Federal Register Vol. 81, No.60,

This final rule has been determined to be non-significant by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Except where specified, all State and local laws and regulations that are in direct conflict with this rule will be preempted. Federal funds carry Federal requirements. No person is required to apply for funding under this program, but if they do apply and are selected for funding, they must comply with the requirements applicable to the Federal program funds. This rule is not retroactive. It will not affect agreements entered into prior to the effective date of the rule. Before any judicial action may be brought regarding the provisions of this rule, the administrative appeal provisions of 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effect of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the Agency generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million, or more, in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

This document has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G, “Environmental Program.” It is the determination of the Agency that this action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub. L. 91-190, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required.

The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) the undersigned has determined and certified by signature of this document that this rule change will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not impose any significant new requirements on Agency applicants and borrowers, and the regulatory changes affect only Agency determination of program benefits for guarantees of loans made to individuals.

This executive order imposes requirements on RD in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications or preempt tribal laws. RD has determined that the final rule does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribe(s) or on either the relationship or the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe determines that this rule has implications of which RD is not aware and would like to engage with RD on this rule, please contact RD's Native American Coordinator at (720) 544-2911 or [email protected].

This program/activity is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, at 48 FR 29112, June 24, 1983; 49 FR 22675, May 31, 1984; 50 FR 14088, April 10, 1985).

This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Number 10.410, Very Low to Moderate Income Housing Loans (Section 502 Rural Housing Loans).

The information collection and record keeping requirements contained in this regulation have been approved by OMB in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The assigned OMB control number is 0575-0179.

The Rural Housing Service 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 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at [email protected].

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).

Persons with disabilities, who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

On March 5, 2015, RHS published a proposed rule with request for comments for the Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program (SFHGLP) (80 FR 11950-11954). Rural Development received comments from seventeen respondents. Comments were from lenders, secondary market sources, builders, and other interest groups. Specific public comments and substantive changes from the proposed rule are addressed below in general order of appearance in the regulation, not based in the order of importance.

One respondent requested the Agency to clarify when the rule would become effective and what the trigger events will be for the effective date of the various requirements for loan applications received by lenders on or after the effective date of the final rule. The final rule will become effective 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register.

Five respondents fully supported the Agency's proposal to amend its refinancing provisions and add the Streamlined-Assist Refinance option.

One respondent supported the Streamlined-Assist Refinance program but requested that the Agency: (1) Add repayment requirements for remaining borrowers; (2) limit costs to principal and current interest charges due, reasonable and customary re-conveyance fee, and the upfront guarantee fee; and (3) limit refinance balance to original purchase loan amount. The Agency believes the Streamlined-Assist Refinance's purpose is to increase affordability for current borrowers and implementing the suggested changes will defeat the purpose of this option. No change is made in this provision.

One respondent supported the addition of the Streamlined-Assist Refinance option but requested clarification with regards to the inclusion of the guarantee fee and eligible closing costs. Eligible loan purposes, including fees and closing costs, will remain the same as described on § 3555.101(d) for all refinancing transactions. Closing costs may be included in the refinance loan amount. No change is made in this provision.

One respondent requested the eligibility of non-section 502 loans to be refinanced through the program, such as balloon or ARM mortgage products, if they meet USDA eligibility requirements. The Agency does not have statutory authority as this request does not conform with the Housing Act of 1949 limits on refinancing in this program. No change is made in this provision.

Two respondents believe a five-year indemnification period is too long and requested the Agency to maintain the current lender indemnification period of 24 months. The Agency will continue to pursue a five-year indemnification period, similar to those of other federal agencies and as recommended by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report 04703-003-HY. The rule has been amended to clarify that the loan originator will be required to indemnify the Agency and not a subsequent holder or acquirer of the loan. No other change is made in this provision.

Two respondents requested the Agency to amend its definition of default accounts from 30 days delinquent to 60 days. The Agency will maintain the 30-day definition, consistent with other federal agencies. No change is made in this provision.

One respondent encouraged the Agency to add a standard of materiality for the underwriting defect and to specify that there must be a connection between the defect and the cause of default by adding that “The Agency may seek indemnification if fraud or misrepresentation occurs in connection with the origination and the lender knew, or should have known about the occurrence.” It also recommended the Agency to clarify that an indemnification does not affect the guaranty status of the loan. RHS will include the standard of materiality and a provision that the loan note guarantee of the holder will not be affected by indemnification by the originating lender.

Six respondents requested RHS to update program guidance to incorporate different points and fee limitations than those proposed. The Agency will remain consistent with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and other federal agencies in its points and fees limitations. No change is made in this provision.

Two respondents requested the Agency to not adopt CFPB's 43-percent debt-to-income limit. The Agency had not included any debt-to-income limitation in the proposed rule. The CFPB debt ratio limitations do not apply to loans guaranteed by the Agency. Until January 20, 2021 or the date on which an agency rule defining qualified mortgages becomes effective (whichever is earlier), loans guaranteed by RHS are presumed to be qualified mortgages under 12 CFR 1026.43(e)(4).

Four respondents noted that Housing Finance Agencies (HFA) loans are exempt from the Qualified Mortgage requirements and are automatically classified as Qualified Mortgages eligible for insurance through the SFHGLP. The Agency is amending its rule and will include language exempting HFAs from the Qualified Mortgage requirements.

One respondent wrote that the Mortgage Recovery Advance (MRA) already provides for principal reductions, and that by separating principal reduction from the MRA would complicate the process because loan servicers would now have to take two steps instead of only one. The respondent pointed out that if the PRA is eventually forgiven, it would become a tax liability to borrowers because the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) considers forgiven debt to be taxable income. Struggling low or moderate income borrowers may not be able to handle the additional tax bill. The respondent also indicated that since the PRA results in an unsecured loan which would not be forgiven if the borrower re-defaulted on their mortgage, mortgage loan servicers would be in a position of collecting on an unsecured loan. Mortgage loan servicers do not want to collect unsecured loans, and the respondent suggested that the agency should collect the unsecured loans.

One respondent indicated that the use of separate notes, one for an MRA and one for a PRA, would complicate special loan servicing workouts and may confuse or overwhelm eligible borrowers. The respondent indicated that the Agency should consider keeping both the MRA and PRA amounts as secured loans to avoid the likelihood of borrower confusion. The respondent also questioned how the PRA would be impacted should the borrower attempt to pay off the loan before the three year period prior to eligibility for debt forgiveness. Should the PRA be forgiven, the respondent suggested that the Agency should report the forgiveness amount to the IRS, and not the servicer. The respondent wrote that should the PRA not be forgiven, attempts to collect the unsecured loan would be detrimental to borrowers recovering from financial difficulties. Attempts to collect unsecured PRAs, suggested the respondent, could ultimately be more costly to the Agency than simply forgiving the amounts advanced. Finally, the respondent questioned whether the MRA and PRA claims should be filed separately or whether both amounts may be submitted in the same claim. Separate filings would be especially complicated according to the respondent.

Two respondents requested the Agency to eliminate the January 1, 2001 to January 1, 2010 timeframe restriction on PRAs.

One respondent supported the Principal Reduction Advance (PRA) proposal but requested that lenders have at least six months to implement the policy in order to allow for internal system integrations related to this process.

After careful review and consideration, the Agency agrees with all the comments submitted, and has decided to not implement the PRA transaction as it had been proposed. The original MRA procedure will remain unaltered and the PRA will not become a separate transaction.

Indemnification: In the Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report 04703-003-HY, SFH GL Loss Claims, the Agency was requested to re-evaluate the timeframe in which the Government can seek indemnification for noncompliance with regulations in loan origination. Present language in 7 CFR 3555.108(d)(1) limits the indemnification to losses if the payment under the guarantee was made within 24 months of loan closing. Origination defects which depart from Agency requirements, however, may cause defaults beyond 24 months from loan closing. Similarly, claims arising from defective originations may occur several years after loan closing. The change will trigger indemnification if the default occurs within five years from origination and the Agency concludes the default arose because the originator did not underwrite the loan according to Agency standards and guidelines, regardless of when the claim is paid. This is similar to how HUD and other federal agencies operate.

The Agency may also seek indemnification if the Agency determines that fraud or misrepresentation occurred in connection with the origination of the loan, regardless of when the loan closed. 7 CFR 3555.108(d)(2). This provision is being clarified to state that the Agency may seek indemnification in cases of fraud or misrepresentation regardless of when the loan closed or when the default occurred.

In addition, the definition of “default” has been added to section 3555.10 to clarify that default is when an account is more than 30 days overdue. This is consistent with how the term is used in the mortgage industry.

Refinance: There are currently two refinance options available to Section 502 borrowers, and the Agency is adding a third option which has been successfully tested in a pilot. The Agency is amending section 3555.101(d)(3)(i) to remove the requirement that the interest rate of a refinanced loan be at least 100 basis points below the original rate, and instead to require that the new interest rate not exceed the original interest loan's interest rate. The interest rate reduction requirement has proven problematic in rising rate environments. For example, in the case of divorce, the borrower may not be able to refinance as required by their divorce decree or judgment because they cannot secure an interest rate at least 1 percent lower than the first one.

The definition of “streamlined-assist refinance” is being added to 7 CFR 3555.10. On February 1, 2012 RHS created a refinancing pilot known as the “Rural Refinance Pilot.” The streamlined-assist refinance differs from the traditional refinance options in that there is no appraisal or credit report requirement in most instances, as long as the borrower has been current on their first mortgage for the previous 12 months and their new interest rate is at least 1 percent lower than their first one. A new appraisal is required for direct loan borrowers who received a subsidy for the purposes of calculating subsidy recapture.

The pilot was designed to assist existing Section 502 direct or guaranteed loan borrowers in refinancing their homes with greater ease in thirty-five eligible states where steep home price declines, unemployment and persistent poverty rates made refinancing a current mortgage into more affordable terms difficult or impossible. Due to the success of the pilot program, RHS will adopt the pilot policy as a refinance option for existing Section 502 direct or guaranteed loan borrowers nationwide in addition to the two traditional refinance loan options of streamlined and non-streamlined. The special refinance loan option will be called “streamlined-assist.”

This rule amends 7 CFR 3555.101(d)(3)(vi) to include “streamlined-assist” as one of three available refinance loan options in addition to the traditional “streamlined” and “non-streamlined” refinance loans. Section 3555.101(d)(3)(vi) discusses eligibility requirements for each streamlined and non-streamlined refinance loan. The streamlined-assist refinance will have the same features as the Rural Refinance Pilot described above. Additional eligibility criteria for refinance loans is discussed in Section 3555.101(d)(3).

Qualified Mortgage: The agency is changing Section 3555.109, to indicate that a loan guaranteed by RHS meeting certain CFPB requirements is a “Qualified Mortgage.”

The CFPB published a “Qualified Mortgage” rule (12 CFR part 1026) which became effective January 10, 2014 and implemented in part the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-203). This rule requires creditors to make a reasonable, good faith determination of a consumer's repayment ability for any consumer credit transaction secured by a dwelling, and establishes a safe harbor from liability for transactions that meet the requirements for “qualified mortgages.” Currently, SFHGLP loans are considered to be qualified mortgages if they meet the requirements in 12 CFR 1026.43(e)(2)(i)-(iii) and the points and fees limits in 12 CFR 1026.43(e)(3) until RHS promulgates its own rules regarding qualified mortgages, or January 10, 2021, whichever is earlier. (See 12 CFR 1026.43(e)(4)).

RHS guaranteed loans currently meet these requirements. Therefore, section 3555.109 is clarifying that RHS guaranteed loans which meet the CFPB requirements in 12 CFR 1026.43(e)(2)(i)-(iii) and 12 CFR 1026.43(e)(3) are considered qualified mortgages.

For the reason stated in the preamble, Chapter XVIII, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 19, 2015 (80 FR 72401) (“the NPRM”).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0251R1, dated December 17, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

The modification includes a check for the presence of water, ice, and hydraulic fluid, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. Related investigative actions include an inspection for corrosion. Corrective actions include replacing the BDDV. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4816.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. United Airlines had no objection to the NPRM.

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 for correcting the unsafe condition; and

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

We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1415, dated September 2, 2014. The service information describes procedures for modifying the BDDVs having certain part numbers; modifying the drain hose of the BDDV; checking for the presence of water, ice, and hydraulic fluid; re-identifying the BDDV; and doing related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 953 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $421 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $887,243, or $931 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 28, 2015 (80 FR 58224). The NPRM was prompted by a report of cracks on the lugs of the inboard and outboard control rod fittings of the RH and LH side ailerons. The NPRM proposed to require a one-time NDT inspection of the inboard and outboard control rod fittings of the RH and LH side ailerons for cracks and corrosion, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks and corrosion on the lugs of the inboard and outboard control rod fittings of the RH and LH side ailerons, which could lead to reduced controllability 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 AD 2015-0040, dated March 6, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3636.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 58224, September 28, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 58224, September 28, 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 58224, September 28, 2015).

Airbus Defense and Space S.A. has issued Airbus Military Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-CN235-57-0001, Revision 1, dated March 14, 2014. The service information describes procedures for a one-time NDT inspection of the inboard and outboard control rod fittings of the RH and LH side ailerons for cracks and corrosion, and contacting Airbus Military for repair instructions. 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 24 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 30 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 $61,200, or $2,550 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 30, 2015 (80 FR 45460) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a report of fuel leaking onto the hot exhaust portion of an engine as a result of an unintended leak path from the leading edge through the pylon. The NPRM proposed to require installing new seal dams in the inboard and outboard corners of the aft pylon frame on the left and right engines, including an inspection for damage of the outboard blade seal and applicable corrective actions. We are issuing this AD to prevent fuel leaking from an unintended drain path from the leading edge through either the left or right pylon and onto the hot engine parts or brakes, which could lead to a major ground fire.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment. United Airlines concurred with the content of the NPRM.

