Federal Register Vol. 81, No.48,

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 13, 2015 (80 FR 61330). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3661.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 61330, October 13, 2015).

However, we changed paragraph (e) Actions and Compliance to revise the compliance times to read, “(1) At the next removal of the propeller from the airplane, after the effective date of this AD, install liners into the hub location dowel holes and identify the hub P/N.

(2) Use Dowty Propellers Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. F50-61-A165, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015 to install the liners and identify the hub.”

We removed Component Maintenance Manual (CMM) 61-10-34, Repair No. 53, dated May 15, 2013, from the Other Related Service Information paragraph of this AD.

We removed Component Maintenance Manual (CMM) 61-10-34, Repair No. 53, dated May 15, 2013, which relates to repair scheme 650510057, from the Credit for Previous Actions paragraph (f)(2) of this AD.

We removed CMM 61-10-34, Repair No. 53, dated May 15, 2013, from the Related Information paragraph (h) of this AD.

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

Dowty Propellers has issued (ASB) No. F50-61-A165, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015. The service information describes procedures for installing liners in the hub location dowel holes in the face of the rear hub half and identifying the hub with the repair number. 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 final rule.

We estimate that this AD affects 4 propellers installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 5 hours per propeller to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Required parts cost about $322 per propeller. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $2,988.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 96-12-12, Amendment 39-9654 (61 FR 28732, June 6, 1996) (“AD 96-12-12”). AD 96-12-12 applied to certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA-31, PA-31-300, PA-31-325, and PA-31-350 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 9, 2015 (80 FR 76398). The NPRM was prompted by cracks found in the fuselage station (FS) 317.75 upper bulkhead, which could cause structural failure of the vertical fin forward spar and lead to loss of control. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the bulkhead assembly at FS 317.75 for cracks, repair of cracks as necessary, and the installation of a reinforcement modification to prevent cracks from developing. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM (80 FR 76398, December 9, 2015) and the FAA's response to the comment.

Erin Talbott of Hageland Aviation Service commented that the estimated labor of 8 work-hours to install the reinforcement modification was incorrect. The commenter's company installed the modification on 3 of their airplanes, and the correct estimated work-hours for installation of the reinforcement modification was 32 work-hours.

We infer from the comment that the commenter requests we change the number of work-hours to more accurately state the estimated labor cost.

The FAA agrees with this comment, and we have revised the estimated Cost of Compliance section to reflect this change.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment 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 76398, December 9, 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 76398, December 9, 2015).

We reviewed Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1273A, dated October 22, 2015. The service bulletin describes procedures for inspecting the bulkhead assembly at FS 317.75, repairing any cracks found, and installation of a reinforcement modification to prevent cracks from developing. 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 final rule.

We estimate that this AD affects 977 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

We propose to adopt a new AD for Sikorsky Model S-92A helicopters with certain main rotor or tail rotor control pushrods installed. After a review of a failed pushrod, Sikorsky investigated the airworthiness of pushrods installed on its helicopters. The investigation indicates that the pushrods installed on Model S-92A helicopters may have incorrect safety cable routing, incorrect jam nut torque, and/or incorrect locking device serrations and key engagement. This AD consequently requires inspecting the pushrods for safety cable routing, engagement of serrations of the locking device, engagement of keys on the locking device, thread engagement, and jam nut torque. This AD requires either repairing or replacing the pushrod assembly, depending on the inspection's outcome. These AD actions are intended to detect and correct an incorrectly installed locking mechanism resulting in a loose jam nut, failure of the pushrods, loss of main rotor or tail rotor flight control, and consequent loss of helicopter control.

We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.

We reviewed Sikorsky S-92 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin ASB 92-67-006, Revision A, dated February 19, 2016 (ASB), which specifies a one-time inspection of the pushrod assemblies for safety cable routing, engagement of serrations of the locking device, engagement of keys on the locking device, thread engagement, and torque of the jam nuts. The ASB also specifies documenting any non-compliant inspection results and, if any discrepancies are found during the inspection, removing, reworking, and reinstalling or replacing the pushrod. The ASB specifies performing a rig check as required.

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 AD requires within 5 hours time-in-service (TIS):

• For each pushrod adjustable end, except for the upper deck quadrant pushrod, removing the safety cable and using finger pressure, inspecting each jam nut for movement. If a jam nut moves with finger pressure, removing the pushrod assembly from service.

○ Inspecting to determine whether a 0.02 inch diameter safety wire can pass through the inspection hole. If the safety wire passes through the inspection hole, repairing the pushrod, which is terminating action for that adjustable end.

