The purpose of this amendment is to tailor the regulation to its original intent. For example, a PAH may issue a purchase order for sheet metal parts, and state on the purchase order that the rivet holes are to be drilled to less than the finished dimensions of the approved design. The PAH may request pilot drilling by the supplier because the PAH will itself drill the holes to the finished size upon assembly. If the supplier provides the items with the holes drilled to the finished dimension, the sheet metal parts would not conform to the PAH's requirements. The supplier would be supplying nonconforming material even though it would conform to the approved design. Under this final rule, therefore, a supplier may not deviate from the requirements of the PAH. It is the PAH, and only the PAH, that knows what is needed, and in what condition, for the production process.

An individual commenter stated that the NPRM changes the definition of “quality escape,” as the phrase is used in § 21.137(n), from nonconforming products or articles which escaped a PAH's quality system to products or articles which do not conform to their approved design but are contained within the quality system. The commenter recommended that we distinguish between nonconforming products or articles still within the PAH's quality system, and nonconforming products or articles that escape a PAH's quality control system.

Section 21.137(n), which is not revised by this rule, addresses quality escapes by requiring a PAH to have procedures for, among other things, identifying and taking corrective action whenever a PAH releases a nonconforming product or article from its quality system. In our NPRM, we stated that this proposal would require a PAH to establish a supplier reporting process for products, articles, or services that have been released from a supplier and subsequently found not to conform (hereafter referred to as a quality escape) to the PAH's requirements. We believe the commenter's confusion derives from our use of the term “quality escape” to describe the transfer of nonconforming items or services between tiers in the supply chain, instead of its traditional meaning of nonconforming products or articles that leave a PAH's quality system. We acknowledge that our preamble discussion in the NPRM used the term in a confusing manner. However, we determine that no change to the terms of § 21.137, as originally proposed, are necessary. The reporting requirements of § 21.137(c) apply when a supplier to a PAH determines that it has released or provided a product, article, or service subsequently found not to conform to the PAH's requirements, and do not include the phrase “quality escape.”

Boeing recommended that the FAA require PAHs to communicate design change notifications throughout the supply chain, and adopt the industry's SAE 2 AS9016 standard for standardization of design change notifications, because it believes this will address the single most common reason for quality escapes from the supply chain.

The FAA disagrees with the recommendation to regulate PAHs' use of SAE AS9016 because we believe this subject is adequately addressed by our current regulation, § 21.137(a), design data control, which requires that only current, correct, and approved data is used. In addition, we do not believe that we should mandate, by rule, the use of an industry standard over which we have no control. This final rule requires a PAH to ensure that any product, article, or service it receives conforms to its requirements. If a PAH chooses, it may, as part of a purchase order, require its supply-chain to adhere to the AS9016 standard.

Williams International stated that it is unnecessary to require a PAH to report supplier nonconformances that remain contained within the PAH quality system. Williams International further stated that the proposed requirement for reporting of released nonconformances is already required by a PAH. FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 00-58, Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program, further provides a means for a voluntary disclosure of such releases.

Although the commenter did not provide a recommendation, the FAA disagrees with the commenter's premise. Before this final rule, a PAH's supplier-reporting process required each supplier, at any tier, to report to the PAH any product, article, or service that did not conform to the PAH's FAA-approved design. The FAA recognizes that this requirement had the potential to impose significant burdens on a PAH and that, in many cases (such as suppliers of standard parts), a supplier may not have known the ultimate customer. This final rule amends § 21.137(c) to provide every PAH greater flexibility to determine which nonconformances its suppliers should report, and to whom.

An individual commenter suggested that all tiers in the supply chain should report to a PAH any nonconforming products, articles, or services that have been released from or provided by that supplier and subsequently found not to conform to the PAH's requirements. More specifically, the commenter suggested that the FAA require each supplier, in some instances, to report a nonconformance to each level up the supply chain, and ultimately to the PAH and the PAH's customer. Another individual recommended the FAA keep the current regulation which requires suppliers to report quality escapes to the PAH, and provided no further rationale.

The FAA disagrees with the commenters' recommendations. In the past, a PAH's supplier-reporting system required every manufacturing supplier and affected downstream suppliers to report to the PAH all products or articles which did not meet the PAH's approved design, even if those products or articles met the PAH's actual requirements. The FAA recognizes that this past requirement could have imposed a significant burden on PAHs, and this final rule is intended to maintain safety while also providing PAHs with the flexibility to determine which suppliers should report, and to whom.

As the FAA proposed in the NPRM, this final rules amends §§ 21.135, 21.305, and 21.605 to require a PAH to provide the FAA with a document identifying the organization's accountable manager. The accountable manager is responsible for, and has authority over, all part 21 production activities. It is not the FAA's intent that this provision dictates who is responsible for PAH production operations. It is also not the FAA's intent that this provision imposes personal liability for production operations on the accountable manager. The FAA is simply requiring each PAH to identify for the FAA the individual or individuals within the PAH's organization who the PAH considers responsible for all production operations.

Boeing, MARPA, and Timken Aerospace recommended that an accountable manager have the ability to identify and delegate functions to alternate points of contact. These commenters noted that the person responsible for accountability may be a company president or chief executive who cannot reasonably be available at all times. Allowing delegation increases the FAA's access to the PAH and provides redundancy in the event of personnel turnover, in accordance with the intent of this final rule.

The FAA agrees with the commenters with respect to delegation, but determines that no change to the proposed rule language is necessary. To clarify, the accountable manager may delegate functions and identify alternate points of contact. These actions should be noted in the PAH's organization document. Additional guidance may be found in FAA AC 21-43, Issuance of Production Approvals Under Subparts G, K, & O.

Boeing and an individual commenter requested that we revise the rule to require two accountable managers—one for production activities and one for design activities. These commenters claimed that two such accountable managers would better reflect the various responsibilities of PAH personnel, including those responsible for coordinating with FAA manufacturing inspection district offices (MIDOs) and aircraft certification offices (ACOs).

The FAA disagrees with the commenters' recommendation. The commenters are describing design-related activities and responsibilities. Because the public was not provided an opportunity to comment on an FAA requirement for an accountable manager for design activities, the FAA considers the recommendation to be outside the scope of this rulemaking. To clarify, the accountable manager described in this rule is required only to have responsibility for production operations, not design activities.

Garmin International and Williams International stated that there is no need for an accountable manager, and recommended instead a requirement that the PAH identify an FAA point of contact. In addition, Garmin stated that a better means to improve the FAA's access would be to require a PAH to clearly indicate how its organization will communicate. Williams recommended that if the FAA has difficulty communicating with a particular PAH, that PAH should be required to clarify its own existing procedures.

The FAA disagrees with the commenters' recommendations. An accountable manager is not simply a point of contact. When issuing an approval or performing certificate management, the FAA must know who from the PAH has the authority to speak for the PAH and ensure compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. Requiring a PAH to identify such an individual, one who is knowledgeable of and accountable for maintaining the PAH's FAA production approval, will improve communication between the PAH and the FAA offices responsible for certificate management of their production approval. A simple point of contact would not create the same benefits.

Universal Avionics Systems Corporation (UASC), Textron, and an individual commenter suggested identifying the accountable manager as the “Quality Manager.” Textron stated that the rule could be misinterpreted as describing the PAH official in charge of production operations, instead of the person who runs the quality system. UASC and the individual commenter both observed that the FAA already requires accountable managers for repair stations. The individual commenter further stated that organizational differences between a typical PAH and a typical repair station make identifying a general manager as an accountable manager less appropriate for a PAH than for a repair station. Finally, UASC recommended incorporating the definition of “directly in charge” from part 145 (Repair Stations) into part 21, to better explain the role of “accountable manager.” UASC stated that it believes the Accountable Manager is intended to be a quality person whom may not have responsibility for and authority over production operations.

The FAA disagrees with the commenters' recommendations. Although the FAA requires the establishment of a quality system as a prerequisite to obtaining a production approval, nowhere do we require a PAH to create an organizational position responsible solely for the PAH's quality system. Moreover, under this rule, the accountable manager must be at a sufficient level within the organization to have responsibility over all production operations, not just the quality system. For example, the accountable manager should have responsibility for, among other things, formally applying to add a new product or article to the PAH's production approval; formally requesting FAA approval for a change in location; amending the PAH's organization document and submitting that document to the FAA; ensuring support for design approval holders, as required by § 21.137(m); and formally submitting changes to the PAH's approved quality system.

We also disagree with the commenters' comparisons of part 21 and part 145 accountable managers. A PAH's accountable manager has different duties and responsibilities from the accountable manager of a repair station. Furthermore, the “directly in charge” definition from part 145 does not apply to a PAH's accountable manager. We are not requiring a PAH accountable manager to be “directly in charge” of the work performed by the production organization.

This final rule creates § 21.137(o), which permits a PAH to issue authorized release documents for new aircraft engines, propellers, and articles manufactured by that PAH, and for used aircraft engines, propellers, and articles rebuilt or altered in accordance with § 43.3(j), provided the PAH establishes and adheres to certain quality assurance procedures as part of its quality system. This final rule marks a slight change from what the FAA initially proposed: In response to comments, we explicitly restrict each PAH to issuing authorized release documents for products and articles manufactured by the PAH itself.

Boeing recommended that the FAA consider requiring PAH personnel selected to issue authorized release documents to receive FAA training equivalent to what is currently required for designees. The FAA disagrees with the recommendation. Under this final rule, a PAH that chooses to issue authorized release documents must establish a training process for individuals the PAH selects to issue those documents. The PAH may choose to send its personnel to FAA designee training (if available), establish its own in-house training, or meet the requirement in some other manner. The rule establishes minimum requirements and permits the PAH to establish FAA-approved procedures to meet those requirements.

ASA stated that the rule does not give a PAH authority to issue FAA Form 8130-3 because the term “authorized release document” is not defined. The commenter also suggested changing the definition of airworthiness approval to add Airworthiness approval means a document issued by the FAA, or a person authorized by the FAA.

The FAA disagrees with ASA's recommendations. As stated in § 21.1(b)(1), an airworthiness approval is a document that must be issued by the FAA. By this final rule, however, the FAA will now permit an authorized PAH to issue authorized release documents, using an FAA Form 8130-3, for new aircraft engines, propellers, and articles, and for used aircraft engines, propellers, and articles when rebuilt or altered in accordance with § 43.3(j). PAHs that intend to issue these documents must detail the appropriate procedures in their quality manual. To be clear, FAA regulations and policy distinguish between a document issued by the FAA (an airworthiness approval) and one issued by the PAH (an authorized release document). In addition, the latest version of FAA AC 21-43, released concurrently with this final rule, clearly states that a PAH should use FAA Form 8130-3 when issuing an authorized release document.

ASA recommended extending the privilege of issuing an authorized release document beyond PAHs, to include distributors accredited in accordance with FAA AC 00-56, Voluntary Industry Distributor Accreditation Program. The commenter suggested that not doing so would create a significant competitive disadvantage for certain American businesses. More specifically, the commenter argued that failing to allow non-manufacturing distributors to issue authorized release documents would put those distributors at a competitive disadvantage.

The FAA disagrees with the recommendation. The FAA cannot extend this privilege to non-manufacturer distributors because they are not recognized PAHs and, therefore, lack FAA-approved quality systems. Quality systems are necessary to ensure that products and articles conform to their approved design and are in a condition for safe operation. The intent of this provision is to maintain the high level of safety achieved under the prior rules, while allowing FAA-approved PAHs to engage in a practice that is permitted by other authorities, such as the European Union and Canada, for their PAHs.

One individual commenter suggested that the FAA limit a PAH's authority so that the PAH could only issue authorized release documents for new or used aircraft engines, propellers, and articles that the PAH itself manufactured under part 21.

The FAA agrees with the commenter's proposal. Where a PAH was not involved in manufacturing a product or article, the PAH may not have the ability to make the appropriate conformity determination. Accordingly, this final rule limits a PAH's authority to issue authorized release documents to only those products and articles that particular PAH has manufactured.

Two individual commenters stated that allowing a PAH to issue Form 8130-3 as an authorized release document will reduce or be detrimental to aviation safety. One of these commenters pointed out that, prior to this final rule, FAA designees assigned to complete Form 8130-3 would occasionally turn back parts and articles due to issues discovered during the FAA conformity inspections. For that reason, the commenters claimed that eliminating designees' continued, objective inspections would reduce safety. Both commenters suggested keeping the current system.

The FAA disagrees with the commenters' characterization of how FAA Form 8130-3 has been used previously, as well as their recommendations. With respect to products and articles produced under a production approval, issuance of an FAA Form 8130-3 indicates that that the product or article conforms to its type design and is in a condition for safe operation, unless otherwise specified. Even prior to this rulemaking, FAA Form 8130-3 did not (and does not now) indicate that a particular product or article has been inspected by the FAA or its designee.

Additionally, allowing a PAH, as opposed to an FAA employee or designee, to issue FAA Form 8130-3 will not cause a decrease in safety. Currently, Designated Manufacturing Inspection Representatives (DMIRs) or Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) unit members issue the vast majority of FAA Form 8130-3s. These designees are employed by the PAH and authorized by the FAA, and the FAA requires them to possess at least certain minimum qualifications and training, such as those described in FAA Orders 8100.8, 8000.95 and 8100.15. Similarly, under this final rule, any PAH seeking authority to issue FAA Form 8130-3 must first get FAA approval. As described in FAA AC 21-43, the FAA will not approve a PAH to issue FAA Form 8130-3 unless the PAH demonstrates that its authorized personnel possess the same qualifications and receive training equivalent to what is required by FAA Orders 8100.8, 8000.95 and 8100.15 for FAA designees.

Timken Aerospace suggested that allowing PAHs to issue authorized release documents would add complexity to the existing process and increase the FAA's workload. The commenter recommended instead developing a system to assist PAHs in obtaining additional DMIRs.

The FAA disagrees with the recommendation. The FAA anticipates that permitting PAHs to issue authorized release documents will reduce the workload of both the FAA and PAHs. Our intent is to recognize a practice permitted by other authorities by giving FAA-approved PAHs the same flexibility available to their European and Canadian counterparts, who already issue authorized release documents. For PAHs with an approved system for issuing authorized release documents, the FAA will no longer authorize DMIRs or ODA unit members to issue airworthiness approvals.

Textron Aviation recommended that the FAA remove the regulatory language in our 2014 NPRM proposing to allow the use of authorized release documents for work performed under § 43.3(j). The commenter stated that this type of rebuilding work, and related use of FAA Form 8130-3, is already performed by PAH manufacturers.

The FAA disagrees with the recommendation. The commenter is correct that FAA Order 8130.21 allows certain entities to use FAA Form 8130-3 when returning to service rebuilt or altered engines, propellers, or articles in accordance with § 43.3(j). However, the FAA's final rule codifies our authorization of that practice and extends the same privilege to PAHs producing new aircraft engines, propellers, and articles.

Textron Aviation also claimed that FAA Order 8130.21 requires authorized persons to document inspection activity on an FAA Form 8100-1 when required by the managing office, and recommended revising either § 21.137 or FAA Order 8130.21 to indicate that a PAH is not required to use FAA Form 8100-1 when issuing authorized release documents.

The FAA disagrees with both the commenter's claim and recommendation. Neither our prior rules, nor this final rule, requires a PAH to comply with the internal guidance in FAA Order 8130.21. More specifically, § 21.137(o) does not require any PAH to use FAA Form 8100-1 when issuing an FAA Form 8130-3. Furthermore, FAA Order 8130.21 does not require the use of FAA Form 8100-1, but an FAA managing office may determine that a conformity inspection report is necessary to substantiate an FAA-issued FAA Form 8130-3.

One individual commenter stated that allowing a PAH to develop its own procedures for signing authorized release documents will reduce or eliminate the standardization that exists among designees. The commenter recommended that requiring PAH personnel to take FAA training would facilitate greater standardization.