Boeing and All Nippon Airways (ANA) asked that we reference Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB540004-00, Issue 002, dated December 3, 2015, for accomplishing the actions in the NPRM. ANA stated that there are several errors in the referenced service information. Boeing stated that a revision would be issued to incorporate minor clarifications, and to update the effectivity.

We agree to reference Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB540004-00, Issue 002, dated December 3, 2015, in this AD. Since we published the NPRM, Boeing issued Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB540004-00, Issue 002, dated December 3, 2015. That revision removes three airplanes from the effectivity, and clarifies certain instructions as a result of feedback reported by operators after incorporation of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB540004-00, Issue 001, dated October 24, 2014. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB540004-00, Issue 001, dated October 24, 2014, was specified as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the actions in the NPRM.

We have changed paragraphs (c) and (g) of this AD to specify Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB540004-00, Issue 002, dated December 3, 2015. We have also added a new paragraph (h) of this AD to give credit for actions done before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB540004-00, Issue 001, dated October 24, 2014; and redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) International asked that we reduce the compliance time specified in the proposed AD (the proposed compliance time is within 60 months after the effective date of this AD). ALPA stated that the severity of a fuel leak from the leading edge through the pylon and onto the hot exhaust part of the engines warrants a shorter compliance time to correct this problem.

We do not agree with the commenter's request to reduce the compliance time. In developing an appropriate compliance time, we considered the safety implications and normal maintenance schedules for timely installation of inboard and outboard seal dams. In consideration of all of these factors, we determined that the compliance time, as proposed, represents an appropriate interval in which the inboard and outboard seal dams can be installed in a timely manner within the fleet, while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. Most ADs, including this one, permit operators to accomplish the requirements of an AD at a time earlier than the specified compliance time; therefore, an operator may choose to install the inboard and outboard seal dams before the 60-month compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of this AD. If additional data are presented that would justify a shorter compliance time, we may consider further rulemaking on this issue. 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 with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

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

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

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

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB540004-00, Issue 002, dated December 3, 2015. This service information describes procedures for installing new seal dams in the inboard and outboard corners of the aft pylon frame on the left and right engines, doing a general visual inspection to detect damage of the outboard blade seal, 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.

We estimate that this AD affects 17 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes; and all Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 27, 2015 (80 FR 74042) (“the NPRM”).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0028R1, dated May 29, 2015, dated (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes; and all Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-5815.

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

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

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

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

Airbus has issued the following service information.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-52-3086, Revision 01, dated April 25, 2014.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-52-4094, Revision 01, dated April 25, 2014.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-52-5019, Revision 01, dated April 25, 2014.

The service information describes procedures for modifying the affected potable water service panel access door. 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 63 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 21 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $15,280 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $1,075,095, or $17,065 per product.

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

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator.

“Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of 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 amends controlled airspace at Bert Mooney Airport, Butte, MT.

On December 18, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class E surface area airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bert Mooney Airport, Butte, MT (80 FR 78986) FAA-2015-3772. 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 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E surface area airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bert Mooney Airport, Butte, MT. Class E surface area airspace is increased upward from the surface within a 4.3-mile radius of Bert Mooney Airport, with a segment extending to 11.5 miles to the northwest of the airport. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is modified to within a 5.2-mile radius of Bert Mooney Airport, with a segment extending from the 5.2-mile radius to 6 miles to the southeast, 20.7 miles to the north, and 27.5 miles to the northwest of the airport.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015 and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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:

The Federal Register published a final rule amending Class E airspace at Rochester International Airport, Rochester, MN, and St. Cloud Regional Airport, St. Cloud, MN (81 FR 6448, February 8, 2016) Docket No. FAA-2015-7484. 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 Rochester International Airport and St. Cloud Regional 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 Rochester International Airport and St. Cloud Regional Airport. Also, the FAA found in amending the airport reference point for the Rochester International Airport, additional existing controlled airspace was inadvertently omitted from the rule. This action adds adjustment of the geographic coordinates of the airport in Class D airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface.

These are administrative corrections and do not affect the controlled airspace boundaries or operating requirements supporting operations in the Rochester International Airport and St. Cloud Regional Airport terminal areas.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the Federal Register of February 8, 2016 (81 FR 6448) FR Doc. 2016-02283), Amendment of Class D and E Airspace for the Following Minnesota Towns; Rochester, MN; and St. Cloud, MN, is corrected as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of 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 amends Class E airspace at the Tennessee airports listed in this final rule.

In a review of the airspace, the FAA found the airspace description for Class E Airspace at McKellar-Sipes Regional Airport, Jackson, TN, and Tri-Cities Regional Airport, Tri-Cities, TN, as published in FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, does not match the FAA's charting information. This administrative change to remove the NOTAM information to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6004 of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace 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 eliminating the NOTAM information that reads “This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.” from the regulatory text of Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D at McKellar-Sipes Regional Airport, Jackson, TN; and Tri-Cities Regional Airport, Tri-Cities, TN. This is an administrative change amending the description for the above Tennessee airports to be in concert with the FAAs aeronautical database, and does not affect the boundaries, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. 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:

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 amends controlled airspace at Deer Lodge-City-County Airport, Deer Lodge, MT.

On December 14, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Deer Lodge-City-County Airport, Deer Lodge, MT (80 FR, 77283) FAA2015-3773. 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, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6-mile radius of Deer Lodge-City-County Airport, Deer Lodge-City-County Airport, Deer Lodge, MT.

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:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it restructures the restricted airspace at the Stennis Space Center, MS, to enhance aviation safety and accommodate essential testing and training by NASA and the NSWC.

On July 10, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice proposing to re-designate and expand restricted area R-4403, Gainesville, MS, to support missions of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Naval Special Warfare Command (NSWC) (79 FR 39344). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. Eight comments were received.

On August 17, 2015, the FAA published a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) (80 FR 49181) to solicit comments on changes to the originally proposed boundaries, time of designation and proposed restricted area activities. Three comments were received in response to the SNPRM.

In response to the NPRM and SNPRM, a combined total of 11 comments were received (including one duplicate submission). Comments were submitted by four individuals and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Partners for Stennis, Hancock County Board of Supervisors, Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission, and the Mississippi Airports Association. Two individuals expressed support for the proposal. The remaining commenters expressed objections or concerns that are discussed in this section.

Several commenters objected to size of the expanded area stating that all other options, including the use of other existing special use airspace (SUA) elsewhere, should be explored first. One commenter wrote that the entire area should not be designated as restricted airspace. Instead, the bulk of the area should be a military operations area (MOA).

The R-4403 complex is being expanded because the current airspace cannot fully contain the lateral and vertical hazards associated with rocket engine testing. Plus, it cannot accommodate NASA's testing of untethered autonomous space vehicles. Further, the Navy's existing Western Maneuver Area (WMA) has no restricted airspace to permit air-to-ground live-fire training for Special Operations Force (SOF) units. The dimensions of the expanded restricted airspace were calculated to contain the hazard zones for all NASA tests and NSWC training events. The dimensions of R-4403A cannot be reduced due to the rocket engine testing hazard area. R-4403B provides airspace to contain untethered autonomous vehicle testing and is designed to ensure containment of untethered vehicle flight profiles. R-4403C is required to contain air-to-ground firing of various weapons and lasers at ground targets within R-4403C. R-4403E is required to contain air-to-ground laser firing at ground targets within R-4403E. R-4403F is sized to contain the AC-130 gunship orbit while firing lasers at the target in R-4403E. The expansion represents the minimum restricted airspace needed to segregate these hazards from nonparticipating aircraft.

Regarding the comment that other existing SUA should be used instead of expanding R-4403, there is no other special use airspace available to relocate the testing and training missions. It would be economically unfeasible to move the large infrastructure and engine testing facilities in place at SSC (test stands, etc.). Further, the SSC Acoustical Buffer Zone makes SSC the last place in the country where NASA can test large engines and whole rocket stages. For the Navy, R-4403C through F overlie a combination of riverine, jungle and coastal features that support SOF training requirements. These subareas contain double and triple canopy jungles similar to environments in other parts of the world where SOF units could be deployed. Plus, the area contains seven miles of river to support coastal and riverine operations training. These features form a unique area that cannot be duplicated anywhere else in the United States where the Navy owns land.

The FAA determined that a MOA is not the appropriate type of SUA to use in this case. MOAs are established to contain nonhazardous military flight training activities. Examples include, but are not limited to, aerobatics, air combat maneuvers, low altitude tactics, air intercepts, etc. No firing of weapons or ordnance is permitted in a MOA.

One commenter wrote that the different times of designation for R-4403A and B versus those for R-4403C through F are confusing. Also, the provision allowing activation of R-4403C through F at “other times by NOTAM with ATC approval” would permit operations to be conducted at any time (with minimal notice) thus hindering the ability of pilots to effectively plan flights and leading transient pilots to select other airfields.

The time periods for R-4403A and B are based on NASA testing requirements which are primarily accomplished during daylight hours. The times for R-4403C through F reflect NSWC training requirements which are primarily accomplished during nighttime hours. In response to the comment, the proposed provision to activate R-4403C through F at “other times by NOTAM with ATC approval” is removed. Therefore, any activations of the R-4403 complex (R-4403A through F) will require that a NOTAM be issued at least 24 hours in advance. There is no allowance for activating the areas outside the specific times listed in the restricted area descriptions (see the “Adoption of the Amendment” section, below). The 24-hour NOTAM requirement will provide pilots with advance information needed for flight planning purposes. In addition, the restricted area using agencies have agreed to publish a VHF frequency on the New Orleans Sectional Aeronautical Chart so that pilots can call to determine the real-time status of the airspace.

One commenter responding to the NPRM wrote that the VPRAM VFR waypoint, located at the intersection of Interstate I-10 and U.S. Highway 90, is too close to the restricted areas for pilots to safely use I-10 as a visual reference. The commenter believes that it could actually increase the chance of pilots mistakenly intruding into restricted airspace or force them to fly farther south and potentially out of visual range of the interstate. In response to this comment, the FAA proposed in the SNPRM to move the southern boundary slightly northward in an effort to remain clear of I-10. However, a commenter responding to the SNPRM said that the revised line was still too close for pilots to safely navigate using VPRAM and I-10 as a reference. The commenter recommended that the southern boundary be moved still further north to be at least one nautical mile (NM) from I-10 in all places.

NASA and NSWC considered moving the boundary further north but determined it could not be done without infringing on the required safety buffers in R-4403A, B and C. The FAA agrees that VPRAM is too close to the new restricted areas and therefore is cancelling that waypoint. In its place, the FAA is establishing two new Visual Flight Rules (VFR) waypoints south of I-10 to assist pilots transitioning east and west in that area. The new VFR waypoints are VPASD located at 30°15′45″ N., 89°41′18″ W.; and VPHSA located at 30°18′54″ N., 89°28′51″ W. It should be noted that when inflight visibility permits, pilots remaining south of I-10 while flying east or westbound can be assured that they will be clear of the southern boundaries of R-4403A, B and C.

One commenter objected to R-4403A because it increases the land-based testing area. The commenter also objected to untethered space vehicle testing to the extent that it would exceed 6,000 feet MSL.

R-4403A is a 2.5 NM radius circle from the surface up to 12,000 feet MSL. It will be used approximately 40 times per year to test rocket engines on fixed-in-place test stands. Due to its small footprint, only a minor lateral flight deviation would be required to circumnavigate the area. Untethered space vehicle testing will only occur in R-4403B, which has a ceiling of 6,000 feet MSL.

A commenter said that the proposed live-fire operations in R-4403E and F pose a risk for planes travelling to Stennis International Airport. Further, the area of proposed firing encompasses an area through which Mississippi Highway 43 extends and is only a short distance from a Hancock County elementary school.

Highway 43 and the school are located in the vicinity of R-4403E and F. The original proposal included a plan to expend ordnance and fire lasers into R-4403E. During the range design process, the Navy determined that the required weapons danger zones could not be fully contained within Federally-owned property. Therefore, the target area was reduced to an air-to-ground laser-only target, and there will be no air-to-ground ordnance delivery into R-4403E. Instead, only laser firing by AC-130s at the ground target on Navy-owned land will be conducted. Highway 43 and the school are clear of any risk. Restricted areas are established to segregate hazardous activities from nonparticipating aircraft. By avoiding the restricted areas, aircraft operating to or from Stennis International Airport would not be exposed to hazards.

Concern was expressed about the proposal for ground forces to use eye-safe lasers for signaling military aircraft operating overhead.

The Navy re-evaluated this requirement and determined it is not necessary. There will be no ground-to-air laser use at SSC.

Several commenters raised concerns about the safety of residents and visitors, the firing of weapons over land that remains in legal title with individual landowners and restrictions on public access to, and the use of, the property.

Both NASA and the Navy have stringent policies and procedures to ensure that hazardous activities are contained within restricted airspace. A number of measures are in place to ensure public safety. All Stennis facilities are contained within a 13,800-acre area owned by the Federal government known as the “Stennis Fee Area.” This area is gated and patrolled 24-hours by a security force to deny unauthorized access. The Fee Area is surrounded by a 125,000-acre acoustical buffer zone that was established in 1962 to reduce the harmful effects of very loud sound waves and sonic vibration produced by rocket engine tests. The buffer zone grants to the United States government a perpetual restrictive easement for restricting certain uses in, on, across and over the land in the buffer zone. The easement encumbers every buffer zone property owner by prohibiting human habitation or human occupancy of dwellings or other buildings. The easement gives the government the right to prohibit the construction of dwellings and other buildings for human habitation or occupancy, together with the right to post signs indicating the nature and extent of the Government's control and the right of ingress and egress over and across the affected lands.

The restricted area expansion was specifically designed and sized to contain hazards from NASA and NSWC activities within the ground features of Stennis Space Center and the associated acoustical buffer zone. While individual land owners make up much of the Stennis Buffer Zone, all impact areas and weapons danger zones will be on property that is owned by the Navy. The restricted areas that go to the surface are totally contained within the SSC Buffer Zone.