○ Inspecting for correct engagement of serrations and keys of the locking device. If a locking device is not correctly engaged, repairing the locking device, which is terminating action for that adjustable end.

○ Torqueing each jam nut and installing the safety cable, making sure the right-hand threads have safety cable correctly routed, and the left-hand threads have safety cable correctly routed.

• For the upper deck quadrant pushrod, this AD requires determining whether there is any gap between the jam nut, locking device, and the adjustable end. It also requires:

○ If there is a gap, gaining access to the pushrod, removing the safety cable and using finger pressure, inspecting the jam nut for movement. If the jam nut moves with finger pressure, removing the pushrod assembly from service. If the jam nut does not move, performing corrective actions.

○ If there is no gap, visually inspecting the adjustable end for correct safety cable routing, correct engagement of serrations and keys of the locking device, and determining whether any thread is visible in the inspection hole. If the safety cable is routed incorrectly, if the locking device is not correctly engaged, or if there is no thread in the inspection hole, gaining access to the pushrod. Using finger pressure, inspecting the jam nut for movement. If the jam nut moves with finger pressure, removing the pushrod assembly from service. If the jam nut does not move with finger pressure, performing corrective actions.

Sikorsky specifies compliance by May 16, 2016. We require compliance within 5 hours TIS. We also do not require you to contact Sikorsky or record information on the Pushrod Data Sheet.

We estimate that this AD will affect 80 helicopters of U.S. Registry and labor costs average $85 per work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect the following costs:

• Inspecting all pushrod assemblies requires 2 work-hours for a labor cost of $170. No parts are needed for a total fleet cost of $13,600.

• Replacing a pushrod requires 2 work-hours for a labor cost $170. Parts cost an average of $2,500 for a total cost of $2,670 per pushrod.

• Repairing a pushrod requires an average 2 work-hours per helicopter for a labor cost of $170 and minimal part costs.

Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because the required corrective actions must be accomplished within 5 hours TIS.

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

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

On September 2, 2015, at 80 FR 53030, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain MDHI Model 369A (Army OH-6A), 369H, 369HE, 369HM, 369HS, 369D, 369E, 369F, 369FF, and 500N helicopters. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting the routing of the fuel pump wiring to determine whether the fuel pump wire is properly wrapped around the fuel inlet hose and correcting the routing of the wiring if it is not. The NPRM also proposed to require installing a decal regarding correct installation of the fuel pump wiring. The NPRM was prompted by two accidents and one incident that occurred on Model 369D helicopters resulting from an incorrectly positioned fuel pump wire within the fuel tank interfering with the operation of the fuel quantity sensor float, which caused an erroneous fuel quantity reading in the cockpit. Because the fuel pump is installed on all the affected model helicopters, we are including them in the applicability. According to MDHI, because maintenance personnel caused the incorrect wire routing by failing to follow procedures for installing the fuel pump, it is also necessary to install a decal on the left-hand fuel cell access cover to refer maintenance personnel to the appropriate manual procedures. The proposed requirements were intended to detect and correct routing of the fuel pump wiring to prevent interference with the fuel quantity sensor float, an erroneous fuel quantity indication in the cockpit, and subsequent fuel exhaustion and emergency landing.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (80 FR 53030, September 2, 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 the same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

MD Helicopters issued one service bulletin on April 30, 2014, with five different numbers: SB369H-255, SB369E-111, SB500N-049, SB369D-213, and SB369F-098. The service bulletin specifies a one-time inspection of the routing of the fuel pump wire in the left-hand fuel cell and corrective action, if necessary. The service bulletin also specifies installing a warning decal on the left-hand fuel cell access cover that refers personnel to the procedures for routing the fuel pump wire that is contained in the appropriate maintenance manual. The service bulletin states that recent field incidents have occurred where maintenance personnel have not followed the procedures for installation of the fuel pump. Also, the service bulletin states that an incorrectly installed fuel pump wire can interfere with the fuel quantity sensor float, which can result in erroneous fuel quantity indications. To prevent this situation, the service information states that the fuel pump wire must be wrapped around the fuel inlet hose as shown in the applicable 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 will affect 833 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 fuel pump wire routing and installing a decal will take 3 work-hours, and parts will cost $20 for a total cost of $275 per helicopter and $229,075 for the U.S. fleet. If required, rerouting the wiring will require 1 work-hour for a total cost of $85 per helicopter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2015-0048, dated March 17, 2015, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model AS 365 N3, EC 155B, and EC155B1 helicopters. EASA advises that after installation of a new life raft on a helicopter, the travel of the life raft deployment control could not be properly adjusted, putting at risk proper life raft inflation. According to a technical analysis, the varying positions of the life raft inflation cylinder inside the bag containing the life raft, as well as the varying positions of the bag within the life raft container, may cause the life raft deployment control cable to loosen and travel insufficiently.