The FAA disagrees with the recommendation. When a PAH signs an authorized release document, the PAH is not signing that document on behalf of the FAA Administrator. The FAA requires any PAH that chooses to issue authorized release documents to establish minimum procedures, including training the employees responsible for issuing those documents. These procedures will be reviewed and, if acceptable, approved by the FAA, which will be conducive to standardization. Ultimately, however, the current proposal gives each PAH the flexibility to choose to send its personnel to FAA designee training (if available), establish their own in-house training, or meet the requirement in some other manner.

This final rule revises one definition and adds two new definitions to § 21.1. The definition of “airworthiness approval,” in § 21.1(b)(1), is expanded to account for the issuance of an airworthiness approval in instances where an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or article does not conform to its approved design or may not be in a condition for safe operation at the time the airworthiness approval is generated and that nonconformity or condition is specified on the airworthiness approval document. In response to comments, we revised the definition proposed in our NPRM to account for the fact that an airworthiness approval may in some cases be issued for products or articles that are not in a condition for safe operation, such as when those products or articles are packed for shipment.

As proposed, § 21.1(b)(5) defines an “interface component” as a functional interface between an aircraft and an aircraft engine, an aircraft engine and a propeller, or an aircraft and a propeller. Furthermore, an interface component is designated by the holder of the type certificate or the supplemental type certificate who controls the approved design data for that article. This definition is necessary because this final rule also promulgates § 21.147(c), which permits a PAH to apply to the FAA to amend its production certificate to allow the PAH to manufacture and install interface components. No change was made to the definition in this final rule from the NPRM.

Finally, as proposed, § 21.1(b)(10) defines a “supplier” as any person at any tier in the supply chain who provides a product, article, or service that is used or consumed in the design or manufacture of, or installed on, a product or article. This definition is necessary to clarify existing FAA requirements. No change was made to the definition in this final rule from the NPRM.

Timken Aerospace and one individual commenter recommended we revise our proposed airworthiness approval definition by moving “unless otherwise specified” to be the final clause. In other words, these commenters recommended changing the definition to a document which certifies that the aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or article conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe operation, unless otherwise specified. The commenters noted, for example, that an engine is not shipped from a factory in a complete and final condition, since it is prepped for shipping, and is therefore not in a condition for safe operation.

The FAA agrees with the commenters' recommendation. There are many instances in which the FAA issues an airworthiness approval but, at the time of issuance, the product or article neither fully conforms to its approved design, nor is it in a condition for safe operation. For example, the FAA may issue an airworthiness approval for an aircraft that has been disassembled for shipping, for an engine that has preservation fluids installed prior to shipping, or for used aircraft engines and propellers that are not in a condition for safe operation (see § 21.331, Issuance of export airworthiness approvals for aircraft engines, propellers, and articles). We therefore revise the definition of airworthiness approval to a document, issued by the FAA for an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or article, which certifies that the aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or article conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe operation, unless otherwise specified.

Also with respect to the airworthiness approval definition, Timken Aerospace recommended we use the phrase “except for deviations noted” instead of “unless otherwise specified,” to be more consistent with FAA Form 8130-9, Statement of Conformity.

The FAA disagrees with the recommendation. The concept of airworthiness is generally composed of two factors: Conformity with an approved design and being in a condition for safe operation. In this context, the term “deviation” would indicate a variation from an approved design or quality system, but would not necessarily convey the fact that a product is not in a condition for safe operation. Accordingly, we determine that the phrase “unless otherwise specified” more accurately reflects the intent of our proposal.

Two individual commenters expressed concern that adding “unless otherwise specified” to the definition of airworthiness approval would change a fundamental premise of airworthiness approvals, that a product or article must conform to its design. The commenters recommended that the definition not be changed.

The FAA disagrees with the commenters. The issuance of an airworthiness approval, such as an export certificate of airworthiness, does not necessarily mean that a product is airworthy. FAA regulations, such as § 21.331, allow FAA personnel and designees to issue an airworthiness approval for a product or article that does not conform to its approved design, as long as the nonconforming condition is stated on the approval document and, in the case of export, the receiving authority agrees to accept the product or article as described. This final rule, therefore, simply brings the definition of Airworthiness Approval in line with current FAA practice and with part 21, subpart L. Contrary to the commenters' suggestion, we are not changing the fundamental concept of airworthiness. Under current practices, an airworthiness approval is a means to show that the product or article conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe operation, unless otherwise specified.

One individual commenter stated that the definition of “supplier” is overbroad because it includes distributors of commercial off the shelf parts or parts not originally manufactured for aviation use. The same commenter also stated that the addition of the term “at any tier” will cause inconsistent and disparate interpretation within the FAA and undue burden to industry. The commenter did not provide any recommendations.

The FAA recognizes that by including the term “at any tier,” the proposed definition of “supplier” applies to all suppliers throughout the supply chain. Contrary to the commenter's statement, the FAA believes including suppliers “at any tier” will reduce inconsistencies by confirming that the FAA definition of “supplier” applies to all suppliers, regardless of their position within the supply chain. Furthermore, the FAA does not believe this definition will unduly burden industry. To the extent that a supplier has only a tenuous connection to a PAH, perhaps because the supplier produces parts that are not specifically designed for use in aviation, it may be appropriate for the PAH to account for that attenuation when designing its supplier-reporting protocols. A PAH has always been responsible for assuring that its products and articles conform and are in a condition for safe operation. The inclusion of all suppliers within the regulatory definition of supplier should therefore impose no additional burden on either the PAH or its suppliers.

The same individual commenter also stated that there is no guidance for the suppliers of off-the-shelf parts, described above, who may not anticipate that their parts will be used or installed on type certificated aircraft and approved.

The FAA agrees with the commenter's observation that there is no guidance provided specifically for distributors of parts not originally manufactured for aviation use or installation on type certificated aircraft and approved under § 21.8(c). The FAA provides guidance to PAHs, repair stations, and other FAA-regulated entities. The FAA does not provide guidance for entities that fall outside the scope of FAA regulations.

As proposed, § 21.147(c) now permits a PAH to apply to the FAA for an amendment to the PAH's production limitation record (PLR), authorizing the PAH to manufacture and install interface components. If granted, the FAA will amend the PAH's PLR to add the interface components (IC). ICs are defined in the new § 21.1(b)(5). The FAA had previously granted exemptions to engine manufacturers, allowing them to manufacture and install airframe components that interface between the engine and the airframe, provided the engine manufacturer owned or licensed the ICs design and installation data.

Boeing and General Electric supported the rule change. Boeing also suggested the FAA allow engine manufacturers to install and certify airplane manufacturers' ICs during the engine type certification process.

The FAA disagrees with this recommendation as it is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Allowing engine manufacturers to install and certify airplane manufacturers' ICs during the engine TC process is a design issue, not a production issue. Our 2014 NPRM and this final rule focus on amendments to the production approval provisions in subpart G.

Williams International recommended that our final rule distinguish between all potential ICs versus those that are licensed to be both manufactured and installed by a PAH. The commenter suggested that defining ICs more narrowly would enable the FAA to include fewer items on the PAH's PLR, and as a result would require fewer PLR updates and impose less of a burden on the FAA.

The FAA agrees with the concerns raised byWilliams International, but we have determined that the rule as drafted adequately addresses these concerns. Under §§ 21.1(b)(5) and 21.147(c), a component must meet certain criteria before it is considered an “interface component” eligible for the PAH's PLR. For example, § 21.1(b)(5) requires, among other things, that an IC be designated as such by the TC or STC holder. The rule requires only those ICs the PAH intends to produce be listed on the PLR and not all possible ICs, so the PLR should not be an exhaustive list or a burden on the FAA.

HEICO requested that the FAA define authorized release documents, to establish who is issuing the document. The FAA disagrees with the recommendation. The FAA does not believe it is necessary to provide a definition in the text of the rule. The FAA provides additional guidance on authorized release documents in the revised AC 21.43, Appendix B, which is applicable to any PAH.

One individual commenter stated that the title of the NPRM did not reflect recent changes from parts to articles in our 2009 final rule, Production and Airworthiness Approvals, Part Marking, and Miscellaneous Amendments, 74 FR 53384 (Oct. 16, 2009). The commenter recommended changing the title of part 21 to “Certification Procedures for Products, Articles, and Parts.” The FAA partially agrees with the recommendation and this final rule changes the title of part 21 to “Certification Procedures for Products and Articles.”

HEICO requested that we revise FAA Form 8130-3 attached as Appendix A, Figure A-1 to FAA Order 8130.21 to explicitly indicate who, including a PAH, is allowed to issue the document. The FAA disagrees with HEICO's recommendation to revise the form. Instead, we have revised FAA Order 8130.21 and ACs 21-43 and 21-44 to reflect the rule change allowing a properly authorized PAH to issue an authorized release document. In the ACs we also provide guidance to on how to complete FAA Form 8130-3.

Textron Aviation recommended that the FAA remove the requirement for the issuance of export airworthiness approvals for articles, believing that this change would better align FAA regulations with those of foreign authorities. The recommendation is outside the scope of this rulemaking. The FAA notes that the requirements for the issuance of export airworthiness approvals for articles are contained in subpart L. Although the FAA proposed allowing PAHs to issue authorized release documents in § 21.137, the proposal did not change the conditions specified in subpart L.

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), as codified in 5 U.S.C. 603 et seq., requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), as codified in 2 U.S.C. 1532, requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.

Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the costs and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning for this determination follows.

As summarized in the table below, the provisions of this final rule (1) are minimal cost, (2) will impose no additional costs because the provisions will clarify only, or are current practice, or (3) are voluntary and therefore inherently cost-beneficial. Our determination has not changed from that made in the NPRM regulatory evaluation. The FAA received no comments to the docket on the NPRM regulatory evaluation. More detailed explanations follow the table.

Under this provision, the FAA will require each applicant for, or holder of, a Production Certificate (PC), Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA), or Technical Standard Order (TSO) authorization to identify an accountable manager, who is responsible for, and has authority over, a PAH's operations, as a PAH's primary contact with the FAA. This provision is not intended to require the PAH to create a new position within its organization and will not mandate that an individual in a specific position be identified as the accountable manager. Consequently, the costs, if any, associated with this requirement are minimal.

PC holders previously could not install interface components (ICs) on their type-certificated products without an exemption. Previous regulations governing the production limitation record and the amendment of PCs restricted the PC holder to the manufacture of products only (aircraft, aircraft engines, or propellers) and did not authorize installation.3 The FAA has granted exemptions to engine manufacturers, allowing them to manufacture and install airframe components that interface between the engine and the airframe provided they own or are licensed to use the IC type design and installation data. In granting these exemptions, the FAA found that allowing engine manufacturers to produce and install ICs improved safety and efficiency by eliminating disassembly, reassembly and retesting, as well as related scoring of fatigue sensitive parts; damage to critical parts; and air/fuel/oil leaks.4 This provision will codify the practice, previously allowed by exemption, of allowing PC holders to manufacture and install ICs, and will apply to any articles designated by the TC holder that interface between products. Therefore, this provision applies to the interface between propeller and aircraft engine and between propeller and aircraft, as well as between aircraft engine and aircraft.

Codifying the previous practice of allowing PC holders to manufacture and install ICs implies no change in safety benefits. Codifying the practice, however, will reduce regulatory costs since paperwork requirements involved in periodic application for and granting of exemptions will be eliminated.

With this provision, the FAA intends to clarify existing requirements that the PAH is responsible for (1) conformity throughout the supply chain and (2) establishing a supplier reporting process for nonconforming releases. As there was no definition of supplier in the previous regulations, the final rule defines supplier as a person that provides a product, article, or service at any tier in the supply chain that is used or consumed in the design or manufacture of, or installed on, a product or article.

The final rule changes the language to § 21.137(c) as shown in the following table:

As provision (1) clarifies the FAA's intent and current practice and provision (2) gives PAHs greater flexibility, there will be no additional cost resulting from these provisions.

Previously, only the FAA was allowed to document that an aircraft engine, propeller, or article conforms to its approved design and is in condition for safe operation. The FAA provides documentation with an airworthiness approval, using FAA Form 8130-3, “Authorized Release Certificate, Airworthiness Approval Tag.” This provision allows, but does not require, qualified PAHs to issue authorized release documents, using FAA Form 8130-3, for aircraft engines, propellers, and articles for which the PAH has a production approval. We refer to the issuance of Form 8130-3 by a PAH as an “authorized release document” because, as defined by 14 CFR 21.1(b)(1), only the FAA is allowed to issue an airworthiness approval. PAHs choosing not to issue these authorized release documents may continue to obtain approvals from the FAA.

Although such airworthiness documentation is required only when requested by a foreign civil aviation authority, it has become increasingly valued in the aviation industry. Several U.S. manufacturers have requested the privilege to issue such documentation, which is already enjoyed by their European and Canadian counterparts. As it is voluntary, this provision is inherently cost beneficial.5

As noted in the preamble above, the FAA granted an exemption to Sensenich Wood Propeller Company from the regulations requiring that a propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub be marked using an approved fireproof method. In granting the exemption, the FAA found that stamping the hub of the propeller with the identification markers will achieve an equivalent level of safety to the rule. The FAA maintains that finding in this final rule and, in any case, codifying the practice, previously allowed by exemption, implies no change in safety benefits.6 Codifying the practice, however, will reduce regulatory costs since the costs of paperwork requirements involved in periodic application for and granting of the exemptions will be eliminated.

The FAA made this minimal cost determination for the proposed rule. As no comments were received, the FAA concludes the expected cost is minimal.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration. The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.

However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.

The provisions of this final rule (1) are minimal cost, (2) would impose no additional costs because the provisions would clarify only, or are current practice, or (3) are voluntary. We received no comments regarding our determination that there was no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities in the NPRM.

Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that the rule's provision allowing PAHs to issue authorized release documents for purposes of export would be in accordance with the Trade Agreements Act as this provision uses European standards as the basis for United States regulation. The remaining provisions have a minimal domestic impact only and therefore no effect on international trade.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100 million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this final rule.

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and identified no differences with these regulations.

Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and determined that this action has no significant effect on international regulatory cooperation. To the extent that this final rule may conflict with the implementing protocols of any FAA bilateral aviation safety agreements, the FAA will amend those protocols in coordination with our international partners.

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary circumstances.

The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism implications.

The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the executive order and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by using the Internet by—

1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or

3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.

Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document, may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

In consideration of the foregoing, and under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and 44701(a)(5), the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

On January 16, 2013, we issued AD 2013-02-10, Amendment 39-17331 (78 FR 7257, February 1, 2013), which applied to all Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. AD 2013-02-10 was prompted by a report of a manufacturing defect in certain rods installed in the belly fairing, which could lead to cracks at the crimped end of the rod. AD 2013-02-10 required an inspection of the rods to determine the manufacturer; and for affected parts, an inspection for any cracking of the rods, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We issued AD 2013-02-10 to detect and correct cracking of the rods, which could result in rupture of rods that attach the belly fairing to the airframe, leading to separation of the belly fairing from the airframe, and consequent damage to airplane structure and airplane systems.

Since we issued AD 2013-02-10, Amendment 39-17331 (78 FR 7257, February 1, 2013), we have discovered an inadvertent error in the identification of the affected airplane models in the inspection requirements of AD 2013-02-10. Paragraph (g) of AD 2013-02-10 referred to Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes, but did not limit the affected airplanes to certain manufacturer serial numbers.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2012-0005, dated January 10, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3981.

