Federal Register Vol. 81, No.13,

FSA provides agricultural credit to the Nation's farmers and ranchers through the FO Program. The Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972 (CONACT, Pub. L. 92-419), as amended, authorizes FSA's FO Program. The FO Program is designed to finance the farm ownership needs of family farms for operators who meet the program eligibility requirements. Among other things, eligible applicants must be unable to obtain sufficient credit from other sources; have sufficient farming experience; have an acceptable credit history; and have adequate collateral for the proposed loan. (See 7 CFR 764.101 and 764.152 for a full explanation of FO eligibility requirements.) FO funds may be used, among other purposes, to purchase a farm, enlarge an existing farm, construct new farm buildings or improve structures, pay closing costs, and promote soil and water conservation and protection. (See 7 CFR 764.151 for a complete list of FO funds uses.) Throughout this rule, any reference to “farm” or “farmer” also includes “ranch” or “rancher,” respectively; in this document, the word “operator” refers to farmers who operate a farm.

FSA has conducted a Direct ML Program for OLs since January 2013 and has made 16,842 MLs to farmers since inception and provided MLs totaling $66.1 million dollars in FY 2013, $98.3 million in FY 2014, and $209.4 million in FY 2015 and the first quarter of FY 2016 (loan amounts are as of January 13, 2016). The Direct ML Program has seen explosive growth and helped to fill a need for financing of small farm operations, many of them to beginning or underserved farmers. Following the success of the Direct ML Program for direct OLs, FSA has decided to expand the ML Program to add direct FOs to reach more beginning farmers and farmers with small farms.

FSA evaluated the unique needs of small farm operations and identified unintended barriers to applying for FOs of smaller loan amounts. FSA is simplifying the application process and adding flexibility for meeting loan eligibility in order to encourage their participation. FSA is creating the new DFOML application process within the existing FO Program framework, and will use existing FO appropriations to focus on the financing needs of small farm operations.

FSA is implementing the DFOML to provide credit in an aggregate amount not to exceed $50,000. The $50,000 limit for MLs is established as specified in section 5106 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79, referred to as the 2014 Farm Bill), amending the CONACT (7 U.S.C. 1943), to set the limit of $50,000 for the total ML indebtedness outstanding at any one time to any single borrower. Therefore, eligible farmers cannot have more than $50,000 in direct ML debt in each of the direct FO and OL programs upon loan closing. It is intended that smaller loan amounts will help small operations, such as beginning farmers, truck farmers, niche-type operations, and those who have demonstrated financial and business experience through the successful repayment of a Youth Loan (YL). These farmers tend to have difficulty obtaining real estate financing from lenders who are unlikely to loan such small amounts, particularly to non-typical operations. FSA is providing credit to these farmers at reasonable rates and terms that are significant because financing costs have a greater impact on smaller startup operations, which typically have a tighter cash flow.

Similar to the OL ML, under 7 CFR 761.104(e) DFOML applicants can provide other forms of documentation, such as operator's sales receipts, financial statements, contracts, and tax returns. This change will be helpful for operations where past yields have little bearing on the projected plan, such as vegetable operators who plan short term and grow different crops to meet current demand; operators who produce crops using measures such as rows or partial rows versus acres; or operators who grow crops that sell in volumes such as bunches. In some of these cases it will be impracticable, burdensome, and often irrelevant for the farmer to demonstrate accurate yields, especially if a variety of produce is harvested and then sold to the public only hours later. In such cases, past reliable history of income and expenses or cash receipts may be more useful in projecting the future production revenue of a field, greenhouse, or operation. Also, if an operator is changing the crop from year to year to meet changing market demands, then production for the past 2 or 3 years may not be applicable to the production model. This modification allows FSA to assist operations that otherwise may have difficulty meeting or documenting production and yield history and will provide sufficient information for a loan official to determine eligibility and feasibility.

Additionally, repayment terms are being modified for these smaller FOs to allow borrowers to more quickly build equity in their farm real estate according to their repayment ability. That, combined with the already established flexibility for the farmers to make loan payments when they sell their products, allows farmers to more efficiently manage their income and resources.

This rule modifies the FO eligibility requirements in 7 CFR 764.152 to allow farmers who have successfully repaid an FSA financed YL to use the term of that loan toward the 3 years farm management experience for a DFOML. Each year of the YL term can be applied toward meeting the requirement for 3 years of farm management experience.

The repayment terms of DFOML will differ from the regular FO Program; the maximum number of years for a borrower to pay back a DFOML is 25 years. For smaller real estate loans, there is not a large difference in the payment amount between the annual installments under DFOML's maximum 25-year amortization schedule and the regular FO's maximum 40 year amortization. However; the interest paid on a 40 year amortization is considerably larger than on the 25-year schedule. The borrowers will benefit from paying less total interest on the life of their loan. The average number of years for an FO to be outstanding is 13 years, with loans being either paid in full or refinanced with another lender within this timeframe. Some borrowers do remain with FSA for the duration of their FO term. The 25-year maximum is reasonable for assisting our borrowers to purchase land and to build equity in the property. The benefits will help small operations endure through the start-up years, demonstrate capacity, build equity, move up to FSA regular loan programs, and eventually graduate to commercial credit.

Our role in providing supervised credit is to help borrowers prepare for the transition to conventional credit. While a DFOML will reduce the paperwork burden on applicants and FSA staff, it will not reduce the amount of oversight provided by FSA to these farmers. In fact, as a result of streamlining the application process, FSA will have more time to work on cash flow analysis, provide borrower training and ready these borrowers for transition into commercial credit.

This rule is revising 7 CFR 764.51 to add the requirements for the DFOML application. A complete DFOML application will consist of the following:

• A microloan application form (§ 764.51(b)(1));

• A balance sheet (§ 764.51(b)(9) and (d)(2)(ii));

• An operating plan (§ 764.51(b)(9));

• Applicable environmental information (§ 764.51(b)(7));

• Description of the applicant's farm training and experience (§ 764.51(b)(3));

• Verification of applicant's farm experience (§ 764.51(d)(2)(v));

• Documentation that credit cannot be obtained elsewhere (§ 764.51(b)(6));

• Documents with regard to the property or option to purchase agreement (§ 764.51(b)(10));

• The credit report fee (§ 764.51(b)(11)); and

• Verification of non-farm income for repayment (§ 764.51(d)(2)(iii)).

• In addition, if the applicant is an entity, the complete application will include entity and entity member information specified in § 764.51(b)(2).

The DFOML application form is the same one in use for applicants for Direct ML Program for OLs. This form is intended to capture most of the information needed to process an ML, including sections for the applicant to describe farm training and experience. It also reduces and simplifies the financial statement.

Environmental information will still be handled through the county office process, involving FSA staff and NRCS staff, as applicable. This will not change from the current process followed for regular FOs.

Verification of non-farm income will only be required if that income is necessary for a feasible plan and sufficient cash flow for debt repayment. This is a change from the existing FO application process, as income is always verified as specified in § 764.51(b)(8). If it is necessary to verify debt, debts will be verified through the credit bureau reporting system.

This information will be sufficient for a loan official to determine eligibility and feasibility. The DFOML includes an abbreviated loan assessment, Farm Business Plan credit presentation, and year-end analysis, which will better parallel components of a small operation. Additionally, since these real estate loans will be $50,000 or less, the appraisal requirement may be met by an authorized agency official's evaluation that establishes the value of the real estate. An acceptable evaluation for DFOML will include an identification of the location of the property; a description of the property, including any improvements and its current and projected use; confirmation that the property was physically inspected and the date of the inspection; description of the analysis performed and supporting information used to determine the property's market value; an effective date of the evaluation and signature of the preparer.

The reduced requirements will allow loan staff to focus on paperwork that is valuable in the analysis of these smaller operations, instead of reviewing the required forms and paperwork necessary with larger, more complex real estate loans. The lower loan limit helps mitigate much of the risk inherent with less documentation and non-typical agricultural operations.

For incomplete applications, FSA will follow existing direct loan processing procedures. Following current procedures, FSA will inform the applicant, through written correspondence, of any missing items needed to complete the application prior to established regulatory deadlines.

Since DFOMLs are FOs, applicants will be subject to existing FO eligibility requirements. However, FSA added flexibility for YL borrowers in meeting the managerial ability requirement. Current regulations in 7 CFR 764.152(d) require that an FO applicant show the ability to manage a farm operation; the applicant must have participated in the business operations of a farm for at least 3 years out of the 10 years prior to the date the application is submitted. One of these three years can be substituted with the following experience:

• Postsecondary education in agriculture business, horticulture, animal science, agronomy, or other agricultural related fields,

• Significant business management experience, or

• Leadership or management experience while serving in any branch of the military.

As noted above, the current revisions add flexibility for farmers who have successfully repaid an FSA financed YL to use the term of that loan toward the 3 years farm management experience for a DFOML.