This condition could result in failure of the external life raft to deploy after a ditching, impeding or preventing the safe evacuation of helicopter occupants, EASA states. EASA consequently requires alteration of the life raft deployment control by installing a sheath kit, which Airbus Helicopters identifies as Modification 365A084711.00 and 365A084711.01.

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

We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AS365-25.01.45 and ASB No. EC155-25A128, both Revision 1, and both dated February 2, 2015. The service information reports that the position of the life raft inflation cylinder may slacken the deployment control cable for new life rafts installed on Model AS 365 N3, EC 155B, and EC155B1 helicopters. In one instance, travel of the life raft deployment control could not be adjusted as stated in the maintenance manual. This anomaly is due to the varying positions of the inflation cylinder inside the bag that contains the life raft, and the varying positions of the bag inside the container, related to the installation and removal of optional equipment, calendar overhauls, life raft storage, shock impacts, and in-flight vibrations. Airbus Helicopters consequently developed modification 365A084711.00 and 365A084711.01, which ensure sufficient travel of the life raft deployment control cable in all positions of the inflation cylinder by installing an improved sheath kit on the left hand and right hand deployment controls.

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 AD requires, before the next flight over water, installing a sheath kit on the left-hand and right-hand raft deployment controls.

The EASA AD requires installing a sheath kit on the left-hand and right-hand raft deployment controls within 110 hours time-in-service or before further flight for helicopters required to have life rafts, whichever occurs later. This AD requires installing a sheath kit on the left-hand and right-hand raft deployment controls before the next flight over water.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 23 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 per work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect that installing the sheath kits requires 4 work-hours and a parts cost of $50 for a total cost of $390 per helicopter and $8,970 for the U.S. fleet.

Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because many of the affected helicopters are located along major waterways, and the required corrective actions must be accomplished before the next flight over water.

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

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2013-08-23, Amendment 39-17441 (78 FR 24037, April 24, 2013). AD 2013-08-23 applied to all The Boeing Company Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, DC-10-40F, MD-10-10F, MD-10-30F, MD-11, and MD-11F airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2015 (80 FR 16321). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that it is necessary to clarify the requirements for the design features and to remove a terminating action for certain inspections. The NPRM proposed to clarify certain requirements and remove a terminating action. The NPRM also proposed to provide an optional method of compliance for the proposed actions. We are issuing this AD to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (80 FR 16321, March 27, 2015) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing stated that it supports the NPRM (80 FR 16321, March 27, 2015).

FedEx requested that we clarify paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD (80 FR 16321, March 27, 2015) because it is unclear and confusing.

FedEx explained that paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of the proposed AD (80 FR 16321, March 27, 2015) propose to mandate compliance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A133, dated June 5, 2014; Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-137, dated June 24, 2014; Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-28A253, dated June 5, 2014; and Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-256, dated June 24, 2014. This service information, in addition to describing procedures for airframe modifications, specifies revising Airworthiness Limitation Instructions (ALI) 28-1, Trijet Fuel Pump Fault Current Detector Functional Check; ALI 28-2, DC-10/KDC-10 Uncommanded On Circuit Functional Check; ALI 28-3, MD-10 Uncommanded On Circuit Functional Check; and ALI 28-4, MD-11 Uncommanded On Circuit Functional Check, Boeing Trijet Special Compliance Item Report MDC-02K1003, Revision M, dated July 25, 2014. FedEx stated that paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD creates confusion because Appendixes B and C of Boeing Trijet Special Compliance Item Report MDC-02K1003, Revision M, dated July 25, 2014, also change/affect Critical Design Configuration Control Limitation (CDCCL) 20-9, Trijet Wing Root Area Lightning Protection, (Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-262, Revision 1, dated June 9, 2010, which was mandated by AD 2010-21-13, Amendment 39-16473 (75 FR 63040, October 14, 2010), and has nothing to do with the intent of this NPRM, which supersedes AD 2013-08-23, Amendment 39-17441 (78 FR 24037, April 24, 2013).

FedEx also noted that paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD (80 FR 16321, March 27, 2015) states that revising the maintenance or inspection program terminates the requirements in paragraphs (g) and (h) of AD 2008-06-21 R1, Amendment 39-16100 (74 FR 61504, November 25, 2009). FedEx requested that we identify the requirements in AD 2008-06-21 R1 that would be terminated. FedEx reasoned that paragraphs (g) and (h) of AD 2008-06-21 R1 cannot be terminated because CDCCLs and ALIs are constantly revised or new items added to meet safety requirements, so latent failures must be addressed in the fuel system design.