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

Airbus has issued Service Bulletins A330-53-3186 and A340-53-4185, both Revision 01, both dated April 7, 2011. The service information describes procedures for an inspection of the rods to determine the manufacturer; and for affected parts, an inspection for any cracking of the rods, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

We are superseding AD 2013-02-10, Amendment 39-17331 (78 FR 7257, February 1, 2013), to correct an error in the identification of the affected airplane models in the inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2013-02-10. We have made no other changes to the requirements published in AD 2013-02-10. Also, we have determined that this change is relieving to certain operators of the Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes and imposes no additional burden on any operator. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-3981; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-126-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 54 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions required by AD 2013-02-10, Amendment 39-17331 (78 FR 7257, February 1, 2013), and retained in this AD take about 13 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2013-02-10 is $59,670, or $1,105 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 28 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $2,380 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

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.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Sheridan Municipal Airport, Sheridan, AR.

On June 22, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sheridan Municipal Airport, Sheridan, AR (80 FR 35598). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Z 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 establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6 mile radius of Sheridan Municipal Airport, Sheridan, AR, to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at the airport. This action enhances the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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.

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 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as establishes controlled airspace at Downtown Airport, Springfield, MO.

On June 25, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Downtown Airport, Springfield, MO (80 FR 36496). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.0 mile radius of Downtown Airport, Springfield, MO, to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at the airport. This action enhances the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

On July 23, 2015, NMFS published a proposed rule and proposed specifications in the Federal Register (80 FR 43694) to revise regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpart O, and to specify limits for 2015, to implement decisions of the Commission. The proposed rule and proposed specifications were open for public comment through August 7, 2015.

This final rule and final specifications are issued under the authority of the WCPFC Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), which authorizes the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Department in which the United States Coast Guard is operating (currently the Department of Homeland Security), to promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the obligations of the United States under the Convention, including the decisions of the Commission. The Secretary of Commerce may, in certain cases, promulgate such regulations in accordance with the procedures established by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.; MSA), but that is not being done in this case. The authority to promulgate regulations under the WCPFC Implementation Act has been delegated to NMFS.

The regulations established in this final rule are described below under “New Regulations” and the final specifications are described below under “Final Specifications for 2015.” The preamble to the proposed rule and proposed specifications includes detailed background information, including information on the Convention and the Commission, the decisions of the Commission that are being implemented, and the bases for the proposed rule and specifications, which are not repeated here.

Participants in the Commission include Members, Participating Territories, and Cooperating Non-Members. The United States is a Member. American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), and Guam are Participating Territories. In this document, the term “member” is used to refer to all such participants generally.

This final rule includes several elements, described in detail below under three categories, that will be included in the regulations at 50 CFR 300, Subpart O. The first establishes a framework to implement Commission decisions, the second requires that certain fishing vessels be issued International Maritime Organization (IMO) numbers, and the third makes changes to several existing regulations to implement Commission decisions, some of which are administrative in nature.

This final rule establishes a framework under which NMFS will specify fishing effort limits, catch limits, and other restrictions and requirements in U.S. fisheries for highly migratory species (HMS) in the Convention Area as may be necessary to implement particular decisions of the Commission. The framework will be used to implement only those Commission decisions that are amenable to the framework process, such as quantitative fishing effort limits and catch limits, and spatial and/or temporal restrictions on specific fishing activities. NMFS may implement Commission decisions through regulations outside the framework process, as in the past. For the purpose of describing the framework, all such restrictions and requirements are called “limits.”

NMFS also notes that under the WCPFC Implementation Act, in cases where there is discretion in the implementation of one or more measures adopted by the Commission that would govern fisheries under authority of a Regional Fishery Management Council, NMFS may, to the extent practicable within the implementation schedule of the Convention and any recommendations and decisions adopted by the Commission, promulgate such regulations in accordance with the procedures established by the MSA.

Purpose of framework: The purpose of a framework is to make it possible to manage fisheries more responsively under conditions requiring “real time” management. Such conditions exist in the context of the Convention because the Commission makes decisions that must be implemented by its members quickly—often within 60 days of the decision. The framework will allow NMFS to implement Commission decisions more rapidly than it would be able to without such a framework. The framework, to be codified at 50 CFR part 300, subpart O, contains the parameters within which NMFS can take specific actions, including the types of actions it could take, as well as the procedures for doing so. Limits implemented by NMFS under the framework, called “specifications,” will be announced in the Federal Register. Except when warranted and allowed by law, specifications will be subject to prior public notice and comment. The limits specified under the framework will likely, but not always, be time-limited.

Types and details of limits: The types of limits that will be specified under the framework include quantitative limits on the weight or number of fish that may be caught, retained, transshipped, landed, and/or sold; quantitative limits on the amount of fishing effort that may be expended, such as in terms of amounts of time vessels spend at sea or engaged in fishing or engaged in particular fishing activities or other measures of fishing effort, such as the number of gear sets or deployments of gear; and restrictions or prohibitions on particular fishing activities in certain areas and/or periods.

Most recent Commission decisions do not apply in territorial seas or archipelagic waters. Accordingly, the framework regulations state that any specified limit will not—unless otherwise indicated in the specification—apply in the territorial seas or archipelagic waters of the United States or any other nation, as defined by the domestic laws and regulations of that nation and recognized by the United States. If a Commission decision does apply in territorial seas and/or archipelagic waters, the specification issued by NMFS to implement that decision will specify that it does apply in those areas.

For each limit specified under the framework, NMFS will identify the area and period in which it applies, and as appropriate, the vessel types, gear types, species, fish sizes, and any other relevant attributes to which it applies. For spatial or temporal limits, NMFS will also specify the specific activities that would be restricted in the area or period, and for quantitative limits, NMFS will specify the restrictions and requirements that would go into effect after the limit is reached and the applicable dates of those restrictions and requirements. These restrictions and requirements could include a prohibition on the catch, retention, transshipment and/or landing of specific species or specific sizes of specific species, a prohibition on the use of specific fishing gears or methods, restrictions on specific fishing activities, and reporting or other requirements.

Fisheries affected: In the decisions of the Commission, the three territories of the United States that participate in the Commission (“Participating Territories”)—American Samoa, the CNMI, and Guam—often are treated separately from the United States. For example, the fisheries of the territories often are subject to different controls and limits than are the fisheries of the United States. Therefore, to implement certain Commission decisions, it is necessary to distinguish the fisheries from each other because fishing vessels from the Participating Territories are flagged vessels of the United States.

The proposed regulatory framework included criteria to distinguish the fisheries from each other, for the purpose of attributing fishing effort and catch among the fisheries, and determining to which vessels a given restriction applies. This final rule does not include any such criteria, for the reasons explained in the section below titled “Changes from the Proposed Rule and Proposed Specifications.” NMFS may re-propose the criteria at a later time. In the meantime, any criteria that are needed to determine the vessels to which a specified limit applies, or to attribute catch or fishing effort against a specified limit, will be included in the specifications issued under the framework.

Allocation of limits: Under the framework, NMFS can allocate a Commission-adopted limit among different fisheries sectors, such as among groups of fishing vessels that use different types of fishing gear. For example, given a Commission decision to limit catches of a particular species irrespective of the type of fishing gear used to catch it, NMFS can decide to allocate the limit between the longline and the purse seine fisheries, using the framework to establish specific limits for each of the two fisheries. NMFS can also use the framework to specify limits for particular fisheries even when the Commission-adopted limit is not specific to particular fisheries.

The framework will not be used to allocate Commission-adopted limits among individual fishing vessels (except in the case where a single fishing vessel comprises an entire sector or fishery). This does not preclude NMFS from allocating Commission-adopted limits among individual fishing vessels through separate regulations.

Framework procedures: The framework's procedures for specifying limits is as follows: NMFS will publish in the Federal Register a notice of the proposed specification and a request for public comment on the proposed specification. The proposed specification will include all the relevant characteristics of the limit. After consideration of public comment received on the proposed specification, NMFS will publish in the Federal Register a notice of the final specification. NMFS anticipates issuing specifications generally on a year-by-year basis. If limits of longer duration than one year are needed, NMFS anticipates publishing such limits in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Consequences of limits being reached: For quantitative limits, NMFS will monitor catch or fishing effort with respect to the specified limit using data submitted in vessel logbooks and other available information. When NMFS estimates or projects that the specified limit has been or will be reached, NMFS will publish a notification to that effect in the Federal Register. For quantitative limits, this notification will include an advisement that specific activities will be restricted, and/or that certain requirements will be in place, during a specific period. The notification will specify the restrictions and requirements and the specific activities to which they apply and the start and end dates and times of those restrictions. The start date of the restrictions and requirements will not be earlier than 7 days after the date of filing the closure notice for public inspection at the Office of the Federal Register.

This element of the rule applies to all U.S. fishing vessels (including those participating in the fisheries of the U.S. Participating Territories) that are used for commercial fishing for highly migratory fish stocks in the Convention Area either on the high seas or in waters under the jurisdiction of a foreign nation, and the gross tonnage of which is at least 100 GRT (gross register tons) or 100 GT (gross tons) ITC.

The owner of any such fishing vessel is required to ensure that an “IMO number” has been issued for the vessel.

An “IMO number,” as used in this rule, is the number—sometimes called an IMO ship identification number—issued for a ship or vessel under the ship identification number scheme established by the International Maritime Organization. Currently, IMO numbers are issued on behalf of the IMO by IHS Maritime, the current administrator of the IMO ship identification number scheme. A vessel owner may request that an IMO number be issued by following the instructions given by IHS Maritime, available at: www.imonumbers.lrfairplay.com/default.aspx. There is no fee for making such a request or having an IMO number issued, but specific information about the fishing vessel and its ownership and management must be provided to the administrator of the scheme.

Furthermore, for those fishing vessels for which an IMO number is required, obtaining an IMO number is a prerequisite for eligibility to receive a WCPFC Area Endorsement. The WCPFC Area Endorsement is the endorsement required—along with a high seas fishing permit—for a U.S. fishing vessel to be used for commercial fishing for HMS on the high seas in the Convention Area (see 50 CFR 300.212).

The regulations include a process for fishing vessel owners to claim to NMFS that they are unable—through no fault of their own—to obtain IMO numbers. When NMFS receives such a claim, it will review it and assist the fishing vessel owner as appropriate. If NMFS determines that it is infeasible or impractical for the fishing vessel owner to comply with the requirement, NMFS will issue an exemption from the requirement for a specific or indefinite amount of time. The exemption will become void if ownership of the fishing vessel changes.

The final rule includes several other changes to the existing regulations to enhance clarity and promote efficiency, some of which are administrative in nature.

First, this rule removes the regulations requiring that U.S. purse seine vessels carry WCPFC observers on fishing trips in the Convention Area (50 CFR 300.223(e)) because the applicable dates of the requirements, which extended through December 31, 2014, have passed. NMFS emphasizes that U.S. purse seine vessels operating in the Convention Area are, and will likely continue to be, subject to requirements to carry WCPFC observers under the current regulations at 50 CFR 300.215. Under this section, U.S. fishing vessels operating in the Convention Area must carry a WCPFC observer when directed to do so by NMFS. NMFS has issued such directions to purse seine vessel owners for 2015, and anticipates doing so in subsequent years.

Second, this rule revises the definition of “fishing day” to remove the reference to 50 CFR 300.223. As it was previously defined at 50 CFR 300.211, the term applied only to the regulations at 50 CFR 300.223, “Purse seine fishing restrictions,” which establish limits on purse seine fishing effort, restrictions on the use of FADs, and other restrictions that apply to purse seine fishing. The term “fishing day” is now revised to apply more broadly to all the regulations in 50 CFR part 300, subpart O. “Fishing day” means, for fishing vessels equipped with purse seine gear, any day in which a fishing vessel searches for fish, deploys a FAD, services a FAD, or sets a purse seine, with the exception of setting a purse seine solely for the purpose of testing or cleaning the gear and resulting in no catch.

Third, this rule removes certain elements of the existing regulations that require purse seine vessels in the Convention Area to retain on board all the catch of three species of tuna (bigeye tuna, yellowfin tuna, and skipjack tuna), with certain exceptions (specifically, 50 CFR 300.223(d)(1) and (2)), because they are obsolete.

Fourth, this rule makes changes to the requirements related to the installation and operation of vessel monitoring system (VMS) units on fishing vessels that are used to fish commercially for HMS on the high seas in the Convention Area. The previous regulations at 50 CFR 300.219 required the owner and the operator (i.e., the master or other individual aboard and in charge of the vessel) of any such vessel to expressly authorize NMFS and the Commission to receive and relay transmissions from the VMS unit. Those regulations are now revised to provide NMFS and the Commission with authorization to receive and relay transmissions from the unit. In other words, an explicit written authorization from the vessel owner and operator is not needed for NMFS and the Commission to receive and relay transmissions from the VMS unit.

Finally, this rule makes changes to the requirement for the owners or operators of U.S. purse seine vessels to submit to NMFS daily reports on how many sets were made on FADs. These daily FAD reports enable NMFS to monitor the number of purse seine sets on FADs (“FAD sets”) to determine if they are within the established limits. This reporting requirement, at 50 CFR 300.218(g), was previously written such that it would only go into effect when NMFS publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing that it is in effect. In this rule, NMFS has removed the requirement for the publication of a Federal Register notice. Instead, vessel owners and operators will be required to submit the daily FAD reports only if directed to do so by NMFS. NMFS may contact vessel owners or operators directly with instructions on the timing and submission of the reports. NMFS anticipates directing vessel owners or operators to submit the reports only in periods during which limits on FAD sets are in place. Under the revised reporting requirement, if directed by NMFS, the owner or operator of any fishing vessel of the United States equipped with purse seine gear must report to NMFS, within 24 hours of the end of each day that the vessel is at sea in the Convention Area, the number of purse seine sets that were made on FADs during the period and in the format and manner directed by the NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Administrator.

Using the framework established at 50 CFR 300.227, as described above, NMFS issues specifications for 2015 to implement particular provisions of Conservation and Management Measure (CMM) 2014-01, “Conservation and Management Measure for Bigeye, Yellowfin and Skipjack Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean.”

Final specification for 2015: From July 1 through October 31, 2015, owners, operators, and crew of fishing vessels of the United States shall not do any of the following activities in the Convention Area in the area between 20° N. latitude and 20° S. latitude:

(1) Set a purse seine around a FAD or within one nautical mile of a FAD.

(2) Set a purse seine in a manner intended to capture fish that have aggregated in association with a FAD or a vessel, such as by setting the purse seine in an area from which a FAD or a vessel has been moved or removed within the previous eight hours, or setting the purse seine in an area in which a FAD has been inspected or handled within the previous eight hours, or setting the purse seine in an area into which fish were drawn by a vessel from the vicinity of a FAD or a vessel.

(3) Deploy a FAD into the water.

(4) Repair, clean, maintain, or otherwise service a FAD, including any electronic equipment used in association with a FAD, in the water or on a vessel while at sea, except that: (a) A FAD may be inspected and handled as needed to identify the FAD, identify and release incidentally captured animals, un-foul fishing gear, or prevent damage to property or risk to human safety; and (b) A FAD may be removed from the water and if removed may be cleaned, provided that it is not returned to the water.

(5) From a purse seine vessel or any associated skiffs, other watercraft or equipment, do any of the following, except in emergencies as needed to prevent human injury or the loss of human life, the loss of the purse seine vessel, skiffs, watercraft or aircraft, or environmental damage: (a) Submerge lights under water; (b) suspend or hang lights over the side of the purse seine vessel, skiff, watercraft or equipment, or; (c) direct or use lights in a manner other than as needed to illuminate the deck of the purse seine vessel or associated skiffs, watercraft or equipment, to comply with navigational requirements, and to ensure the health and safety of the crew.

NMFS received comments on the proposed rule from two entities. The comments are summarized below, followed by responses from NMFS.

Comment 1: The Hawaii Longline Association (HLA) commented that it understands the proposed rule would establish a framework to establish specifications and related items only for the United States, not for its territories. Specifications applicable to the territories are established through the regulations implementing Amendment 7 to the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Pelagics FEP), which require the annual issuance of specifications applicable to the territories that include catch limits, and caps on the amounts of those limits that may be allocated to eligible U.S. longline fishing vessels.

