Federal Register Vol. 81, No.117,

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and all Airbus Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 1, 2016 (81 FR 10549) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of chafing of the feeder cable at the pylon-wing junction due to vibration; one report revealed that the cable loom plastic support bracket of the G-route was broken due to vibration; and another report revealed wire chafing due to clamp damage. The NPRM proposed to require modifying the cable loom support bracket of the G-route of the inboard pylons at the pylon-wing junction. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing of the wiring in the pylon-wing area, which could result in an electrical short circuit near a flammable fluid vapor zone, and consequent fire or fuel tank explosion.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0142, dated July 17, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and all Airbus Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We reviewed the following Airbus service information:

• Service Bulletin A330-92-3132, Revision 01, dated May 21, 2015.

• Service Bulletin A340-92-4100, Revision 01, dated May 21, 2015.

• Service Bulletin A340-92-5066, dated June 25, 2014.

This service information describes procedures for modifying the cable loom support bracket of the G-route of the inboard pylons at the pylon-wing junction. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 90 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it takes about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the modification requirements of this AD. Required parts will cost about $900 per product. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost for the inspection specified in this AD on U.S. operators to be $142,200, or $1,580 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 20, 2016 (81 FR 3051) (“the NPRM”).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0108, dated May 8, 2014 (referred to after this the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8467.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We have revised the document citations in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD to meet the Office of the Federal Register's requirements for materials incorporated by reference.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We reviewed Fokker Proforma Service Bulletin SBF28-28-058, dated January 9, 2014; and Fokker F28 Appendix Service Bulletin SBF28-28-058/APP01, dated July 15, 2014. The service information describes procedures for installing improved bonding provisions for the transfer jet pumps, ventilation float valves, center tank overflow valves, and level control pilot valves wiring conduit; and applicable related investigative and corrective actions.

We also reviewed Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28-28-050, Revision 3, dated December 11, 2014. The service information describes certain fuel airworthiness limitation items and CDCCLs.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 21 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $8,925, or $1,785 per product.

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

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

We determined that this 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:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 11, 2016 (81 FR 12834) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

This AD requires repetitive inspections of the affected diffuser and removal of those diffusers that fail the required inspection. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8257.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM.

We increased the compliance time for repetitive inspection from 50 hours since last inspection to 300 hours since last inspection. We updated the revision number and date of Turbomeca S.A. Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. A298 72 2832 throughout this AD and changed the Credit for Previous Actions paragraph as a result of the MSB change.

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Turbomeca S.A. has issued Alert MSB No. A298 72 2832, Version C, dated April 15, 2016. The Alert MSB describes procedures for repetitive inspections of the affected diffuser and depending on findings, accomplishment of the corrective action(s).

We estimate that this AD affects 10 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2 hours per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $1,700.

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

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

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

We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce Model RB211-Trent 800 engines. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on September 25, 2015 (80 FR 57744) (“the SNPRM”). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on January 20, 2011 (76 FR 3561) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for degradation of T/R structure and sealant, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM was prompted by reports of T/R events related to thermal damage of the T/R inner wall. The SNPRM proposed to revise the NPRM by adding different repetitive inspection requirements for T/R halves with a thermal protective system installed. The SNPRM also proposed to revise the NPRM by requiring installation of serviceable T/R halves, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. The SNPRM also proposed to revise the inspection or maintenance program by incorporating new airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct a degraded T/R inner wall panel. A degraded T/R inner wall panel could lead to failure of the T/R and adjacent components and their consequent separation from the airplane, which could result in an RTO and cause asymmetric thrust and consequent loss of control of the airplane during reverse thrust operation. If a T/R inner wall overheats, separated components could cause structural damage to the airplane, damage to other airplanes, or possible injury to people on the ground.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the SNPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (k)(2) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) by adding “table 5” to the reference to the Compliance paragraph in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2015. Boeing stated that this change would be consistent with how paragraph (k)(1) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) refers to the Compliance paragraph.

We agree with the commenter's request for the reason provided. We have revised paragraph (k)(2) of this AD accordingly.

Boeing requested that the AMOC statement specified in paragraph (r)(3) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) be revised by adding a sentence to allow an AMOC for the serviceable T/R assembly to be transferred to other airplanes. Boeing stated that an AMOC provided for a repaired and serviceable unit is able to be attached to and travel with the repaired unit. Boeing added that a serviceable unit is a rotable part and can be installed on multiple airplanes during the life of the unit. Boeing noted that paragraph (l)(3) of AD 2015-19-16, Amendment 39-18278 (80 FR 59570, October 2, 2015) contains language similar to the requested language.

We disagree with the request because we are now able to issue an AMOC that applies to multiple products operated by a single operator (commonly referred to as a fleet AMOC). This procedure allows AMOCs to address rotable parts. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Boeing requested that the revision date of Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622W001-9, Revision dated October 2014, be updated to reflect the latest FAA-approved revision. Boeing stated that AWL 78-AWL-01, Thrust Reverser Thermal Protection System, was revised recently to include Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0094, dated July 29, 2014, in the applicability note of the AWL.

We agree to reference the most recent revision of Boeing 777 MPD Document Section 9, AWLs and CMRs, D622W001-9 (which is referred to as Temporary Revision (TR) 09-030, Revision dated November 2015, on MyBoeingFleet.com), because the new applicability note clarifies that AWL 78-AWL-01 applies to T/R halves on which the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0094 have been done. As a result, we have revised the introductory text to paragraph (n) of this AD accordingly. We have also added a new paragraph (p)(5) to this AD to provide credit for accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (n) of this AD using Boeing 777 MPD Document, Section 9, AWLs and CMRs, D622W001-9, Revision dated October 2014.