Except as noted in the rule, FO eligibility and feasibility criteria will remain consistent with existing programs in FLP, but the small loan amount will make the extensive paperwork requirements unnecessary. The farm operation will be required to project a positive cash flow, and servicing options will remain consistent with existing FLP options. The DFOML process will simply broaden the reach of FSA's FO Program by providing flexibility that allows FSA loan programs to be more attractive to small and beginning farmers.

This rule modifies the ML definition, in 7 CFR 761.2, to include FO uses of funds; the prior ML definition only addressed direct OLs. Additionally, this rule creates a distinction between MLs used for OL and FO purposes in areas in which the application process, eligibility, and security requirements differ.

FSA has considered several options in creating the DFOML and has weighed the underwriting risks against the opportunity to improve the FO Program. The underwriting risks will be limited due to the lower loan amounts and the smaller pool of applicants who are able to benefit from DFOML. The benefits to beginning and small farmers to apply for DFOML clearly outweigh any perceived risks or barriers.

As specified in § 764.101(c) and (e), MLs are exempted from the requirements of obtaining 150 percent security and taking a lien on non-essential assets. As specified in § 764.155(b)(1), an ML made for FO purposes, may be secured only by the real estate being purchased or improved, as long as it meets the 100 percent security requirement. This is consistent with the security requirements in place for existing OL MLs.

Other existing and applicable regulatory requirements pertaining to development of operating plans, loan processing and closing, use of loan funds, loan servicing, and environmental requirements not specifically amended by this rule will apply to MLs, like other FOs.

In addition to the changes discussed above, this rule is making conforming minor changes to correct the ML limit to be consistently $50,000 and to otherwise add MLs to FOs in the regulations.

In general, the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking be published in the Federal Register and interested persons be given an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation, except when the rule involves a matter relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. This rule involved matters relating to loans and is therefore being published as a final rule. Although FSA is not required to provide the opportunity for comments on this rule, we are requesting public comments for 90 days to get input on the changes.

The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) provides generally that before rules are issued by Government agencies, the rule is required to be published in the Federal Register, and the required publication of a substantive rule is to be not less than 30 days before its effective date. One of the exceptions is when the agency finds good cause for not delaying the effective date. Most FO loans are established at the beginning of the calendar year, therefore, implementing this rule quickly will benefit beginning and small farms starting in 2016 instead of having to wait for 2017. Using the administrative procedure provisions in 5 U.S.C. 553, FSA finds that there is good cause for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Therefore, this final rule is effective when published in the Federal Register.

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, OMB has not reviewed this final rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule whenever an agency is required by APA or any other law to publish a final rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act because it is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking requirements of the APA and no other law requires that a proposed rule be published for this rulemaking initiative.

The environmental impacts of this rule have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and the FSA regulations for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR 799 and 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G). FSA concluded that simplifying the application process and adding flexibility for meeting loan eligibility requirements to encourage small farm operation participation in its FO program explained in this rule are administrative in nature and will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment either individually or cumulatively. The environmental responsibilities for each prospective applicant will not change from the current process followed for all FLP actions (7 CFR 1940.309). Therefore, FSA will not prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement on this rule.

Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” requires consultation with State and local officials. The objectives of the Executive Order are to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened Federalism, by relying on State and local processes for State and local government coordination and review of proposed Federal Financial assistance and direct Federal development. For reasons set forth in the Notice to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), the programs and activities within this rule are excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” The provisions of this rule will not have preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations, or policies that conflict with such provision or which otherwise impede their full implementation. The rule will not have retroactive effect.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” The policies contained in this rule will not have any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor would this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects 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.

FSA has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, FSA will work with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions, and modifications identified in this rule are not expressly mandated by the 2014 Farm Bill.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any 1 year for State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) for State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), FSA described the Direct Farm Ownership Microloan (DFOML) information collection activities in the request for the renewal and revision of the 0260-0237, Direct Loan Making, notice published on 10/07/2015, 80 FR 60614-60615. FSA will be using the existing approval for the forms to begin the DFOML collection under the 0560-0237, Direct Loan Making. Therefore, no change to the information collection was required in this rule.

FSA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

The title and number of the Federal assistance programs, as found in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, to which this final rule would apply is:

For reasons discussed above, FSA amends 7 CFR chapter VII as follows:

This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 132 and Order No. 922, as amended (7 CFR 922), regulating the handling of apricots grown in designated counties in Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.

Under the order, Washington apricot handlers are subject to assessments, which provide funds to administer the order. Assessment rates issued under the order are intended to be applicable to all assessable Washington apricots for the entire fiscal period, and continue indefinitely until amended, suspended, or terminated. The Committee's fiscal period begins on April 1 and ends on March 31.

In an interim rule published in the Federal Register on August 19, 2015, and effective on August 20, 2015, (80 FR 50189, Doc. No. AMS-FV-15-0033, FV15-922-1 IR), § 922.235 was amended by decreasing the assessment rate for the 2015-2016 and subsequent fiscal periods from $1.50 to $0.75 per ton. The decrease in the per ton assessment rate allows the Committee to reduce its financial reserve while still providing adequate funding to meet program expenses.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 100 apricot producers in the production area and approximately 17 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

The National Agricultural Statistics Service reported that, in 2014, the Washington apricot total utilization of 8,500 tons (including both fresh and processed markets) sold for an average of $1,080 per ton. Consequently, the total farm-gate value in 2014 was approximately $9,180,000. Based on the number of producers in the production area (100), the 2014 average revenue from the sale of apricots is estimated at approximately $91,800 per producer. In addition, based on information from the USDA's Market News Service, 2014 f.o.b. prices for WA No. 1 apricots ranged from $20.00 to $26.00 per 24-pound loose-pack container, and from $22.00 to $30.00 for 2-layer tray-pack containers. Using average price and shipment information provided by the Committee, it is determined that each of the Washington apricot handlers currently ship less than $7,000,000 worth of apricots on an annual basis. In view of the foregoing, it can be concluded that the majority of Washington apricots producers and handlers may be classified as small entities.

This rule continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment rate collected from handlers for the 2015-2016 and subsequent fiscal periods from $1.50 to $0.75 per ton of apricots handled. The Committee also unanimously recommended 2015-2016 fiscal period expenditures of $7,610. With a 2015 Washington apricot crop estimate of 5,800 fresh market tons, the Committee anticipates assessment income of approximately $4,350. Income derived from handler assessments, along with funds from the Committee's monetary reserve, will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses for the 2015-2016 fiscal period. This action will allow the Committee to reduce its financial reserve while still providing adequate funding to meet program expenses.

This rule continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers.

In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Washington apricot industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the May 12, 2015, meeting was a public meeting, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Washington apricot handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before October 19, 2015. No comments were received. Therefore, for reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, without change.

To view the interim rule, go to: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=AMS-FV-15-0033-0001.

This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13175, and 13563; the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35); and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).

After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in the Federal Register (80 FR 50189, August 19, 2015) will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Accordingly, the interim rule amending 7 CFR part 922, which was published at 80 FR 50189 on August 19, 2015, is adopted as a final rule without change.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2015-0229, dated November 27, 2015, (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A319-113 and A319-114 airplanes; and Model A320-211 and A320-212 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8433.

Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A71N010-15, dated September 30, 2015. The service information describes procedures for checking the current torque value for the forward engine bolts; torqueing the bolt; replacing the forward engine mount bolts, nuts, and washers; doing a fluorescent penetrant inspection and dimensional check of the pylon bolt holes of the affected forward engine mount platform for local deformation and cracks; and doing corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

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

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because this condition, if not corrected, and if combined with induced maintenance damage, could lead to forward engine mount failure. A failed engine mount can result in engine detachment and consequent reduced control of the airplane, damage to the airplane, and injury to persons on the ground. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-8433; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-194-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 126 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $53,550, or $425 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 1 work-hour for a cost of $85 per product. We have no definitive costs for the engine mounting bolts, nuts, and washers, and no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 30, 2015 (80 FR 37200). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracked forward door members of the inboard MLG doors. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the inboard MLG doors, repairs if necessary, and replacement of the inboard MLG doors. The NPRM also proposed optional terminating action for the door replacement. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of an MLG door during flight, which could result in damage to the airplane.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-42, dated December 12, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes. The MCAI states:

The repetitive inspection is a detailed inspection for damage (including deformation, pulled or missing fasteners on the inner skins and outer skin, and cracks) on the inner skins, outer skin, and the forward member of the inboard MLG doors. Corrective actions include repairing, removing, or replacing the inboard MLG door.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-1987-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM (80 FR 37200, June 30, 2015) and the FAA's response to the comment.