Response: NMFS could issue specifications under the framework for fisheries of the U.S. Participating Territories as well as for fisheries of the United States. Although the framework established under Amendment 7 to the Pelagics FEP may be used to establish Commission-adopted limits on catch or fishing effort in the fisheries of the U.S. Participating Territories, it does not preclude NMFS from using other means to establish such limits, such as the framework established in this rule, should they be necessary to carry out obligations under the WCPFC Implementation Act.

Comment 2: The HLA expressed concerns about the purpose or need for the proposed rule. If the basis for the proposed rule is NMFS' belief that implementing U.S. obligations under the Convention under this framework will be more efficient than the past practice of issuing regulations on a case-by-case basis, that is not fully explained in the proposed rule. The HLA is concerned that promulgation of another regulatory framework will result in a superfluous administrative process that will be misused by advocacy organizations that wish to end all tuna fishing. If the proposed rule will not result in significant and measurable increases in the efficiency of the regulatory process, or if it will result in more frequent agency decisions, each of which can be challenged, then the HLA recommends that NMFS not move forward with the proposed rule, as it may cause more problems than benefits for the agency and the regulated fisheries.

Response: The purpose of a framework is to make it possible for NMFS to manage fisheries more responsively and more efficiently under conditions requiring “real time” management. Such conditions exist in the context of the Convention because the Commission makes decisions that must be implemented by its members quickly—often within 60 days of the decision. The framework will not create any additional administrative process. The internal procedures of NMFS and the Department of Commerce are such that NMFS expects that specifications under the framework can be developed, proposed, and finalized more quickly than stand-alone regulations (but the provisions for prior public notice and comment are essentially the same for both methods). This is because whenever NMFS issues a proposed or final specification, the framework, which establishes parameters on the scope and nature of the specifications that can be issued, will have already been approved. However, establishment of this framework will not preclude NMFS from implementing Commission decisions through regulations outside the framework process, as it has done in the past, so NMFS can choose the most appropriate approach in any given case.

Comment 3: The HLA commented that the proposed rule does not explain what analyses NMFS will conduct before utilizing the framework procedures to establish allocations of catch, effort, or other limits among U.S. fisheries. The HLA is concerned that a framework approach will not be appropriate for dividing a national allocation among various U.S. fisheries. Allocations would be very controversial and disruptive to fisheries. The HLA urges the United States to discuss with its constituents, including the processes of the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, how and by whom the allocation decisions, and the accompanying analyses, should be made before launching into a new framework process to make allocation decisions.

Response: Specification of a limit under this framework, including limits involving allocations among sectors or groups of fishing vessels, would be subject to the same analyses that would be needed were the decision to be made outside this framework. Establishment of this framework will not preclude NMFS from taking action through regulations outside the framework process, as it has done in the past, so NMFS can choose the most appropriate approach in any given case. Furthermore, one of the options available under the WCPFC Implementation Act is to promulgate regulations in accordance with the procedures established by the MSA that involve the Regional Fishery Management Councils.

Comment 4: The HLA commented that if NMFS proceeds to finalize the proposed rule, NMFS should ensure that the final rule is entirely consistent with the Amendment 7 framework and does not undermine NMFS' ability to promptly carry out its obligations under that framework in a straightforward manner, and to ensure that it does not create more obstacles for the Amendment 7 regulatory process.

Response: NMFS believes this final rule is consistent with the Amendment 7 framework, and does not anticipate that it would impede NMFS' implementation of actions under the Amendment 7 framework. NMFS notes that proposed § 300.227(d), titled “U.S. and territorial fisheries,” which included a reference to the regulations implementing Amendment 7 of the Pelagics FEP, is not included in these final regulations. The reasons for not finalizing that element of the proposed framework are explained in the section below, “Changes from the Proposed Rule and Proposed Specifications.”

Comment 5: The HLA offered its interpretation of the proposed provisions relevant to the catch allocation of “dual-permitted” longline vessels (i.e., those registered under a valid American Samoa Longline Limited Access Permit in addition to a Hawaii Longline Limited Access Permit). The HLA's interpretation is that in the circumstance where a specified fishing agreement under Amendment 7 with the CNMI or Guam is in effect, the catch of a dual-permitted vessel listed in the agreement that occurs outside the U.S. EEZ is attributed to American Samoa unless and until the American Samoa quota is exhausted, at which time such catch would be attributed to the territory (e.g., the CNMI or Guam) identified in the agreement. Conversely, in this circumstance, the catch of a dual-permitted vessel that occurs inside the U.S. EEZ is attributed to the territory (e.g., the CNMI or Guam) identified in the agreement.

Response: NMFS disagrees with HLA's interpretation. However, as explained in the section below, “Changes from the Proposed Rule and Proposed Specifications,” this final rule does not include the proposed rule's criteria for distinguishing among the fisheries. As proposed, the framework included three priority-ranked criteria for attributing fishing effort and catch to a fishery of one of the three U.S. Participating Territories. The catch of a vessel identified in a specified fishing agreement under 50 CFR 665.819 would be attributed to the U.S. Participating Territory that is party to the agreement, according to the terms of that agreement to the extent they are consistent with the MSA, Commission decisions, and the Pelagics FEP and its implementing regulations. The terms of a specified fishing agreement could not alter the attribution priorities that would have been established under the proposed regulations. Accordingly, as long as the conditions for attribution to a territory under the regulations implementing Amendment 7 to the Pelagics FEP (at 50 CFR 665.819(c)(9)) were met, the catch would be attributed to a fishery of the territory that is party to the agreement rather than to a fishery of American Samoa, regardless of where the fish is caught or landed. However, because NMFS' proposed attribution criteria generated considerable public confusion, this provision is not being finalized in this rulemaking.

Comment 6: The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) provided comments stating that it is concerned that the process for attributing catch to the U.S. Participating Territories under the framework could contradict the Commission's conservation and management measures regarding longline bigeye tuna catch limits. The CBD states that, specifically, portions of the framework seem to conflict with CMM 2014-01 as it relates to longline vessels' catch of bigeye tuna and attribution of catch. According to the CBD, the criteria specified in the framework for attributing catch to the U.S. Participating Territories may be at odds with the provisions of CMM 2014-01, which require catch attribution to the flag State of the vessel except for vessels notified as chartered under CMM 2011-05, for which the catch and fishing effort are attributed to the chartering Member or Participating Territory. The CBD notes that to its knowledge, no U.S.-flagged vessels have been notified as chartered under CMM 2011-05. Therefore, under the provisions of CMM 2014-01, catch of bigeye tuna by U.S.-flagged longline vessels should be attributed to the United States. CBD requests that NMFS amend the proposed language at 50 CFR 300.227(d) that establishes criteria for distinguishing the fisheries of the United States and fisheries of the U.S. Participating Territories to clarify that NMFS will follow Commission conservation and management measures regarding attribution of catch and effort.

Response: NMFS disagrees. Although the fisheries of the U.S. Participating Territories, including American Samoa, the CNMI, and Guam, operate under the United States' flag, Commission decisions have consistently treated them separately from the United States for purposes of adopting bigeye tuna catch limits in longline fisheries. CMM 2014-01 requires that bigeye tuna catches in the longline fisheries of the United States be limited to specified levels, based on a percentage of the fisheries' 2004 catch. However, CMM 2014-01 does not include any bigeye tuna catch limits for the longline fisheries of the U.S. Participating Territories (or for the longline fisheries of any other Participating Territory or small island developing State (SIDS) member of the Commission). There are a number of reasons for this. Convention Article 30 requires the Commission to give “full recognition to the special requirements of developing states . . . in particular small island developing states . . . and territories” and requires that Commission decisions “not result in transferring . . . a disproportionate burden of conservation action onto . . . territories.” Accordingly, the Commission has consistently exempted Participating Territories from bigeye tuna catch limits in longline fisheries. Further, CMM 2013-06 requires the Commission to determine the “nature and extent of the impact” of any new conservation and management proposal on Territories prior to implementation. The fact that the Commission has never undertaken this analysis further refutes the commenter's belief that Participating Territories have been subsumed in their host nations' bigeye tuna catch limits. Finally, NMFS interprets paragraph 7 of CMM 2014-01 to specifically exempt Participating Territories from the longline limits established in paragraph 40.

The Commission has not adopted guidance—for the purpose of implementing flag-based limits—on attributing fishing activity in cases where a Participating Territory does not have its own flag, leaving member States considerable discretion to implement their own domestic practices and policies. The proposed rule included criteria to distinguish the fisheries from each other, such as to determine the vessels to which a specified limit applies or to attribute catch or fishing effort against a specified limit. However, as explained in the section below, “Changes from the Proposed Rule and Proposed Specifications,” this final rule does not include the proposed rule's criteria for distinguishing among the fisheries.

CMM 2012-05 (formerly CMM 2011-05) establishes procedures for Commission Members and Participating Territories to notify the Commission of vessels flagged to another State or Fishing Entity that they have chartered, leased, or entered into other mechanisms. This measure does not apply to vessels operating under specified fishing agreements under Amendment 7 to the Pelagics FEP because such vessels are neither chartered nor leased to the U.S. Participating Territories.

Comment 7: The CBD states that tuna longline fishing jeopardizes the health of Hawaii's pelagic ecosystem and that ending bigeye tuna overfishing is critical to stopping and reversing changes in the ecosystem. The Commission's Scientific Committee has determined that WCPO bigeye tuna are overfished, yet fishing mortality rates remain too high, allowing overfishing to further reduce the population. NMFS has not considered the potential environmental impacts of the framework, specifically what could happen if the framework enabled continued fishing for bigeye tuna even after the U.S. catch limit is reached for all U.S.-flagged longline vessels by allowing for attribution of catch to the U.S. Participating Territories. The framework would allow exemptions from bigeye tuna catch limits via transfer agreements with the Hawaii-based longliners that effectively allow the longline vessels to fish unconstrained by effort limits, which will exacerbate the ecosystem and species-level impacts.

The CBD further states that the expansion of the Hawaii-based deep-set longline fishery has been encouraged by allowing exemptions to the Commission's bigeye tuna catch limit. Prior to 2014, the Hawaii-based longline fleet had never exceeded the U.S. catch limit by more than 771 metric tons (mt), leading NMFS to assume last year that, going forward, no more than 1,000 mt of bigeye tuna would be transferred annually under specified territory fishing agreements. In practice, in 2014, the first year that a rule codifying quota shifting from Hawaii-based longliners to the U.S. Participating Territories was in effect, the Hawaii-based longliners exceeded the U.S. catch limit by more than 1,000 mt, using an agreement with the CNMI and then caught 52 mt above and beyond the approved amount. This shows that the rule codifying the quota shifting increased bigeye tuna fishing mortality; this rule will do the same.

Response: This action establishes a framework process under which NMFS will specify fishing effort limits, catch limits, and other restrictions and requirements in U.S. fisheries for HMS in the Convention Area, as may be necessary to implement particular decisions of the Commission. As explained in the section below, “Changes from the Proposed Rule and Proposed Specifications,” this final rule does not include the proposed rule's criteria for distinguishing the fisheries of the United States and the fisheries of the U.S. Participating Territories from each other under limits specified under the framework. The framework itself does not specify any longline limits for bigeye tuna, or authorize longline fishing for bigeye tuna after the U.S. limit is reached. Measures for establishing catch and fishing effort specifications in the territories, and allocation specifications, were established by regulations implementing Amendment 7 to the Pelagics FEP, and are not part of this action. This action does not specify any limits under the framework for longline fisheries.

The only specification being issued as part of this action is the purse seine FAD restrictions for 2015. The expected impacts of this specification on the human environment are analyzed in a programmatic environmental assessment that was made available in conjunction with the proposed rule and proposed specifications (see ADDRESSES). Should NMFS use the framework process to specify catch limits for the longline fisheries of the United States or the U.S. Participating Territories, NMFS would complete the appropriate environmental analysis at that time. NMFS has determined that the framework process is categorically excluded from the need to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement (EIS) as it is purely administrative and procedural in nature. The framework simply sets up an efficient process—which might or might not be used by NMFS—for implementing Commission decisions.

Comment 8: The CBD states that the framework, as it would apply to the bigeye tuna catch limits for longline vessels, exceeds NMFS' statutory authority under the WCPFC Implementation Act. According to the WCPFC Implementation Act, NMFS has authority to promulgate only those regulations necessary to carry out the international obligations of the United States under the Convention, including recommendations and decisions adopted by the Commission. Rather than attribute longline vessels' bigeye tuna catch according to the vessel's flag State, as required under CMM 2014-01, the framework would attribute longline bigeye tuna catch to the United States or a U.S. territory on the basis of port of landing, vessel registration, or inclusion of the vessel in a transfer agreement. These criteria are inconsistent with CMM 2014-01 and its predecessor CMM 2013-01. Both CMM 2013-01 and CMM 2014-01 establish a general rule that attribution of catch and effort shall be to the flag State and establish a single bigeye tuna catch limit for all U.S.-flagged longline vessels. Longline vessels in the fisheries of U.S. Participating Territories all operate under the U.S. flag, so they are all subject to the same, unified catch limit. The rule does not reconcile how the framework criteria, which treat catch of different U.S.-flagged vessels differently, could implement the Commission's limits for longline vessels' bigeye tuna catch, which currently allocate catch to the flag State of the vessel. NMFS is legally obliged to implement Commission decisions, which currently call for all Commission members reduce their bigeye catch from current levels. It is not clear that the framework will fulfill this mandate by reducing catch for longline fishing for bigeye tuna in years after 2015.

Response: See responses to Comments 6 and 7, above. NMFS' response to Comment 6 as it relates to CMM 2014-01 also pertains to CMM 2013-01, which is essentially the same as CMM 2014-01 in terms of bigeye tuna catch limits in longline fisheries.

Comment 9: The CBD made several comments related to the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The CBD states that NMFS should have prepared an EIS for the framework because of potentially significant environmental impacts and controversy. The framework's criteria for determining which fisheries are subject to the catch limits are not straightforward, which reduces transparency and creates controversy. Without any environmental analysis of the rule, the public lacks basic information needed to evaluate the framework's potential environmental impacts. For example, the notice does not specify how many vessels would fit under the criteria to attribute catch to the U.S. Participating Territories. Vessels permitted to land HMS in California, Oregon, and Washington can, under the framework, sell catch from the high seas in American Samoa, Guam, or the CNMI and have that catch be considered part of the fishery of the territory, but there are no estimates of how many vessels are permitted under 50 CFR 660.707 to which this criteria might apply.

The CBD further states that NMFS has not studied the impact of allowing catch from the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) to be considered part of a territory's fishery, which requires not only an EIS but also consultation under the ESA. The framework and the exemptions from Commission catch limits will have unknown effects on endangered loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles because of increased fishing effort in the EPO, specifically on the high seas off California. The most recent Biological Opinion on the Hawaii-based deep-set longline fishery, completed in September 2014, did not anticipate longline fishing effort in the EPO. The Biological Opinion treats the catch in the EPO as incidental, although Hawaii-permitted longline vessels have been operating out of and landing their catch in San Diego. Where the fishery operates is critical to assessing impacts to endangered species. Without assessing where the fishing effort takes place—in the high seas off California or in the high seas around U.S. territories—NMFS cannot reliably estimate impacts to endangered sea turtles, and thus an EIS is necessary for this framework.

The CBD states that because the framework is potentially controversial as it could apply to bigeye tuna longline catch limits, NMFS must prepare an EIS. More than 4,000 public comments were submitted in response to NMFS' 2014 rule to establish the attribution of catch to the U.S. Participating Territories (see final rule published October 28, 2014; 79 FR 64097). This is evidence that this framework could be controversial when applied, even though due to the short 15-day comment period, this rule specifically is not likely to raise a similar level of interest. The litigation regarding NMFS' rule to implement the attribution of catch to the U.S. Participating Territories also demonstrates the controversy associated with this aspect of the framework. Because the proposed rule would codify in a framework actions similar to what has already been challenged in court and subject to public protest, NMFS must prepare an EIS.