We agree that clarification is necessary. AD 2010-21-13, Amendment 39-16473 (75 FR 63040, October 14, 2010), requires installing a support bracket and coupler on the left and right wing-to-fuselage transition, and metallic overbraid on the left and right leading edge wire assembly but it does not require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate a corresponding CDCCL. Paragraph (h)(3) of this AD includes incorporating CDCCL 20-9, Trijet Wing Root Area Lightning Protection, as part of the maintenance or inspection program. Notwithstanding any other maintenance or operational requirements, components that have been identified as airworthy or installed on the affected airplanes before accomplishing the revision of the airplane maintenance or inspection program specified in this AD, do not need to be reworked in accordance with the CDCCLs. However, once the airplane maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by this AD, future maintenance actions on these components must be done in accordance with the CDCCLs.

In regards to FedEx's comment on terminating action, we note that AD 2008-06-21 R1, Amendment 39-16100 (74 FR 61504, November 25, 2009) requires incorporation of Boeing Trijet Special Compliance Item Report, MDC-02K1003, Revision C, dated July 24, 2007. Paragraph (h)(3) of this AD requires a revision of the maintenance or inspection program to include Boeing Trijet Special Compliance Item (SCI) Report MDC-02K1003, Revision M, dated July 25, 2014. We are requiring the actions specified in Appendixes B, C, and D of Boeing Trijet Special Compliance Item Report MDC-02K1003, Revision M, dated July 25, 2014, because they include the latest CDCCLs, ALIs, and short-term extensions. Therefore, accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD would terminate the requirements in paragraphs (g) and (h) of AD 2008-06-21 R1. Accomplishing paragraph (h)(3) of this AD would replace the existing requirements with updated requirements. 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 16321, March 27, 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 16321, March 27, 2015).

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

We reviewed the following service information.

• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-28A253, dated June 5, 2014; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A133, dated June 5, 2014. This service information describes procedures for replacing the fuel pump control relays with fault current detectors and changing the fuel tank boost/transfer pump wire termination.

• Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-256, dated June 24, 2014; and Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-137, dated June 24, 2014; which describe procedures for changing the fuel pump control and indication system wiring.

• Boeing Trijet Special Compliance Item Report MDC-02K1003, Revision M, including Appendices A through D, dated July 25, 2014, which includes CDCCLs, ALIs, and short-term extensions in Appendices B, C, and D, respectively.

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 341 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with 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.

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:

History

The Federal Register published a final rule amending Class E surface area airspace, Class E airspace designated as an extension, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Vance AFB, Enid, OK; and Woodring Municipal Airport, Enid, OK (81 FR 8389, February 19, 2016) Docket No. FAA-2015-7489. Subsequent to publication, the FAA determined that the part-time NOTAM language in the Class E surface area description was inadvertently removed in error. Potential safety concerns were identified due to the possibility for confusion in determining the operating rules and equipment requirements in the Vance AFB and Woodring Municipal Airport terminal areas. The concerns were based on the opportunity for part-time Class D surface area airspace and continuous Class E surface area airspace to be active at the same time.

To resolve these concerns, the FAA is keeping the part-time NOTAM language in the Class E surface area description to retain it as part-time airspace supplementing the existing part-time Class D surface area airspace at Vance AFB and Woodring Municipal Airport. The regulatory text is rewritten for clarity. A minor adjustment is also made to the geographic coordinates of the Vance VORTAC listed in Class E airspace area designated as an extension to Class D. These are administrative corrections and do not affect the controlled airspace boundaries or operating requirements supporting operations in the Vance AFB and Woodring Municipal Airport terminal areas.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the Federal Register of February 19, 2016 (81 FR 8389) FR Doc. 2016-03365, Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Enid Vance AFB, Ok; Enid Woodring Municipal Airport, Enid, OK; and Enid, OK, is corrected as follows:

Background

This final rule revises and replaces Commerce Department debt collection regulations found at 15 CFR part 19 to conform to the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA), Public Law 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, 1358 (Apr. 26, 1996), the revised Federal Claims Collection Standards, 31 CFR Chapter IX Parts 900 through 904, and other laws applicable to the collection of non-tax debt owed to the Government. Commerce Department made revisions to 15 CFR part 19 to merely update Commerce Department regulations on debt collection to conform with an amendment to 31 U.S.C. 3716(c)(6) made by Section 5 of the DATA Act. That amendment requires that Commerce Department refer to the Secretary of the Treasury all past due, legally enforceable nontax debt that are over 120 days delinquent, including nontax debt administered by a third party acting as an agent for the Federal Government, for purposes of administrative offset. Accordingly, the regulations at 15 CFR part 19 are being updated to reflect current law. Agency debts which are more than 120 days delinquent and have not been timely referred to the Department of the Treasury shall be reported to the Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury. These revised debt collection regulations also provide updated references to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service as the agency within the Department of Treasury to which Commerce Department refers delinquent debts to reflect a reorganization made by the Department of the Treasury.

These regulations provide procedures for the collection of non-tax debts owed to Commerce Department entities. Commerce Department adopts the government-wide debt collection standards promulgated by the Departments of the Treasury and Justice, known as the Federal Claims Collection Standards (FCCS), as revised on November 22, 2000 (31 CFR Chapter IX parts 900-904), and supplements FCCS by prescribing procedures consistent with FCCS, as necessary and appropriate for Commerce Department operations. These regulations also provide the procedures for the collection of debts owed to other Federal agencies when a request for offset is received by Commerce Department.

These regulations do not contain a section regarding the delegation of debt collection authority within Commerce Department. The delegation is contained in the Commerce Department Credit and Debt Management Operating Standards and Procedures Handbook, available at http://www.osec.doc.gov/ofm/credit/cover.html, and does not need to be included in the regulations.

Nothing in these regulations precludes the use of collection remedies not contained in these regulations. For example, Commerce Department entities may collect unused travel advances through offset of an employee's pay under 5 U.S.C. 5705. Commerce Department entities and other Federal agencies may simultaneously use multiple collection remedies to collect a debt, except as prohibited by law.

Commerce Department entities may, but are not required to, promulgate additional policies and procedures consistent with these regulations, FCCS, and other applicable Federal laws, policies, and procedures, subject to the approval of the Deputy Chief Financial Officer and Director for Financial Management.

These revisions to Commerce Department debt collection regulations at 15 CFR part 19 relate only to agency procedure and practice and do not affect any public right, interest, or remedy otherwise available. This action makes no substantive changes and does not change or impose additional requirements that necessitate adjustments by entities subject to the debt collection regulations. Instead, it merely updates delinquent debt day count figures and a Department of the Treasury bureau title in the existing regulations to bring the regulations into line with the DATA Act's debt referral requirements and the current Department of the Treasury bureau title, over which Commerce Department has no discretion. To the extent that this rule updates these regulations to reflect the changes to the Department of the Treasury's organization, it will help reduce confusion regarding the correct entity to contact.

Accordingly, notice and comment are not required for this rule, pursuant to Section 553(b)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551, et seq.).

The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this rule because there are no new or revised recordkeeping or reporting requirements.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.

Because notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, Commerce Department revises 15 CFR part 19 to read as follows:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

On February 28, 2012, the Old Saybrook Harbor Management Commission sent a request to the Coast Guard to permanently establish new special anchorages on the Connecticut River. In response, on November 25, 2015, the Coast Guard published a NPRM titled, Anchorage Regulations; Connecticut River, Old Saybrook, CT (80 FR 73689). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to these anchorage areas. During the comment period that ended December 28, 2015, we received no comments.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The purpose of this rule is reduce the risk of vessel collisions and to promote safe and efficient travel in the navigable channels of the Connecticut River adjacent to Calves Island, and also to aid the town of Old Saybrook in enforcing its mooring and boating regulations by clearly defining the mooring fields currently established by the town.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published November 25, 2015. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule establishes three new special anchorage areas, referred to as special anchorage areas A, B, and C in the Connecticut River in the vicinity of the Old Saybrook, CT. Special anchorage area A is approximately 680,800 sq. yards and is located between Ferry Point and Calves Island, upstream of the I-95/US RT 1 Baldwin Bridge. Special anchorage area B is approximately 51,200 sq. yards and located just east of North Cove. Special anchorage area C is approximately 185,400 sq. yards located in North Cove west of the navigable channel. Illustrations showing the locations of these special anchorage areas are available in the docket.