The easement does permit other uses when those activities do not interfere with, or reduce the rights of, the government. Access to private property in the buffer zone is allowed with prior coordination with SSC. In cases where property owners require aerial access to parcels encumbered by this restricted airspace, aerial access may be arranged through coordination with the NASA/SSC Range Safety Manager via the Stennis Flight Request System at (https://airrange.ssc.nasa.gov/FlightRequest.asp).

Regarding concerns about the safety of persons with respect to the firing of weapons in the restricted areas, real-time operational control over the underlying land is most critical where live-fire operations are conducted. The impact areas in the Navy-owned WMA are fenced for denial of public access with signs posted along the fence line warning of the hazardous range activities. The Navy cannot fire onto lands they do not own.

Conversely, public access to Pearl River, Mike's River and McCarty Bayou is not restricted but, prior to any live-fire operations, range guards in boats will clear all waterways encumbered by surface danger zones. Picket boats are then posted at the north and south ends of the Pearl River to guard against unauthorized public access to live-fire areas. These safety measures are in use today during ground-based training operations in the WMA, and they will also be used for future activities within the restricted airspace. For an added layer of safety when AC-130 gunships are operating, their crews, as a matter of procedure, inspect target and impact areas both visually and with on-board sensors to ensure no unauthorized personnel are in the area.

A commenter asked why the “airport operating area” around Picayune Municipal Airport was reduced from 5 NM to 3 NM.

There is no designated “airport operating area” airspace at Picayune Municipal. The airspace in the immediate vicinity (6.5 NM radius) of Picayune is uncontrolled airspace (Class G) below 700 feet AGL. FAA policy requires that restricted areas must exclude the airspace at and below 1,500 feet above ground level (AGL) within a 3 NM radius of airports that are available for public use. That is the reason for the 3-NM exclusion applied at Picayune Municipal. Because Picayune does not have an airport traffic control tower (ATCT), there is no Class D airspace (that would extend upward from the surface) designated at that airport. Thus, the 3-NM exclusion was applied. By comparison, at Stennis International Airport, which has an operating ATCT, Class D airspace has been designated within a 4.2-NM radius of the airport from the surface up to 2,500 feet MSL. The boundaries of R-4403B, C, and E are aligned along the boundary of the Stennis Class D airspace area so as to avoid infringing upon the airport's Class D airspace.

A commenter requested that any airspace changes should take place only in concert with the publication of VFR and IFR aeronautical charts so that all pilots are aware of the changes. Further, the instrument approach procedure plates for Picayune Municipal Airport should be revised to show the restricted areas to warn pilots of their location.

The restricted area expansion becomes effective on May 26, 2016, which coincides with both the next edition of the New Orleans Sectional Aeronautical Chart and the IFR chart cycle. The applicable instrument approach procedure plates will also be revised to depict the new restricted areas.

Most commenters are concerned about the potential impact of the restricted areas on IFR and VFR aircraft transiting the area and on the published instrument approach procedures serving Picayune Municipal (KMJD) and Stennis International (KHSA) airports. There is also concern that pilots would simply avoid using those airports.

The FAA acknowledges that, depending on actual utilization of the restricted areas, there may be times when instrument procedures and/or transiting flights would be impacted requiring additional vectoring by air traffic control (ATC) or causing pilots to deviate in order to avoid the restricted airspace. A number of mitigations such as the planned intermittent use of the complex, the ability of ATC to recall airspace, adjustment to instrument procedures, etc., are intended to lessen the overall impact of the restricted areas.

Regarding the instrument procedures for Picayune Municipal Airport (KMJD), the RNAV (GPS) RWY 36 approach would be impacted since its protected airspace penetrates areas A, B, C and E. When only R-4403A is in use, and radar is available, ATC may be able to vector aircraft so as to clear the R-4403A boundary. Because R-4403A does not contain any aviation activity, ATC can vector aircraft to miss the boundary rather than apply 3-NM lateral separation that would be required if the area contained flight activity. In a non-radar environment, however, the approach would be unavailable. The use of R-4403A is expected to be infrequent (approximately 40 days per year) minimizing potential impacts. When R-4403B, C or E are in use, Picayune's runway 36 approach would be unavailable unless ATC can recall the airspace or temporarily assign military aircraft to maintain an altitude that would provide separation from the IFR arrivals or departures. The current runway 36 missed approach procedure is being revised so that aircraft will climb straight ahead to the CIQYI waypoint and hold, instead of proceeding eastward to the CAESA fix, which would further penetrate restricted airspace.

The missed approach procedure for the RNAV (GPS) RWY 18 approach at Picayune penetrates R-4403B, C and E. The missed approach procedure is being redesigned so that instead of taking aircraft east of the airport and into restricted airspace, aircraft will execute a climbing right turn, away from the restricted areas, direct to the CIQYI initial approach fix and hold.

Minor modifications are being made to the VOR-A approach. The inbound course is being changed by three degrees from 132° to 129°, and the missed approach point changed to 5.23 NM from the final approach fix instead of 5.7 NM from the fix.

Regarding Stennis International Airport's (KHSA) instrument procedures, a commenter asked FAA to ensure that R-4403F does not interfere with the instrument approaches to runway 18 at Stennis International Airport.

The floor of R-4403F was set at 4,000 feet MSL to provide room for runway 18 approaches underneath R-4403F.

A concern was raised about medevac helicopter flights to the Ochsner Medical Center Heliport (LS51) in Slidell, LA.

The proximity of the heliport to the boundary of R-4403B and C could affect IFR flight to and from the facility when those areas are active. Provisions for ATC to recall a portion of the airspace to accommodate emergency medevac flights are included in the Letter of Procedure (LOP). When R-4403A is active, as discussed above, it is only necessary for flights to miss the boundary. The small size (2.5-NM radius) would require a minor lateral flight deviation to circumnavigate the area.

There would be some impact on the use of a feeder route from the Picayune (PCU) VOR/DME to the DUFOS initial approach fix (IAF) for the RNAV (GPS) RWY 36 approach at Slidell Airport (KASD), LA. The flight path will come very close to the boundary of R-4403B and C and the protected airspace for that route penetrates the restricted areas.

A note will be added to the approach plate to indicate the feeder route is “Not Authorized” when R-4403B or C is active.

As noted above, R-4403 is too small to fully contain hazards from rocket engine tests and other NASA test requirements. Expanded restricted airspace is needed to test current and future space transportation systems so that NASA can meet its obligations under the National Space Policy. Additionally, the current restricted area cannot accommodate essential NSWC training scenarios. Today, the Navy uses the existing WMA to train land and riverine SOF elements. However, this training is limited by the lack of restricted airspace needed to train under air-to-ground live-fire conditions. This severely restricts the Navy's ability to conduct realistic, full- mission profile training to prepare SOF units for deployments world-wide. The lack of an air-to-ground, live-fire capability means that air and ground units are forced to simulate the coordination and integration of air-to-ground live-fire operations limiting this phase of training to basically a communications-only exercise. Because operations with live air-to-ground weapons employment cannot be practiced in advance, the SOF units are unable to identify and correct any potential conflicts or coordination problems that could otherwise arise for the first time during actual missions while deployed. This training limitation places the mission, personnel and equipment at risk. The designation of R-4403C, E and F alleviates that training shortfall.

Use of R-4403A through F will be governed by the terms in a LOP between NASA/SSC, NSWC, Houston Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) and the ATC facilities at New Orleans, LA, and Gulfport, MS. The LOP will include procedures for activating and deactivating the restricted areas, and it includes several provisions aimed at lessening potential aeronautical impacts of the restricted areas.

The LOP provides that R-4403B through F cannot be scheduled during certain special events that would attract a high volume of air traffic to or through the local area. Examples include, but are not limited to, the Sugar Bowl, Mardi Gras, Super Bowl, Final Four, large conventions, etc.

The LOP further provides that ATC can recall the airspace (except R-4403A) for severe weather, severe traffic congestion, inflight emergencies or equipment outages (radar and communications). Additionally, when bad weather is forecast and ATC sees a requirement for all of R-4403, then ATC has the ability to disapprove the next day's schedule for a complete weather recall of the airspace, if needed. One exception is that R-4403A cannot be recalled once the rocket engine fueling process has begun.

The LOP also enables ATC, under certain conditions, to accommodate access to affected airports (such as Picayune Municipal) by temporarily restricting the military aircraft operating in the restricted area at a higher altitude so that IFR traffic can arrive or depart the airport underneath. Once the traffic is clear, the restricted airspace is returned to the users.

The expected overall use of the R-4403 restricted area complex will be approximately 160 days per year, on an intermittent basis, depending on NASA test requirements and Navy mission taskings. Planned use of each subarea is described below.

R-4403A is for the exclusive use by NASA for testing rocket engine technology on fixed-in-place engine test stands. Anticipated need for this testing is approximately 20 to 40 times per year. NASA will activate R-4403A an average of 7 hours for each engine test event. If technical difficulties or other conditions require, R-4403A may need to be activated for up to 12 hours. Once loading of the propellant and oxidizer tanks begins, a potential hazard exists due to the volatility of those products; hence, the operation cannot be halted. For this reason, R-4403A cannot be recalled by ATC once the fueling begins. Note: No other subarea can be activated while R-4403A is in use.

R-4403B is for the exclusive use by NASA for Untethered Autonomous Flight Vehicle testing (such as the Morpheus Lander). Testing of these vehicles involves hazards because failure of the vehicle, its propulsion system, or propellant tanks can result in explosion of the vehicle. The propensity for this to occur is greater with these vehicles than with a standard aircraft because of the extremely volatile nature of the propellants and the poor aerodynamic characteristics of the vehicle during earth-based operation. The anticipated need for this type of testing is approximately 3 times per year. Actual flight during these test events would be less than 8 minutes; however, due to the complexity of the event, each test will require activation of R-4403B for 7 to 12 hours. NASA will only activate R-4403B to the altitude necessary for the specific activity being conducted. Note: No other subarea can be activated while R-4403B is in use.

R-4403C is used for Navy SOF Integration Training. It has the same lateral boundaries as R-4403B. The purpose of R-4403C is to support pre-deployment training of SOF units with air-to-ground, live-fire of munitions and lasers. Total usage of R-4403C is anticipated to be 100 to 120 days per year in approximately 3-hour blocks. R-4403C extends from the surface up to 10,000 feet MSL. However, when AC-130s are not participating in a training event, R-4403C will only be scheduled up to 6,000 feet MSL. This will lessen potential impacts of the restricted area on nonparticipating aircraft. Depending on the mission, R-4403C can and will be used by itself, but approximately 20 days per year, it will be used in conjunction with R-4403E and F.

R-4403E and F are also used for SOF training. Their purpose is to contain AC-130 gunships firing non-eye-safe lasers aimed at a ground target in R-4403E. They will always be activated together for that purpose. The AC-130 will fly in a circular orbit at a 2 to 2.5-NM radius from the target, at an altitude ranging from 8,000 feet to 10,000 feet MSL. R-4403E and F can be activated independently of R-4403C, but typically they would be used in conjunction with R-4403C. Total usage of R-4403E and F is anticipated to be 20 days per year in approximately 3-hour blocks concurrent with R-4403C.

R-4403C, E and F will also be used during the annual Emerald Warrior SOF training exercise. This exercise lasts no more than 10 days.

Note: The term “intermittent” as used in the times of designation for the R-4403 complex indicates occasional, irregular, or changeable use periods within the stated times.

This section presents a summary of mitigations intended to lessen the potential impact of the restricted area expansion.

The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 73 by removing restricted area R-4403, Gainesville, MS, and replacing it with expanded restricted airspace consisting of five subareas, designated R-4403A, R-4403B, R-4403C, R-4403E and R-4403F. (Note: the designation R-4403D is not used).

The FAA is taking this action because the existing airspace is too small to fully contain NASA test activities and NSWC pre-deployment training for Special Operations Forces.

R-4403A and B will be used solely by NASA for rocket engine testing and untethered space vehicle propulsion system testing. The NSWC will use R-4403C, E and F for pre-deployment integration training for Special Operations Forces. The restricted area subareas are described below.

R-4403A contains testing of rocket engine technologies on Stennis Space Center's engine test stands. It consists of the airspace within a 2.5-NM radius of lat. 30°21′51″ N., long. 89°35′39″ W., (centered on the rocket engine test complex) and extends from the ground up to 12,000 feet MSL. This testing does not entail any flight activity as the operation takes place on fixed-in-place stands. No other subareas may be activated while R-4403A is in use.

R-4403B is used by NASA for testing of untethered autonomous space vehicles that are used to explore planets and asteroids. R-4403B extends from the ground up to 6,000 feet MSL. No other subareas may be activated while R-4403B is in use.

R-4403C contains the Navy's existing Western Maneuver Area (WMA) which is used for pre-deployment training for Special Operations Forces. R-4403C extends from the ground up to 10,000 feet MSL. Hazardous activities in R-4403C will consist of air-to-ground live-fire training for AC-130 gunships, armed helicopters and tilt-rotor (CV-22) aircraft and surface-to-surface weapons firing by ground forces. R-4403C contains two impact areas (targets) for air-to-ground munitions employment (up to 105mm), and air-to-ground non-eye-safe laser firing. R-4403C will be activated to 10,000 feet MSL when AC-130 gunships are operating. If AC-130s are not operating, R-4403C will only be activated up to 6,000 feet MSL (the remaining airspace is available to other users). Originally, the Navy intended to also employ eye-safe lasers for signaling military aircraft operating overhead, but this activity has been eliminated.

R-4403D. This designation is not used.