Response: As stated in the response to Comment 7, the framework does not establish specific fishing effort or catch limits. Because the framework is purely administrative and procedural in nature, NMFS has determined that its establishment is categorically excluded from the need to prepare an environmental assessment or an EIS. Due to its administrative nature, the framework itself will not contribute to any direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts. Should NMFS use the framework process to specify catch limits for longline fisheries, NMFS would complete the appropriate environmental and economic analyses when details of the proposed management action are known. For example, this action includes final specifications under the framework that establish restrictions on the use of FADs by purse seine vessels in 2015. That FAD-related action is supported by a programmatic environmental assessment that was made available in conjunction with the proposed rule and proposed specifications (see ADDRESSES).

NMFS has determined that the proposed framework regulations and associated specifications for 2015 will not affect any ESA-listed species in any manner not considered in prior consultations. The existing September 2014 Biological Opinion for the Hawaii deep-set longline fishery considered the effects of the fishery on ESA-listed species based upon the documented history of where the fishery operates. The fishery continues to operate at levels and in a manner analyzed in the Biological Opinion, and impacts to ESA-listed species remain within levels anticipated and authorized in the incidental take statement. Establishment of this framework, which is purely administrative and procedural in nature, will not alter the operation of the fishery in any way, and therefore does not itself introduce effects of the action that were not considered in earlier consultations.

The reference in the proposed framework to fishing vessels with permits issued under 50 CFR 660.707 has to do with the attribution of catch and fishing effort with respect to the vessel that lands the fish, not the vessel that catches the fish. However, as explained in the section below, “Changes from the Proposed Rule and Proposed Specifications,” this final rule does not include that reference or the proposed rule's criteria for distinguishing among the fisheries. More generally, NMFS does not expect that catches from the EPO will be subject to any WCPFC-adopted limits that might be established under the framework.

Comment 10: The CBD states that NMFS prohibited shallow-set longlines east of 150° W. longitude to protect sea turtles after a Biological Opinion found that allowing shallow sets for swordfish east of 150° W. longitude would appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of loggerhead sea turtles. In April 2009, the Pacific Fishery Management Council discussed amending the fishery management plan to allow use of shallow-set longlines on the high seas, but expressed concerns about how to limit fishing effort based on the high number of inactive permits in the current swordfish fishery using gillnets. The Pacific Fishery Management Council's concerns are not addressed by the framework, which allows vessels permitted to land in California to count their catch as part of a territory's fishery when landing in the territory, vastly increasing fishing effort.

Response: The framework does not authorize any fishing activity that has not already been analyzed under NEPA and the ESA. One of the proposed framework's criteria for distinguishing the fisheries of the U.S. Participating Territories from U.S. fisheries—for the purpose of Commission-adopted limits—was that if the catch is landed in a U.S. Participating Territory, it would be considered part of a fishery of that territory, provided that several conditions are met, one of which, would be that the vessel that lands the fish must is operated in compliance with a valid permit issued under 50 CFR 660.707 or 50 CFR 665.801. As explained above, this final rule does not include the proposed rule's criteria for distinguishing among the fisheries. Furthermore, NMFS does not expect that catches from the EPO will be subject to any WCPFC-adopted limits that might be established under this framework.

Comment 11: The CBD commented that its interpretation of the proposed criteria for distinguishing the fisheries of the United States from those of the U.S. Participating Territories was as follows: (1) Except as provided in (2) and (3), below, if catch is landed in American Samoa, Guam, or the CNMI, the catch and associated fishing effort are considered part of the territory in which it is landed, with exceptions for catch from purse seines and catch from outside the part of the U.S. EEZ that surrounds the territory; (2) except as provided under (3), if the vessel is registered under an American Samoa Longline Limited Access Permit, the vessel's catch and effort are considered a part of a fishery of American Samoa as long as it was caught in the portion of the U.S. EEZ surrounding American Samoa and it was landed by a fishing vessel operated in compliance with a permit issued under 50 CFR 660.707 or 665.801; and (3) if the vessel is included in a specified fishing agreement under 50 CFR 665.819(c), the catch and effort are considered part of a fishery of American Samoa, Guam, or the CNMI, according to the terms of the agreement.

Response: The CBD's interpretation of the proposed criteria for distinguishing the fisheries of the United States from those of the U.S. Participating Territories is not correct. Under the first two proposed criteria, catch would not necessarily have to be caught in the portion of the U.S. EEZ that surrounds the territory in order to be attributed to a fishery of that territory. For example, fish could be caught on the high seas and attributed to a territorial fishery if certain conditions were met. However, NMFS acknowledges, based on the comments from the CBD and the HLA, that there is public confusion over the meaning and effect of proposed paragraph 50 CFR 300.227(d). Furthermore, NMFS intended for the criteria, as they would apply to longline fisheries, to mirror those in existing regulations related to bigeye tuna catch limits in longline fisheries (at 50 CFR 300.224), but inadvertently wrote the proposed regulations such that they differed from those existing regulations. For these reasons, NMFS is not implementing this provision as proposed. As described in the “Changes from the Proposed Rule and Proposed Specifications” section, NMFS has not included in this final rule the proposed rule's criteria for distinguishing among the fisheries at 50 CFR 300.227(d).

NMFS has not made any changes from the proposed specifications for 2015.

NMFS has made five changes from the proposed rule.

First, after considering public comment, NMFS is not finalizing the proposed rule's paragraph (d) of 50 CFR 300.227, titled “U.S. and territorial fisheries.” The proposed paragraph had included criteria to distinguish the fisheries of the U.S. Participating Territories from the fisheries of the United States, such as to determine the vessels to which a specified limit applies or to attribute catch or fishing effort against a specified limit. Comments received on paragraph (d) indicate that there was public confusion over how to interpret the regulatory text and how the criteria would be prioritized. Based on the comments received and on NMFS' own review of the proposed rule text, NMFS finds that the proposed regulatory text at 50 CFR 300.227(d) was confusing to the public and did not afford adequate notice of the proposed criteria. Furthermore, NMFS intended for the criteria to mirror those in existing regulations related to bigeye tuna catch limits in longline fisheries (at 50 CFR 300.224), but inadvertently wrote the proposed regulations such that they differed from those existing regulations. For these reasons, NMFS has decided to finalize the framework without the proposed criteria. NMFS is not including the proposed text at 50 CFR 300.227(d) in the final rule, and may re-propose the criteria at a later time. In the meantime, any criteria that are needed to determine the vessels to which a specified limit applies, or to attribute catch or fishing effort against a specified limit, will be included in the specifications issued under the framework.

Second, NMFS has made non-substantial changes to paragraph (a) of 50 CFR 300.227, which sets out the purpose and general provisions for the framework. The changes make the paragraph align more closely with the language of the WCPFC Implementation Act, particularly to make clear that NMFS (through delegation of authority from the Secretary of Commerce) is authorized to promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the international obligations of the United States under the Convention and the WCPFC Implementation Act.

Third, NMFS has made non-substantial changes to paragraph (e) of 50 CFR 300.227, changing three instances of “Commission-mandated limit” to “Commission-adopted limit” to better reflect the responsibilities of the Secretary of Commerce and NMFS under the WCPFC Implementation Act.

Fourth, NMFS has made amendments to regulations at 15 CFR 902.1(b) to incorporate the approval of the collection of information requirements for IMO numbers.

Fifth, NMFS has made non-substantive technical modifications to 50 CFR 300.222 to take into consideration that different elements of the final rule go into effect at different times.

Under NOAA Administrative Order 205-11, dated December 17, 1990, the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere has delegated authority to sign material for publication in the Federal Register to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA.

The Administrator, Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, has determined that this final rule and these final specifications are consistent with the WCPFC Implementation Act and other applicable laws.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on the amendments to regulations at 15 CFR 902.1(b), because it is unnecessary. This revision is an administrative change that modifies the CFR sections where the information collection requirements under current OMB control number 0648-0595 are located.

There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to establish an effective date less than 30 days after date of publication for the final specifications for 2015 and for the framework element of the final rule (i.e., the addition of section 300.227 to Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations), as well as the new paragraph with prohibitions associated with the framework (i.e., 50 CFR 300.222(xx)). NMFS must establish the restrictions on the use of FADs by October 1, 2015, in order to comply with the provisions of CMM 2014-01 (restrictions on the use of FADs are also required under CMM 2014-01 for July 1 through September 30, 2015, but those restrictions have already been established through regulations at 50 CFR 300.223(b)). The restrictions are intended to reduce or otherwise control fishing pressure on bigeye tuna in the WCPO in order to restore this stock to levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis. According to the NMFS stock status determination criteria, bigeye tuna in the Pacific Ocean is currently experiencing overfishing. Failure to establish the FAD restrictions by October 1, 2015, would result in additional fishing pressure on this stock, in violation of international and domestic legal obligations. The final specifications for 2015 are issued under the regulatory framework established at 50 CFR 300.227, so to make the FAD restrictions effective by October 1, 2015, the framework and its associated prohibitions must also be made effective by that date.

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

A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared. The FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) prepared for the proposed rule and proposed specifications. The analysis in the IRFA is not repeated here in its entirety.

A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the SUMMARY section of the preamble and in other sections of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this final rule and final specifications, above. The analysis follows:

NMFS did not receive any comments on the IRFA.

Small entities include “small businesses,” “small organizations,” and “small governmental jurisdictions.” The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size standards for all major industry sectors in the United States, including commercial finfish harvesters (NAICS code 114111). A business primarily involved in finfish harvesting is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $20.5 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.

The final rule and specifications apply to owners and operators of U.S. fishing vessels used for commercial fishing for HMS in the Convention Area. The framework establishes administrative procedures for implementing Commission decisions. It does not in itself establish any requirements for owners or operators of fishing vessels or other entities. With the exception of the requirement to obtain an IMO number, the substantive elements of the rule and specifications (i.e., those elements expected to bring economic impacts to affected entities) apply only to purse seine vessels. NMFS estimates that of all the U.S. fishing vessels to which the IMO number requirement apply, only 7 do not already have an IMO number. Of the 7, 1 is a purse seine vessel, 4 are longline vessels, and 2 are troll vessels.

The number of purse seine vessels affected by the purse seine specifications is the number of vessels licensed under the Treaty on Fisheries between the Governments of Certain Pacific Island States and the Government of the United States of America (South Pacific Tuna Treaty, or SPTT). The current number of licensed vessels is 37. The maximum number allowed under the SPTT, apart from joint venture licenses, none of which have ever been issued, is 40.

Thus, the fish harvesting entities affected by the final rule and specifications include about 37 purse seine vessels, 4 longline vessels, and 2 troll vessels.

Based on (limited) available financial information about the affected fishing vessels and the SBA's small entity size standards for commercial finfish harvesters, and using individual vessels as proxies for individual businesses, NMFS believes that all the affected fish harvesting businesses are small entities. NMFS used average per-vessel returns over recent years to estimate annual revenue because gross receipts and ex-vessel price information specific to the affected vessels are not available to NMFS. For the purse seine fishery, NMFS estimates that the average annual receipts over 2010-2012 for each purse seine vessel were less than the $20.5 million threshold for finfish harvesting businesses (the greatest was about $19 million) based on the catches of each vessel in the purse seine fleet during that period, and indicative regional cannery prices developed by the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (available at https://www.ffa.int/node/425#attachments). Since 2012, cannery prices have declined dramatically, so the vessels' revenues in 2013 and 2014 have very likely declined as well. For the longline fishery, the ex-vessel value of catches by the Hawaii longline fleet in 2012 was about $87 million. With 129 active vessels in that year, per-vessel average revenues were about $0.7 million, well below the $20.5 million threshold for finfish harvesting businesses.

The recordkeeping, reporting, and other compliance requirements are discussed below for each of the main elements of the final rule and final specifications, as described earlier in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble. Fulfillment of these requirements is not expected to require any professional skills that the affected vessel owners and operators do not already possess. The costs of complying with the requirements are described below to the extent possible:

The framework establishes administrative procedures for implementing Commission decisions. It does not in itself establish any requirements for owners or operators of fishing vessels or other entities, so it is not discussed further in this FRFA.

The requirement to obtain an IMO number is a one-time requirement; once a number has been issued for a vessel, the vessel would be in compliance for the remainder of its life, regardless of changes in ownership. Most entities that are required to obtain an IMO number already have them. NMFS estimates that 7 fishing vessels (that are currently in the fishery) are initially subject to the requirement, and projects that as fishing vessels enter the fishery in the future, roughly two per year will be required to obtain IMO numbers. Completing and submitting the application form (which can be done online and requires no fees) is expected to take about 30 minutes per applicant, on average. Assuming a value of labor of approximately $26 per hour and communication costs of about $1 per application, the (one-time) cost to each entity are expected to be about $14.

Among the final rule's other regulatory changes, only the change to the daily FAD reporting requirements has the potential to bring economic impacts to affected entities. Under the previous regulations, when NMFS triggered the daily FAD reporting requirement through an announcement in the Federal Register, the vessel owner or operator would have had to complete and submit the reports each day while the fishing vessel is at sea in the Convention Area. NMFS estimated that cost to be about $1,360 per vessel per year. Under the change made in this rule, the vessel owner or operator has to complete and submit the reports only if and when directed by NMFS. Because the purse seine FAD restrictions for 2015 do not include any FAD set limits, it is unlikely that NMFS will direct vessel operators to submit reports for 2015. Thus, the change could potentially reduce the reporting costs to affected purse seine entities during this period.

The FAD prohibition period in July-October in 2015 will substantially constrain the manner in which purse seine fishing can be conducted in that period in the Convention Area; vessels will be able to set only on free, or “unassociated,” schools.

The costs associated with the FAD restrictions cannot be quantitatively estimated, but the fleet's historical use of FADs can give a qualitative estimate of the costs. In the years 1997-2013, the proportion of sets made on FADs in the U.S. purse seine fishery ranged from less than 30 percent in some years to more than 90 percent in others. Thus, the importance of FAD sets in terms of profits appears to be quite variable over time, and is probably a function of many factors, including fuel prices (unassociated sets involve more searching time and thus tend to bring higher fuel costs than FAD sets) and market conditions (e.g., FAD fishing, which tends to result in greater catches of lower-value skipjack tuna and smaller yellowfin tuna and bigeye tuna than unassociated sets, might be more attractive and profitable when canneries are not rejecting small fish). Thus, the costs of complying with the FAD restrictions will depend on a variety of factors.

In 2010-2013, the last 4 years for which complete data are available and for which there was 100 percent observer coverage, the U.S. WCPO purse seine fleet made about 39 percent of its sets on FADs. During the months when setting on FADs was allowed, the percentage was about 58 percent. The fact that the fleet has made such a substantial portion of its sets on FADs indicates that prohibiting the use of FADs for four months each year is likely to bring substantial costs and/or revenue losses.

To mitigate these impacts, vessel operators might choose to schedule their routine vessel and equipment maintenance during the FAD prohibition periods. However, the limited number of vessel maintenance facilities in the region might constrain vessel operators' ability to do this. It also is conceivable that some vessels might choose not to fish at all during the FAD prohibition periods rather than fish without the use of FADs. Observations of the fleet's behavior in 2009-2013, when FAD prohibition periods were in effect, do not suggest that either of these responses occurred to an appreciable degree. The proportion of the fleet that fished during the two- and three-month FAD prohibition periods of 2009-2013 did not appreciably differ from the proportion that fished during the same months in the years 1997-2008, when no FAD prohibition periods were in place.

In summary, the economic impacts of the FAD prohibition period in 2015 cannot be quantified, but they could be substantial. Their magnitude will depend in part on market conditions, ocean conditions and the magnitude of any limits on allowable levels of fishing effort in foreign EEZs and on the high seas in the Convention Area.