Boeing requested that paragraph (n)(1) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) be revised to allow deferral of the initial inspection for AWL 78-AWL-01, Thrust Reverser Thermal Protection System. Boeing stated that the compliance time should be 1,125 days or 6,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs first, after the last inspection for AWL 78-AWL-01, Thrust Reverser Thermal Protection System, “for T/Rs that have already incorporated 78-AWL-01.” Boeing stated that when the AD becomes effective, T/R halves on which Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0094 and AWL 78-AWL-01, Thrust Reverser Thermal Protection System, have been incorporated are not subject to the inspections specified in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) and should not be required to do the inspection required by AWL 78-AWL-01 concurrent with the next inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

We agree with allowing deferral of the initial inspection for AWL 78-AWL-01, Thrust Reverser Thermal Protection System, for the reasons provided by the commenter. We have revised the compliance time for AWL 78-AWL-01, Thrust Reverser Thermal Protection System, as requested by the commenter. We have revised the introductory text to paragraph (n), and reformatted and revised paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) of this AD, to accommodate the commenter's request. We clarified the affected airplanes for the compliance as specified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD by stating, “For airplanes on which any inspections required by paragraph (i) of this AD are done.” We clarified the affected airplanes for the compliance as specified in paragraph (n)(2) of this AD by stating, “For airplanes on which the installation required by paragraph (l) of this AD is done.”

American Airlines requested that the FAA review the inspection methods and instructions required in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) when doing a nondestructive test (NDT) inspection for delaminations and disbonds; and ensuring false positive findings are prevented or minimized. American Airlines stated that they inspected eight T/R inner walls in accordance with paragraph (i)(1) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) and found disbonded material. American Airlines stated that after they contacted the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and re-inspected, several units were determined to be false positives. American Airlines surmised that the instructions or possible training for inspections may not be sufficient.

We acknowledge the commenter's concern. However, we have determined the NDT inspections for disbonds and damage required in paragraph (i) and associated service information produce reliable inspection results and adequately detect disbonds and damage. Through technical discussion with the OEM, we understand that the false positive indications were a result of a maintenance vendor using a non-OEM inspection manual that had a faulty NDT inspection standard. We have not revised this AD in this regard.

American Airlines stated it had a T/R inner wall that required repair, but the damage would not have been detected by the inspection specified in Airworthiness Limitation 78-AWL-02, Thrust Reverser Inner Wall, as specified in Boeing MPD Document, Section 9, AWLs and CMRs, D622W001-9, Revision dated October 2014. American Airlines stated the damage would likely have passed inspection because it did not indicate any heat discoloration, and other areas of disbonds or damage on the inner wall could be potentially missed after the incorporation of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0094, dated July 29, 2014, and AWL 78-AWL-02. We infer the commenter is requesting that we review AWL 78-AWL-02 to ensure that thermal damage on the inner wall is not missed.

We acknowledge the commenter's concern, and we might consider additional rulemaking to address that concern in the future. We contacted Boeing, and Boeing stated they are working with American Airlines to determine if a change needs to be made to the service information. However, until such additional action is identified, we consider it appropriate to proceed with issuance of this final rule to address the identified unsafe condition. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the SNPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM.

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

We reviewed the following Boeing service information.

• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0065, Revision 2, dated May 6, 2010. This service information describes procedures for a review of the airplane maintenance records to determine whether sealant was added to insulation blankets around compression pad fittings and the powered door opening system (PDOS) fitting; inspections of the T/R structure; and related investigative and corrective actions.

• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0094, dated July 29, 2014. This service information describes procedures for installing serviceable T/R halves.

• Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2015; and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013. This service information describes, among other actions, procedures for inspections of the T/R structure, and related investigative and corrective actions, if necessary. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013, also describes, for airplanes on which the actions specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, dated November 29, 2009, have been done, procedures for installation of click bond covers and a bracket, a general visual inspection of the compression fitting for incorrect pin orientation, and related investigative and corrective actions, if necessary.

• Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622W001 9, Revision dated November 2015. This service information provides required AWLs and CMRs for The Boeing Company Model 777 airplanes. The two AWLs specifically required by this AD are AWL 78-AWL-01, Thrust Reverser Thermal Protection System, which describes an inspection of the T/R thermal protection system on both engines; and AWL 78 AWL-02, which describes an inspection of the T/R inner wall.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 55 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2008-05-18 R1, Amendment 39-16083 (74 FR 57402, November 6, 2009) (“AD 2008-05-18 R1”). AD 2008-05-18 R1 applied to certain Model F.27 Mark 050, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 4, 2016 (81 FR 38) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by the issuance of revised service information to update the Fuel ALIs and CDCCLs that address fuel tank system ignition sources. The NPRM proposed to retain the requirements of AD 2008-05-18 R1, and require a new maintenance or inspection program revision to incorporate the revised ALIs and CDCCLs. The NPRM also proposed to add certain airplanes to the applicability. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0029, dated February 24, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all Model F.27 Mark 050, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 airplanes. The MCAI states:

The unsafe condition is the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks. Such ignition sources, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2015-8137.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

Fokker Services B.V. has issued Service Bulletin SBF27-28-070, Revision 3, dated December 11, 2014. The service information describes tasks for revising the maintenance or inspection program to update the fuel ALIs and CDCCLs that address fuel tank system ignition sources. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 16 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions that are required by AD 2008-05-18 R1 take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions required by AD 2008-05-18 R1 is $85 per product.

We also estimate that it takes about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $1,360, or $85 per product.