Envoy Airlines requested that we revise the wording in paragraph (i)(1)(ii)(A) of the proposed AD (80 FR 37200, June 30, 2015) to clarify that removal of the MLG door is not required in all repair situations. Envoy Airlines stated that Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-042, Revision A, dated July 2, 2014, including Appendixes A and B, both dated November 5, 2013, specifies that repairs can be accomplished with the door installed in some situations. Envoy Airlines suggested that the text “Repair and reinstall the door” in paragraph (i)(1)(ii)(A) of the proposed AD be reworded to specify “repair the door.”

We agree with the commenter's request to revise the repair instructions. We have revised paragraph (i)(1)(ii)(A) of this AD by removing the instructions to reinstall the door.

We have clarified the inspection area in paragraph (g) of this AD by specifying to inspect for damage on the inner skins, outer skin, and the forward member of the inboard MLG doors.

Paragraph (i)(1)(ii)(A) of the proposed AD (80 FR 37200, June 30, 2015) specifies to do a repair “if repair of the inboard MLG is possible.” We have revised paragraph (i)(1)(ii)(A) of this AD to clarify the repair is done if it is possible to repair the inboard MLG door in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-042, Revision A, dated July 2, 2014, including Appendixes A and B, both dated November 5, 2013.

We have also revised paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this AD to specify that clarify that removed damaged doors cannot be reinstalled, unless the door is repaired prior to reinstallation and the actions specified in paragraph (l) of this AD are done.

We have also clarified the actions required by paragraphs (i)(1)(iii), (i)(2), (k)(1), and (k)(2)(i) of this AD by specifying that where Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-043, Revision A, dated November 13, 2014, specifies to contact the manufacturer for certain instructions, this AD requires accomplishing those actions using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.

We have also revised paragraph (m) of this AD to refer to the latest revision of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-043, dated July 2, 2014. The “Pre SB Part Number” column of Section M, Relationship Chart, of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-043, Revision A, dated November 13, 2014, is the same as that in Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-043, dated July 2, 2014.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 37200, June 30, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 37200, June 30, 2015).

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

Bombardier has issued the following service information.

• Bombardier Modification Summary Package IS670528200033, Revision A-2, dated October 11, 2005. This service information describes procedures for enlarging the forward and aft hinge cutouts of the MLG inboard and outboard doors.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-040, Revision D, dated July 2, 2014, including Appendix A, Revision A, dated July 2, 2014, and Appendix B, Revision B, dated July 2, 2014. This service information describes procedures for increasing the clearances between the MLG fairing and the MLG doors.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-040, Revision E, dated November 13, 2014, including Appendix A, Revision A, dated July 2, 2014, and Appendix B, Revision B, dated July 2, 2014. This service information describes procedures for increasing the clearances between the MLG fairing and the MLG doors, and for enlarging the forward and aft hinge cutouts of the MLG inboard and outboard doors.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-042, Revision A, dated July 2, 2014, including Appendixes A and B, both dated November 5, 2013. This service information describes procedures for inspecting and repairing the inboard MLG door inner skins, outer skin, and the forward member.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-043, dated July 2, 2014; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-043, Revision A, dated November 13, 2014. This service information describes procedures for replacing the inboard MLG doors.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 269 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate that it will take about 16 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 $31,000 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $8,704,840, or $32,360 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take up to 44 work-hours and require parts costing up to $31,000, for a cost of up to $34,740 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-1987; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A310 and Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes) series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 23, 2015 (80 FR 3525).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0026, dated January 28, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A310 and Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes; and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The MCAI states:

Depending on configuration and inspection results, the repetitive inspection intervals are 750 or 1,000 flight cycles, or 500 flight hours or 4 months, whichever occurs later.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-1045-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (80 FR 3525, January 23, 2015) and the FAA's response to each comment.

FedEx stated that Airbus has not provided any data or analysis showing the de-validated SRM procedures in the proposed AD (80 FR 3525, January 23, 2015) as inadequate. FedEx noted that one finding on a Model A310 airplane with skin disbonding and damage found on the composite side panel of the rudder caused the de-validation of all Model A300 and A310 airplanes with rudder side shell repairs, and mandatory inspections of all rudders repaired using the structural repair manual (SRM). FedEx added that a heavy burden is being placed on operators with very little justification from the manufacturer. FedEx stated that Airbus has not provided new validated SRM procedures, yet FedEx is being required to inspect all rudders without having any available, developed repairs; instead repairs would need to be done using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). FedEx does not agree with the de-validation of the SRM procedures and mandating inspections of the entire fleet of airplanes, based on one finding.

We infer that the commenter is asking for justification to support issuing this final rule. We acknowledge the commenter's concerns. However, the safety risk of undetected rudder skin disbonding that may not be detectable visually and could propagate during normal operation due to the variation of aerodynamic pressure during ground-air-ground cycles is sufficient to require the proposed actions. We also acknowledge that Airbus does not have new SRM procedures available, partially due to the unknown size and location of previously accomplished SRM repairs and the type of skin disbonding that may be identified that will result in each repair needing to be evaluated individually. Therefore, we have determined that inspections are necessary if an applicable SRM repair has been done, or if maintenance records are not available or are incomplete. The service information provides procedures for the detailed inspections; therefore, using a method approved by the FAA, EASA, or Airbus's EASA DOA is necessary only for repairs. We have determined it is necessary to proceed with issuing this final rule as proposed.

FedEx asked that paragraph (i) of the proposed AD (80 FR 3525, January 23, 2015) be revised to allow a composite side shell panel repair on any rudder using future revisions of the SRM procedure identified in Figure A-GBBAA (Sheet 01 and 02) or Figure A-GBCAA (Sheet 02) of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-55-2051; or Figure A-GBBAA (Sheet 01, 02, or 03) or Figure A-GBCAA (Sheet 02 or 04) of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-55-6050. FedEx stated that when Airbus revalidates the SRM procedures, FedEx won't be able to use those procedures for the repair because it is not allowed per paragraph (i) of the proposed AD.

We do not agree with the request. Although we understand the FedEx concerns, allowing the use of later revisions of service documents in an AD is not allowed by the Office of the Federal Register's regulations. However, after the manufacturer validates a later revision of the SRM procedures that provides an acceptable level of safety we can evaluate the later revision of the SRM as an alternative method of compliance, in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Paragraph (i) of this AD only prohibits the use of specific SRM procedures identified in that paragraph. We have not changed this AD 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 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 (80 FR 3525, January 23, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 3525, January 23, 2015).

Airbus has issued Service Bulletins A300-55-2051 and A310-55-6050, both Revision 01, both dated August 20, 2014. The service information describes procedures for inspecting the left- and right-hand rudder side shells for disbonding or damage, and related investigative actions and corrective actions if necessary. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 199 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. 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 $67,660, or $340 per product.

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

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.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-1045; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 26, 2015 (80 FR 3924). The NPRM was prompted by reports of fluid entry and accumulation in the aft equipment bay. The NPRM proposed to require modifying the aft equipment bay. We are issuing this AD to prevent excessive quantities of flammable fluid accumulation in the aft equipment bay. Flammable fluid entry and accumulation in the aft equipment bay, in excessive quantities, could exceed safe levels maintained by the drainage and ventilation system.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-25, dated August 7, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:

On March 24, 2015, at 80 FR 15530, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to AHD Model MBB-BK 117 A-1, A-3, A-4, B-1, B-2, C-1, and C-2 helicopters. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive visual inspections of the N2 control arm for corrosion, a crack, and a scratch. The NPRM also proposed to require repairing any N2 control arm with corrosion or a scratch less than 0.020 inch in depth and replacing any N2 control arm with exfoliation corrosion, a crack, or with corrosion or a scratch 0.020 inch or greater in depth. The proposed requirements were intended to detect corrosion, a crack, or a scratch in the N2 control arm, which could lead to failure of the N2 control arm, a drop in rotor speed, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2013-0154, dated July 22, 2013, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for the Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (now AHD) Model MBB-BK117 A-1, A-3, A-4, B-1, B-2, C-1, and C-2 helicopters. EASA advises of an incident with a Model MBB-BK117 C-2 helicopter that dropped rotor speed (RPM) within the green range and could not be recovered to nominal value because of a heavily corroded and broken N2 control arm. EASA advises that under certain flight conditions and power demands, a broken N2 control arm can cause a significant and non-recoverable drop in RPM. As a result, EASA AD No. 2013-0154 requires an initial and repetitive inspection of the N2 control arm for corrosion, damage, and scratches, and depending on the outcome of the inspection, repairing or replacing the N2 control arm.

Since the NPRM was issued, the FAA Southwest Regional Office has relocated and a group email address has been established for requesting an FAA alternative method of compliance for a helicopter of foreign design. We have revised the contact information throughout this final rule to reflect the new address and new email address.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (80 FR 15530, March 24, 2015).

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed except for the minor editorial changes described above. These changes are consistent with the intent of the proposals in the NPRM (80 FR 15530, March 24, 2015) and will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of this AD.