R-4403E contains a ground target for the firing of non-eye safe lasers by AC-130 gunships. R-4403E extends from the ground up to 10,000 feet MSL. The original proposals to also use this area for air-to-ground munitions delivery and for the use of eye-safe ground-to-air lasers to signal military aircraft operating overhead are eliminated.

R-4403F wraps around the northeast corner of R-4403E and extends upward from 4,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL. Its purpose is to ensure containment of the AC-130 orbit, which is a 2.5 NM radius around the laser ground target in R-4403E. R-4403E could be activated by itself, but R-4403E and F will always be activated together for AC-130 laser firing. The two areas can be activated separately from R-4403C, but typically they will be used in conjunction with R-4403C.

The time of designation for NASA's R-4403A and R-4403B is “Intermittent, 1000 to 0300 local time, as activated by NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance.” The time of designation for NSWC's R-4403C, R-4403E and R-4403F is “Intermittent, 2000 to 0500 local time, as activated by NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance; and 1800 to 2000 local time, November 1 to March 1, as activated by NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance (not to exceed 20 days per year).” To clarify, the 1800 to 2000 time frame can only be used between November 1 and March 1 and only for a maximum 20 days per year during that period. In the original proposal, R-4403C, E and F included an additional provision allowing the airspace also to be activated at any other times by NOTAM with ATC approval. That provision has been eliminated.

During times when the above restricted areas are not needed by the using agencies, the airspace will be returned to the FAA controlling agency, Houston Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC), and will be available for access by other airspace users.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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 conducted an environmental review for this rulemaking in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, and the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508. This review has included independent evaluation and adoption of the NSWC's and NASA's Final Environmental Assessment for the Redesignation and Expansion of Restricted Airspace R-4403 to Support Military Air-to-Ground Munitions Training and National Aeronautics and Space Administration Rocket Engine Testing at Stennis Space Center dated October 2015 (hereinafter “the FEA”), on which the FAA was a cooperating agency, as well as environmental analysis of the changes to approach procedures at Picayune Municipal Airport and Stennis International Airport described in the Summary of Mitigations above. Based on its environmental review, the FAA has determined that this rule will not significantly affect the human environment. The FAA's ROD and environmental review are included in the docket for this rulemaking. The FEA is available at http://www.ssc.nasa.gov/environmental/docforms/eas/eas.html.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

Electronic and Facsimile Availability

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 June 21, 2000, the President signed Executive Order 13159, “Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons” (E.O. 13159), finding that the risk of nuclear proliferation created by the accumulation of a large volume of weapons-usable fissile material in the territory of the Russian Federation constituted an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and declaring a national emergency to deal with that threat. In E.O. 13159, the President ordered blocked the property and interests in property of the Russian Federation directly related to the implementation of the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Russian Federation Concerning the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, dated February 18, 1993, and related contracts and agreements (collectively, the “HEU Agreements”).

On July 25, 2001, OFAC issued the Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Agreement Assets Control Regulations, 31 CFR part 540 (the “Regulations”), as a final rule to implement Executive Order 13159.

On June 21, 2012, the national emergency declared in E.O. 13159 automatically terminated pursuant to section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d) (NEA).

On June 25, 2012, President Obama signed Executive Order 13617, “Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted From Nuclear Weapons” (E.O. 13617). In E.O. 13617, the President found that the risk of nuclear proliferation created by the accumulation of a large volume of weapons-usable fissile material in the territory of the Russian Federation constituted an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and declared a new national emergency to deal with that threat. The President issued E.O. 13617 to continue to protect the same property and interests in property that had been blocked pursuant to the national emergency declared in E.O. 13159.

On May 26, 2015, the President issued Executive Order 13695, “Termination of Emergency With Respect to the Risk of Nuclear Proliferation Created by the Accumulation of a Large Volume of Weapons-Usable Fissile Material in the Territory of the Russian Federation” (E.O. 13695). In E.O. 13695, the President found that the situation that gave rise to the declaration of a national emergency in E.O. 13617 had been significantly altered by the successful implementation of the HEU Agreements. As a result, he terminated the national emergency declared in E.O. 13617 and revoked that order, noting that, pursuant to section 202 of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1622), termination of the national emergency shall not affect any action taken or proceeding pending that was not fully concluded or determined as of the date of E.O. 13695, any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to such date, or any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to such date.

Accordingly, OFAC is removing the Regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations. Removal of this part does not affect ongoing enforcement proceedings or prevent the initiation of enforcement proceedings with respect to violations of the Regulations or of E.O. 13617 when they were in effect.

Because the Regulations involve 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 Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because this rule does not impose information collection requirements that would require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of 3 U.S.C. 301; 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651; E.O. 13159, 66 FR 39279, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 277; E.O. 13617, 77 FR 38459, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 217; E.O. 13695, 80 FR 30331, OFAC amends 31 CFR chapter V as follows:

On May 19, 2015, the Department of the Army published an interim rule in the Federal Register (80 FR 28545), as 32 CFR part 635, to amend its regulation concerning law enforcement reporting for a number of statutory requirements to better coordinate law enforcement work and personnel both within the Department of the Army, across DoD, and with other Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials.

The interim rule met law enforcement reporting requirements for selected criminal and national security incidents and provides law enforcement agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security and Transportation Security Administration, with the most current information available. It also provided the Army chain of command with timely criminal information to respond to queries from the Department of Defense, the news media, and others. The rule established policies and procedures for offense and serious-incident reporting with the Army; for reporting to DoD and the Department of Justice, as appropriate; and for participating in the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Crime Information Center, the Department of Justice's Criminal Justice Information System, the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, and State criminal justice systems. It also updated various reporting requirements described in various Federal statutes.

The publication of this rule finalizes the interim final rule published on May 19, 2015, and will ensure the Army is in compliance with multiple Department of Defense and Federal requirements. No comments were received on the interim rule; however, the Department of the Army is making minor administrative changes based on the name change of a form and reporting system mentioned in the rule.

This rule will not have a monetary effect upon the public. This rule facilitates information sharing between authorized agencies to enhance protection of personnel and resources critical to DoD mission assurance.

The revisions to this rule will be reported in future status updates as part of DoD's retrospective plan under Executive Order 13563 completed in August 2011. DoD's full plan can be accessed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DOD-2011-OS-0036.

The Department of the Army has determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply because the rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612.

The Department of the Army has determined that the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not apply because the rule does not include a mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local or tribal governments in the aggregate, or the private sector, of $100 million or more.

The Department of the Army has determined that the National Environmental Policy Act does not apply because the rule does not have an adverse impact on the environment.

It has been certified that this rule does impose reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB has approved these requirements under OMB Control Number 0702-0128.

The Department of the Army has determined that Executive Order 12630 does not apply because the rule does not impair private property rights.

The Department of the Army has determined that according to the criteria defined in Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 this rule is not a significant regulatory action.

The Department of the Army has determined that the criteria of Executive Order 13045 do not apply because this rule does not implement or require actions impacting environmental health and safety risks on children.

The Department of the Army has determined that the criteria of Executive Order 13132 do not apply because this rule will not have a substantial 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 reasons stated in the preamble the Department of the Army amends 32 CFR part 635 as follows:

The Seattle Department of Transportation requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the University Bridge, mile 4.3, and the Montlake Bridge, mile 5.2, both crossing Lake Washington Ship Canal at Seattle, WA, to facilitate safe passage of participants in the “Beat the Bridge” foot race. The University Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet in the closed-to-navigation position. The Montlake Bridge provides 30 feet of vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position throughout the navigation channel, and 46 feet of vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position throughout the center 60 feet of the bridge. Vertical clearances are referenced to the Mean Water Level of Lake Washington. The normal operating schedule for both the University Bridge and Montlake Bridge is in 33 CFR 117.1051. During this deviation period, the University Bridge, mile 4.3, need not open to marine vessels from 8 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. on May 15, 2016. The Montlake Bridge, mile 5.2, need not open to marine vessels from 8:15 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. on May 15, 2016. Waterway usage on Lake Washington Ship Canal ranges from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft.

Vessels able to pass through the bridges in the closed positions may do so at any time. Both bridges will be able to open for emergencies, and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the 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 transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

The Seattle Department of Transportation requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the Fremont Bridge, mile 2.6, and the University Bridge, mile 4.3, both crossing the Lake Washington Ship Canal at Seattle, WA, to facilitate safe passage of participants in the Brooks Trailhead 10K & 15K foot race event. The Fremont Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 14 feet (31 feet of vertical clearance for the center 36 horizontal feet) in the closed-to-navigation position. The University Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet in the closed-to-navigation position. Both bridge clearances are referenced to the mean water elevation of Lake Washington. The normal operating schedule for both the Fremont Bridge and the University Bridge is in 33 CFR 117.1051. During this deviation period, the Fremont Bridge, mile 2.6, need not open to marine vessels from 8:15 a.m. to 10 a.m. on May 22, 2016. The University Bridge, mile 4.3, need not open to marine vessel from 8 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. on May 22, 2016. Waterway usage on the Lake Washington Ship Canal ranges from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft.

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

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), both drawbridges must return to their regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safety of the runners, and the general public during the scheduled event. The Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking titled Cooper River Bridge Run, Cooper River, and Town Creek Reaches, Charleston, SC. There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this Safety Zone. During the comment period that ended February 26, 2016, we received no comments.

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. It is impracticable to publish notice of this regulation at least 30 days before the effective date because the Coast Guard did not receive the proper information with enough advance time to effectively publish both the NPRM and notice of this regulation. The Coast Guard received no comments on the NPRM. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists to make this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because any delay in the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the public during the date of the event.

The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated safety zones and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170. The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safety of the runners, and the general public during the Cooper River Bridge Run.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published February 11, 2016. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule establishes a safety zone on the waters of the Cooper River and Town Creek Reaches in Charleston, South Carolina during the Cooper River Bridge Run. The race is scheduled to take place from 7:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on April 2, 2016. Approximately 40,000 runners are anticipated to participate in the race. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

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.

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

The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone will only be enforced for a total of three hours; (2) although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; and (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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 0 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. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owner or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during the enforcement period. For the reasons discussed in Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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 Order13132.

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.

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

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 a safety zone prohibiting vessel traffic from a limited area surrounding the Cooper River Bridge on the waters of the Cooper River and Town Creek Reaches for a 3 hour period. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical 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.

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

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

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.

On November 7, 2015 in 80 FR 68484, the EPA proposed to approve the following rules into the California SIP.

We proposed to approve these rule because we determined that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rules and our evaluation.

The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. On December 7, 2015, we received two emails from Harvey Eder representing the Public Solar Power Coalition (PSPC). One email included the subject line, “FW: docket ID EPA-R09-2015-0552, Can,t Email You Again All of The Record from me HE/PSPC inc. into record by reference from 6/2014 etc. to today SC PM 2.5 SC SIP EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0204 to Extreme.” The second email included the subject line, “FW: Part 3 of 3 there may be a Part 4/This isDocut ID EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0552, emissions of NOX from fan-driven natural-gas-firedd furnaces for res & business SCD R1111/SJV 4905 +FRL-9936-70-Region 9 (pt 1 & 2 also Inc This etc. Incorporate allfrom . . .” We received an additional email from PSPC on December 9, 2015 labeled as “part 1 of 3,” after the close of the comment period. We have summarized below the substance of the emailed comments from PSPC to the extent possible. The comments and our responses are as follows:

Comment #1: PSPC listed several external sources in reference to our proposal. These included the following: Documents attributed to a California Superior Court case where PSPC was a plaintiff against the SCAQMD; references to information attributed to the International Energy Agency and the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research; documents previously submitted for comment in other EPA dockets (including EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0204); communications with local and federal officials; and Santa Cruz County and Los Angeles County planning documents. None of these documents were summarized or provided as attachments to comments on docket EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0552.

Response #1: In PSPC's emails to the EPA, PSPC did not provide attachments or provide source materials supporting its claims. The emails attempted to incorporate by reference various news articles, reports, and other documents in support of PSPC's stated claims and assertions (see additional discussion in Comments #2 and #3). However, such a practice is in violation of EPA's commenting guidelines, available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets#rules. In particular, the comments do not comply with the restriction that “EPA will not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system).” 1

Moreover, submitting general documents on a topic fails to raise any particular issue with reasonable specificity as required by the Clean Air Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. See generally Mossville Envtl. Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1238 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“Petitioners also point to a sentence in the letter requesting the EPA to use `all reasonably available data, including the data provided under Subpart F.' Petitioners' argument that, because Subpart F contains data for both the ten and 400 ppm standards, the EPA was on notice fails for the same reasons as articulated above.”) Therefore, EPA is not making any changes to our proposed approval on the basis of this comment.

Comment #2: PSPC commented that a range of solar-related technologies, including solar seasonal heating, concentrating solar, and photovoltaic-powered heating and cooling systems are an alternative to natural gas-fired home furnaces that are subject to this rule. PSPC claims that the EPA should consider such technologies as RACT for space heating applications that are currently being fulfilled by furnaces.

Response #2: The EPA can identify no CAA requirement in PSPC's comment emails that would require the consideration of solar-based technologies as RACT in this context, as all natural gas-fired fan-driven furnaces subject to these rules do not meet the major source threshold triggering a RACT requirement for ozone. The SIP must still implement all RACM/RACT for NOX, but these requirements are generally evaluated in the context of a broader RACM/RACT assessment. Furthermore, the revisions to South Coast Rule 1111 that are the subject of this action do not include any substantive revisions concerning control technologies or emission limits that PSPC's comment would be germane to.

Comment #3: PSPC made several additional claims including: The solar technologies as described would be RACT for other source categories, including boilers and heaters not subject to the rules in this action; and water tank-based solar seasonal storage heating has secondary use in firefighting and public safety applications following earthquakes.

Response #3: These claims are not relevant to our analysis of the approval of the rules and we are finalizing our proposed approval without change.

No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving these rules into the California SIP.

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 31, 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)).