Vessels less than 20 meters in length are not required to sound signals under Rule 35 of the Inland Navigation Rules (33 CFR 83.35) nor exhibit anchor lights or shapes under Rule 30 of the Inland Navigation Rules (33 CFR 83.30) when at anchor in a special anchorage area. Additionally, mariners using these anchorage areas are encouraged to contact local and state authorities, such as the local harbormaster, to ensure compliance with any additional applicable state and local laws. Such laws may involve, for example, compliance with direction from the local harbormaster when placing or using moorings within the anchorage.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

We expect minimal additional cost impacts on fishing, or recreational boats anchoring because this rule would not affect normal surface navigation. Although this regulation may have some impact on the public, the potential impact will be minimized for the following reasons: (1) Normal surface navigation will not be affected, as these three areas in the Connecticut River in the vicinity of the eastern portion of Old Saybrook have been historically used as a mooring field by the town of Old Saybrook; (2) this rule would simply permit eligible vessels, in the existing mooring areas, to not use sound signals or exhibit anchor lights or shapes when at anchor; (3) it encourages the use of these special anchorage areas; and (4) the number of vessels using these special anchorage areas is limited due to water depth (less than or equal to 18 feet).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the Connecticut River in Old Saybrook, CT may be small entities, for the reasons stated above in section V.A, this rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 110 as follows:

The New Jersey Department of Transportation, that owns and operates the S37 Bridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations to continue performing a maintenance and repair project on the bridge that commenced at 8 a.m. on December 1, 2015 and was scheduled to cease at 8 p.m. on March 31, 2016. The bridge is a bascule draw bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 30 feet above mean high water.

The current operating schedule as set out in 33 CFR 117.733(c) allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to- navigation position from 8 a.m. December 1, 2015 until 8 p.m. March 31, 2016. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will continue to remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 8 p.m. on March 31, 2016 to 8 p.m. on April 17, 2016.

The Barnegat Bay on the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway is used by a variety of vessels including small government and public vessels, small commercial vessels, and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic on the waterway in publishing this temporary deviation.

Vessels able to safely pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transit to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

The United States Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District Office, that owns and operates the S165 (North Landing Road) Bridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations to perform emergency repairs to the south swing span of the bridge due to damage sustained as a result of a vessel allision with the bridge. The bridge is a double swing draw bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 6 feet above mean high water.

The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.1021. Under this temporary deviation, the north span of the bridge will open-to-navigation on the hour and half hour, upon request, from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., and on demand from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. The North and South spans of the bridge will open to navigation concurrently, with the south span only opening partially due to damage, upon request, for scheduled openings at 10 a.m., noon and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday. The horizontal clearance of the bridge with the south span closed-to-navigation is 38 feet and the horizontal clearance of the bridge with the south span partially open-to-navigation is 70 feet.

The North Landing River is used by a variety of vessels including small U. S. government and public vessels, small commercial vessels, tug and barge, and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic on the waterway in publishing this temporary deviation.

During the closure times there will be limited opportunity for vessels able to safely pass through the bridge in the closed position to do so. Vessels able to safely pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so, after receiving confirmation from the bridge tender that it is safe to transit through the bridge. The north span of the bridge will be able to open for emergencies. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transit to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

The purpose of this action is to announce that on October 26, 2015, EPA Region 10, delegated partial administrative authority for implementation of certain provisions of the Colville FIP to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. See 40 CFR part 49, subpart M, sections 9951 through 9960, as authorized by 40 CFR 49.122 of the Federal Air Rules for Reservations (FARR), 40 CFR part 49, subpart C.

Federal regulations at 40 CFR 49.122 provide the EPA authority to delegate to Indian Tribes partial administrative authority to implement provisions of the FARR, 40 CFR part 49, subpart C. Tribes must submit a request to the Regional Administrator that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 49.122.

On May 21, 2014, Chaitna Sinha of the Office of the Reservation Attorney of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation submitted to the Regional Administrator a request for delegation of certain provision of the Colville FIP. That request included all the information and demonstrations required by the FARR for delegation. A copy of all documentation is on file at the EPA Region 10, Seattle, Washington office (see addresses above).

The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation requested delegation for the following provisions: 40 CFR 49.9960(b) Rule for limiting visible emissions, 40 CFR 49.9960(i) General rule for open burning, and 40 CFR 49.9960(k) Rule for air pollution episodes.

The EPA and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation signed a delegation agreement that specifies the provisions and authorities delegated. The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation are delegated the following provisions; 40 CFR 49.9960(b) Rule for limiting visible emissions, 40 CFR 49.9960(i) General rule for open burning, and 40 CFR 49.9960(k) Rule for air pollution episodes. In addition, the agreement delegates to the Tribe authority to investigate complaints and assist the EPA in inspections. The agreement also includes terms and conditions applicable to the delegation. A copy of the agreement is kept at EPA Region 10 at the address above.