As indicated above, all affected entities are believed to be small entities, thus small entities will not be disproportionately affected relative to large entities. Nor will there be disproportionate economic impacts based on vessel size or home port. With respect to vessel type, the specifications for 2015 apply only to purse seine vessels, so they would not impact any other vessel types.

NMFS has sought to identify alternatives that would minimize the rule's and specifications' economic impact on small entities (“significant alternatives”). Taking no action could result in lesser adverse economic impacts than the action for many affected entities, but NMFS has determined that the no-action alternative would fail to accomplish the objectives of the WCPFC Implementation Act, including satisfying the international obligations of the United States as a Contracting Party to the Convention, and NMFS has rejected it for that reason. Alternatives identified for each of the main elements of the rule and specifications are discussed below:

The framework will not in itself establish any requirements for owners or operators of fishing vessels or other entities, so would not bring economic impacts. Thus, NMFS has not identified any significant alternatives.

NMFS has not identified any significant alternatives to the IMO number requirement that would comport with U.S. obligations to implement the Commission decision regarding IMO numbers.

None of the other regulatory changes are expected to bring adverse economic impacts to affected entities, so NMFS has not identified any significant alternatives.

NMFS considered in detail one alternative to the restrictions on the use of FADs in 2015. Under the alternative, purse seine vessels would be subject to a 3-month (July-September) FAD prohibition period in 2015, and a limit of 2,522 FAD sets for the year. This alternative would be consistent with the options available to the United States under CMM 2014-01. The impacts of this alternative relative to those of the final action (4-month FAD closure) would depend on the total amount of fishing effort available to the U.S. purse seine fleet in the Convention Area in 2015. If total available fishing effort is relatively high, the final action (4-month FAD closure) would likely allow for more FAD sets than would this alternative, and thus likely cause lesser adverse impacts. The reverse would be the case for relatively low levels of total available fishing effort. For example, given the fleet's historical average FAD set ratio of 58 percent, and assuming an even distribution of sets throughout the year, the estimated “breakeven” point between the two alternatives would be 6,502 total available sets for the year. Although the amount of fishing effort that will be available to the fleet in the future, particularly under the SPTT, cannot be predicted with any certainty, 6,502 sets is substantially less than the amounts of fishing effort that have been available to the fleet since it has been operating under the SPTT. For that reason, NMFS expects that the final action (4-month FAD closure) likely would cause less severe economic impacts on the purse seine fleet and its participants than would this alternative, and NMFS has rejected the alternative of a 3-month FAD closure in combination with a limit of 2,522 FAD sets for that reason.

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. NMFS has prepared one or more small entity compliance guides for this rule and specifications, and will send them to holders of permits in the relevant fisheries. The guide(s) and this final rule also will be available at www.fpir.noaa.gov and by request from NMFS PIRO (see ADDRESSES).

This final rule contains three collection-of-information requirements that are subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).

The first collection has been approved by the OMB under control number 0648-0595, “Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Vessel Information Family of Forms.” This collection-of-information has been revised to include the requirement for the owners of certain fishing vessels to ensure that IMO numbers are issued for the vessels. This is a one-time requirement; no renewals or updates are required during the life of a vessel. A fishing vessel owner can request the issuance of an IMO number by submitting specific information about the vessel and its ownership and management to IHS Maritime, which issues IMO numbers on behalf of the International Maritime Organization. If a fishing vessel requires an exemption, the owner must provide the required information to NMFS. Providing the required information is expected to bring a public reporting burden of approximately 30 minutes per response.

The second collection, requirements related to installing and operating vessel monitoring system units, has been approved by OMB under control number 0648-0596, “Vessel Monitoring System Requirements under the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention.” Public reporting burden for the VMS requirements is estimated to average 5 minutes per response for the activation reports and on/off reports, 4 hours per response for VMS unit purchase and installation, and 1 hour per response for VMS unit maintenance.

The third collection, the daily FAD reporting requirement, has been approved by OMB under control number 0648-0649, “Transshipment Requirements under the WCPFC.” Public reporting burden for the daily FAD report is estimated to average 10 minutes per response.

These estimated response times include time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Send comments regarding these burden estimates, or any other aspect of the data collections, including whether the collections are necessary for the performance of the functions of the agency, the accuracy of the agency's estimates of burden, ways to enhance the utility and clarity of information, and suggestions for reducing the burden, to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS PIRO (see ADDRESSES) and by email to [email protected] or fax to 202-395-7285.

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, 15 CFR part 902 and 50 CFR part 300 are amended as follows:

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking MSU Marine Safety Unit A. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. An NPRM is impracticable and contrary to the public interest because the Coast Guard was only notified of the construction on September 08, 2015 and the work is scheduled to occur from September 28, 2015 through October 2, 2015. Providing a full NPRM process would delay the effectiveness the temporary safety zone until after the bridge construction project has been completed and immediate action is needed to protect vessels and the public from the safety hazards associated with bridge construction over a public waterway. Furthermore, an NPRM is unnecessary because the Coast Guard will inform the public through Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts of the enforcement period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the planned and published dates and times of enforcement.

For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effectiveness of the rule is impracticable and contrary to the public interest because the Coast Guard was only notified of the construction on September 08, 2015 and the work is scheduled to occur from September 28, 2015 through October 02, 2015. Waiting to apply the rule until it has been published for 30 days would delay the effectiveness the temporary safety zone until after the bridge construction project has been completed and immediate action is needed to protect vessels and the public from the safety hazards associated with bridge construction over a public waterway. Additionally, the Coast Guard will inform the public through Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts of the enforcement period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the planned and published dates and times of enforcement.

The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation no. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define safety zones.

The purpose of the rule is to establish the necessary temporary safety zone to provide protection for persons and property, including commercial and recreational vessels that may be in the area during the bridge construction project from the hazards associated with the project.

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all waters in Bayou Lafourche extending 400 yards to the east and west of the West Larose Vertical Lift Bridge located at position 29°34′142″ N, 090°23′109″ W in Bayou Lafourche, LA from 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. on September 28, 2015 through October 2, 2015. This temporary safety zone will be enforced with actual notice from 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. on September 28, 2015 through October 2, 2015.

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

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced over two days. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this temporary rule on small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of recreational vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Bayou Lafourche, LA from 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. on September 28, 2015 through October 2, 2015.

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection or Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

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

This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

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

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

I. Background

Ground-level ozone is formed when nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) react in the presence of sunlight. Referred to as ozone precursors, these two pollutants are emitted by many types of pollution sources, including on- and off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and industrial facilities, and area wide sources, such as consumer products and lawn and garden equipment. Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health effects occur following a person's exposure to ozone, particularly children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can increase respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases. As a consequence of this scientific evidence, EPA promulgated the 0.12 part per million (ppm) 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979).

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38855), EPA promulgated a revised ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm, averaged over eight hours. This standard was determined to be more protective of public health than the previous 1979 1-hour ozone standard. In 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 to 0.075 ppm. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). On May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30088), New Castle and Sussex Counties were designated as marginal nonattainment for the more stringent 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. New Castle County is part of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Sussex County is designated as the Seaford nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA, Delaware is required to submit comprehensive, accurate, and current inventories of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutants in its marginal nonattainment areas, i.e., New Castle and Sussex Counties.

Under CAA section 172(c)(3), states are required to submit a comprehensive, accurate, current accounting of actual emissions from all sources (point, nonpoint, nonroad, and onroad) in the nonattainment area. CAA section 182(a)(1) requires that areas designated as nonattainment and classified as marginal are to submit an inventory of all sources of ozone precursors no later than 2 years after the effective date of designation. This “base year” inventory contains actual annual emissions and typical ozone season day emissions for the ozone season of May through September for NOX, VOC, and carbon monoxide (CO).

On April 23, 2015, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environment Control (DE DNREC) submitted its 2011 base year inventories for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for its marginal nonattainment areas of New Castle and Sussex Counties. The 2011 base year inventories include emissions estimates that cover the general source categories of stationary point sources, stationary nonpoint sources, nonroad mobile sources and onroad mobile sources. The pollutants that comprise the inventory are NOX, VOCs, and CO.

Tables 1 and 2 summarize the 2011 VOC, NOX and CO emission inventory by source sector for New Castle and Sussex Counties. Annual emissions are given in tons per year (tpy), and summer weekday emissions are given in tons per day (tpd).

EPA's guidance for emissions inventory development calls for actual emissions to be used in the base year inventory. DE DNREC developed the point source data for the 2011 base year inventory using emissions directly reported by the facilities. For the 2011 nonpoint source emissions, also known as “area sources,” DE DNREC estimated emissions by multiplying an emission factor by some known indicator of collective activity for each source category by county. These emissions are typically calculated on an annual basis, because activity data are generally only available on an annual basis. DE DNREC converted the annual emissions to seasonal emissions.

DE DNREC has submitted data from EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI), version 1, for the onroad inventory. The NEI onroad emissions inventory was developed using the EPA's highway mobile source emissions model, MOVES 2010a. DE DNREC prepared the 2011 nonroad mobile source inventory using EPA's NONROAD2008a model, which estimates fuel consumption and emissions for all nonroad mobile source categories except for aircraft, locomotives, and commercial marine vessels. Aircraft emissions were estimated using the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS). Locomotive emissions were calculated using company provided fuel consumption data. Commercial marine vessel emissions were calculated using specific activity and operation data for each vessel. DE DNREC reported annual emissions and ozone season day emissions.

EPA reviewed DE DNREC's 2011 base year emission inventories for New Castle and Sussex Counties and determined that the results obtained and the procedures and methodologies used are acceptable and approvable. A detailed evaluation of Delaware's 2011 base year inventories is provided in the Technical Support Document (TSD) EPA prepared for this rulemaking action. The TSD can be found at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0455.

Pursuant to section 172(c) of the CAA, EPA is approving the 2011 base year emissions inventories for New Castle and Sussex Counties submitted by the State of Delaware for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS as revisions to the Delaware's SIP. 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 November 30, 2015 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 2, 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 November 30, 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 approving Delaware's 2011 base year inventories for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for New Castle and Sussex Counties may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

I. Background

On July 17, 2015 (80 FR 42459), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland, proposing approval of Maryland's SIP submittal which includes amendments to the State's regulation for the control of VOCs and adopts the requirements of EPA's CTGs for the coating of metal furniture and miscellaneous metal parts, as RACT for these source categories. The formal SIP revision (#14-02) was submitted by the State of Maryland on July 28, 2014.

Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that SIPs for nonattainment areas must include reasonably available control measures (RACM), including RACT for sources of emissions. Section 182(b)(2)(A) provides that for certain nonattainment areas, states must revise their SIPs to include RACT for sources of VOC emissions covered by a CTG document issued after November 15, 1990 and prior to the area's date of attainment. States can follow the CTGs and adopt state regulations to implement the recommendations contained therein, or they can adopt alternative approaches. In either case, states must submit their RACT rules to EPA for review and approval as part of the SIP process.

In September 2007, EPA published a new CTG for Metal Furniture Coatings (EPA-453/R-07-005), and in September 2008, EPA published a new CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings (EPA-453/R-08-003). These CTGs discuss the nature of VOC emissions from these industries, the available control technologies for addressing such emissions, the cost of available control options, and other information. EPA developed new CTGs for these industries after reviewing existing state and local VOC emission reduction approaches, new source performance standards (NSPS), previously issued CTGs, and national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for these source categories.

On July 28, 2014, the State of Maryland through the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) submitted to EPA a SIP revision (#14-02) concerning the adoption of the emission limits for metal furniture coatings found in the Metal Furniture Coatings CTG and miscellaneous metal parts coatings found in the Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings CTG. Maryland has adopted EPA's CTG standards for metal furniture and miscellaneous metal parts coating processes by amending Regulation .08 under COMAR 26.11.19, Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Sources. Specifically, this revision amends the existing regulation in section 26.11.19.08 by adding coating standards for both metal furniture and miscellaneous metal parts that are either equal to or more stringent than the coating standards found in EPA's CTGs. Additionally, new definitions and application methods were added to COMAR section 26.11.19.08. A detailed summary of Maryland's amendments and EPA's review of and rationale for approving this SIP revision submittal may be found in the NPR and Technical Support Document (TSD) for this rulemaking action which is available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0404.

EPA is approving the State of Maryland's July 28, 2014 SIP submittal as a revision to the Maryland SIP. The SIP submittal being approved in this action consists of amendments to Maryland's regulation for the control of VOCs and adopts the requirements of EPA's CTGs for the coating of metal furniture and miscellaneous metal parts, as RACT for these source categories.

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 MDE rules regarding control of VOC emissions from metal furniture and miscellaneous metal parts coatings as described in Section II of this rulemaking action. 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 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 November 30, 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 to approve amendments of Maryland's VOC control regulation into Maryland's SIP may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

In FR Doc. 2014-18329 of August 6, 2014 (79 FR 45938), there were a number of technical errors that are identified in the Summary of Errors section (section II), and corrected in the Correction of Errors section (section IV). The provisions in this correction document, which relate to the inpatient psychiatric facilities (IPF) prospective payment system (PPS) ICD-10-CM diagnosis coding conversion for comorbidities, are effective as if they had been included in the document published August 06, 2014 (FY 2015 IPF PPS final rule). While the FY 2015 IPF PPS final rule had an effective date of October 1, 2014, the implementation of the ICD-10 code sets does not occur until October 1, 2015. Accordingly, the corrections in this document will be effective on the October 1, 2015 ICD-10 implementation date.

The FY 2015 IPF PPS final rule was effective October 1, 2014 for all updates and changes, except for the conversion of ICD-9-CM codes to ICD-10-CM codes. We noted in that final rule (79 FR 45945) that on April 1, 2014, the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) (Pub. L. 113-93) was enacted. Section 212 of PAMA, titled “Delay in Transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10 Code Sets,” provides that “[t]he Secretary of Health and Human Services may not, prior to October 1, 2015, adopt ICD-10 code sets as the standard for code sets under section 1173(c) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2(c)) and section 162.1002 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations.” We indicated that, in light of PAMA, the effective date of changes from ICD-9 to ICD-10 for the IPF PPS would be the date when ICD-10 becomes the required medical data code set for use on Medicare claims.

In that FY 2015 IPF PPS final rule (79 FR 45945), we also stated that on May 1, 2014, the Department announced that, in light of section 212 of PAMA, “the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services expects to release an interim final rule in the near future that will include a new compliance date that would require the use of ICD-10 beginning October 1, 2015.” The Department asserted that the interim final rule would also require HIPAA covered entities to continue to use ICD-9-CM through September 30, 2015. Therefore, we explained that we will continue to require use of the ICD-9-CM codes for reporting the MS-DRG and comorbidity adjustment factors for IPF services through FY 2015, and that we will require the use of ICD-10 codes beginning October 1, 2015 (79 FR 45945). The final rule “Administrative Simplification: Change to the Compliance Date for the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS) Medical Data Code Sets” was published in the Federal Register on August 4, 2014, and finalized the compliance date for ICD-10 as October 1, 2015 (79 FR 45128).

The IPF PPS includes a comorbidity payment adjustment. The intent of the comorbidity adjustment is to recognize the increased costs associated with comorbid conditions by providing additional payments for certain concurrent medical or psychiatric conditions that are expensive to treat. In the May 2011 IPF PPS final rule (76 FR 26451 through 26452), we explained that the IPF PPS includes 17 comorbidity categories and identified the new, revised, and deleted ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes that generated a comorbid condition payment adjustment under the IPF PPS for RY 2012 (76 FR 26451).

In Table 7 of the FY 2015 IPF PPS final rule, the 17 comorbidity categories defined using ICD-9-CM codes were converted to ICD-10-CM codes (79 FR 45953). We discovered the following eight technical errors in ICD-10-CM codes or code ranges listed in Table 7 of the FY 2015 IPF PPS final rule, which we are correcting. These eight errors were typographic errors which we are correcting to conform to the policies adopted in the FY 2015 IPF PPS final rule, and do not reflect any substantive policy changes:

(1) From the “Oncology Treatment” comorbidity category on page 45953, “C000 through C4002” should read “C000 through C399, C4001, C4002.