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

I. Does this action apply to me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture (defined by statute at 15 U.S.C. 2602(7) to include import) the chemical substances contained in this rule. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes provided here are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provide a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include chemical manufacturers subject to CDR reporting of one or more subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical manufacturing and petroleum refineries.

This partial exemption eliminates an existing reporting requirement under 40 CFR 711.6(b)(2). EPA is adding the following chemical substances to the list of chemical substances that are exempt from reporting the information described in 40 CFR 711.15(b)(4): Fatty acids, C14-18 and C16-18 unsaturated, methyl esters (Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number (CASRN) 67762-26-9); fatty acids, C16-18 and C-18 unsaturated, methyl esters (CASRN 67762-38-3); fatty acids, canola oil, methyl esters (CASRN 129828-16-6); fatty acids, corn oil, methyl esters (CASRN 515152-40-6); fatty acids, tallow, methyl esters (CASRN 61788-61-2); and soybean oil, methyl esters (CASRN 67784-80-9). However, by existing terms at 40 CFR 711.6, this partial exemption will become inapplicable to a subject chemical substance in the event that the chemical substance later becomes the subject of a rule proposed or promulgated under section 4, 5(a)(2), 5(b)(4), or 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); an enforceable consent agreement (ECA) developed under the procedures of 40 CFR part 790; an order issued under TSCA section 5(e) or 5(f); or relief that has been granted under a civil action under TSCA section 5 or 7.

In the January 27, 2015 Federal Register (80 FR 4482)(FRL-9921-56), EPA published a direct final rule to add these six chemical substances to the list of chemical substances that are partially exempt from reporting additional information under the CDR rule. EPA received one adverse comment that was pertinent to all six of the chemical substances that were the subject of that direct final rule. In accordance with the procedures described in the January 27, 2015 Federal Register document, EPA withdrew the direct final rule, and subsequently proposed to add the six chemical substances to the list of chemical substances that are partially exempt from reporting additional information under the CDR rule in the July 22, 2015 Federal Register (80 FR 43383) (FRL-9928-99). EPA received one comment on the proposed rule. Before taking final action, EPA considered both the comment it received in response to the direct final rule and the comment it received in response to the proposed rule. A full discussion of EPA's responses to these comments is included in Unit V. of this document.

This action is finalized under the authority of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2600 et seq., to carry out the provisions of section 8(a), 15 U.S.C. 2607(a). TSCA section 8(a) authorizes EPA to promulgate rules under which manufacturers of chemical substances and mixtures must submit such information as the Agency may reasonably require. The partial exemption list was established in 2003 (Ref. 1) and can be found in 40 CFR 711.6.

Consistent with section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, EPA is finalizing this action based on public notice and opportunity to comment afforded by the July 22, 2015 proposed rule. Under section 553(d)(1) of the APA, the Agency may make a rule immediately effective “which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.” EPA has determined that this action “relieves a restriction” by creating a partial exemption from CDR reporting, without creating any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements, and that this action will be effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register.

This rule is in response to a petition EPA received for these chemical substances (Refs. 2 and 3) submitted under 40 CFR 711.6(b)(2)(iii)(A). EPA reviewed the information put forward in the petition and additional information against the considerations listed at 40 CFR 711.6(b)(2)(ii). EPA's chemical substance-specific analysis is detailed in supplementary documents available in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0809 (Refs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9). The Agency is adding these chemical substances to the partially exempt chemical substances list because it has concluded that, based on the totality of information available, the CDR processing and use information for these chemical substances is of low current interest.

There are no costs associated with this action and the benefits provided would be related to avoiding potential costs. This partial exemption eliminates an existing reporting requirement without imposing any new requirements. See also the discussion in Unit VI.

In 2003 (Ref. 1), EPA established a partial exemption for certain chemical substances for which EPA determined the processing and use information required in 40 CFR part 711 to be of “low current interest.” That provision establishes a particular procedure whereby the public may petition EPA to add or remove a chemical substance to or from the list of partially exempt chemical substances. In determining whether the partial exemption should apply to a particular chemical substance, EPA considers the totality of information available for the chemical substance in question, including but not limited to information associated with one or more of the considerations listed at 40 CFR 711.6(b)(2)(ii).

The addition of a chemical substance under this partial exemption will not necessarily be based on its potential risks. The addition is based on the Agency's current assessment of the need for collecting CDR processing and use information for that chemical substance, based upon the totality of information available during the petition review process. Additionally, interest in a chemical substance or a chemical substance's processing and use information may increase in the future, at which time EPA will reconsider the applicability of a partial exemption for a chemical substance.

EPA is granting a partial exemption for: Fatty acids, C14-18 and C16-18 unsaturated, methyl esters (CASRN 67762-26-9); fatty acids, C16-18 and C-18 unsaturated, methyl esters (CASRN 67762-38-3); fatty acids, canola oil, methyl esters (CASRN 129828-16-6); fatty acids, corn oil, methyl esters (CASRN 515152-40-6); fatty acids, tallow, methyl esters (CASRN 61788-61-2); and soybean oil, methyl esters (CASRN 67784-80-9) because the Agency has concluded it has low current interest in the processing and use information for these chemical substances. EPA made these determinations based on its analysis of the totality of information available on the six chemical substances, including information about the chemical substances relevant to the considerations defined at 40 CFR 711.6(b)(2)(ii). EPA's chemical substance-specific analysis is detailed in supplementary documents available in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0809 (Refs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9).

The Agency reviewed and considered both comments received related to the direct final rule and the proposed rule.

Comment 1: The commenter states that methyl esters can degrade to methanol, and provides references to support this statement. The commenter questioned how the possible existence of methanol from methyl esters can be ignored as “a hazard for human health and the environment.”

EPA Response: EPA is aware that some methanol may be formed when methyl esters degrade. However, under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions, such methanol is itself rapidly degraded (Ref. 10). Therefore, EPA does not expect exposure to methanol from use of the six biofuels included in this petition for partial exemption. Note also that the inclusion of a chemical substance under this partial exemption is not a determination on the potential risks of a chemical substance. Rather, it is a determination that there is a low current interest in CDR processing and use information for that substance. Hazard alone is not determinative of the level of interest in such information. Other pertinent factors include the information needs of various parties and the current availability of comparable processing and use information. The commenter did not assert that he had a particular need for additional CDR information about the processing and use of these chemical substances. Nor did he dispute EPA's characterization of the currently available processing and use information. If the level of interest in the CDR processing and use information for any listed chemical substance were to change after final listing, EPA may reevaluate the listing decision and pursue amendment of the listing as appropriate.

Comment 2: The Biobased and Renewable Advocacy Group (BRAG), the group that submitted the petitions to EPA for these chemical substances, submitted a comment on the proposed rule in support of adding these chemical substances to the list at 40 CFR 711.6(b)(2)(iv). BRAG's comment stated that these chemical substances should be treated similarly to the petroleum products included in 40 CFR 711.6(b)(1) due to the conditions of manufacture and the properties and uses of the substances. The commenter also notes that based on the considerations listed at 40 CFR 711.6(b)(2)(ii) “a partial reporting exemption does not require that EPA determine that an affected substance poses neither hazard nor toxicity.”

EPA Response: This partial exemption decision is based on the considerations described under 40 CFR 711.6(b)(2)(ii). EPA has made no determination whether any of the six chemical substances should be, as the commenter BRAG suggested, treated similarly to the petroleum products included in 40 CFR 711.6(b)(1) due to the conditions of manufacture and the properties and uses of the substances. This latter issue is moot because equivalent partial exemptions are being granted under 40 CFR 711.6(b)(2)(ii).

EPA agrees that in this action it is not making a determination of the potential risks of the six chemical substances.

EPA has evaluated the economic consequences associated with amending the CDR partially exempt chemical substances list. Since this final rule creates a partial exemption from CDR reporting, without creating any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements, this action does not impose any new burden. Based on the currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR), the burden estimates for reporting processing and use information total 65.63 hours with an associated cost of $4,367 per submission. Based on 2012 CDR reporting, EPA estimates that 61 submissions with manufacture volumes of 25,000 pounds or greater will be received for these chemical substances in 2016 and subsequent reporting years.

Eliminating the requirement to report processing and use information for these submissions results in a total burden savings of approximately 4,003 hours and $266,387 in future reporting cycles (Ref. 11).

The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866, October 4, 1993 (58 FR 51735) and 13563, January 21, 2011 (76 FR 3821).

This action does not impose any new information collection requirements that would require additional review or approval by OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

The information collection requirements related to CDR have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control number 2070-0162 (EPA ICR No. 1884.08). Since this action creates a partial exemption from that reporting, without creating any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements, this action does not impose any new burdens that require additional OMB approval.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule has no net burden effect or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule.

As indicated previously, EPA is eliminating an existing reporting requirement for the chemical identified in this document. In granting a partial exemption from existing reporting, this final rule does not have a significant economic impact on any affected entities, regardless of their size.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. In granting a partial exemption from existing reporting, this action imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments, or on the private sector. In addition, based on EPA's experience with chemical data reporting under TSCA, State, local, and Tribal governments are not engaged in the activities that would require them to report chemical data under 40 CFR part 711. Accordingly, this action is not subject to the requirements of UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.

This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132, August 10, 1999 (64 FR 43255). It will not have substantial direct effects on 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. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175, November 9, 2000 (65 FR 67249). This action will not have any effect on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian Tribes, on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045, April 23, 1997 (62 FR 19885) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, May 22, 2001 (66 FR 28355), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not involve any technical standards that would require the consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note.

This action does not involve special considerations of environmental justice related issues as specified in Executive Order 12898, February 16, 1994 (59 FR 7629). This action does not address human health or environmental risks or otherwise have any disproportionate high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income or indigenous populations.

This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major” rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the Federal Register.

In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

Background

On July 15, 2013, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians to list 81 marine species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We found that the petitioned actions may be warranted for 27 of the 81 species, including the African coelacanth, and announced the initiation of status reviews for each of the 27 species (78 FR 63941, October 25, 2013; 78 FR 66675, November 6, 2013; 78 FR 69376, November 19, 2013; 79 FR 9880, February 21, 2014; and 79 FR 10104, February 24, 2014). Following the positive 90-day finding, we conducted a comprehensive status review of the African coelacanth. A “status review report” (Whittaker, 2014) was produced and used as the basis of 12-month finding determination and proposed rule. Please refer to our Web site (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/coelacanth.html) for access to the status review report, which details African coelacanth biology, ecology, and habitat, the DPS determination, past, present, and future potential risk factors, and overall extinction risk. On March 3, 2015, we published a proposed rule to list the Tanzanian DPS of African coelacanth (L. chalumnae) as a threatened species (80 FR 11363) and solicited comments from all interested parties including the public, other governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, and environmental groups.

As the designee of the Secretary of Commerce, we are responsible for determining whether marine and anadromous species are threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). To make this determination, we consider first whether a group of organisms constitutes a “species” under the ESA, then whether the status of the species qualifies it for listing as either threatened or endangered. Section 3 of the ESA defines a “species” to include “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” 16 U.S.C. 1532(16).

Section 3 of the ESA also defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as one “which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” 16 U.S.C. 1632(6); (20). We interpret an “endangered species” to be one that is presently in danger of extinction. A “threatened species,” on the other hand, is not presently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become so in the “foreseeable future” (that is, at a later time). In other words, the primary statutory difference between a threatened and endangered species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction, either presently (endangered) or in the foreseeable future (threatened). The duration of the “foreseeable future” in any circumstance is inherently fact-specific and depends on the particular kinds of threats, the life-history characteristics, and the specific habitat requirements for the species under consideration. The foreseeable future also considers the availability of data, the ability to predict particular threats, and the reliability to forecast the effects of these threats and future events on the status of the species under consideration. Because a species may be susceptible to a variety of threats for which different data are available, or which operate across different time scales, the foreseeable future is not necessarily reducible to a particular number of years. Further, the existence of a threat to a species and the species' response to that threat are not, in general, equally predictable or foreseeable. Hence, in some cases, the ability to foresee a threat to a species is greater than the ability to foresee the species' exact response, or the timeframe of such a response, to that threat. In making a listing determination, we must ask whether the species' population response to a threat (i.e., abundance, productivity, spatial distribution, diversity) is foreseeable, not merely whether the emergence or continuation of a threat is foreseeable. Because we are obligated to base our determinations on the best available scientific and commercial information, the foreseeable future extends only as far as we are able to reliably predict the species' population response to a particular threat.

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us to determine whether any species is endangered or threatened due to any one or a combination of the following threat factors: the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. 16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1). We are also required to make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a review of the species' status and after taking into account efforts being made by any state or foreign nation (or subdivision thereof) to protect the species. 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A).

Pursuant to the ESA, any interested person may petition to list or delist a species, subspecies, or DPS of a vertebrate species that interbreeds when mature (5 U.S.C. 553(e), 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). ESA-implementing regulations issued by NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) also establish procedures for receiving and considering petitions to revise the lists of endangered and threatened species and for conducting periodic reviews of listed species (50 CFR 424.01).

When we receive a petition to list a species, we are required to the maximum extent practicable to make a finding within 90 days as to whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. The ESA-implementing regulations provide that “substantial information” is that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that listing may be warranted (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). In determining whether substantial information exists, we take into account several factors, in light of any information noted in the petition or otherwise readily available in our files. If a positive finding is made at that initial stage, then we commence a status review in order to assemble and assess the best available scientific and commercial information. 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A). After conducting the status review and within 12 months of receiving the petition, we must prepare a finding that the action is not warranted, warranted, or warranted but precluded by higher listing priorities. 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B). If we find that the petitioned action is warranted, we promptly publish a proposed rule to list the species, take steps to notify affected states and foreign governments, and solicit public input. 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(ii); 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(5). After reviewing additional information received during the comment period, we must either publish a final regulation to implement the determination or take certain other actions. 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6).