Prior to entering into the Delegation Agreement, the EPA solicited by letter, advice and insight on the proposed delegation from Okanogan County, Ferry County, City of Okanogan, Town of Nespelem, Town of Coulee Dam, Electric City, City of Omak, Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area, Bureau of Land Management, and the United States Forest Service. One comment supporting delegation was received.

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. The EPA has determined that there is good cause for making today's rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because the EPA is merely informing the public of partial delegation of administrative authority to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and making a technical amendment to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) by adding a note announcing the partial delegation. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. The EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

Moreover, since today's action does not create any new regulatory requirements, the EPA finds that good cause exists to provide for an immediate effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely makes a technical amendment and gives notice of a partial delegation of administrative authority. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This rule 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).

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.” Under section 5(b) of Executive Order 13175, the EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or the EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. Under section 5(c) of Executive Order 13175, the EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications and that preempts tribal law, unless the Agency consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the regulation. The EPA has concluded that this rule may have tribal implications. The EPA's action fulfills a requirement to publish a notice announcing partial delegation of administrative authority to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and noting the partial delegation in the CFR. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. Thus, the requirements of sections 5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This technical amendment merely notes that partial delegation of administrative authority to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation is in effect. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

This action does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

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. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 10, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule 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))

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish (king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia) is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

Gulf migratory group king mackerel's Florida west coast subzone of the Gulf eastern zone is divided into northern and southern subzones, each with separate commercial quotas. From November 1 through March 31, the southern subzone encompasses an area of the EEZ south of a line extending due west of the Lee and Collier County, FL, boundary on the Florida west coast, and south of a line extending due east of the Monroe and Miami-Dade County, FL, boundary on the Florida east coast, which includes the EEZ off Collier and Monroe Counties, FL. From April 1 through October 31, the southern subzone is reduced to the EEZ off Collier County, and the EEZ off Monroe County becomes part of the Atlantic migratory group area (50 CFR 622.369(a)(1)(ii)(A)(2)).

The commercial quota for the Gulf migratory group king mackerel in the Florida west coast southern subzone is 551,448 lb (250,133 kg) for vessels using run-around gillnet gear (50 CFR 622.384(b)(1)(i)(B)(1)), for the current fishing year, July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016.

Regulations at 50 CFR 622.8(b) and 622.388(a)(1) require NMFS to close any segment of the king mackerel commercial sector when its quota has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined that the commercial quota of 551,448 lb (250,133 kg) for Gulf group king mackerel for vessels using run-around gillnet gear in the Florida west coast southern subzone will be reached by March 11, 2016. Accordingly, commercial fishing using such gear in the Florida west coast southern subzone is closed at 12:01 p.m., eastern standard time, March 11, 2016, until 6 a.m., eastern standard time, January 17, 2017, the beginning of the next fishing season, i.e., the day after the 2017 Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal holiday. Accordingly, the operator of a vessel that has been issued a Federal commercial permit to harvest Gulf migratory group king mackerel using run-around gillnet gear in the Florida west coast southern subzone must have landed ashore and bartered, traded, or sold such king mackerel prior to 12:01 p.m., eastern standard time, March 11, 2016.

Persons aboard a vessel for which a commercial permit for king mackerel has been issued, except persons who also possess a king mackerel gillnet permit, may fish for or retain Gulf group king mackerel harvested using hook-and-line gear in the Florida west coast southern subzone unless the commercial quota for hook-and-line gear has been met and the hook-and-line segment of the commercial sector has been closed. A person aboard a vessel that has a valid charter vessel/headboat permit for coastal migratory pelagic fish may continue to retain king mackerel in or from closed zones or subzones under the bag and possession limits set forth in 50 CFR 622.382(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2), provided the vessel is operating as a charter vessel or headboat. A charter vessel or headboat that also has a commercial king mackerel permit is considered to be operating as a charter vessel or headboat when it carries a passenger who pays a fee or when there are more than three persons aboard, including operator and crew.

During the closure, king mackerel harvested using run-around gillnet gear in the Florida west coast southern subzone may not be purchased or sold. This prohibition does not apply to king mackerel harvested using run-around gillnet gear in the Florida west coast southern subzone that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to the closure and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor.

The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf migratory group king mackerel and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.8(b) and 622.388(a)(1) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

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

This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the segment of the fishery that uses run-around gillnet gear constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary, because the rule implementing the commercial quota and the associated requirement for closure of the commercial harvest when the commercial quota is reached or projected to be reached has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest, because any delay in the closure of the commercial harvest could result in the commercial quota being exceeded. There is a need to immediately implement this action to protect the king mackerel resource, because the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established quota.