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

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

We determined that this 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 Ogden-Hinckley Airport, Ogden, UT.

On March 1, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area airspace at Ogden-Hinckley Airport, Ogden, UT. (81 FR 10551) Docket FAA-2016-0021. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

The legal description language was changed slightly from that contained in the NPRM to add clarity however, no changes to the lateral or horizontal dimensions of the airspace have occurred.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6004 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 designation 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 amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies the Class E airspace designated as an extension to the Class D surface area. The airspace would be expanded to 4 miles either side of the 225° radial extending 16 miles southwest of Ogden-Hinckley airport, Ogden, UT. The FAA found this action necessary for the safety and management of aircraft departing and arriving under IFR operations at the airport. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6004 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.

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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. 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 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. 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:

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part § 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary.

This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary.

This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part § 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary.

This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

The BIA published the final rule, “Leasing of Osage Reservation Lands for Oil and Gas Mining,” on May 11, 2015 at 80 FR 26994. The effective date of the final rule was July 10, 2015. On July 1, 2015, the Osage Minerals Council and Osage Producers Association filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, Case No. 15-cv-00367-GKF-PJC, seeking to enjoin implementation of the final rule. On August 10, 2015, the Court entered an Order enjoining the final rule. The BIA determined that a voluntary remand of the final rule was appropriate. On November 19, 2015, the Court entered the Judgment of Remand. The version of 25 CFR part 226 in effect prior to publication of the final rule on May 11, 2015, remains operative. See 55 FR 33116 (Aug. 14, 1990). This final rule reinserts into the Code of Federal Regulations that version of 25 CFR part 226 that was in effect prior to the May 11, 2015 final rule publication.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

This document will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) because this rule reinstates the existing, operative rule.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;

(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions;

(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

This rule does not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. A Federalism summary impact statement is not required.

This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and have determined that is has no substantial direct effects on the Osage Nation or other federally recognized Indian Tribes and that consultation under the Department's tribal consultation policy is not required.

This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not required. We may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because the rule is covered by a categorical exclusion. This rule is excluded from the requirement to prepare a detailed statement because it is a regulation of an administrative nature. (For further information, see 43 CFR 46.210(i).) We have also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

We are required by Executive Orders 12866 (section 1(b)(12)), and 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

(a) Be logically organized;

(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;

(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon;

(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that you find unclear, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you think lists or tables would be useful, etc.

Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that “notice and public procedure . . . are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. BIA finds that there is good cause to promulgate this rule without providing for public comment because the final rule published in May 2015 never took effect and the rule being published today remains the operative rule. Accordingly, it would serve no purpose to provide an opportunity for public comment on this rule. Thus, notice and public comment is impracticable and unnecessary.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, amends Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations by revising part 226 to read as follows:

I. Table of Abbreviations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive Order NAD 83 North American Datum of 1983 NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking II. Background History and Regulatory Information

On June 18, 2016, Partners In Education is holding an organized Dragon Boat Race event that will take place on the Maumee River in which participants paddle Hong Kong style Dragon Boats on the Maumee River in Toledo, OH. Due to the projected amount of human-powered watercraft on the water, there is a need to require vessels in the affected waterways to maintain a minimum speed for safe navigation. The Rowing regatta will occur between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. on June 18, 2016. This event is taking place under the same sponsorship in the same location as last year.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231, 33 CFR 1.05-1 and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Having reviewed the application for a marine event submitted by the sponsor on February 22, 2016, the Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that the likely combination of recreation vessels, commercial vessels, and an unknown number of spectators in close proximity to a rowing regatta along the water pose extra and unusual hazards to public safety and property. Therefore, the COTP is establishing a Special Local Regulation around the event location to help minimize risks to safety of life and property during this event.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary 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 with respect to this rule because waiting for a notice and comment period to run would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. Although an initial marine event application was submitted on February 22, 2016, final details regarding event area and patrol parameters were not known to the Coast Guard with sufficient time for the Coast Guard to solicit public comments before the start of the event. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a notice and comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public from the hazards associated with this rowing regatta.

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. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

This rule establishes a temporary special local regulation from 6 a.m. until 6 p.m. on June 18, 2016. In light of the aforementioned hazards, the COTP has determined that a special local regulation is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and participants. This special local regulation will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of the Maumee River, Toledo, OH, bound by a line extending from a point on land just north of the Cherry Street Bridge at position 41°39′5.27″ N.; 083°31′34.01″ W. straight across the river along the Cherry Street bridge to position 41°39′12.83″ N.; 083°31′42.58″ W. and a line extending from a point of land just south of International Park at position 41°38′46.62″ N.; 083°31′50.54″ W. straight across the river to the shore adjacent to position 41°38′47.37″ N.; 083°32′2.05″ W. (NAD 83).

An on-scene representative of the COTP or event sponsor representatives may permit vessels to transit the area when no race activity is occurring. The on-scene representative may be present on any Coast Guard, state or local law enforcement vessel assigned to patrol the event. Vessel operators desiring to transit through the regulated area must contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to obtain permission to do so. The COTP or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

The COTP or his designated on-scene representative will notify the public of the enforcement of this rule by all appropriate means, including a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of E.O. 12866 or under section 1 of E.O. 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 Coast Guard's use of this special local regulation will be of relatively small size and only twelve hours in duration, and it is designed to minimize the impact on navigation. Moreover, vessels may transit through the area affected by this special local regulation at a minimum speed for safe navigation. Overall, the Coast Guard expects minimal impact to vessel movement from the enforcement of this special local regulation.

As per the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, we have considered 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.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in this portion of the Maumee River, in the vicinity of Toledo, OH between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. on June 18, 2016.