The EASA AD allows a noncumulative tolerance of 3 months in the compliance time for the initial inspection on helicopters with less than 2 years from the date of first flight and for the repetitive inspections, and this AD does not.

Eurocopter issued ASB MBB-BK117-60A-126 for Model MBB-BK 117 A-1, A-3, A-4, B-1, B-2, and C-1 helicopters, and ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-76A-005 for Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, both Revision 0, and both dated June 24, 2013. The Eurocopter ASBs specify inspecting the N2 control arm for corrosion, damage, and scratches and, depending on the outcome of the inspection, either repairing or replacing the affected parts. The Eurocopter ASBs also specify performing the inspection with each 12 month inspection until the N2 inspection requirements are incorporated into the aircraft maintenance manual.

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 441 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Inspecting the N2 control arm requires about one work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and $37,485 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle. Repairing the N2 control arm requires about four work-hours for an estimated labor cost of $340. Replacing the N2 control arm requires about three work-hours for an estimated labor cost of $255. Parts to replace the N2 control arm for Model MBB-BK 117 A-1, A-3, A-4, B-1, B-2, and C-1 helicopters cost about $2,743 for a total estimated cost of $2,998. Parts to replace the N2 control arm for a Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopter cost about $4,500 for a total estimated cost of $4,755.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On June 5, 2015, at 80 FR 32072, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Agusta Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters, serial number (S/N) 31005 through 31517 (except S/N 31007, 31415, 31431, 31491, 31500, 31508, and 31516) and S/N 41001 through 41356 (except S/N 41355). The NPRM proposed to require visually inspecting certain subfloor frames for a crack. The proposed requirements were intended to detect or prevent a crack in the subfloor frame, which could result in failure of the pilot and co-pilot pedal support frame and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2014-0048, dated March 4, 2014, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Agusta Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters with a S/N 31005 through 31517 (except S/N 31007, 31415, 31431, 31491, 31500, 31508, and 31516) and S/N 41001 through 41356 (except S/N 41355). EASA advises that cracks have been reported in the subfloor frame at station (STA) 2105 on in-service helicopters. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the pedals supporting the frame, which in turn could lead to the pedals being inoperative and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, EASA advises.

The EASA AD requires repetitive inspections of the subfloor frame at STA 2105 for a crack. The EASA AD also requires installation of frame reinforcements before further flight if there is a crack or within 1,200 flight hours if there is no crack. The EASA AD provides that installation of the frame reinforcements constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by the AD.

Since the NPRM was issued, the FAA Southwest Regional Office has relocated and a group email address has been established for requesting an FAA Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) for a helicopter of foreign design. This AD contains the current physical address of the FAA Southwest Regional Office and the new email address for requesting an AMOC.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 32072, June 5, 2015).

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

The EASA AD requires conducting the initial inspection within 30 flight hours or 2 months, whichever occurs first, and thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 300 flight hours or 6 months, whichever occurs first. This AD requires conducting the initial inspection within 30 hours time-in-service (TIS), and thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS.

We reviewed AgustaWestland Bolletino Tecnico No. 139-311, Revision B, dated June 4, 2014 (BT), for certain serial-numbered Agusta Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. The BT calls for visual inspections of the subfloor frames within 30 flight hours or two months, whichever occurs first, and thereafter at intervals of 300 flight hours or 6 months, whichever comes first, until frame reinforcements are installed to prevent future failures. The BT also specifies installing the frame reinforcements immediately if a crack is found and within 1,200 flight hours if a crack is not found. 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 102 U.S.-registered helicopters and that labor costs average $85 a work hour. Based on these estimates, we expect the following costs:

• The visual inspection requires 2 work-hours for a labor cost of $170 per helicopter. No parts are needed, so the cost totals $170 per helicopter, $17,340 for the U.S. fleet.

• If there are no cracks, installing the frame reinforcements requires 240 work-hours for a labor cost of $20,400 and $2,274 for parts. The total cost is $22,674 per helicopter.

• If there is a crack, installing the frame reinforcements requires 240 work-hours for a labor cost of $20,400 and $3,401 for parts. The total cost is $23,801 per helicopter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On July 24, 2015, we issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to revise AD 2015-12-09, Amendment 39-18184 (80 FR 34831, June 18, 2015), which applied to Airbus Helicopters Model EC135P1, EC135T1, EC135P2, EC135T2, EC135P2+, EC135T2+, and MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 3, 2015 (80 FR 45900). The NPRM was prompted by the discovery of an incorrectly dated Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) in the Credit for Previous Actions section of AD 2015-12-09. The NPRM proposed to retain the actions required by AD 2015-12-09 and correct the ASB date and revise other information throughout the AD.

AD 2015-12-09 was prompted by AD No. 2013-0176, dated August 7, 2013, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Model EC 135 P1 (CDS), EC 135 P1 (CPDS), EC 135 P2+, EC 135 P2 (CPDS), EC 135 T1 (CDS), EC 135 T1 (CPDS), EC 135 T2+, EC 135 T2 (CPDS), EC 635 P2+, EC 635 T1 (CPDS), EC 635 T2+, and MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters. EASA advises that during installation work on a helicopter, it was discovered that it was not possible to install attachment hardware on a threaded blind borehole between the Smart Electro Mechanical Actuator (SEMA) and the control rod without play. EASA advises that this condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to loss of the concerned control axis, possibly resulting in loss of helicopter control. For these reasons, EASA AD No. 2013-0176 requires a one-time inspection of the affected SEMA attachment hardware to detect improper connection and play and, depending on the findings, replacement of the affected hardware. After the issuance of EASA AD No. 2013-0176, Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH changed its name to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH.

When AD 2015-12-09 was published, an incorrect reference to the date of Eurocopter ASB EC135-22A-015, Revision 0, dated May 13, 2008, appeared in the text of the rule. Specifically, AD 2015-12-09 includes the following under paragraph (f), Credit for Previous Actions: “If you performed the actions in Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin EC135-22A-015, Revision 0, dated May 13, 2018, or Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin MBB BK117 C-2-22A-009, Revision 0, May 13, 2008, before the effective date of this AD, you met the requirements of this AD.” As published, the reference to May 13, 2018, is incorrect. The correct date for Eurocopter ASB EC135-22A-015, Revision 0, is May 13, 2008.

Accordingly, we are revising AD 2015-12-09 to correct the date for Eurocopter ASB EC135-22A-015, Revision 0. Further, we updated the physical address of the FAA Southwest Regional Office throughout this AD and the email address for requesting an Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC). We did not change any other part of the preamble or regulatory information. The final rule is reprinted in its entirety for the convenience of affected operators.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 45900, August 3, 2015).

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

Eurocopter reported in ASBs EC135-22A-015, Revision 1, dated January 28, 2013, and MBB BK117 C-2-22A-009, Revision 1, dated August 3, 2009, that it was discovered during the installation work on a helicopter that it was not possible to establish attachment hardware on a threaded blind borehole between the SEMA and the control rod without play. The ASBs state that “unfavourable adding of the tolerances” of the individual attachment hardware elements caused the screw to push against the bottom of the threaded blind borehole on the SEMA, preventing any clamping force on the screw head. The ASBs call for inspecting the SEMA attachment hardware connected to their respective control rods for play and making the proper adjustments to eliminate any play. 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 385 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 per work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect the following costs:

• Inspecting for movement of the washers requires 1.5 work-hours for a labor cost of $128 per helicopter and $49,280 for the U.S. fleet.

• Replacing the screws and related work requires an additional 0.5 work-hours for a labor cost of $43. Screws cost $4 each while washers cost $10 each. We estimate the cost at $79 per repair.

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 have 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 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 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2014 (79 FR 41661). The NPRM was prompted by a report of several cracks found on the forward passenger airstair door step assembly. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection to determine the serial number of the airstair door step assembly, and if necessary, an electronic tap test, reidentification of the airstair door step assembly, and replacement of the airstair door step assembly. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the forward passenger airstair door step assembly; such cracking could propagate and result in the structural failure of the steps and impede the evacuation of passengers in the event of an emergency egress situation.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-20R1, dated December 30, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Required actions include an inspection to determine the serial number of the airstair door step assembly, and if necessary, an electronic tap test and reidentification and replacement of the assembly. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0447-0004.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 41661, July 17, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Republic Airlines and Horizon Air requested that we revise the NPRM (79 FR 41661, July 17, 2014) to refer to the latest service information.

We agree with the request. The revised service information, Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision C, dated June 5, 2014, provides minor wording changes but does not change the procedures or add any airplanes. We have revised paragraphs (g) and (h) in this AD to refer to the new service information, and added Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision B, dated October 31, 2013, to paragraph (i) of this AD, to provide credit for previous actions done before the effective date of this AD.

Horizon Air requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (79 FR 41661, July 17, 2014) to allow a review of aircraft records, in addition to a physical inspection, as a way to determine the serial number of the airstair door step assembly.