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

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

On April 23, 2013, NMFS published a final rule to implement Amendment 18B to the FMP (78 FR 23858). Amendment 18B to the FMP established a longline endorsement program for the commercial golden tilefish component of the snapper-grouper fishery and allocated the commercial golden tilefish ACL (equivalent to the commercial quota) between two gear groups, the longline and hook-and-line components as commercial quotas.

The commercial quota for the longline component for golden tilefish in the South Atlantic is 405,971 lb (184,145 kg), gutted weight, for the current fishing year, January 1 through December 31, 2016, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(2)(iii).

Under 50 CFR 622.193(a)(1)(ii), NMFS is required to close the commercial longline component for golden tilefish when the longline component's commercial quota has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. After the commercial quota for the longline component is reached or projected to be reached, golden tilefish may not be fished for or possessed by a vessel with a golden tilefish longline endorsement. NMFS has determined that the commercial quota for the longline component for golden tilefish in the South Atlantic will be reached on March 15, 2016. Accordingly, the commercial longline component for South Atlantic golden tilefish is closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, March 15, 2016, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2017.

During the commercial longline closure, golden tilefish may still be harvested commercially using hook-and-line gear. However, a vessel with a golden tilefish longline endorsement is not eligible to fish for or possess golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under the hook-and-line trip limit, as specified in 50 CFR 622.191(a)(2)(ii). The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper and a valid commercial longline endorsement for golden tilefish having golden tilefish on board must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such golden tilefish prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, March 15, 2016. During the commercial longline closure, the bag limit and possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.187(b)(2)(iii) and (c)(1), respectively, apply to all harvest or possession of golden tilefish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ by a vessel with a golden tilefish longline endorsement. The sale or purchase of longline-caught golden tilefish taken from the EEZ is prohibited during the commercial longline closure. The prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to the sale or purchase of longline-caught golden tilefish that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, March 15, 2016, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor. Additionally, the bag and possession limits and the sale and purchase provisions of the commercial closure apply to a person on board a vessel with a golden tilefish longline endorsement, regardless of whether the golden tilefish are harvested in state or Federal waters, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c)(1).

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

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(a)(1)(ii) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

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

This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the commercial longline component for golden tilefish constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures for this temporary rule would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary, because the regulations at 50 CFR 622.193(a)(1)(ii) have already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action are contrary to the public interest, because there is a need to immediately implement this action to protect the golden tilefish resource since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota for the longline component. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial quota for the longline component.

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

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

The A season apportionment of the 2016 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) allocated to trawl catcher vessels in the BSAI is 36,732 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015) and inseason adjustment (81 FR 184, January 5, 2016).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the A season apportionment of the 2016 Pacific cod TAC allocated to trawl catcher vessels in the BSAI will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 36,000 mt and is setting aside the remaining 732 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI.

After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and § 679.25(c)(1)(ii) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 7, 2016.

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

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

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

In the Aleutian Islands subarea, the portion of the 2016 pollock total allowable catch (TAC) allocated to the Aleut Corporation directed fishing allowance (DFA) is 14,700 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015), and as adjusted by an inseason adjustment (81 FR 184, January 5, 2016).

As of March 4, 2016, the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) has determined that 5,000 mt of the Aleut Corporation pollock DFA in the Aleutian Islands subarea will not be harvested. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(4), NMFS reallocates 1,991 mt of A season pollock DFA and 3,009 mt of B season pollock DFA from the Aleutian Islands subarea to the 2016 Bering Sea subarea DFAs. The 5,000 mt of the Aleut Corporation pollock DFA is added to the 2016 Bering Sea non-CDQ DFAs. As a result, the 2016 harvest specifications for pollock in the Aleutian Islands subarea included in the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015), and as adjusted by an inseason adjustment (81 FR 184, January 5, 2016) are revised as follows: 9,700 mt to the annual Aleut Corporation pollock DFA and 9,700 mt to the A season Aleut Corporation pollock DFA. Furthermore, pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5), Table 5 of the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015, and 81 FR 184, January 5, 2016), is revised to make 2016 pollock allocations consistent with this reallocation. This reallocation results in adjustments to the 2016 pollock allocations established at § 679.20(a)(5).

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the reallocation of Aleutian Island subarea pollock. Since the pollock fishery is currently underway, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the final Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands pollock allocations. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery; allow the industry to plan for the fishing season and avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors; and provide opportunity to harvest increased seasonal pollock allocations while value is optimum. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as March 4, 2016.

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

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