This special local regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons cited in the Regulatory Planning and Review section. Additionally, before the enforcement of the regulation, Coast Guard Sector Detroit will issue a local Broadcast Notice to Mariners so vessel owners and operators can plan accordingly.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them. If this rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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 E.O. 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 E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of 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 E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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.

This action is not a “significant energy action” under E.O. 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.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a special local regulation and is therefore categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion 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 100 as follows:

The bridge owner, Nassau County Department of Public Works, requested this temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate a public event, the Annual Fireworks Display.

The Long Beach Bridge, mile 4.7, across Reynolds Channel has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 22 feet at mean high water and 24 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.799(g).

Reynolds Channel is transited by commercial and recreational traffic.

Under this temporary deviation, the Long Beach Bridge may remain in the closed position between 9:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. on July 8, 2016 (rain date: July 9, 2016 between 9:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m.).

Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridges will not be able to open for emergencies and there are no immediate alternate routes for vessels to pass.

The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” refers to EPA.

EPA is approving into the Iowa SIP the definition of greenhouse gas which is consistent with the Federal definition, and approving the requirement for facilities to include greenhouse gases in the emissions inventory. On November 4, 2008, Iowa submitted a SIP revision to EPA for several administrative revisions, including the request to amend the definition of greenhouse gas, and to include greenhouse gases for the purposes of emissions inventories. On December 9, 2009 (74 FR 68692), EPA approved many portions of the SIP revisions, but we did not act on either of these particular provisions.

EPA is also approving revisions to the Iowa Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program rules to revise the definition of “subject to regulation,” by citing the most recent Federal reference to the greenhouse gas definition, and adding a sentence to clarify that the stationary source shall not be subject to regulation if the total sourcewide emissions are below the greenhouse gas plantwide applicability limitations (PALs) and meet the requirements in Iowa Administrative Code (IAC) 567-33.9(455B) (also being revised with this action), and the source complies with the PALs permit containing the greenhouse gases PALs.

IAC 567-33.9(455B), “Plantwide Applicability Limitations,” is being revised to adopt by reference to cite the Federal regulations as of July 12, 2012, except that the term “Administrator” will mean “the department of natural resources.”

Additional information for this rulemaking can be found in the Technical Support Document located in this docket.

The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. Public hearings were conducted for each of the submissions and no comments were received. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained in the Technical Support Document which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

With this direct final action, the greenhouse gas definition is being added to the Iowa SIP as it is consistent with the Federal definition. Greenhouse gases are also included as applied to emissions inventories.

EPA is also approving into the Iowa SIP revisions to the PSD program rules, specifically revising the definition of “subject to regulation.” This revision also adopts by reference the Federal PAL provision for greenhouse gases. (77 FR 41051).

We are publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to approve the SIP revision if relevant adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 16, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

I. Rulemaking Documents A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

For access to docket FMCSA-2016-0120 to read background documents and comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time, or to Docket Services at U.S. Department of Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT although this action adopts a final rule and, thus, comments are not solicited, DOT accepts comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

This rulemaking updates an incorporation by reference found at 49 CFR 385.4 and referenced at 49 CFR 385.415(b)(1). The rules currently reference the April 1, 2015, edition of “North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR part 173.403.” In this final rule, FMCSA incorporates the April 1, 2016, edition.

Ten actions were completed to update the 2016 edition of the handbook and distinguish it from the previous edition of the handbook. The revision does not impose new requirements or substantively amend the Code of Federal Regulations.

Congress has enacted several statutory provisions to improve the safety of hazardous materials transported in interstate commerce. Specifically, in provisions codified at 49 U.S.C. 5105(d), relating to inspections of motor vehicles carrying hazardous material, and 49 U.S.C. 5109, relating to motor carrier safety permits, the Secretary of the Department of Transportation is required to promulgate regulations as part of a comprehensive safety program on hazardous material safety permits. The FMCSA Administrator has been delegated authority under 49 CFR 1.87 to carry out the rulemaking functions vested in the Secretary of Transportation. Consistent with that authority, FMCSA has promulgated regulations to address the congressional mandate. Such regulations on hazardous materials are the underlying provisions that have utilized the material incorporated by reference discussed in this notice.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) specifically provides that adherence to its notice and public comment rulemaking procedures are not required where the Agency finds there is good cause to dispense with such procedures (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons to support the finding in the rules issued). Generally, good cause exists where the Agency determines that notice and public comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 553 (b)(3)(B)). This document updates an incorporation by reference found at 49 CFR 385.4 and referenced at 49 CFR 385.415(b)(1). As discussed in detail below, this revision does not impose new requirements or substantively change the Code of Federal Regulations. For these reasons, the FMCSA finds good cause that notice and public comment procedures are unnecessary.

Currently, 49 CFR 385.415 prescribes operational requirements for motor carriers transporting hazardous materials for which a hazardous materials safety permit is required. Section 385.415(b)(1) requires that motor carriers must ensure a pre-trip inspection be performed on each motor vehicle to be used to transport a highway route controlled quantity of a Class 7 (radioactive) material, in accordance with the requirements of the “North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR part 173.403.” With regard to the specific edition of the out-of-service criteria, 49 CFR 385.4, as amended on June 18, 2015 (80 FR 34839), references the April 1, 2015, edition. This final rule amends § 385.4(b) by replacing the reference to the April 1, 2015, edition date with the new edition date of April 1, 2016.