In making a final listing determination, we first determine whether a petitioned species meets the ESA definition of a “species.” This term includes taxonomic species, subspecies, and “distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” 16 U.S.C. 1532(16). On February 7, 1996, the Services adopted a policy describing what constitutes a DPS of a taxonomic species (61 FR 4722). The joint DPS Policy identified two elements that must be considered when identifying a DPS: (1) The discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2) the significance of the population segment to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs. A population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions:

(1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation.

(2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA.

If a population segment is considered discrete under one or more of the above conditions, its biological and ecological significance is then considered in light of Congressional guidance (see S. Rep. No. 96-151(1979)) that the authority to list DPSs be used “sparingly” while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity. This consideration may include, but is not limited to, the following:

(1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon;

(2) Evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon;

(3) Evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; or

(4) Evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.

After determining whether a group of organisms constitutes a listable “species,” then using the best available information gathered during the status review for the species, we complete a status and extinction risk assessment to determine whether the species qualifies as an endangered species or threatened species. In assessing extinction risk, we consider the demographic viability factors developed by McElhany et al. (2000) and the risk matrix approach developed by Wainwright and Kope (1999) to organize and summarize extinction risk considerations. The approach of considering demographic risk factors to help frame the consideration of extinction risk has been used in many of our status reviews, including for Pacific salmonids, Pacific hake, walleye pollock, Pacific cod, Puget Sound rockfishes, Pacific herring, scalloped hammerhead sharks, and black abalone (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ for links to these reviews). In this approach, the collective condition of individual populations is considered at the species level according to four demographic viability factors: abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial structure/connectivity, and diversity. These viability factors reflect concepts that are well-founded in conservation biology and that individually and collectively provide strong indicators of extinction risk. Against this backdrop we evaluate the influence of the Section 4(a)(1) threat factors.

As the definition of “endangered species” and “threatened species” makes clear, the determination of extinction risk can be based on either assessment of the range wide status of the species, or the status of the species in a “significant portion of its range.” NMFS and FWS recently published a final policy to clarify the interpretation of the phrase “significant portion of the range” in the ESA definitions of “threatened species” and “endangered species” (79 FR 37577; July 1, 2014) (SPR Policy). The SPR Policy reads:

The Final Policy explains that it is necessary to fully evaluate a portion for potential listing under the “significant portion of its range” authority only if the species is not found to warrant listing rangewide and if substantial information indicates that the members of the species in a particular area are likely both to meet the test for biological significance and to be currently endangered or threatened in that area. Making this preliminary determination triggers a need for further review, but does not prejudge whether the portion actually meets these standards such that the species should be listed:

After reviewing the best available information as to the species status and threats throughout its range (and, if necessary, in a significant portion of its range), we then assess efforts being made to protect the species, to determine if these conservation efforts are adequate to mitigate the existing threats as required under Section 4(b)(1)(A), and whether they are likely improving the status of the species to the point at which listing is not warranted, or contribute to forming the basis for listing a species as threatened rather than endangered. Finally, we re-assess the extinction risk of the species in light of the existing conservation efforts, as necessary and come to a final conclusion as to whether the species qualifies as an endangered or threatened species.

Below we address comments received pertaining to the proposed listing of the Tanzanian DPS of African coelacanth in the March 3, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 11363). During the 60-day public comment period from March 3, 2015, to May 4, 2015, we received a total of 8 written comments from individuals. Each of the commenters generally supported the proposed listing.

Comment 1: We received eight comments in general support of the proposed listing. Commenters agreed with the proposal to list the species as threatened. They cited its rarity and current threats from fishing and habitat impacts as reasons why the Tanzanian DPS of African coelacanth warrants protection under the ESA. One commenter noted that ESA listing status would help raise awareness of the species' plight and authorize the United States to fund and assist in conservation programs.

Response: We appreciate these comments as they support the proposed listing rule for the Tanzanian DPS of African coelacanth as a threatened species under the ESA. We also agree that the species' listing status as threatened could help raise conservation awareness for the species. However, we emphasize that our listing determination is based solely on consideration of the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the threats facing this species as required under Section 4(b)(1)(A) and discussed in the proposed rule.

Comment 2: One commenter noted that they would prefer all populations of coelacanth be listed under the ESA, but did not provide any additional information to support listing any other populations. In contrast, the commenter pointed out that great progress has been made regarding educational outreach of Comoran fishermen on how to avoid incidental catch of coelacanths, and also noted that coelacanth habitat in the Comoros Islands is currently stable.

Response: As detailed in the proposed listing rule and explained further below in our Final Determination section, we conducted a status review of the African coelacanth and first considered whether the species was at risk of extinction throughout its range and found that threats to the species across its range are generally low, with isolated threats of overutilization and habitat loss concentrated in the Tanzanian portion of the range. Thus, we determined on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information that there was no basis to list the species overall based on an assessment of its status throughout its range. However, applying our SPR Policy and DPS Policy, we concluded that the Tanzanian DPS was a listable entity and that it met the test for a threatened species. Because the population is a valid DPS, our SPR Policy directs that the members of that population be listed rather than the species at large. We thus proposed to list only the Tanzanian DPS as a threatened species. Because the commenter provided no information to indicate that we should reconsider these findings, we cannot adopt their suggestion to list the entire species.

The status review for the African coelacanth addressed in this finding was conducted in 2014 (Whittaker, 2014). The status review represents the best available scientific and commercial information on the species' biology, ecology, life history, threats, and conservation status from information contained in the petition, our files, a comprehensive literature search, and consultation with experts. We also considered information submitted by the public and peer reviewers. This information is available in the status review report (Whittaker, 2014), which is available on our Web site (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/coelacanth.html). The status review report provides a thorough discussion of life history, demographic risks, and threats to the particular species. We considered all identified threats, both individually and cumulatively, to determine whether the species responds in a way that causes actual impacts at the species level. The collective condition of individual populations was also considered at the species level, according to the four demographic viability factors discussed above.

The proposed rule (80 FR 11363, March 3, 2015) summarizes general background information on the species' natural history, range, reproduction, population structure, distribution and abundance. None of this information has changed since the proposed rule, and we received no new information through the public comment period that would cause us to reconsider our previous finding as reflected in the 12-month finding and proposed rule. Thus, all of the information contained in the status review report and proposed rule is reaffirmed in this final action.

Based on the best available scientific and commercial information described in the status review report and proposed rule, in developing our 12-month finding we determined that the African coelacanth is taxonomically distinct from the Indonesian coelacanth, Latimeria menadoensis, and is a valid species under the ESA; it meets the definition of “species” pursuant to section 3 of the ESA and is eligible for listing under the ESA. Next we considered whether any one or a combination of the five threat factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA contribute to the extinction risk of the African coelacanth species and went on to evaluate the species' level of extinction risk. Finally we considered conservation efforts for the species overall as required under Section 4(b)(1)(A).

We received no information or analysis from public comment on the proposed rule that would cause us to reconsider any of our analysis or conclusions regarding any of the section 4(a)(1) factors or their interactions for the species overall. Likewise, we did not receive any new information or analysis that would cause us to reconsider our analysis of extinction risk. Finally, we did not receive any new information regarding conservation efforts, which we evaluated as required under Section 4(b)(1)(A). For this final rule, we clarify that we do not apply the particularized rubric of the Policy on the Evaluation of Conservation Efforts (PECE Policy, 68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003) to consideration of foreign conservation efforts, because that policy applies only to conservation efforts “identified in conservation agreements, conservation plans, management plans, or similar documents developed by Federal agencies, State and local governments, Tribal governments, businesses, organizations, and individuals.” Nevertheless, in this case we have substantively evaluated the likelihood of implementation and efficacy of relevant efforts, including specifically the recently established Tanga Coelacanth Marine Park and its associated protections, as described in the proposed rule. We therefore reaffirm the substance of our discussion of the 4(a)(1) factors, extinction risk, and conservation efforts from the 12-month finding and proposed rule (80 FR 11363, March 03, 2015) in this final action. In summary, after considering the status, threats and extinction risk for the African coelacanth (L. chalumnae), we determined the species does not meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species when evaluated throughout all of its range. Thus, we did not propose to list the species overall. We received no information or analysis through the comment process that would cause us to reevaluate our determination that the African coelacanth does not warrant listing rangewide.

We have reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information, including the petition, the information in the status review reports, public comments, and the comments of peer reviewers. Based on the information presented, and as described in the proposed listing rule, because we found the African coelacanth species overall to not warrant listing on the basis of the range wide analysis, we applied the SPR Policy and considered whether any portions of the range of the species would be likely to be both significant to the species and at risk of extinction now or within the foreseeable future. We considered first whether any populations faced an unusual concentration of threats that might suggest they were at risk of extinction. After a review of the best available information, we identified the Tanzanian population of the African coelacanth as a population facing concentrated threats because of increased catch rates in this region since 2003, and the threat of a deep-water port directly impacting coelacanth habitat in this region. Due to these concentrated threats, we found that the species may be at risk of extinction in this area, so next we determined whether this portion of the range of the species could be considered significant under the SPR Policy (79 FR 37577; July 1, 2014).

The Tanzanian population is one of only three confirmed populations of the African coelacanth, all considered to be small and isolated. Because all three populations are isolated, the loss of one would not directly impact the other remaining populations. However, loss of any one of the three known African coelacanth populations would significantly increase the extinction risk of the species as a whole, as only two small populations would remain, making them more vulnerable to catastrophic events such as storms, disease, or temperature anomalies. Therefore, we determined that this portion of the range of the species (the Tanzanian population) represents a significant portion of the range of the African coelacanth.

Having found that the members of the Tanzanian population constituted a significant portion of the species' range, we next evaluated the extinction risk of this significant portion of the range to determine whether it was threatened or endangered. After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information, we determined that the Tanzanian population faces demographic risks, such as population isolation and low productivity, which make it likely to be influenced by stochastic or depensatory processes throughout its range. Additionally, ongoing or future threats include overutilization via bycatch in the Tanzanian gillnet shark fishery, as well as habitat destruction as a result of coastal development. The species' natural biological vulnerability to overexploitation exacerbates the severity of these threats and places the population at an increased risk of extinction within the foreseeable future. In our consideration of the foreseeable future, we evaluated how far into the future we could reliably predict the operation of the major threats to this population, as well as the population's response to those threats. We are confident in our ability to make projections over the next several decades in assessing the threats of overutilization and habitat destruction, and their interaction with the life history of the coelacanth, with its lifespan of 40 or more years. Based on this information, we find that the Tanzanian population is at a moderate risk of extinction within the foreseeable future. Therefore, we consider the Tanzanian population to be threatened.

Because the Tanzanian population represents a significant portion of the range of the species, and this population is threatened, we conclude that the African coelacanth is threatened in a significant portion of its range. We next applied the provision from the SPR Policy providing that if a species is determined to be threatened or endangered across a significant portion of its range, and the population in that significant portion is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than the entire taxonomic species or subspecies. In evaluating whether this population qualified as a DPS under the DPS Policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), we determined that the Tanzanian population is discrete based on evidence for its genetic and geographic isolation from the rest of the taxon. The population also meets the significance criterion set forth by the DPS policy, as its loss would constitute a significant gap in the taxon's range. Because it is both discrete and significant to the taxon as a whole, we identified the Tanzanian population as a valid DPS.

Finally, because the population in the significant portion of the range is a valid DPS, we proposed to list the DPS rather than the entire taxonomic species or subspecies. We received no information or analysis through the public comment process that would cause us to reconsider our determination. Therefore, with this final rule we are listing the Tanzanian DPS of the African coelacanth as a threatened species under the ESA.

Conservation measures provided for species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA include recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); concurrent designation of critical habitat for species that occur within the United States, if prudent and determinable (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); Federal agency requirements to consult with NMFS under section 7 of the ESA to ensure their actions do not jeopardize the species or result in adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat should it be designated (16 U.S.C. 1536); and, for endangered species, certain prohibitions including against “take” of the species by persons subject to United States jurisdiction (16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)). Recognition of the species' plight through listing also promotes conservation actions by Federal and state agencies, foreign entities, private groups, and individuals.

Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS regulations require Federal agencies to consult with us to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. It is unlikely that the listing of these species under the ESA will increase the number of section 7 consultations, because these species occur outside of the United States and are unlikely to be affected by Federal actions.

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)) as: (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the ESA, on which are found those physical or biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. “Conservation” means the use of all methods and procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing under the ESA is no longer necessary. Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) requires that, to the extent prudent and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the listing of a species. However, our regulations provide that critical habitat shall not be designated in foreign countries or other areas outside U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12 (h)).

The best available scientific and commercial data as discussed above identify the geographical areas occupied by Latimeria chalumnae as being entirely outside U.S. jurisdiction, so we cannot designate critical habitat for this species.

We can designate critical habitat in areas in the United States currently unoccupied by the species only if the area(s) are determined by the Secretary to be essential for the conservation of the species. The best available scientific and commercial information on the species does not indicate that U.S. waters provide any specific essential biological function for the species proposed for listing. Based on the best available information, we have not identified unoccupied area(s) in U.S. water that are essential to the conservation of the Tanzanian DPS of Latimeria chalumnae. Therefore, based on the available information, we will not designate critical habitat for this DPS.

On July 1, 1994, NMFS and FWS published a policy (59 FR 34272) that requires NMFS to identify, to the maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. Because we are finalizing a rule to list the Tanzanian DPS of the African coelacanth as threatened, no prohibitions of Section 9(a)(1) of the ESA will apply to this species.