We disagree with the request. A review of aircraft records may provide an appropriate means to determine serial numbers. For the airstair door step assembly, however, we understand that operators may remove and exchange the assemblies within their fleet for repair, and replace them relatively quickly to minimize airplane downtime. In these cases, there may be a lag between the removal and replacement action and updating the records typically used to conduct a records review. In coordination with TCCA, we have determined that airplane records may not reliably reflect the serial numbers of all airstair door step assemblies present on the affected airplanes. However, under the provisions of paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an alternative method of compliance for determining serial numbers, if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the new method would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue.

Horizon Air requested that we revise paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of the proposed AD (79 FR 41661, July 17, 2014), which would conditionally require replacing the airstair door step assembly in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision B, dated October 31, 2013. For this action, Horizon Air requested that we also allow the replacement to be done using maintenance manual tasks 52-11-01-000-801 and 52-11-01-400-801. Horizon Air stated that the service information specified in the NPRM does not include any actions beyond those specified in the maintenance manual tasks.

We disagree with the request. Part 3, “Procedure,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision C, dated June 5, 2014, does, in fact, specify additional tasks not included in the maintenance manual tasks referenced by the commenter. The additional tasks include verification of the serial number of the new airstair door step assembly before installation, and adjustment and a functional check of the new door. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Horizon Air requested that we revise the NPRM (79 FR 41661, July 17, 2014) to require only the section of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision C, dated June 5, 2014, that directly corrects the unsafe condition: paragraph 3.B., “Procedure.” Horizon Air stated that the unsafe condition is not directly corrected by accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraph 3.A., “Job Set-up,” and paragraph 3.C., “Close Out,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision C, dated June 5, 2014. Horizon Air added that incorporating the Job Set-up and Close Out as a requirement of the AD would restrict an operator's ability to perform other maintenance in conjunction with the incorporation of the service information.

We agree with the request and the commenter's rationale. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD accordingly.

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 NPRM (79 FR 41661, July 17, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 41661, July 17, 2014).

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

Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision C, dated June 5, 2014, including Appendix A, and with the attached Short Brothers Service Bulletin D8400-52-0011, Revision C, dated February 26, 2014. The service information describes procedures for determining the airstair door step assembly serial number, doing an electronic tap test, and reidentifying and replacing the assembly. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 76 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $6,460, or $85 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take up to 9 work-hours and require parts costing $206,175, for a cost of $206,940 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0447; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 98-18-26, Amendment 39-10742 (63 FR 47423, September 8, 1998). AD 98-18-26 applied to certain Airbus Model A320 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 5, 2015 (80 FR 32063).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0069, dated March 19, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-1422-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (80 FR 32063, June 5, 2015) and the FAA's response to the comments.

Delta Airlines (DAL) asked that we move the repetitive inspection intervals from paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (80 FR 32063, June 5, 2015), and create a new paragraph (i) with the repetitive inspection intervals. DAL stated that having the inspection method and the repetitive inspection intervals in one paragraph, as well as a separate paragraph for the initial inspection is cumbersome.

We do not agree with the requested changes. We re-examined the structure of the regulatory text of this AD, and have determined that the specified language as proposed is clear and aligns with the MCAI. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard.

DAL also asked that we add sub-steps to requirements in the proposed AD (80 FR 32063, June 5, 2015), to clarify the inspection requirements specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1178, Revision 01, dated May 28, 2014.

We do not agree. Our goal in referring to the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information is to ensure that operators follow the details in the inspection steps shown therein. DAL has the option of creating task cards if it makes accomplishing the sub-steps easier, provided the cards meet the intent of the AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Additionally, DAL asked that Appendix 01 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1178, Revision 01, dated May 28, 2014, be removed from the service bulletin identification in the NPRM (80 FR 32063, June 5, 2015), because Appendix 01 has Gantt Chart information that should not be highlighted as a regulatory requirement for compliance.

We do not agree. The information in Appendix 01 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1178, Revision 01, dated May 28, 2014, may be helpful to operators that want to determine the number of work hours necessary to accomplish specific actions. Moreover, Appendix 01 does not contain a requirement for compliance. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 32063, June 5, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 32063, June 5, 2015).

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

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-57-1178, Revision 01, dated May 28, 2014, including Appendix 01, dated May 28, 2014. The service information describes procedures for inspecting the radius of the front spar vertical stringers and the horizontal floor beam on frame 36 for cracking. 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 17 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 24 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $34,680, or $2,040 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 49 work-hours and require parts costing $1,210, for a cost of $5,375 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-1422; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

On June 9, 2015, at 80 FR 32508, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to MDHI Model 500N helicopters with a rotating cone assembly part number (P/N) 500N3740-81 installed, and Model 600N helicopters with a rotating cone assembly P/N 500N3740-71 installed. The NPRM proposed to require establishing a life limit of 10,000 hours TIS on these rotating cone assemblies. Although these parts have a life limit of 10,000 hours TIS, they were incorrectly omitted from the Airworthiness Limitation Section of the Rotorcraft Maintenance Manual. Some of the affected parts were sold as spares, while others were installed on new helicopters in production. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent operation of rotating cone assemblies past their life limits, failure of the rotating cone assemblies, loss of directional control, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Since the NPRM was issued, the FAA Southwest Regional Office has relocated. This AD includes the current physical address of the FAA Southwest Regional Office.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 32508, June 9, 2015).

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

MDHI issued Service Bulletin SB500N-046 and SB600N-054 (SB) as a single bulletin on July 9, 2012. The SB calls for a one-time inspection within 100 flight hours to determine the rotating cone assembly's part number on MDHI Model 500N and 600N helicopters. The SB then states the need to correct the component record for certain rotating cone assemblies.

The SB also specifies determining the rotating cone assembly's total service time since new and recording this on the component record. MDHI reports that failure to comply with the SB may result in an aircraft exceeding the life limit of the rotating cone assembly and that this could lead to component failure and loss of directional control of the helicopter.

The SB calls for inspecting the rotating cone assembly to determine its P/N. We make no requirement about how to determine the P/N. The compliance time for the SB is within 100 flight hours, while this AD requires compliance within 1 year or by the next annual inspection, whichever comes later.

We estimate that this AD affects 8 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 a work hour. We estimate that creating a component history card and revising the appropriate records takes 1 work-hour. No parts are needed for a total cost of $85 per helicopter and $680 for the U.S. fleet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2002-23-20, Amendment 39-12964 (67 FR 71098, November 29, 2002); corrected May 4, 2010 (75 FR 23579). AD 2002-23-20 applied to certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX and MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 3, 2015 (80 FR 45902). The NPRM was prompted by a revision to the maintenance manual. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include the maintenance tasks and airworthiness limitations specified in the Airworthiness Limitations section of the airplane maintenance manual. The NPRM also proposed to remove the Model FALCON 900EX airplanes from the applicability of the existing AD. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity 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 2013-0053, dated March 4, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-2967-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 45902, August 3, 2015) 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 (80 FR 45902, August 3, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 45902, August 3, 2015).

Dassault Aviation issued Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 20, dated October 2012, of the Dassault Aviation Falcon 900 Maintenance Manual. This service information describes procedures, maintenance tasks, and airworthiness limitations specified in the Airworthiness Limitations section of the AMM. 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 112 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $9,520, 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.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-2967; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

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 removes Class E airspace at West Texas Airport, El Paso, TX.

On June 18, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at West Texas Airport, El Paso, TX, as the airport is now closed (80 FR 34855) Docket No. FAA-2014-1074. Additionally, the FAA identified an error in the geographical coordinates for El Paso International Airport, would be changed from (lat. 31°50′59″ N., long. 106°22′40″ W.) in the proposal to (lat. 31°48′26″ N., long. 106°22′35″ W.) (80 FR 34855). The FAA found the NPRM incorrectly listed the geographic coordinates for Biggs AAF and El Paso International Airport under the Proposal section, but was correctly noted in the airspace designation. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

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

This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by removing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at West Texas Airport, El Paso, TX. This action is necessary due to the closure of the airport; therefore controlled airspace is no longer needed. Also, the geographic coordinates for El Paso International Airport, are changed to (lat. 31°48′26″ N., long. 106°22′35″ W.), and the coordinates for Biggs AAF are changed to (lat. 31°50′58″ N., long. 106°22′48″ W.), to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical data base.

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:

FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect that application 141-308 for conditional approval of KINAVET-CA1 (masitinib mesylate) Tablets, a new animal drug for a minor use sponsored by AB Science, 3 Avenue George V, 75008 Paris, France, is no longer in effect.

Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA gave notice that conditional approval of this drug, by operation of law, was no longer in effect as of December 15, 2015.

This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 510 and 516 are amended as follows:

In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i), to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807) of the regulations.

Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1). Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2). Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and then a request for classification under the first procedure, the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. If the person submits a request to classify the device under this second procedure, FDA may decline to undertake the classification request if FDA identifies a legally marketed device that could provide a reasonable basis for review of substantial equivalence with the device or if FDA determines that the device submitted is not of “low-moderate risk” or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls to mitigate the risks cannot be developed.

In response to a request to classify a device under either procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA will classify the device by written order within 120 days. This classification will be the initial classification of the device.

On January 5, 2015, EarLens Corporation submitted a request for classification of the EarLensTM Contact Hearing Device under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. The manufacturer recommended that the device be classified into class II (Ref. 1).

In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. FDA classifies devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the request, FDA determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

Therefore, on September 29, 2015, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 874.3315.

Following the effective date of this final classification order, any firm submitting a premarket notification (510(k)) for a tympanic membrane contact hearing aid will need to comply with the special controls named in this final administrative order.

The device is assigned the generic name tympanic membrane contact hearing aid, and it is identified as a prescription device that compensates for impaired hearing. Amplified sound is transmitted by vibrating the tympanic membrane through a transducer that is in direct contact with the tympanic membrane.

FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks:

FDA believes that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness.

Tympanic membrane contact hearing aids are prescription devices restricted to patient use only upon the authorization of a practitioner licensed by law to administer or use the device; see 21 CFR 801.109 (Prescription devices).

Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k), if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. Therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a premarket notification, prior to marketing the device, which contains information about the tympanic membrane contact hearing aid they intend to market.

We have determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

This final administrative order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

The following reference is on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and is available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; it is also available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the Web site address, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 874 is amended as follows:

Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated December 10, 2013 (superseding Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of these provisions.

Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.

Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.

Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:

• Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;

• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;

• A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;

• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and

• A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.

TTB received a petition from C. Frederic Brander, owner and winemaker of the Brander Vineyard, proposing the establishment of the “Los Olivos District” AVA in Santa Barbara County, California. There are 12 bonded wineries and approximately 47 commercially producing vineyards covering a total of 1,120 acres within the proposed AVA. The proposed Los Olivos District AVA shares its western boundary with the eastern boundary of the Ballard Canyon AVA (27 CFR 9.230) and its eastern boundary with the western boundary of the Happy Canyon of Santa Barbara AVA (27 CR 9.217), but it does not overlap either of these AVAs. It is located within the Santa Ynez Valley viticultural area and the larger, multicounty Central Coast viticultural area.

According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Los Olivos District AVA include its topography, soils, and climate. The proposed AVA is located on a broad alluvial terrace plain of the Santa Ynez River. The topography of the proposed AVA is relatively uniform, with nearly flat terrain that gently slopes southward toward the Santa Ynez River. The lack of steeply sloped hills reduces the risk of erosion and facilitates mechanical tiling and harvesting in the vineyards. Additionally, the open terrain allows vineyards throughout the proposed AVA to receive uniform amounts of sunlight, rainfall, and temperature-moderating fog because there are no significant hills or mountains within the proposed AVA to block the rainfall and fog or to shade the vineyards. By contrast, the regions surrounding the proposed Los Olivos District all have higher elevations and steep, rugged terrain.

Over 95 percent of the soils within the proposed Los Olivos District AVA are from the Positas-Ballard-Santa Ynez soil association and are derived from alluvium, including Orcutt sand and terrace deposits. The soils are moderately to well drained gravelly fine sandy loams and clay loams with low to moderate fertility. The soils within the proposed AVA drain quickly enough to reduce the risk of root disease but do not drain so excessively as to require frequent irrigation. Soil nutrient levels within the proposed AVA are adequate to produce healthy vines and fruit without promoting excessive growth. By contrast, the majority of soils in the surrounding regions are not from the Positas-Ballard-Santa Ynez soil association and are generally less fertile and drain faster.

Within the Central Coast AVA, where the proposed Los Olivos District AVA is located, temperatures are affected by cooling marine fog. However, the proposed Los Olivos District AVA is located about 30 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean, so much of the marine fog has diminished by the time it reaches the proposed AVA in the late afternoon. The thin fog within the proposed AVA allows the daytime temperatures to rise higher and the nighttime temperatures to drop lower than in the regions farther to the west, where heavy fog is present throughout the day. The region to the east receives even less fog than the proposed AVA, so daytime temperatures rise higher and nighttime temperatures drop lower. The warm daytime temperatures within the proposed AVA encourage fruit maturation and sugar production, and the cool nighttime temperatures minimize acid loss.

TTB published Notice No. 148 in the Federal Register on March 3, 2015 (80 FR 11355), proposing to establish the Los Olivos District AVA. In the document, TTB summarized the evidence from the petition regarding the name, boundary, and distinguishing features for the proposed AVA. The document also compared the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA to the surrounding areas. In Notice No. 148, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the name, boundary, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. In addition, TTB solicited comments on whether the geographic features of the proposed Los Olivos District are so distinguishable from the established Santa Ynez Valley AVA and the Central Coast AVA that the proposed AVA should not be part of either established AVA. The comment period closed on May 4, 2015.

In response to Notice No. 148, TTB received 76 comments, all of which supported the establishment of the Los Olivos District AVA, with many citing to its distinct topography, climate, and soils. The comments did not raise any new issues concerning the proposed AVA. TTB received no comments opposing the establishment of the Los Olivos District AVA. TTB also did not receive any comments in response to its question of whether the proposed Los Olivos District AVA is so distinguishable from the established Santa Ynez Valley AVA or the established Central Coast AVA that the proposed AVA should not be part of either established AVA.

After careful review of the petition and the comment received in response to Notice No. 148, TTB finds that the evidence provided by the petitioner supports the establishment of the Los Olivos District AVA. Accordingly, under the authority of the FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and part 4 of the TTB regulations, TTB establishes the “Los Olivos District” AVA in Santa Barbara County, California, effective 30 days from the publication date of this document.

TTB has also determined that the Los Olivos District AVA will remain part of both the established Santa Ynez Valley AVA and the established Central Coast AVA. As discussed in Notice No. 148, the Los Olivos District AVA receives some of the marine breezes and fog that are the primary characteristics of both the Santa Ynez Valley AVA and the Central Coast AVA. However, due to its central location within the Santa Ynez Valley AVA, the Los Olivos District AVA receives less marine air and heavy fog than the western portion of the Santa Ynez Valley AVA, which is closer to the Pacific Ocean, and it receives more cooling breezes and fog than the eastern portion. The topography of the Los Olivos District AVA is also more uniform than that of the Santa Ynez Valley AVA, which has mountains and canyons as well as flatter terrain. Additionally, due to its smaller size, the Los Olivos District AVA is more uniform in its geographical and climatic characteristics than the much larger, multicounty Central Coast AVA.

See the narrative description of the boundary of the AVA in the regulatory text published at the end of this final rule.

The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the regulatory text.

Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.

With the establishment of this AVA, its name, “Los Olivos District,” is recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name “Los Olivos District” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, will have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin. In Notice No. 148, TTB proposed to recognize “Los Olivos,” standing alone, as a term of viticultural significance. However TTB is not designating “Los Olivos,” standing alone, as a term of viticultural significance in this final rule. We make this change in light of new information concerning the current use of “Los Olivos” on wine labels.

The approval of the Los Olivos District AVA does not affect any existing AVA, and this approval does not affect any bottlers using “Central Coast” or “Santa Ynez Valley” as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes grown within the Central Coast or Santa Ynez Valley AVAs. The establishment of the Los Olivos District AVA allows vintners to use “Los Olivos District,” “Santa Ynez Valley,” and “Central Coast” as appellations of origin for wines made from grapes grown within the Los Olivos District AVA, if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.

TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

It has been determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.

Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this final rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (www.treasury.gov/ofac). Certain general information pertaining to OFAC's sanctions programs also is available via facsimile through a 24-hour fax-on-demand service, tel.: 202-622-0077.

On July 14, 2015, the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), the European Union (EU), and Iran reached a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to ensure that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively peaceful. The JCPOA provides that the United States Government (USG) will undertake the sanctions-related commitments described in sections 17.1 to 17.4 of Annex V of the JCPOA once the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has verified that Iran has implemented key nuclear-related commitments described in the JCPOA. The date for this sanctions lifting is referred to as “Implementation Day” in the JCPOA. In addition, the JCPOA provides that, on Implementation Day, the USG will license certain activities involving Iran as described in section 5 of Annex II and section 17.5 of Annex V of the JCPOA. OFAC is now amending the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 560 (ITSR), to implement the USG's commitment pursuant to the JCPOA to license the importation into the United States of Iranian-origin carpets and foodstuffs, including pistachios and caviar, and to make certain technical and conforming changes to reflect the implementation of other USG JCPOA commitments on Implementation Day, as set forth below.