FMCSA has reviewed the April 1, 2016, edition and determined there are no substantive changes that would result in motor carriers being subjected to a new or amended standard. The changes are outlined below for reference. It is necessary to update the reference to ensure that motor carriers and enforcement officials have convenient access to the correctly identified inspection criteria that are referenced in the rules.

There were ten actions taken to update the 2016 edition that distinguish it from the previous edition of the handbook. Additional conforming changes have been made to the table of contents, but those are not included in this summary. (All references are to the April 1, 2016, North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR part 173.403.) The first action addresses consistency with 49 CFR 383.25, the out-of-service condition that prohibits drivers from holding a commercial driver's learner's permit (CLP) and transporting passengers. (Part I, Item 3.b.) This action updates the language used in the criteria to align with the regulatory language and is not a substantive change. The second and third actions modified the language regarding medical certificates and how to handle Canadian Class 5 or G licenses. These updates occur in Part I, Item 4 (Driver Medical/Physical Requirements). Part I, Item 4.b.(3) is necessary due to recent changes in FMCSA policy regarding the verification of a valid medical certificate. And, the note that clarifies how to handle the discrepancy when applying Canadian and U.S. driver medical requirements was amended in section 4.b., to require Canadian drivers operating a commercial motor vehicle within the United States with a valid Class 5 or G license to provide evidence of compliance with medical requirements. FMCSA views these changes as non-substantive, as they are already found in the relevant U.S. or Canadian regulations.

The fourth action in Part II, Item 2 (Cargo Securement, Tiedown Defect Table) involves an adjustment made to the table that would eliminate the possibility of an inspector declaring a vehicle out-of-service for a defect-only violation instead of an out-of-service condition. The Agency does not consider this a substantive change.

The fifth action adds language to (Driveline/Driveshaft) specifically, Part II, Item 4.b. which indicates that a missing bearing cap retainer clip is a condition for placing a vehicle out-of-service. This addition is not considered substantive, as it acknowledges that light duty vehicles may use retainer clips as opposed to bolts to secure the bearing cap. Because a missing bolt had previously been determined to be an out-of-service condition, it was determined that a missing bearing cap retainer clip should similarly be considered an out-of-service condition. Modification of language in Part II, Item 7 (Fuel Systems) is the sixth action taken to address the criteria and it consolidates and clarifies the section on the measurement of gaseous fuels. Again, this change is not considered substantive as it clarifies, based on consultation and input from industry experts, that a leak measured to be below 5,000 parts per million is not an imminent hazard and, therefore, not an out-of-service condition.

The seventh action, Part II (Lighting Devices), Item 8 involves the creation of new out-of-service criteria that resolves situations where a trailer light cord is either left unplugged, had become unplugged in transit, or there was a defect in the cord or connector that causes all or many of the trailer lamps to become inoperative. It was determined that in these situations, a single out-of-service condition would be recorded rather than multiple out-of-service conditions listed for the single defect, the cord or connector. Because inoperable lamps on the rear of trailers are already an out-of-service condition, this is not a substantive change.

In the eighth action, language was amended to the out-of-service criteria from Part II, Item 9.f. Steering Mechanisms that would quantify how loose a power assist cylinder must be in order to warrant placing the CMV out-of-service. The revision clarifies the existing language and is not a substantive change.

The ninth action required in Part II, Item 10.b. Suspensions adds a clarifying note and reference to an existing operational policy that explains what a secondary air bag is. FMCSA does not consider this to be a substantive change.

The final action establishes a new out-of-service condition for debris between tires in a dual set. This is not considered to be a substantive change, as the change was established to account for the infrequent event in which a solid object can become a projectile and impact a trailing vehicle when dislodged from between the tires of a dual tire set. In reality, these solid objects, when noticed, will be remedied on the spot with an inspector, so the likelihood of an ensuing out-of-service order is very low.

FMCSA has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and is also not significant within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures (DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980; 44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979) and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not, therefore, review this document.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.1

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), FMCSA is not required to complete a regulatory flexibility analysis, because, as discussed earlier in the legal basis section, this action is not subject to notice and comment under section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act.

In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions, please consult the FMCSA point of contact, Michael Huntley, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this rule.

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 $155 million (which is the value equivalent to $100,000,000 in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2014 levels) or more in any one year. This final rule will not result in such an expenditure.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the 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.

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 the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

FMCSA analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

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

E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997), requires agencies issuing “economically significant” rules, to include an evaluation of their environmental health and safety effects on children, if the agency has reason to believe that the rule may disproportionately affect children. The Agency determined this final rule is not economically significant. Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on children is required. In any event, the Agency does not anticipate that this regulatory action could pose an environmental or safety risk that could disproportionately affect children.

FMCSA reviewed this final rule in accordance with E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and has determined it will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications.

Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the Agency to conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This rule does not require the collection of personally identifiable information (PII) or affect the privacy of individuals.

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

FMCSA has analyzed this rule under E.O. 13211, 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 order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects.

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

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) are standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. FMCSA does not intend to adopt its own technical standard, thus there is no need to submit a separate statement to OMB on this matter. The standard being incorporated in this final rule is discussed in detail in section IV, Background, and is reasonably available through the CVSA Web site.

FMCSA analyzed this rule for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and determined this action is categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1(69 FR 9680, March 1, 2004), Appendix 2, paragraph (6)(b). This Categorical Exclusion (CE) covers minor revisions to regulations. The content in this rule is covered by this CE and the final action does not have any effect on the quality of the environment. The CE determination is available for inspection or copying in the Regulations.gov Web site listed under ADDRESSES.

FMCSA also analyzed this rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), 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.

Under E.O. 12898, each Federal agency must identify and address, as appropriate, “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations” in the United States, its possessions, and territories. FMCSA has determined that this rule has no environmental justice implications, nor does its promulgation cause any collective environmental impact.