(2) From the “Oncology Treatment” comorbidity category on page 45953, “C44191” is being removed.

(3) From the “Oncology Treatment” comorbidity category on page 45953, “D225 through D2261” should read “D225, D2261,”

(4) From the “Oncology Treatment” comorbidity category on page 45953, “D3192 through D485” should read “D3192 through D471.”

(5) From the “Oncology Treatment” comorbidity category on page 45953, “D4861 through D471” should read “D4861 through D499.”

(6) From the “Oncology Treatment” comorbidity category on page 45953, “D479 through D499” should read “D479.”

(7) From the “Oncology Treatment” comorbidity category on page 45953, “D47Z1 through D47Z9” should read “D47Z1, D47Z9.”

(8) From the “Infectious Disease” comorbidity category on page 45954, “R1111” is being removed.

Additionally, IPF providers and software companies asked us to make the table more user-friendly by listing each ICD-10-CM code individually, rather than showing the ICD-10-CM code ranges, as originally presented in Table 7 of the FY 2015 IPF PPS final rule. As such, we are republishing Table 7 in its entirety with each ICD-10-CM code listed individually rather than shown in a range, after incorporating the eight corrections noted above. We have also posted Table 7 on the IPF PPS Web site, under the “Tools and Worksheets” link at: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/InpatientPsychFacilPPS/tools.html.

We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a rule take effect in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). However, we can waive this notice and comment procedure if the Secretary finds, for good cause, that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporates a statement of the finding and the reasons therefor in the notice.

Section 553(d) of the APA ordinarily requires a 30-day delay in effective date of final rules after the date of their publication in the Federal Register. This 30-day delay in effective date can be waived, however, if an agency finds for good cause that the delay is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and the agency incorporates a statement of the findings and its reasons in the rule issued.

In our view, this correction document does not constitute a rulemaking that would be subject to these requirements. This correction document corrects technical errors in a table included in the FY 2015 IPF PPS final rule. The corrections contained in this document are consistent with, and do not make substantive changes to, the policies and payment methodologies that were adopted and subjected to notice and comment procedures in the FY 2015 IPF PPS final rule. As a result, the corrections made through this correction document are intended to ensure that the FY 2015 IPF PPS final rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in that rule.

Even if this were a rulemaking to which the notice and comment and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the FY 2015 IPF PPS final rule or delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public's interest for providers and suppliers to receive appropriate payments in as timely a manner as possible, and to ensure that the FY 2015 IPF PPS final rule accurately reflects our policies as of the date they take effect and are applicable. Further, such procedures would be unnecessary, because we are not altering the payment methodologies or policies, but rather, we are simply correctly implementing the policies that we previously proposed, received comment on, and subsequently finalized. This correction document is intended solely to ensure that the FY 2015 IPF PPS final rule accurately reflects these payment methodologies and policies. For these reasons, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment and effective date requirements.

In FR Doc. 2014-18329 of August 6, 2014 (79 FR 45938), make the following corrections:

1. On pages 45953 through 45955, “Table 7—FY 2015 Diagnosis Codes and Adjustment Factors for Comorbidity Categories,” the table is corrected to read as follows:

Congress delegated certain powers to regulate interstate commerce to the United States Department of Transportation (DOT or Department) in numerous pieces of legislation, most notably in section 6 of the Department of Transportation Act (DOT Act) (Pub. L. 85-670, 80 Stat. 931 (1966)). Section 55 of the DOT Act transferred to the Department the authority of the former Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to regulate the qualifications and maximum hours-of-service of employees, the safety of operations, and the equipment of motor carriers in interstate commerce. See 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) 104. This authority, first granted to the ICC in the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (Pub. L. 74-255, 49 Stat. 543, Aug. 9, 1935), now appears in 49 U.S.C. chapter 315. The regulations issued under this authority became known as the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), appearing generally at 49 CFR parts 350-399. The administrative powers to enforce chapter 315 were also transferred from the ICC to the DOT in 1966 and appear in 49 U.S.C. chapter 5. The Secretary of the DOT (Secretary) delegated oversight of these provisions to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), a predecessor agency of FMCSA. The FMCSA Administrator has been delegated authority under 49 CFR 1.87 to carry out the motor carrier functions vested in the Secretary.

Between 1984 and 1999, a number of statutes added to FHWA's authority. Various statutes authorize the enforcement of the FMCSRs, the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs), and the Commercial Regulations, and provide both civil and criminal penalties for violations of these requirements. These statutes include the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-554, 98 Stat. 2832, Oct. 30, 1984), codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter 311, subchapter III (MCSA); the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207-170, Oct. 27, 1986), codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter 313; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990, as amended (Pub. L. 101-615, 104 Stat. 3244, Nov. 16, 1990), codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter 51; and the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803, Dec. 29, 1995), codified at 49 U.S.C. chapters 131-149.

The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) (Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, Dec. 9, 1999) established FMCSA as a new operating administration within DOT, effective January 1, 2000. The motor carrier safety responsibilities previously assigned to both ICC and FHWA are now assigned to FMCSA.

Congress expanded, modified, and amended FMCSA's authority in the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272, Oct. 26, 2001), the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, Aug. 10, 2005), the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-244, 122 Stat. 1572, June 6, 2008), and the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, July 6, 2012).

The specific regulations amended by this rule are based on the statutes detailed above. Generally, the legal authority for each of those provisions was explained when the requirement was originally adopted and is noted at the beginning of each part in title 49 of the CFR. Title 49 CFR subtitle B, chapter III, contains all of the FMCSRs.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551-706) specifically provides exceptions to its notice and public comment rulemaking procedures where the Agency finds there is good cause (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) to dispense with them. Generally, good cause exists where the Agency determines that notice and public procedures are impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)). The amendments made in this final rule merely correct inadvertent errors and omissions, remove or update obsolete references, and make minor changes to improve clarity and consistency. The technical amendments do not impose any new requirements, nor do they make any substantive changes to the CFR. For these reasons, FMCSA finds good cause that notice and public comment on this final rule is unnecessary.

The APA also allows agencies to make rules effective upon publication with good cause (5 U.S.C. 553 (d)(3)), instead of requiring publication 30 days prior to the effective date. For the reasons already stated, FMCSA finds there is good cause for this rule to be effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register.

This document makes editorial changes to correct inaccurate references and citations, improve clarity, and fix errors. The reasons for each of these minor revisions are set out below, in a section-by-section description of the changes. These amendments do not impose any new requirements, nor (with one exception) do they make substantive changes to the CFR.

This section-by-section analysis describes the technical amendment provisions and corrections in numerical order.

Section 350.105. Under the section for “Definitions,” the term “Basic Program Funds” is defined to mean total Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) funds less other funds, including “Border Activity Funds.” An October 1, 2012 (77 FR 59823) rulemaking, however, deleted the definition of “Border Activity Funds” because a statute mandated that such funds be removed from MCSAP. Therefore, FMCSA removes the words “Border Activity” from the definition of “Basic Program Funds.”

In addition, the SAFETEA-LU amendments, published July 5, 2007 (72 FR 36760), added “New Entrant” funds as a set aside of up to $29,000,000 from MCSAP grant funds per fiscal year, making grants available from this amount to State and local governments for new entrant motor carrier audits without requiring a matching contribution from such governments. Although references to new entrant funds were added in various places in that final rule, the term was not added to the definition of the term “Basic Program Funds” as one of the funds to be subtracted from total MCSAP funds—similar to High Priority Activity, Administrative Takedown, and Incentive Funds. Therefore, Agency adds the term “New Entrant” to the definition of “Basic Program Funds.”

Section 350.201. This section answers the question “What conditions must a State meet to qualify for Basic Program Funds?” MAP-21 added a 26th condition in paragraph (z); but the October 1, 2013 (78 FR 60226, at 60230), rule did not update the introductory phrase to change the 25 conditions to 26 conditions. This final rule adds the reference to the 26th condition to the introductory text of the section.

Paragraph (y) requires the State to ensure that bus inspections are conducted at a location such as “a border maintenance facility, . . . or other location” where motor carriers make planned stops. However, the correct phrase in SAFETEA-LU is “border crossing, maintenance facility, . . . or other locations.” The July 5, 2007 (72 FR 36769) rule, which added § 350.201(y), inadvertently omitted the word “crossing,” which FMCSA adds through this technical amendment.

Section 365.503. Paragraph (d) references an outdated universal resource locator (URL) on the Internet. The correct URL, which is http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mission/forms, replaces the current reference.

Section 375.201. Paragraph (d) references § 375.303(g), but paragraph (g) was redesignated as § 375.303(c)(5) on March 5, 2004 (69 FR 10575). This technical amendment replaces the reference to § 375.303(g) with § 375.303(c)(5).

Section 375.501. This section answers the question “Must I write up an order for service?” Paragraph (h) states that the valuation statement can be included in the bill of lading or order for service. On January 12, 2012, the Surface Transportation Board (STB) served a decision amending its released rates order. See “Released Rates of Motor Common Carriers of Household Goods,” Surface Transportation Board, Docket No. RR 999 (Amendment No. 5), Order, January 10, 2012. Among other things, that decision directed household goods motor carriers to provide the STB's required valuation statement on the shipper's bill of lading. To conform part 375 to these changes, FMCSA published a final rule amending § 375.505(b)(12) and removing § 375.505(e), both of which previously stated that the carrier had the option of including the valuation statement on either the bill of lading or order for service. See “Transportation of Household Goods in Interstate Commerce; Consumer Protection Regulations: Released Rates of Motor Carriers of Household Goods,” Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0101, 77 FR 25371, April 30, 2012. New § 375.505(b)(12) no longer includes any language granting the choice and § 375.505(e) no longer exists. Therefore, this technical amendment removes the language granting the choice and requires household goods motor carriers to provide the STB's required valuation statement on the shipper's bill of lading only.

Section 375.505. Both the eCFR version and the printed CFR version show paragraph (b)(12) incorrectly labeled. Paragraph (b)(12) should just be labeled (12). The extra (b) in front of (12) is removed.

Appendix A, Subpart A, Definitions. For the most part, the definitions in Appendix A mirror the definitions in § 375.103. The definition of “Advertisement” in § 375.103 was updated on October 1, 2012 (77 FR 59823), to include the motor carrier's name and address on an Internet Web site (“or displayed on an Internet Web site”). FMCSA updates the definition in the appendix to conform with § 375.103.

Section 377.211. This section contains a cross-reference to § 386.32(a), but that section no longer exists. It was removed by a May 18, 2005 (70 FR 28475) rule and the provision's language was moved to § 386.8. This technical amendment replaces the reference to § 386.32(a) with a reference to § 386.8.

Section 381.110. In the definition for “FMCSRs,” this section contains a reference to § 385.21, but that section was removed on June 2, 2000 (65 FR 35295), and its requirements were combined with those of former § 385.23 in a new § 390.19. FMCSA corrects this error by changing the reference to “§ 390.19.”

Section 383.5. On October 2, 2014 (79 FR 59455), FMCSA incorrectly revised the definition of “Commercial motor vehicle (CMV)” in § 383.5. The revision added paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) for Groups A, B, and C, respectively. Paragraph (3) was further divided into three definitions of a Group C vehicle, designated as paragraphs (3)(i), (ii), and (iii). This part of the revised CMV definition now says: “Commercial motor vehicle (CMV) means a motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles used in commerce to transport passengers or property if the motor vehicle is a * * * (3) Small Vehicle (Group C)—(i) that does not meet Group A or B requirements; (ii) Is designed to transport 16 or more passengers, including the driver; or (iii) Is of any size and is used in the transportation of hazardous materials as defined in this section.”

The “or” between paragraphs (3)(ii) and (3)(iii), in italic above, means that paragraphs (3)(i), (ii), and (iii) are alternative definitions of a Group C vehicle, which is clearly not the case. There should be only two alternative definitions. Instead, paragraph (3) of the definition of “commercial motor vehicle” in § 383.5 should mirror the definition of a Group C vehicle in § 383.91(a)(3): “(3) Small Vehicle (Group C)—Any single vehicle, or combination of vehicles, that meets neither the definition of Group A nor that of Group B as contained in this section, but that either is designed to transport 16 or more passengers including the driver, or is used in the transportation of materials found to be hazardous for the purposes of the hazardous materials as defined in § 383.5.”

The definition of the term “commercial motor vehicle” in § 383.5 is corrected to clarify that there are only two alternative definitions for a Group C vehicle. See below for a change to § 383.91(a)(3), which was referenced in this explanation.

In addition, in the definitions for “Alcohol or alcoholic beverage,” “Commerce,” and “Driving a commercial motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol,” paragraphs are renumbered to conform to current Federal Register style. A cross reference and a grammatical correction are also made in the definition for “Commerce.”

Section 383.71. A number of amendments in the September 24, 2013 (78 FR 58470), technical amendments rule were incorporated into the CFR incorrectly, and are corrected in this rule. The following corrections comport with the September 24, 2013 (78 FR 58470) technical amendment. In paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text and (a)(2) introductory text, the Agency removes the date “July 8, 2014” in every place it appears and replaces it with “July 8, 2015.” In paragraph (g), FMCSA replaces the reference to “§ 383.71” with a reference to “§ 383.71(b)(1).” Also in paragraph (g), FMCSA removes the phrase “on or after January 30, 2012, but not later than January 30, 2014” because the requirement has been in effect for nearly 2 years since the 2014 “not later than” date and it is no longer needed.

Section 383.72. This section cross-references “§ 383.51(b), Table 1, item (4),” however, this does not follow the same format as other cross-references to § 383.51 tables. FMCSA revises § 383.72 to change the format of the cross-reference to “item (4) of Table 1 to § 383.51 of this subpart”.

Section 383.73. The following correction comports with the September 24, 2013 (78 FR 58470) technical amendment. In paragraph (a)(2) introductory text, FMCSA removes the date “July 8, 2014” in every place it appears and replaces it with “July 8, 2015.”

Section 383.91. FMCSA corrects paragraph (a)(3) by removing the phrase “materials found to be hazardous for the purposes of the”, which was inadvertently not deleted from the CFR when the paragraph was revised in an October 1, 2012 (77 FR 59825) rulemaking.

Section 384.222. The following correction comports with the September 24, 2013 (78 FR 58470) technical amendment. During the codification process, the correct new reference to “§ 383.37(d)” was added, but the old reference to “§ 383.37(c)” was not removed. Therefore, FMCSA removes the reference to § 383.37(c).

Section 384.228. Paragraph (k) currently references “six units of training described in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.” This is corrected to “eight units of training” (three units in paragraph (c) and five units in paragraph (d)).

Section 384.403. FMCSA removes paragraph (b), leaving only the text of previous paragraph (a) in revised § 384.403. Paragraph (b) concerns Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) funds withheld from a State under § 384.401(a)(2) and (b)(2). However, paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2) of § 384.401 were removed in a rule, published on July 5, 2007 (72 FR 36788), and § 384.401 no longer mentions withholding MCSAP funds. FMCSA corrects this error by removing § 384.403(b).

Section 385.3. In § 385.3, the term “HMRs” is defined as “the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 100-178).” However, the Materials Transportation Bureau of the Department of Transportation, a predecessor to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), established subtitle B, Chapter I, subchapter C, as the Hazardous Materials Regulations on July 29, 1975 (40 CFR 31767). In § 171.1, PHMSA continues to maintain that the HMRs comprise 49 CFR parts 171-180. The definition of HMRs is therefore corrected to reference 49 CFR parts 171-180.

Section 385.321. Violation 15 in the Table to § 385.321 contains a reference to § 396.11(c), but the information previously in that paragraph was largely moved to § 396.11(a)(3) on June 12, 2012 (77 FR 34846). Violation 15 is changed to update the reference.