To implement the USG commitment set out in section 5.1.3 of Annex II and section 17.5 of Annex V of the JCPOA to license the importation into the United States of Iranian-origin carpets and foodstuffs, including pistachios and caviar, OFAC is adding § 560.534 to the ITSR to authorize by general license the importation into the United States of, and dealings in, certain Iranian-origin foodstuffs and carpets from Iran or a third country. OFAC's publication of this general license as an amendment to the ITSR fulfills the requirements of section 103(d)(2)(A) of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, as amended, (Pub. L. 111-195) (22 U.S.C. 8501-8551) (CISADA). In addition, to fulfill the requirements of section 103(d)(2)(B) of CISADA, the Secretary of State is submitting to the appropriate congressional committees a certification in writing that it is in the national interest of the United States to provide an exception to the prohibition on the importation of Iranian-origin goods to the extent required to implement the sanctions commitment described in section 5.1.3 of Annex II of the JCPOA and a report describing the reasons for this exception.

Section 560.534(a) authorizes the importation into the United States of Iranian-origin foodstuffs intended for human consumption that are classified under chapters 2-23 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS). Items that are classified in chapters 2-23 of the HTS that are not foodstuffs intended for human consumption are not authorized for importation into the United States by this section. This section also authorizes the importation into the United States of Iranian-origin carpets and other textile floor coverings and carpets used as wall hangings that are classified under chapter 57 or heading 9706.00.0060 of the HTS. Items that are classified under heading 9706.00.0060 (“Antiques of an age exceeding one hundred years/Other”) that are not carpets and other textile wall coverings or carpets used as wall hangings are not authorized for importation into the United States by this section.

Section 560.534(b) authorizes U.S. persons, wherever located, to engage in transactions or dealings in or related to such Iranian-origin foodstuffs and carpets, provided that such transactions or dealings do not involve or relate to goods, technology, or services for exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, to Iran, the Government of Iran, an Iranian financial institution, or any other person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 560.211 of the ITSR, other than services described in § 560.405 (“Transactions ordinarily incident to a licensed transaction authorized”) and transfers of funds described in § 560.516 (“Transfers of funds involving Iran”). Section 560.534(c) clarifies that § 560.534(a)-(b) does not authorize the importation into the United States of goods that are under seizure or detention by the Department of Homeland Security, or of goods for which forfeiture proceedings have commenced or of goods that have been forfeited to the U.S. Government. Section 560.534(d) clarifies that nothing in § 560.534 authorizes the debiting or crediting of Iranian accounts, as defined in § 560.320.

Transactions ordinarily incident to the transactions authorized in § 560.534 and necessary to give effect thereto also are authorized as set forth in § 560.405. OFAC is amending § 560.405 by inserting new paragraph (f), which clarifies that the scope of authorized incidental transactions does not include letter of credit services relating to transactions authorized in § 560.534. Those letter of credit services that are authorized are set forth separately in paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 560.535, which OFAC is also adding to the ITSR. Please see §§ 560.405(b) and 560.516 regarding transfers of funds in connection with licensed activities. Brokering services relating to transactions authorized by this final rule also are authorized. See § 560.535(c).

On July 30, 2012, the President, invoking the authority of, inter alia, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13622. Section 5 of E.O. 13622 blocked “all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of” any U.S. person, including any foreign branch, of any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), the Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO), or the Central Bank of Iran, or the purchase or acquisition of U.S. bank notes or precious metals by the Government of Iran. Section 6 of E.O. 13622 provided that subsection 5(a) of E.O. 13622, among other specified provisions, shall not apply with respect to any person for conducting or facilitating a transaction involving a natural gas development and pipeline project initiated prior to July 31, 2012, to bring gas from Azerbaijan to Europe and Turkey in furtherance of a production sharing agreement or license awarded by a sovereign government other than the Government of Iran. On December 26, 2012, OFAC published a final rule in the Federal Register (77 FR 75845) that, inter alia, implemented sections 5 and 6 of E.O. 13622 by amending § 560.211 of the ITSR to add paragraph (c)(2) and a corresponding note.

Pursuant to its Implementation Day commitment set out in section 4 of Annex II and section 17.4 of Annex V of the JCPOA, the United States Government has revoked E.O. 13622. Accordingly, OFAC is amending § 560.211 of the ITSR by removing paragraph (c)(2) and the Note to paragraph (c)(2), which implemented sections 5 and 6 of E.O. 13622, respectively.

OFAC is also making certain technical and conforming changes to 31 CFR chapter V to reflect the implementation of the USG commitment set out in section 4.8.1 of Annex II and section 17.3 of Annex V of the JCPOA. Pursuant to that commitment, on Implementation Day, OFAC is removing individuals and entities identified in Attachment 3 to Annex II of the JCPOA from the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List), the Foreign Sanctions Evaders List, and/or the Non-SDN Iran Sanctions Act List, as appropriate. The individuals and entities being removed from the SDN List include persons that OFAC has previously identified as blocked pursuant to E.O. 13599 of February 5, 2012 (“Blocking Property of the Government Iran and Iranian Financial Institutions”) because they meet the definition of the terms “Government of Iran” or “Iranian financial institution.” These individuals and entities are marked with an asterisk in Attachment 3 to Annex II of the JCPOA. Non-U.S. persons will no longer be subject to secondary sanctions, including under relevant provisions of the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 and other applicable authorities, for engaging in transactions or activities with these individuals and entities, provided that the transactions do not include conduct that remains sanctionable or individuals or entities that remain on the SDN List. However, these individuals and entities being removed from the SDN List remain persons whose property and interests in property that are in the U.S., or that are or come within the possession or control of any U.S. person, are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13599. While OFAC is removing these persons from the SDN List on Implementation Day, they will now be included on a “List of Persons Identified as Blocked Solely Pursuant to Executive Order 13599” (E.O. 13599 List), which OFAC is making available on its Web site: www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/13599_list.aspx. To reflect these changes, OFAC is revising notes in §§ 560.211 and 560.304 of the ITSR, adding a new note to § 560.324 of the ITSR, and revising a note to appendix A to 31 CFR chapter V.

Because the amendment of the ITSR involves a foreign affairs function, the provisions of Executive Order 12866 and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.

The collections of information related to the ITSR are contained in 31 CFR part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”). Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0164. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control amends 31 CFR chapter V as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce the North American International Auto Show, Detroit River, Detroit, MI security zone listed in 33 CFR 165.915(a)(3). This security zone includes all waters of the Detroit River encompassed by a line beginning at a point of origin on land adjacent to the west end of Joe Louis Arena at 42°19.44′ N., 083°03.11′ W.; then extending offshore approximately 150 yards to 42°19.39′ N., 083°03.07′ W.; then proceeding upriver approximately 2000 yards to a point at 42°19.72′ N., 083°01.88′ W.; then proceeding onshore to a point on land adjacent the Tricentennial State Park at 42°19.79′ N., 083°01.90′ W.; then proceeding downriver along the shoreline to connect back to the point of origin. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.

All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated on-scene representative, who may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.33, no person or vessel may enter or remain in this security zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port Detroit. Each person and vessel in this security zone shall obey any direction or order of the Captain of the Port Detroit. The Captain of the Port Detroit may take possession and control of any vessel in this security zone. The Captain of the Port Detroit may remove any person, vessel, article, or thing from this security zone. No person may board, or take or place any article or thing on board any vessel in this security zone without the permission of the Captain of Port Detroit. No person may take or place any article or thing upon any waterfront facility in this security zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port Detroit.

Vessels that wish to transit through this security zone shall request permission from the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals may be granted on a case by case basis. The Captain of the Port may be contacted via U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit on channel 16, VHF-FM. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via Local Notice to Mariners and VHF radio broadcasts that the regulation is in effect.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.915 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). If the Captain of the Port determines that this security zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this document; he may suspend such enforcement and notify the public of the suspension via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

This rulemaking addresses submissions from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) dated July 2, 2015. These submissions are intended to address CAA requirements relating to the state board requirements under section 128, as well as infrastructure requirements of section 110, relating to state boards for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

The requirement for states to make infrastructure SIP submissions arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP submissions are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address.

EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA. This specific rulemaking is only taking action on the CAA 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) element of these infrastructure SIP requirements, which is the only infrastructure SIP element addressed in WDNR's submittal dated July 2, 2015.

EPA's guidance for these submissions is highlighted in an October 2, 2007, guidance document entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards” (2007 Guidance). Further guidance is provided in a September 13, 2013, document entitled “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)” (2013 Guidance).

Pursuant to section 110(a), states must provide reasonable notice and opportunity for public hearing for all infrastructure SIP submissions. WDNR provided notice of a public comment period on May 9, 2015, held a public hearing at WDNR State Headquarters on June 9, 2015, and closed the public comment period on June 11, 2015. No comments were received.