In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA is amending 49 CFR chapter III, part 385, as set forth below:

Regulations governing fishing activity in the Sea Scallop Access Areas can be found in 50 CFR 648.59 and 648.60. These regulations authorize vessels issued a valid Limited Access General Category (LAGC) Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) scallop permit to fish in the Nantucket Lightship North Scallop Access Area under specific conditions, including a total of 485 trips that may be taken during the 2016 fishing year. Section 648.60(g)(3)(iii) requires the Nantucket Lightship North Scallop Access Area to be closed to LAGC IFQ permitted vessels for the remainder of the fishing year once the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator determines that the allowed number of trips for fishing year 2016 are projected to be taken.

Based on trip declarations by LAGC IFQ scallop vessels fishing in the Nantucket Lightship North Scallop Access Area, analysis of fishing effort, and other information, NMFS projects that 485 trips will be taken as of June 16, 2016. Therefore, in accordance with § 648.60(g)(3)(iii), NMFS is closing the Nantucket Lightship North Scallop Access Area to all LAGC IFQ scallop vessels as of June 16, 2016. No vessel issued an LAGC IFQ permit may fish for, possess, or land scallops in or from the Nantucket Lightship North Scallop Access Area after 0001 local time, June 16, 2016. Any LAGC IFQ vessel that has declared into the Nantucket Lightship North Access Area scallop fishery, complied with all trip notification and observer requirements, and crossed the VMS demarcation line on the way to the area before 0001, June 16, 2016, may complete its trip without being subject to this closure. This closure is in effect for the remainder of the 2016 scallop fishing year.

This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. NMFS finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest and impracticable. The Nantucket Lightship North Scallop Access Area opened for the 2016 fishing year on May 4, 2016. The regulations at § 648.60(g)(3)(iii) require this closure to ensure that LAGC IFQ scallop vessels do not take more than their allocated number of trips in the Nantucket Lightship North Scallop Access Area. The projections of the date on which the LAGC IFQ fleet will have taken all of its allocated trips in an Access Area become apparent only as trips into the area occur on a real-time basis and as activity trends begin to appear. As a result, NMFS can only make an accurate projection very close in time to when the fleet has taken all of its trips. In order to propose a closure for purposes of receiving prior public comment, NMFS would need to make a projection based on very little information, which would result in a closure too early or too late. To allow LAGC IFQ scallop vessels to continue to take trips in the Nantucket Lightship North Scallop Access Area during the period necessary to publish and receive comments on a proposed rule would likely result in vessels taking much more than the allowed number of trips in the Nantucket Lightship North Scallop Access Area. Excessive trips and harvest from the Nantucket Lightship North Scallop Access Area would result in excessive fishing effort in the area, where effort controls are critical, thereby undermining conservation objectives of the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan and requiring more restrictive future management measures. Also, the public had prior notice and full opportunity to comment on this closure process when we put these provisions in place. For these same reasons, NMFS further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period.

Background

Blueline tilefish (Caulolatilus microps) are mainly distributed in Atlantic waters off the eastern United States, and have been managed as part of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (FMP). However, South Atlantic management measures do not apply to vessels fishing for blueline tilefish north of the South Atlantic Council's jurisdiction (which extends as far north as the Virginia/North Carolina border).

In recent years, there has been increasing recreational and commercial fishing activity for blueline tilefish in the unregulated mid-Atlantic portion of the Greater Atlantic Region, north of the jurisdiction of the South Atlantic Council's Snapper Grouper FMP. From 2005-2013, commercial landings in the Greater Atlantic Region (Virginia to Maine) averaged 11,000 lb (5 mt) per year. From 2002-2011, recreational charter/party vessels in this area reported an average of 2,400 fish per year. But after the South Atlantic Council's FMP implemented significant harvest limits to protect blueline tilefish under its jurisdiction, commercial landings in the unregulated mid-Atlantic portion of the blueline tilefish range increased to over 217,000 lb (98 mt) in 2014 and recreational landings from 2012-2014 increased to 10,000-16,000 fish per year. This rapid increase in blueline tilefish harvest in the Greater Atlantic Region poses a potential long-term risk to the conservation of the species and the substantial possibility of overfishing the stock.

Based upon these concerns about the effects of the unregulated harvest of blueline tilefish, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council submitted a request on March 10, 2015, for Secretarial emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to implement temporary management measures for blueline tilefish in the Greater Atlantic Region. On June 4, 2015, NMFS published an emergency rule (80 FR 31864) to establish temporary management measures, including possession limits for the commercial and recreational sectors of the fishery and permitting and reporting requirements for commercial and for-hire vessels that fish for blueline tilefish north of the Virginia/North Carolina border. Then on November 30, 2015 (80 FR 74712), NMFS extended the emergency measures for an additional 186 days through June 3, 2016.

After requesting emergency action, the Mid-Atlantic Council began developing a plan for long-term management of this species. At its April 2015 meeting, the Council initiated scoping for either a new deep-water species complex FMP, with an initial focus on blueline tilefish, or an amendment to the Golden Tilefish FMP to add blueline tilefish to the management unit. After scoping hearings and review of public comments, the Council opted to initiate an amendment to the existing Golden Tilefish FMP. Following development of a range of management measures, the Council held a series of public meetings in March 2016 to solicit feedback on the measures contained in the draft amendment. On April 13, 2016, the Mid-Atlantic Council took final action to select preferred alternatives and approve the amendment for submission to NMFS for review and implementation. Due to the procedural and public participation requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act, and the need to fully deliberate and develop the amendment, it was not possible for the Council to prepare its final action for submission to NMFS for approval, and for NMFS to implement it, before the emergency measures expired.