Section 385.403. In paragraph (b), FMCSA clarifies that the threshold weight of explosive material is the net weight of the material or article. The current language creates confusion as to whether the weight is net weight or gross weight and whether, for an explosive article, the weight refers to the weight of the article or the weight of the explosive contained in the article. The clarification is based on information that is presented in FMCSA's brochure relating to the Hazardous Materials Safety Permit (HMSP) Program (FMCSA-CMO-04-002) 1 that indicates net weight, as well as a 22-year old PHMSA interpretation (93-0068) 2 relating to PHMSA's registration requirements that parallel the HMSP requirements.

FMCSA also changes the terminology in paragraph (f) to make it consistent with the proper shipping name language in the Hazardous Materials Table in 49 CFR 172.101.

Appendix B to Part 385—Explanation of Safety Rating Process. FMCSA updates a citation within Section VII of Appendix B, “List of Acute and Critical Regulations,” to reflect a reorganization of a regulation published June 12, 2012 (77 FR 34852). FMCSA changes the citation from “§ 396.11(c) Failing to correct Out-of-Service defects listed by driver in a driver vehicle inspection report before the vehicle is operated again (acute)” to “§ 396.11(a)(3) Failing to correct Out-of-Service defects listed by driver in a driver vehicle inspection report before the vehicle is operated again (acute).”

Section 387.317. On November 14, 1983 (48 FR 51777), the ICC revised former 49 CFR 1043.1, the predecessor to § 387.301, and redesignated paragraph (d) as paragraph (c). Therefore, FMCSA changes the cross-reference in § 387.317 from § 387.301(d) to § 387.301(c) to reflect this redesignation.

Sections 389.21 and 389.35. These two sections specify how to submit comments to rulemakings or petitions for reconsideration. They have remained largely the same since they were promulgated on June 8, 1968 (33 FR 8493), except for Agency name and address changes, and a redesignation within title 49 in 1968 from 49 CFR part 289 to 49 CFR part 389.

The requirement that comments or petitions must be submitted in five (5) legible copies has existed since 1968. Before the adoption of the electronic docketing system employed by the Department of Transportation in 1997, five legible copies were needed for the paper-based docketing system for clerks to include a copy in the official docket and send other copies for distribution to various Agency offices to take appropriate action. The electronic docketing system allows the scanning of any original paper-based comment or petition, or the uploading of an electronically-submitted file of the comment or petition. As the electronic docketing system has now been in wide use by the Agency for over 18 years, the requirement for more than one original comment or petition for reconsideration is unnecessary, duplicative, and burdensome to the commenter or petitioner. Therefore, FMCSA is removing the requirement in §§ 389.21 and 389.35(a) for the comment or petition to be filed with five legible copies.

Section 390.5. In the definition of the term “Lessee,” the word “of” is added following the phrase “in subpart F” to correct an inadvertent omission.

In the definition of the term “Texting,” paragraph (2)(iii) references purposes that are not otherwise prohibited “in this part.” This reference primarily relates to the ban on texting which is found in § 392.80 rather than part 390. The reference to “this part” is too limited and is, therefore, changed to reference “this subchapter,” consistent with the general scope of the § 390.5 definitions.

In the definition of “Trailer,” redesignate paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) to conform this definition to the style used in a definitions section and the other definitions in § 390.5.

Section 390.42. Section 390.42(b) currently contains an incorrect cross-reference to § 396.11(b)(2). On June 12, 2012 (77 FR 34852), FMCSA revised § 396.11, subdividing paragraph (b) into four paragraphs: Paragraphs (b)(1) through (4). However, FMCSA did not change the cross reference in § 390.42(b). The October 1, 2012 (77 FR 59828) technical amendment attempted to correct the error, but incorrectly changed the cross reference to § 396.11(b)(2). This technical amendment correctly changes the cross reference to § 396.11(b)(1).

Section 390.115. FMCSA corrects an inadvertent grammatical error in paragraph (d)(2)(iv) by removing the phrase “performs examinations maintain documentation” and replaces it with the phrase “performs examinations and maintains documentation.” This wording is consistent with the wording in § 390.115(f)(4).

Section 391.1. FMCSA changes paragraph (b) to remove a grammatical inconsistency and improve clarity. Currently, paragraph (b) reads, “A motor carrier who employs himself/herself as a driver . . . .” FMCSA changes it to read: “An individual who meets the definition of both a motor carrier and a driver employed by that motor carrier . . .”

Section 391.13. The introductory text of § 391.13 concerning responsibilities of drivers for determining whether cargo is properly located, distributed, and secured in or on the CMV cross references § 393.9, but § 393.9, “Lamps operable, prohibition of obstructions of lamps and reflectors,” is not about cargo securement. The incorrect reference to § 393.9 was included in the final rule that added § 391.13 (June 18, 1998, 63 FR 33277) to the FMCSRs. However, in reviewing the preamble to the 1998 final rule (see page 33259), it appears that the reference should have been to § 383.111(d) rather than § 393.9. Section 383.111 was revised on May 9, 2011 (76 FR 26888) and the rules on the required knowledge of the relationship of cargo to vehicle control are now codified in § 383.111(a)(16). Therefore, FMCSA changes the cross reference in the first line of the introductory text so that it reads, “In order to comply with the requirements of §§ 392.9(a) and 383.111(a)(16) of this subchapter . . .”.

Section 391.15. The following corrections comport with the September 24, 2013 (78 FR 58482) technical amendment. In paragraph (c)(1)(i), FMCSA corrects the cross reference to read, “§ 395.2 of this subchapter” rather than “§ 395.2(a) of this partsubchapter.” In addition, FMCSA removes the semi-colon that mistakenly follows the final period of paragraph (c)(1)(ii).

Section 391.23. Throughout paragraph (c), any reference to “driver investigation history file,” “Driver Investigation file,” or “driver history investigation file,” is revised to read consistently in each instance “driver investigation history file.” This clarifies that all these references are to the same file and makes the terminology consistent with § 391.53.

The cross reference in paragraph (m)(3)(i)(C) currently references § 383.73(a)(5), but that paragraph was removed on May 9, 2011 (76 FR 26883). FMCSA replaces that reference with the correct reference to “§ 383.73(a)(2)(vii).”

Section 391.41. FMCSA corrects the format of the cross reference in paragraph (b)(12)(ii) by changing it from “21 part 1308” to “21 CFR part 1308.”

Section 391.43. FMCSA corrects paragraph (g)(4) included in the Agency's April 23, 2015 (80 FR 22790, 22812) final rule, “Medical Examiner's Certification Integration.” Currently, paragraph (g)(4) indicates that beginning June 22, 2018, if the medical examiner determines that a driver should not be issued a medical card until additional medical information is considered, the examiner must so inform the driver, etc. However, the compliance date was supposed to have been December 22, 2015. FMCSA amends the first sentence by changing June 22, 2018, to December 22, 2015, considering that this paragraph has to be effective on the same date as the forms. Amendatory instruction number 5 in the June 22, 2015, correction notice (80 FR 35578), which updated the date from June 22, 2018, to December 22, 2015, made no reference to amending paragraph (g)(4) even though (g)(4) rule text is shown on page 35595. Amendatory instruction number 5 only refers to amending “paragraphs (f), (g)(5)(ii), and (h)”, therefore, the eCFR did not make the change. FMCSA is ensuring that the printed CFR revised as of October 1, 2015, will include the updated date.

Section 391.45. This section specifies the drivers who must be medically examined and certified, “[e]xcept as provided in § 391.67.” Because § 391.67 no longer includes any exceptions from the medical examination and certification requirements, the introductory phrase “Except as provided in § 391.67” is removed.

Section 391.47. To comport with the September 24, 2013 (78 FR 58482) technical amendment, FMCSA corrects paragraph (f) by adding a space after the last parentheses and before the word “orders.”

FMCSA also removes the authority citation that appears in parentheses after the last paragraph in § 391.47. The authority citation is outdated; and the FMCSA no longer includes an authority citation at the end of a section. Moreover, the citations for § 391.47 are covered by the general authority citations for all of part 391, namely, 49 U.S.C. 31133, 31136, and 31149 of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, as amended, and 49 U.S.C. 31502 of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, as amended.

Section 393.7. FMCSA amends § 393.7(b)—which lists all the paragraphs in part 393 that have materials incorporated by reference—to restore a reference to an Underwriters Laboratories' standard that was mistakenly deleted. Section 393.95(j) refers to a specific Underwriters Laboratories' standard on highway emergency signals and then states “See § 393.7 for information on the incorporation by reference and availability of this document.” However, § 393.7(b) fails to include that document.

On August 15, 2005 (70 FR 48027), the Agency published general amendments to 49 CFR part 393. The final rule was intended to remove obsolete and redundant regulations; respond to several petitions for rulemaking; provide improved definitions of vehicle types, systems, and components; resolve inconsistencies between part 393 and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR part 571); and codify certain FMCSA regulatory guidance concerning the requirements of part 393. However, the rulemaking resulted in the inadvertent deletion of the reference to the Underwriters Laboratories' standard. Section 393.7(c)(1) still references the address, but the publication is not listed in § 393.7(b). To correct this error, FMCSA adds a reference to the standard in paragraph (b)(15) to read as follows: “Highway Emergency Signals, Fourth Edition, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., UL No. 912, July 30, 1979 (with an amendment dated November 9, 1981), incorporation by reference approved for § 393.95(j).”

Section 393.17. FMCSA corrects paragraph (c)(1) by removing an obsolete cross-reference to former § 392.30, “Lighted Lamps; Moving Vehicles.” That section was removed on November 23, 1994 (59 FR 60319), because it was duplicative of State laws and could only be enforced by State and local authorities.

Section 393.71. FMCSA corrects paragraph (n)(1) by removing an obsolete cross-reference to § 393.71(g)(2)(ii). Section 393.71(g)(2)(ii) was removed August 15, 2005 (70 FR 48054). Editorial changes also are made to maintain consistency with (1) the language in the current § 393.71(n) and (2) the August 2005 final rule.

Section 393.95. FMCSA removes the outdated authority citations following § 393.95. They are obsolete, current Federal Register style dictates that they do not belong at the end of a section, and they are covered by the general authority citations cited for all of part 393. That authority citation includes 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31151 (the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, as amended); 49 U.S.C. 31502 (the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, as amended); and sec. 1041(b) of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1993 (1991) (the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991), providing that “fusees and flares are given equal priority with regard to use as reflecting signs” under § 393.95.

Section 395.1. To comport with the September 24, 2013 (78 FR 58482) technical amendment, FMCSA corrects § 395.1 by removing the redundant paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(C). The language revised on September 24, 2013, was added but the obsolete language was inadvertently not removed.

Section 396.11. In the September 24, 2013 (78 FR 58485) technical amendment, FMCSA attempted to remove a semicolon at the end of § 396.11(b)(2)(ix) and add a period in its place. However, that instruction was inaccurate, as there is no paragraph (b)(2)(ix). The CFR now carries a note saying the CFR could not incorporate the 2013 amendment. FMCSA requests CFR editors to remove the inaccurate instruction and the note.

Section 397.215. This section, titled “Waiver notice,” is a part of the preemption procedures that States, political subdivisions of States, and Indian tribes must follow to apply for waivers of preemption determinations either made pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5125, 49 CFR 397.69, or 49 CFR 397.203, or that have been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be preempted. This section requires that copies of the application for a waiver of preemption and any subsequent amendments or other documents relating to the application must be mailed to each person whom the applicant reasonably ascertains will be affected by the determination sought. The copy of the application must be accompanied by a statement that the affected person may submit comments to the FMCSA Administrator within 45 days. The application filed with the Administrator must include a certification of compliance with 49 CFR 397.215(a). A grammatical error exists in the last sentence of paragraph (a). The phrase “certification with the application has complied” is grammatically incorrect and so FMCSA replaces it with the phrase “certification that the application complies.”

Section 31. FMCSA corrects a typographical error in paragraph (d) of Section 31 of the ICC-defined commercial zone for Charleston, South Carolina in 1975. This paragraph contains cross-references to “paragraphs (1) and (c) of this section.”

Based on the 1972-1974 editions of 49 CFR part 1048, which was the basis for Appendix F to Subchapter B of Chapter III, the correct reference is to paragraph (b), not paragraph (1). This error was corrected in the May 19, 1988, final rule (53 FR 18042, at 18067), but the October 1, 1988, CFR edition reinstated the use of a (1) instead of the correct (b).

FMCSA has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 18, 2011), or within the meaning of the DOT regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 1103, Feb. 26, 1979). Thus, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not review this document. We expect the final rule will have no costs; therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), FMCSA is not required to complete a regulatory flexibility analysis. This is because this rule does not require publication of a general notice of proposed rulemaking. However, in compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), FMCSA has evaluated the effects of this rule on small entities. Because the rule makes only minor editorial or clarifying revisions and places no new requirements on the regulated industry, FMCSA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The final rule will not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532, et seq.), that will result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $155 million (which is the value of $100 million in 2015 after adjusting for inflation) or more in any 1 year.

A rule has implications for Federalism under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government.” FMCSA has determined that this rule will not have substantial direct effects on States, nor will it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts or modifies any provision of State law or regulation, imposes substantial direct unreimbursed compliance costs on any State, or diminishes the power of any State to enforce its own laws. Accordingly, this rulemaking does not have Federalism implications warranting the application of E.O. 13132.

The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this rule.

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

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. FMCSA determined that no new information collection requirements are associated with this final rule, nor are there any revisions to existing, approved collections of information.

FMCSA analyzed this final rule for the purpose of ascertaining the applicability of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and determined under our Environmental Procedures Order 5610.1, issued March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9680), that this action would not have any effect on the quality of the environment. In addition, this final rule is categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation under the Categorical Exclusion (CE) in paragraph 6(b) of Appendix 2 of FMCSA Order 5610.1. This CE addresses minor editorial corrections such as found in this rulemaking; therefore, preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is not necessary.

FMCSA also analyzed this rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)), and implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general conformity requirement since it does not affect direct or indirect emissions of criteria pollutants.

This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994). Executive Order 12898 establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. FMCSA determined that this rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not change the substance of any of the FMCSRs.

FMCSA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211 titled, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.” The Agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that Executive Order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

Executive Order 13045 titled, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997), requires agencies issuing “economically significant” rules, if the regulation also concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects on children. As discussed previously, this rule is not economically significant. Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on children is required.

This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988 titled, “Civil Justice Reform,” to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630 titled, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.”

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note) requires Federal agencies proposing to adopt technical standards to consider whether voluntary consensus standards are available. If the Agency chooses to adopt its own standards in place of existing voluntary consensus standards, it must explain its decision in a separate statement to OMB. Because FMCSA does not intend to adopt technical standards, there is no need to submit a separate statement to OMB on this matter.

Section 522(a)(5) of the Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies, and General Government Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub. L. 108- 447, Division H, Title I, 118 Stat. 2809 at 3268, Dec. 8, 2004) requires DOT and certain other Federal agencies to conduct a privacy impact assessment of each rule that will affect the privacy of individuals. Because this final rule will not affect the privacy of individuals, FMCSA did not conduct a separate privacy impact assessment.

In FR Rule Doc. 2013-22484 appearing on page 58470 in the Federal Register of Tuesday, September 24, 2013, make the following correction:

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

The 2015 total allowable catch (TAC) of “other rockfish” in the Central and Western Regulatory Areas of the GOA is 1,031 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (80 FR 10250, February 25, 2015).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2015 TAC of “other rockfish” in the Central and Western Regulatory Areas of the GOA will be reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that “other rockfish” caught in the Central and Western Regulatory Areas of the GOA be treated as prohibited species in accordance with § 679.21(b).

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay prohibiting the retention of “other rockfish” in the Central and Western Regulatory Areas of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of September 25, 2015.

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

This action is required by §§ 679.20 and 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.