We are listing the Tanzanian DPS of African coelacanth as a threatened species. In the case of threatened species, ESA section 4(d) states the Secretary shall issue such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species and authorizes the Secretary to extend the section 9(a) prohibitions to the species. We have flexibility under section 4(d) to tailor protective regulations, taking into account the effectiveness of available conservation measures. The 4(d) protective regulations may prohibit, with respect to threatened species, some or all of the acts which section 9(a) of the ESA prohibits with respect to endangered species. These section 9(a) prohibitions apply to all individuals, organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. We did not receive any information from governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties on information in the status review and proposed rule pertaining to potential ESA section 4(d) protective regulations for the proposed threatened DPS, including the application, if any, of the ESA section 9 prohibitions on import, take, possession, receipt, and sale of the African coelacanth. Additionally, commercial trade, including import and export, of the African coelacanth is prohibited as a result of an Appendix I listing under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna. Finally, we have no evidence to suggest that the species is at risk due to illegal trade. Any trade of the species is limited to the transfer of specimens for scientific purposes. Thus, we have determined that protective regulations pursuant to section 4(d) are not necessary for the conservation of the species at this time.

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the information that may be considered and the basis that must be found when assessing species for listing. Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F.2d 829 (6th Cir.1981), NMFS has concluded that ESA listing actions are not subject to the environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (See NOAA Administrative Order 216-6).

Under the 1982 amendments to the ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of a species. 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(a) (“The Secretary shall make determinations required by subsection (a)(1) solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available to him after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species. . . .”). Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process. In addition, this final rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. This final rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

In accordance with E.O. 13132, we determined that this final rule does not have significant Federalism effects and that a Federalism assessment is not required.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is amended as follows:

This final rule implements Amendment 112 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment 102 to the GOA FMP (collectively referred to as Amendment 112/102). NMFS published a notice of availability (NOA) for Amendment 112/102 on December 17, 2015 (80 FR 78705). The comment period on the NOA for Amendment 112/102 ended on February 16, 2016. The Secretary of Commerce approved Amendment 112/102 on March 11, 2016, after accounting for information from the public, and determining that Amendment 112/102 is consistent with the FMPs, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. NMFS published a proposed rule to implement Amendment 112/102 and the regulatory amendments on December 29, 2015 (80 FR 81262; corrected January 22, 2016 (81 FR 3775)). The comment period on the proposed rule ended on January 28, 2016. NMFS received three comments on proposed Amendment 112/102 or the proposed rule.

This final rule modifies the criteria used by NMFS to place small catcher/processors in the partial observer coverage category in the Observer Program. Under this final rule, the owners of non-trawl catcher/processors can choose to be in the partial observer coverage category for the upcoming fishing year if their vessels processed less than 79,000 lb (35.8 mt) of groundfish on an average weekly basis in a particular prior year, as specified in this final rule. This final rule does not alter observer coverage requirements for a catcher/processor using trawl gear or for a catcher/processor when participating in a catch share program; these catcher/processors will continue to be required to be in the full observer coverage category. The terms “production” and “processing” are used synonymously in this final rule.

Below is a brief description of the Observer Program and the elements of the Observer Program that apply to Amendment 112/102 and this final rule. The preamble of the proposed rule (80 FR 81262, December 29, 2015; corrected January 22, 2016 (81 FR 3775)) provides a more detailed description of the Observer Program and this action.

Regulations implementing the Observer Program allow NMFS-certified observers (observers) to obtain information necessary for the conservation and management of the BSAI and GOA groundfish and halibut fisheries. The Observer Program was implemented in 1990 (55 FR 4839, February 12, 1990). In 2012, NMFS restructured the funding and deployment systems of the Observer Program (77 FR 70062, November 21, 2012). Since implementation of the restructured Observer Program in 2013, vessels, shoreside processors, and stationary floating processors participating in the groundfish and halibut fisheries off Alaska are placed in one of two observer coverage categories: (1) Partial observer coverage category, or (2) full observer coverage category.

Under the restructured Observer Program, almost all catcher/processors were assigned to the full observer coverage category to obtain independent estimates of catch, at-sea discards, and prohibited species catch to reduce the potential for introducing error into NMFS' catch accounting system (as described in the proposed rule: 77 FR 23326, April 18, 2012). In the full observer coverage category, an observer must be on board a vessel any time the vessel is harvesting, receiving, or processing groundfish in a federally managed or parallel groundfish fishery, as specified at § 679.51(a)(2)(i). In the full observer coverage category, vessel operators obtain observers by contracting directly with observer providers. Operators of vessels in the full observer coverage category pay the observer provider for each day the observer is on board the vessel, including days that the vessel is travelling to or from the fishing grounds but not fishing.

NMFS deploys observers on vessels in the partial observer coverage category according to a statistical sample design based on an annual deployment plan developed in consultation with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council). Vessels in the partial observer coverage category are required to carry observers on fishing trips selected at random per the statistical sample design. Instead of paying for each day an observer is on board, NMFS assesses a fee equal to 1.25 percent of the ex-vessel value of the retained groundfish and halibut landed by vessels in the partial observer coverage category. NMFS uses these fees to establish a Federal contract with an observer service provider to deploy observers in the partial observer coverage category.

The restructured Observer Program provided three limited exceptions for catcher/processors to be placed in the partial observer coverage category, in recognition that the cost of full observer coverage would be disproportionate to total revenues for some small catcher/processors. The first exception applied to a hybrid vessel less than 60 feet length overall (LOA) that acted as both a catcher vessel and a catcher/processor in the same year in any year from 2003 through 2009. The second exception applied to a catcher/processor that had an average daily production of less than 5,000 lb (2.3 mt) round weight equivalent in its most recent full calendar year of operation from 2003 through 2009. The third exception applied to a catcher/processor that did not process more than one metric ton round weight of groundfish on any day in the immediately preceding year.

Under the first two exceptions, a vessel that started processing after 2009 could never qualify to be placed in the partial observer coverage category. Also, the first two exceptions permanently placed a vessel in the partial observer coverage category. These exceptions have no provision to review the production of a catcher/processor placed in the partial observer coverage category on an ongoing basis and remove them from the partial observer coverage category if their production increases. The third exception is theoretically open to any catcher/processor that began production after 2009.

The following discussion summarizes the provisions of Amendment 112/102; additional details are provided in the NOA for Amendment 112/102 (80 FR 78705; December 17, 2015), the proposed rule for Amendment 112/102 (80 FR 81262, December 29, 2015; corrected January 22, 2016 (81 FR 3775)), and Section 2 of the Analysis (see ADDRESSES).

This final rule establishes a production threshold for placement in the partial observer coverage category of average weekly groundfish production of 79,000 lb (35.8 mt) or less in a standard basis year or an alternate basis year (as defined below). The weekly production measure includes catcher/processors that engage in intense bursts of processing activity during a year but may not process throughout the whole year.

The Council and NMFS considered a range of average weekly production measures as a threshold for partial coverage. The production standard of 79,000 lb (35.8 mt) was selected to ensure that catcher/processors that are currently eligible for placement in the partial observer coverage category will continue to be eligible if these vessels maintain their current levels of production. The catcher/processors eligible for partial observer coverage under this final rule are engaged primarily in the hook-and-line and Pacific cod and sablefish fisheries (see Section 2.2.1 of the Analysis). This production threshold maintains a limited exception to the general requirement that catcher/processors are in the full observer coverage category.

The Council and NMFS concluded that this production threshold would maintain a limited exception to the general requirement that catcher/processors are in the full observer coverage category. The Council does not anticipate that this action would impair data quality because the overwhelming amount of groundfish production would remain subject to full observer coverage (Section 3.6.7 of the Analysis). The catcher/processors eligible for the partial observer coverage category under this final rule are engaged primarily in the hook-and-line and Pacific cod and sablefish fisheries (see Section 3.7.12 of the Analysis).

This final rule establishes the fishing year minus two years as the standard basis year for determining whether a catcher/processor is eligible for placement in the partial observer coverage category, as it is the most recent year for which NMFS will have full production data. As an example, to determine if a catcher/processor will be eligible for partial observer coverage in the fishing year that begins on January 1, 2017, NMFS will assess production data from 2015 (i.e., the fishing year minus two years).

If a catcher/processor had no production in the standard basis year, (i.e., the fishing year minus two years), but that catcher/processor had production before the standard basis year, the vessel's most recent year of production, but not earlier than 2009, will be used (referred to as the alternate basis year) (see Section 2.4 of the Analysis). For example, if for the fishing year beginning January 1, 2017, the most recent fishing year prior to 2015 that a catcher/processor had production was 2011, the production from 2011 would be used to assess whether that catcher/processor met the threshold production amount to be eligible for placement in the partial observer coverage category. This final rule does not consider production data prior to 2009 because that is the first year that NMFS collected daily production reports (73 FR 76136, December 15, 2008), permitting calculation of average daily production (see Appendix D of the Analysis).

The Council and NMFS also considered the initial type of observer coverage (i.e., full or partial) that should apply to a catcher/processor with no production in either the standard basis year or an alternate basis year, e.g., a new catcher/processor. This final rule places any non-trawl catcher/processor with no production from 2009 through the standard basis year in the partial observer coverage category in the partial observer coverage category in its first two years of operation. The costs of full observer coverage could prevent some non-trawl catcher/processors from starting processing, particularly processing of sablefish in remote fishing grounds in the Aleutian Islands, and processing of Pacific cod by catcher/processors using jig gear. If non-trawl catcher/processors had to operate for their first two years in the full observer coverage category, it might defeat one of the objectives of this action, namely encouraging beneficial activity that is being prevented by the cost of full observer coverage.

Under this final rule, the owner of a qualifying vessel may request placement in the partial observer coverage category through an annual selection process that includes an annual deadline. Absent selection by the owner of a qualifying vessel, that catcher/processor will be placed in the full observer coverage category for the upcoming fishing year. This annual selection process is a new requirement for the three catcher/processors that are currently permanently placed in the partial observer coverage category.

This final rule does not establish a deadline for vessel operators to request placement in the partial coverage category during the 2016 fishing year; vessel operators can request placement in partial coverage as soon as the final rule is effective. The application process for the 2016 fishing year is described in further detail in the section Changes from the Proposed Rule.

This final rule establishes an annual deadline of July 1 to request placement in the partial observer coverage category applicable for the 2017 fishing year, and for all future fishing years. For the 2017 fishing year, a vessel owner would have to request placement in the partial observer coverage category by July 1, 2016.

This final rule does not alter existing observer coverage requirements for a catcher/processor using trawl gear or a catcher/processor when participating in a catch share program; these catcher/processors will continue to be required to be in the full observer coverage category. The rationale for the existing observer coverage requirements for each catch share program is described in the proposed rule (80 FR 81262, December 29, 2015; corrected January 22, 2016 (81 FR 3775)).

This final rule revises regulations at 50 CFR part 679 to modify the criteria for NMFS to place small catcher/processors in the partial observer coverage category in the Observer Program. This final rule establishes a new paragraph in § 679.51, namely § 679.51(a)(3).

At § 679.51(a)(3)(i), this final rule defines the following terms for purposes of the new § 679.51(a)(3): a “fishing year” as the year during which a catcher/processor might be placed in the partial observer coverage category; the “standard basis year” as the fishing year minus two years; and the “alternate basis year” as the most recent year before the standard basis year in which a catcher/processor had any groundfish production but not earlier than 2009. At § 679.51(a)(3)(i), this final rule defines a vessel's “average weekly groundfish production,” as the annual groundfish round weight production estimate for a catcher/processor, divided by the number of separate weeks during which production occurred, as determined by production reports, but excluding any groundfish that was caught with trawl gear. Thus, if a vessel has groundfish production any day in a week, excluding trawl production, that will be considered as a week of production.

At § 679.51(a)(3)(ii), this final rule specifies the annual deadline for requesting placement in the partial observer coverage category as July 1 of the year before the year that the vessel owner would like to be placed in the partial observer coverage category, for 2017 and all future years. As described in the section titled Changes from the Proposed Rule, no deadline is specified for the owner of a catcher/processor to apply to be placed in the partial observer coverage category in 2016. NMFS should be able to make an eligibility determination within 30 days of receipt of the request for placement in the partial observer coverage category.

At § 679.51(a)(3)(iii), this final rule specifies the requirements for NMFS to place a catcher/processor in the partial observer coverage category, namely if the vessel owner requests placement by the annual deadline specified and the vessel meets the production threshold of 79,000 lb (35.8 mt) of average weekly groundfish production (excluding groundfish caught with trawl gear).

To determine eligibility for placement in the partial observer coverage category, NMFS will first examine the catcher/processor's production in the standard basis year, namely two years before the fishing year. If a catcher/processor produced at or below the production threshold (79,000 lb (35.8 mt) average weekly groundfish production) in the standard basis year, but more than zero pounds, the vessel will meet the production threshold for placement in the partial observer coverage category in the upcoming fishing year. If a catcher/processor exceeded that production threshold, the vessel will not be eligible for placement in the partial observer coverage category in the upcoming fishing year.

If a catcher/processor had no production in the standard basis year, NMFS will examine the vessel's production in the alternative basis year, namely the first year that the vessel had any production before the standard basis year but not earlier than 2009. If a catcher/processor had average weekly groundfish production of 79,000 lb (35.8 mt) or less in the alternate basis year, the vessel will meet the production threshold requirement for placement in the partial observer coverage category for the upcoming fishing year. If a catcher/processor exceeded the production threshold in the alternate basis year, the vessel will not be eligible for placement in the partial observer coverage category. If a catcher/processor had no production from 2009 through the standard basis year, the vessel will meet the production threshold requirement for placement in the partial observer coverage category.

If a catcher/processor meets the production threshold requirement for placement in the partial observer coverage category and is not a vessel using trawl gear or otherwise required to have full observer coverage by participation in a catch share program, the catcher/processor will be placed in partial observer coverage only if the owner of the vessel makes the request by the annual deadline. This final rule specifies at § 679.51(a)(3)(iv) how the vessel owner can request placement in the partial observer coverage category. A vessel owner must submit a request form to NMFS, which NMFS will make available on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

At § 679.51(a)(3)(v), this final rule specifies that NMFS will notify a vessel owner in writing if NMFS has placed the vessel in the partial observer coverage category. Until NMFS provides this notice, the catcher/processor will remain in the full observer coverage category.