NMFS anticipates that the action will be submitted to the Secretary of Commerce for review and approval during the summer of 2016. NMFS, acting on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, will then conduct the formal review and approval process required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and complete the necessary notice-and-comment rulemaking to implement the Council's recommended management measures. If approved, it is anticipated that permanent measures will be in place by the end of this year. However, the current emergency regulations have expired and the fishery would be unregulated in Federal waters until the Mid-Atlantic Council's recommended management measures can be formally reviewed and implemented. The potential for a dramatic increase in catch of blueline tilefish resulting from the fishery being unregulated could result in overfishing and pose a threat to the long-term sustainability of the resource. When the fishery was previously unregulated, substantial commercial and recreational landings were occurring in several states from New Jersey south. In the interim since emergency regulations have been put in place in Federal waters, all states from New Jersey south have implemented state measures that could constrain harvest if a lapse in Federal regulation occurs. However, there remains a substantial potential for unregulated landings to occur in states from New York north if the fishery returns to an extended unregulated state. Such landings would potentially subject the stock to overfishing and could have a long-term detrimental impact on the stock, even if the unregulated period is only a matter of months. Summer through early fall is typically the peak fishing period for blueline tilefish, so the lack of Federal regulations would occur right in this peak time.

Blueline tilefish is a data poor species throughout the Atlantic coast and particularly in the mid-Atlantic. There is not currently an overfishing limit established for this stock; therefore, it cannot yet be quantitatively determined if overfishing is occurring. In March 2016, the Mid-Atlantic Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviewed all available information and for the first time set a target catch limit specifically for the mid-Atlantic fishery. For 2017, the SSC recommended an acceptable biological catch (ABC) of 87,031 lb (39.4 mt). Although this figure is not intended to apply to the 2016 fishing year, it provides a reasonable estimate of a target catch level that, if exceeded, would be expected to cause long-term harm to the stock. In 2014, when the harvest was unregulated, the total mid-Atlantic harvest was 274,972 lb (124.7 mt), and in 2015 it was 124,113 lb (56.3 mt) (this decrease from 2014 is likely due to the fact that the emergency rule went into effect in June 2015). The harvests for 2014 and 2015 were both dramatically higher than the new ABC of 87,031 lb (39.4 mt). As noted earlier, recreational harvest of blueline tilefish in the Greater Atlantic Region has been increasing steadily since 2011, while in 2014 commercial landings suddenly increased 20-fold over previous years. We do not have sufficient information to predict exactly how the resource would adapt to such a substantial increase in harvest. However, if the Mid-Atlantic blueline tilefish fishery were to return to an unregulated condition for an extended period of time, there is the strong potential for effort to expand as it did in 2014. Comparing potential 2016 catch to the recommended catch limit for 2017 creates a mismatch of evaluation across multiple years. However, because formal catch advice is only established at this point for 2017, it is informative by illustrating that if landings in 2016 return to pre-regulation levels, those catches would grossly exceed next year's catch advice by some 200 percent. Catch levels of such magnitude would be expected to have a significant impact on the stock and cause a serious risk of overfishing. We estimate that maintaining the current Federal management measures through this interim rule could constrain catch close to the SSC's ABC recommendation until the Golden Tilefish FMP amendment approved by the Mid-Atlantic Council in April 2016 can be implemented.

Continuing the existing possession and permit requirements in this interim rule is likely to prevent the potential for overfishing, if it is occurring, while we formally review the Mid-Atlantic Council's amendment and complete notice-and-comment rulemaking to implement that action.

Consistent with the previously issued emergency rule and extension, we are implementing the following management measures for blueline tilefish in the Greater Atlantic Region:

1. A requirement for commercial or for-hire vessels landing blueline tilefish in the Greater Atlantic Region (i.e., north of the latitude of the Virginia/North Carolina border: 36°33′01.0″ N. latitude) to hold a valid Greater Atlantic open access golden tilefish commercial or charter/party vessel permit, which are issued by the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office;

2. A commercial possession limit of 300 lb (136 kg) whole weight per trip; and

3. A recreational possession limit of seven blueline tilefish per person, per trip.

None of these management measures modify the existing possession regulations for golden tilefish, or any other species. The requirement to hold a valid Greater Atlantic permit will ensure that catch, effort, and fishing location information for blueline tilefish will be reported moving forward. The duration of these interim measures is limited by the Magnuson-Stevens Act to an initial period of 180 days. It is likely that the Council's amendment can be implemented before an extension expires. Such measures would supersede these interim measures.

NMFS has determined that this section 305(c) interim rule, directly following a section 305(c) emergency rule, independently meets the requirements in section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and NMFS policy guidance for the use of emergency rules (62 FR 44421, August 21, 1997). This action meets the requirements of section 305(c)(3) for interim rules because it is needed to prevent the potential of overfishing and deterioration of this stock while the proposed amendment to address blueline tilefish conservation is being reviewed for approval. While a definitive, qualitative overfishing limit has not been formally established for this data-poor stock, NMFS has determined that there is a potential for overfishing because, based on fishing activity for this stock in 2014, unregulated fishing in the mid-Atlantic portion of the blueline tilefish stock would likely exceed the proposed 2017 ABC by as much as 3 times or more.