Wisconsin provided a detailed synopsis of how various components of its SIP meet each of the applicable requirements in section 128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, as applicable.

On September 11, 2015 (80 FR 54744), EPA published a proposed rule that would approve these submissions into Wisconsin's SIP. This proposed rule contained a detailed evaluation of how Wisconsin's submissions satisfy certain requirements under CAA sections 110 and 128. No comments were received. Therefore, EPA is finalizing this rule as proposed.

EPA is taking final action to incorporate Wis. Stats. 15.05, 19.45(2), and 19.46 into Wisconsin's SIP. EPA is further approving these submissions as meeting CAA obligations under section 128, as well as 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Wisconsin Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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).

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 21, 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).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

We received two comments in response to the direct final rule (DFR). The two comments we received were either not adverse or separable from and not within the scope of the rulemaking.

One commenter supported the rule and thanked the Coast Guard for its prompt action. Another commenter titled its comment as “adverse” and requested that the Coast Guard withdraw the DFR. The commenter agreed that “the Coast Guard is obliged to align Coast Guard regulations with the statutes” and did not oppose the changes to the regulation. The commenter argued, rather, that the Coast Guard should delay the rulemaking indefinitely and seek new legislation from Congress that limits every merchant mariner to serving a uniform maximum of 12 hours in a 24 hour period, except in an emergency.

The DFR conforms Coast Guard regulations to existing law, under which affected mariners may earn one and a half days sea service credit for each 12-hour period of work. The commenter did not oppose granting such mariners such credit for time worked. Instead, the commenter took issue with the absence of statutory restrictions on the length of time certain mariners may be required to work. The commenter advocated that the Coast Guard delay updating the regulations and request that Congress amend the statute further.

The DFR stated that “we may adopt, as final, those parts of this rule on which no adverse comment was received.” 80 FR 65166. The commenter's requests are separable from the rule and raises issues well outside the scope of the rule. The rule will therefore go into effect as scheduled.

The Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act of 2004 (CSEA) established the Spectrum Relocation Fund from which agencies could recover relocation costs in order to facilitate clearing of the eligible frequency bands auctioned by the Federal Communications Commission.1 The Middle Class Job Creation and Tax Relief Act of 2012 (Tax Relief Act) amended the CSEA to permit federal entities to recover costs for sharing of spectrum and to receive additional reimbursement of expenses for planning for auction participation, use of alternative technologies, replacement equipment, and research and analysis of potential spectrum sharing solutions.2 The Tax Relief Act also required NTIA to establish a Technical Panel to review and approve federal entities' transition plans to facilitate the relocation of, and sharing of spectrum with, U.S. Government stations in spectrum bands reallocated from federal use to non-federal use or shared use.3

The Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2015 modified the CSEA by, among other things, appropriating $500,000,000 from the Spectrum Relocation Fund on the date of enactment and not more than 10 percent of future deposits for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to make payments to federal entities for research and development, engineering studies, economic analyses, or other planning activities intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the spectrum use. 4 This Final Rule implements those provisions of the Spectrum Pipeline Act regarding the review and approval by the Technical Panel of plans submitted by federal entities requesting such additional payments from the Spectrum Relocation Fund.

NTIA is amending its regulations to conform to provisions of the recently enacted Spectrum Pipeline Act. Accordingly, 47 CFR part 301 is amended as discussed below.

The Spectrum Pipeline Act provides that a federal entity that seeks payments pursuant to its provisions must submit a plan (hereafter referred to as a “Spectrum Pipeline Plan”) to the Technical Panel. Such a plan must describe the activities the federal entity will conduct with the funds to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the spectrum use of federal entities.5 Payments may be requested for research and development, engineering studies, economic analyses, activities with respect to systems, or other planning activities intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the spectrum use. For requests involving activities with respect to systems that improve the efficiency or effectiveness of the spectrum use of federal entities, such systems shall include: (1) Systems that have increased functionality or that increase the ability of a federal entity to accommodate spectrum sharing with non-federal entities; (2) systems that consolidate functions or services that have been provided using separate systems; or (3) non-spectrum technology or systems.6 Accordingly, NTIA amends its regulations to list the requirements for the submission of a Spectrum Pipeline Plan.

The Spectrum Pipeline Act requires the Technical Panel to approve or disapprove a Spectrum Pipeline Plan not later than 120 days after the federal entity submits the plan.7 It also provides the criteria that the Technical Panel will use to review such plan. Specifically, the Spectrum Pipeline Act states that the Technical Panel shall consider whether the activities the federal entity will conduct with the payment will: (1) Increase the probability of relocation from or sharing of federal spectrum; (2) facilitate an auction intended to occur not later than 8 years after the payment; and (3) increase the net expected auction proceeds in an amount not less than the time value of the amount of the payment.8 It also requires the Technical Panel to consider whether the funding transfer will leave sufficient amounts in the Spectrum Relocation Fund for its other purposes.9 The regulations also provide an address for submissions to the Technical Panel and the Dispute Resolution Board. Accordingly, NTIA amends its regulations at 47 CFR 301.115(c) to specify the requirements for Technical Panel review of a Spectrum Pipeline Plan.

As part NASA's retrospective review of existing regulations pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, NASA conducted a review of its regulations and published a final rule in the Federal Register on March 12, 2015 (80 FR 12946). As published, this rule contains errors due to inadvertent omissions. A summary of changes follows:

• Section 1852.214-72 is revised to correct the clause prescription from 1814.201-670(b) to 1814.201-670(c).

• Section 1852.232-70 is revised to correct the clause date from “AUG 2003” to “APR 2015.”

• Section 1852.246-72 is revised to correct the clause date from “AUG 2003” to “APR 2015.”

Accordingly, 48 CFR part 1852 is amended as follows:

The regulations at § 648.86(o) authorize the Regional Administrator to adjust the possession and trip limits for common pool vessels in order to help prevent the overharvest or underharvest of the common pool quotas.

Based on information and data reported through January 5, 2016, the common pool fishery has caught approximately 76 percent of its annual quota for Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) yellowtail flounder. At the current rate of fishing, the common pool fishery is projected to reach its annual quota by January 26, 2016. Any overage of the annual quota will be deducted from the next fishing year's annual quota. Additionally, we project that 90 percent of the common pool's Trimester 3 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder will be reached by January 24, 2016. If the common pool reaches 90 percent of the Trimester TAC, we are required by regulations at § 648.82(n)(2)(ii) to close the SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder Trimester TAC Area (defined at § 648.82(n)(2)(ii)(F)) to all common pool vessels fishing on groundfish trips with trawl and sink gillnet gear.

The current possession and trip limit of SNE/MA yellowtail flounder is 2,000 lb (907 kg) per day-at-sea (DAS), and up to 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) per trip for common pool vessels. To help prevent the common pool fishery from exceeding its SNE/MA yellowtail flounder allocation for the 2015 fishing year, and to help prevent the common pool from triggering a closure of the SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder Trimester TAC Area for the remainder of the fishing year by reaching 90 percent of the Trimester 3 TAC, effective January 15, 2016, the possession and trip limit of SNE/MA yellowtail flounder for all common pool vessels is decreased to 50 lb (22.7 kg) per trip.

Common pool groundfish vessels that have declared their trip through the vessel monitoring system (VMS) or interactive voice response (IVR) system, and crossed the VMS demarcation line prior to January 15, 2016, are not subject to the new possession and trip limit for that trip.

Weekly quota monitoring reports for the common pool fishery can be found on our Web site at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ro/fso/MultiMonReports.htm. We will continue to monitor common pool catch through vessel trip reports, dealer-reported landings, vessel monitoring system catch reports, and other available information and, if necessary, we will make additional adjustments to common pool management measures.

This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment and the 30-day delayed effectiveness period because it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

The regulations at § 648.86(o) authorize the Regional Administrator to adjust the Northeast multispecies possession and trip limits for common pool vessels in order to help prevent the overharvest or underharvest of the pertinent common pool quotas. The catch data used as the basis for this action only recently became available. The available analysis indicates that if the SNE/MA yellowtail flounder possession and trip limit are not reduced immediately, the common pool fishery will likely exceed its 2015 fishing year allocation for this stock by January 26, 2016. Analysis also indicates that if the possession and trip limit are not reduced immediately, the common pool fishery will likely reach 90 percent of its Trimester 3 TAC by January 24, 2016, triggering a closure of the SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder Trimester TAC Area. This action reduces the probability of the common pool fishery exceeding its allocation for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder. Any overages of the common pool quota for this stock would undermine conservation objectives and trigger the implementation of accountability measures that would have negative economic impacts on the common pool vessels. The time necessary to provide for prior notice and comment, and a 30-day delay in effectiveness, would prevent NMFS from implementing the necessary possession and trip limit adjustment in a timely manner, which could undermine conservation objectives of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, and cause negative economic impacts to the common pool fishery.