This interim rule is also consistent with the Guidelines established for appropriate use of 305(c) emergency rules in 1997 (62 FR 44421, August 21, 1997). These guidelines state that emergency rules are only warranted when there are special circumstances where substantial harm to or disruption of the resource, fishery, or community would be caused in the time it would take to follow standard rulemaking procedures. The guidelines go on to state three criteria for approving a 305(c) emergency rule: (1) Results from recent, unforeseen events or recently discovered circumstances; (2) presents serious conservation or management problems in the fishery; and (3) can be addressed through emergency regulations for which the immediate benefits outweigh the value of advance notice, public comment, and deliberative consideration of the impacts on participants to the same extent as would be expected under the normal rulemaking process. Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act also provides for interim measures, which are a type of emergency rule.

There have been significant new information and developments since the implementation of the emergency rule that qualify as recently discovered circumstances not present until after the implementation of the 2015 emergency rule. When the emergency measures were first implemented, substantial discussions were beginning between the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Councils about management jurisdiction for the portion of the stock north of the North Carolina/Virginia border. Since then, those discussions have led to definitive guidance that the Mid-Atlantic Council would develop management measures for the portion of the stock within its jurisdiction. Consistent with this conclusion, the Mid-Atlantic Council's SSC developed an ABC for the portion of the stock within its jurisdiction, which, as indicated above, is significantly below potential harvest levels if the fishery remains unregulated. These actions provided a clear directive, with specific ABC's, for the Mid-Atlantic Council to develop, consistent with the statutory requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, a plan or plan amendment as envisaged by section 303 of the Act.

Due to the need to resolve questions about Council jurisdiction and the timing of receiving the SSC's recommendations, it was not possible for the Council to have completed the amendment and submitted it for Secretarial approval before the current emergency expired due to procedural and public participation requirements of applicable law. Therefore, the likelihood of a gap between the expiration of the emergency rule and implementation of the amendment was unavoidable and not due to Council inaction or delay. There is no doubt that these interim measures would significantly address a serious conservation problem for the blueline tilefish stock. Absent these interim measures, portions of the mid-Atlantic range of this stock will remain unregulated which could lead to substantial increases in fishing mortality and overfishing. Finally, the immediate benefits to the blueline tilefish resource outweigh the value of advance notice and public comment, particularly because this action continues the same measures already in place under the 2015 emergency rule which received public comments after it was published.

In addition to these interim measures independently meeting the emergency rule guidelines, NMFS also finds that back-to-back 305(c) rules is justified because he fishery was, and absent another Federal action will become again, unregulated in Federal waters. This is a very different situation than a fishery already under management by a Fishery Management Council and therefore presents a more exigent need for interim management. Although the blueline tilefish has not formally been declared to be subject to overfishing due to current lack of sufficient data, the need for this interim rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act recognition in section 304(e) that such interim rules may be necessary while a council develops an amendment to address overfishing. Moreover, the 180-day period provided by these temporary interim measures should be sufficient to put in place permanent management measures. The Mid-Atlantic Council took final action in April 2016 and is expected to complete the necessary analyses and documentation for submission to the Secretary in the coming months. In turn, NMFS will then review and conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking on the Council's recommendations this fall/early winter. Because of this, NMFS is not inclined to extend the interim measures being implemented by this rule beyond 180 days even if subsequent delays occur within the Council's documentation development or within the Agency's review and rulemaking processes.

Based on reasons and findings cited above, NMFS has determined that this section 305(c) interim rule, following a section 305(c) emergency rule, is necessary and justified given the unusual and exigent circumstances surrounding the need to prevent an unregulated fishery and the likelihood of overfishing of blueline tilefish on a short-term basis. NMFS reviewed the requirements in section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and NMFS policy guidance for the use of emergency rules (62 FR 44421, August 21, 1997) and determined that this action, which is a type of emergency rule under section 305(c), is consistent with both the criteria and justifications for use of emergency measures in the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Assistant Administrator (AA) for Fisheries, NOAA, finds that it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide for prior notice and opportunity for public comment. The current emergency measures expired on June 3, 2016, and the blueline tilefish fishery will return to an unregulated condition in Federal waters. Due to the uncertainty surrounding the timing of when the Mid-Atlantic Council would complete and submit to NOAA amendment to the Golden Tilefish FMP, it was not possible to prepare and publish a proposed rule to continue the current measures restricting landings of blueline tilefish. Based on the landings information from fishing activity in 2014, there is the potential for unregulated catch and landings to increase rapidly if these measures are not continued. Because there is a clear need to maintain measures to constrain fishing mortality on the stock in the Greater Atlantic Region and potentially prevent overfishing, it would be potentially harmful to the long-term sustainability of the resource to further delay implementation of these measures through notice-and-comment rulemaking. Moreover, the benefit of allowing prior public comment on this rule has been addressed because NMFS has already received public comment on these very same measures after the implementation of the 2015 emergency. These comments were taken into account in implementing this interim rule. Therefore, the public interest is best served by waiving the need for additional prior public comment in order to avoid the potential for long-term harm to the blueline tilefish stock. Public comments will be accepted on this temporary rule through July 18, 2016, and there will be opportunities for public participation and notice-and-comment rulemaking as we work to implement new management measures already developed and approved by the Mid-Atlantic Council.

Additionally, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause to waive the requirement for a 30-day delay in effectiveness pursuant to section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act. For the reasons described above, delaying the effectiveness of these regulations could undermine the purpose of this temporary rule, to maintain measures to reduce catch during the 2016 fishing year as a stop-gap measure while new management measures developed by the Council are implemented to ensure the long-term sustainable harvest of blueline tilefish.

This action is being taken pursuant to the emergency provision of MSA and is exempt from OMB review.

This temporary rule is exempt from the otherwise applicable requirement of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis because the rule is issued without opportunity for prior public comment.

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