At § 679.51(a)(3)(vi), this final rule specifies that if NMFS denies a request for placement in the partial observer coverage category, NMFS will issue an Initial Administrative Determination, which will explain the reasons for the denial. If the vessel owner wishes to appeal the denial, this final rule provides at § 679.51(a)(3)(vii) that the vessel owner may appeal to the National Appeals Office according to the procedures in 15 CFR part 906. During the appeal process, the catcher/processor will remain in the full observer coverage category.

This final rule has several provisions in addition to the new paragraph at § 679.51(a)(3). This final rule adds regulations at § 679.51(a)(1)(i)(C) to clarify that certain catcher/processors (newly specified by this final rule at § 679.51(a)(3)) are in the partial observer coverage category when fishing for halibut with hook-and-line gear or when directed fishing for groundfish in a federally managed or parallel groundfish fishery. This final rule revises § 679.51(a)(2)(i)(A) to clarify that catcher/processors are placed in the full observer coverage category unless they are placed the partial observer coverage category using criteria specified at § 679.51(a)(3). This final rule also removes the regulations detailing the exceptions to the full observer coverage category for catcher/processors at § 679.51(a)(2)(iv)(B) that were in place prior to implementation of this final rule.

This final rule adds a new category to the definition of fishing trip for purposes of the Observer Program in § 679.2. Prior to implementation of this final rule, § 679.2 defined a fishing trip for a catcher vessel delivering to a shoreside processor or stationary floating processor and for a catcher vessel delivering to a tender vessel. This final rule defines a fishing trip for a catcher/processor in the partial observer coverage category, as the period of time that begins when the vessel departs a port to harvest fish until the vessel returns to port and offloads all processed product. This new definition is necessary because the current definition of a fishing trip does not accurately apply to a catcher/processor in the partial observer coverage category.

This final rule adds a new requirement at § 679.5(e)(13) for a catcher/processor landing report. The operator of a catcher/processor placed in the partial observer coverage category must submit a catcher/processor landing report by 2400 hours, A.l.t., on the day after the end of the fishing trip. This is a new reporting requirement created for this program. The landing report will be generated through eLandings or other NMFS-approved software by consolidating the daily production reports for the period the vessel operator defines as the fishing trip for purposes of observer coverage. NMFS will use information from the catcher/processor landing report to link catch data with observer data, to determine how to appropriately assign at-sea discard rates and prohibited species catch rates to unobserved catcher/processors in the partial observer coverage category, and to monitor compliance with the requirement for catcher/processors placed in the partial observer coverage category to log all fishing trips in the Observer Declare and Deploy System.

This final rule revises § 679.51(e)(1)(iii)(B) to remove requirements from catcher/processors placed in the partial observer coverage category to provide equipment for the purpose of observer data entry and transmission. Prior to implementation of this final rule, all catcher/processors were required to provide an observer with a computer, NMFS-supplied software, and the ability to transmit data to NMFS using a point-to-point connection from the vessel. Removing this requirement reduces the financial burden on small catcher/processors placed in the partial observer coverage category, especially for vessels mentioned in Section 3.7.4 of the Analysis that may begin to operate as a catcher/processor (e.g., catcher/processors using jig gear). Prior to implementation of this final rule, observers deployed in the partial observer coverage category entered and transmitted data without equipment provided by the industry. Maintaining those equipment requirements for catcher/processors in the partial observer coverage category may have resulted in duplicative and unnecessary equipment being available on the vessel. NMFS typically receives data from observers deployed in the partial observer coverage category at the end of each trip, and that timeline is sufficient for catcher/processors in partial observer coverage under this final rule. NMFS notes that even with this change, more frequent data transmission could be achieved on some catcher/processors in partial observer coverage if the observer is allowed to use existing communication equipment.

This final rule revises § 679.55(a) and (c) to clarify that all catcher/processors named on a Federal Fishing Permit and not in the full observer coverage category are responsible for paying the observer fee.

This final rule corrects two cross references in § 679.2 and replaces language in § 679.5 that refers to old terminology of “100 percent observer coverage.” That terminology is replaced with “full observer coverage;” this is the terminology used under the restructured Observer Program.

During the public comment periods for the NOA for Amendment 112/102 and the proposed rule to implement Amendment 112/102, NMFS received three comment letters from the public that contained three substantive comments. NMFS' responses to these comments are presented below.

Comment 1: All three commenters expressed support for this action.

Response: NMFS acknowledges these comments.

Comment 2: Two commenters requested that NMFS implement this action as soon as possible in 2016. One commenter would like to begin fishing for Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program Pacific halibut and sablefish around April 1, but due to the costs of full coverage, would not start fishing until they were allowed to be placed in the partial observer coverage category. The second commenter stated that it benefits the few eligible catcher/processors to be placed in the partial observer coverage as soon as possible in 2016, and doing so would not negatively impact any other fishery participants.

Response: NMFS acknowledges these comments. Most of the catcher/processors that will be eligible to be placed in the partial observer coverage category under this final rule participate in the sablefish IFQ fisheries or fish for Pacific cod. Directed fishing for Pacific cod opened in most areas off Alaska on January 1, 2016, and the IFQ fishing season started on March 19, 2016. Under existing regulations, any catcher/processors not placed in the partial observer coverage category are in the full observer coverage category and must carry an observer at all times while fishing in the GOA or BSAI. As noted in the proposed rule and Analysis, being placed in the full observer coverage category imposes costs on vessel owners that generally exceed the costs of being placed in the partial observer coverage category. Allowing the owners of catcher/processors to apply to be placed in the partial observer coverage category as soon as possible in 2016 would minimize the cost of observer coverage for these vessel owners. Due to the costs of the full observer coverage category, some vessel owners may even choose not to fish until the catcher/processor can be placed in the partial observer coverage category. Therefore, for reasons discussed in the Classification section, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has waived the 30-day delay in effectiveness of this final rule and will accept applications from the owners of catcher/processors to be placed in the partial observer coverage category on the day that this final rule is published in the Federal Register.

Comment 3: The proposed regulations appropriately add a paragraph (C), referencing catcher/processors, to 50 CFR 679.51(a)(1)(i). New paragraph (C) joins a list of certain classes of vessels in partial observer coverage, with paragraphs (A) and (B) describing certain catcher vessels. The language introducing the list at § 679.51(a)(1)(i) should be revised to reference not just catcher vessels but also catcher/processors: “ . . . the following catcher vessels [and catcher/processors] are in the partial observer coverage category . . .” The word “or” should be deleted after paragraph (A).

Response: NMFS agrees with the suggested addition of “and catcher/processors” at § 679.51(a)(1)(i). However, NMFS does not agree with the suggested deletion of the word “or” after § 679.51(a)(1)(i)(A). With the implementation of this final rule, § 679.51(a)(1)(i) contains three paragraphs, (A), (B), and (C), each of which is independent of the others. Therefore, it is appropriate to retain the word “or” after § 679.51(a)(1)(i)(A).

The proposed rule for Amendment 112/102 (80 FR 81262, December 29, 2015; corrected January 22, 2016 (81 FR 3775)) proposed to establish an application deadline in 2016 for an owner of an eligible catcher/processor to request placement in the partial observer coverage category within 15 days after the effective date of the final rule. The effective date of the final rule was anticipated to be 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register; therefore, this deadline would have provided a vessel owner 45 days to consider and submit a timely request for placement in the partial observer coverage category after the date of publication of the final rule.

NMFS has determined that an application deadline for the 2016 fishing year is not necessary. One of the primary reasons for an application deadline for 2017 and future years is to provide information about which catcher/processors will be in the partial observer coverage category in time to prepare the Observer Program annual deployment plan for the upcoming year. NMFS has already prepared the 2016 annual deployment plan assuming that any catcher/processor eligible to be in partial observer coverage in 2016 would choose to do so; therefore NMFS does not need an application deadline in 2016 to enable a catcher/processor to be placed in the partial observer coverage category. Nevertheless, an owner wishing to place a catcher/processor in the partial observer coverage category has an incentive to submit an application as soon as possible in 2016 if placement in partial coverage reduces the cost of observer coverage. In addition, not having an application deadline for 2016 provides additional time for potential new participants in the fishery to adjust to the new regulations. If a vessel owner missed the 2016 application deadline described in the proposed rule, the vessel would require full observer coverage until January 2017. Removing the 2016 deadline does not create a substantial administrative burden for NMFS because of the small number of vessels involved. Fishery participants are reminded that the July 1 deadline applies for the 2017 fishing year, and for all future fishing years.

NMFS adds the phrase “and catcher/processors” at § 679.51(a)(1)(i) to reference not just catcher vessels but also catcher/processors, as described in the response to Comment 3 in the Comments and Responses section.

NMFS corrects a verb disagreement error in the table at § 679.55(c) by changing “is” to “are” in row (5).

The Administrator, Alaska Region, determined that Amendments 112 and 102 and this final rule are necessary for the conservation and management of the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries and that they are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

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

The NMFS Assistant Administrator finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for the provisions in this final rule. Maintaining the 30-day delay would be contrary to the public interest. Waiving the 30-day delay in effectiveness would allow the owners of catcher/processors to apply to be placed in the partial observer coverage category as soon as the final rule is published and would allow NMFS to approve this placement for eligible catcher/processors as soon as NMFS is able to complete the necessary review. Maintaining the 30-day delay in effectiveness would not prevent vessel owners from applying to be placed in the partial observer coverage category, but NMFS would not be able to approve placement of eligible catcher/processors in the partial observer coverage category until the effective date of the final rule. This would require vessel owners to bear the costs of the full observer coverage category or delay fishing for up to 30 days. Public comment received on the proposed rule overwhelmingly requested that NMFS implement this action as soon as possible in 2016.

Most of the catcher/processors that will be eligible to be placed in the partial observer coverage category under this final rule participate in the sablefish IFQ fisheries or fish for Pacific cod. Pacific cod opened for directed fishing in most areas off Alaska on January 1, 2016, and the sablefish IFQ fishing season started on March 19, 2016. Under existing regulations, any catcher/processors not placed in the partial observer coverage category are in the full observer coverage category and required to carry an observer at all times while fishing in the GOA or BSAI. As noted in the proposed rule and Analysis, the full observer coverage category imposes costs on vessel owners that generally exceed the costs of being placed in the partial observer coverage category. Allowing the owners of catcher/processors to apply to be placed in the partial observer coverage category as soon as possible in 2016 would minimize the cost of observer coverage for these vessel owners.

Waiving the 30-day delay in this final rule's effectiveness will help maximize economic opportunities for these commercial fishermen in the BSAI and GOA during the 2016 fishing year and will allow qualifying vessel owners to start operating under partial observer coverage requirements as soon as the vessel owner receives notification from NMFS that the vessel is placed in the partial observer coverage category.

There is no administrative need for additional time beyond the point of notification from NMFS. This is a non-controversial action that affects a small number of vessel owners. NMFS is unaware of any participants who would not be in favor of or who would be potentially harmed by waiving the 30-day delay in effectiveness. Without waiving the 30-day delay in effectiveness, vessel owners affected by this final rule that are currently in full observer coverage would have to wait an additional 30 days after publication of this final rule to be placed in partial observer coverage, which would delay the associated economic opportunities being sought through this final rule, thus undermining its intent.

For these reasons, the NMFS Assistant Administrator waives the 30-day delay in effectiveness of this final rule and will accept applications from the owners of catcher/processors to be placed in the partial observer coverage category on the day that this final rule is published in the Federal Register.

Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. The preamble to the proposed rule (80 FR 81262, December 29, 2015; corrected January 22, 2016 (81 FR 3775)) and the preamble to this final rule serve as the small entity compliance guide. This final rule does not require any additional compliance from small entities that is not described in the preamble to the proposed rule and this final rule. Copies of the proposed rule and this final rule are available from NMFS at the following Web site: http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires an agency to prepare a FRFA after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking and when an agency promulgates a final rule under section 553 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code. The following paragraphs constitute the FRFA for this action.

Section 604 describes the required contents of a FRFA: (1) A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule; (2) a statement of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments; (3) the response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the comments; (4) a description of and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such estimate is available; (5) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; and 6) a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.

A description of the need for, and objectives of, the rule is contained in the preamble to the proposed rule and this final rule and is not repeated here. This FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) and the summary of the IRFA in the proposed rule (80 FR 81262, December 29, 2015; corrected January 22, 2016 (81 FR 3775)).

NMFS published a proposed rule on December 29, 2015 (80 FR 81262; corrected January 22, 2016 (81 FR 3775)). An IRFA was prepared and summarized in the Classification section of the preamble to the proposed rule. The comment period closed on January 28, 2016. NMFS received 3 letters of public comment on the proposed rule. These comment letters did not address the IRFA. The comments did address the economic impacts of the rule generally by requesting that the rule be implemented as soon as possible to help maximize economic opportunities for commercial fishermen in the BSAI and GOA during the 2016 fishing year by allowing qualifying vessels to start operating under partial observer coverage requirements as soon as the vessel owner receives notification from NMFS that the vessel is placed in the partial observer coverage category. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration did not file any comments on the proposed rule.

NMFS expects that up to 11 vessels will qualify for placement in the partial observer coverage category (See the Classification section of the proposed rule (80 FR 81262, December 29, 2015; corrected January 22, 2016 (81 FR 3775))). NMFS estimates that up to 9 of the 11 vessels identified are considered directly regulated small entities.

This action contains one new reporting and recordkeeping requirement that affects the small entities. Vessel owners desiring to be placed in the partial observer coverage category for a fishing year must submit a form expressing that choice by July 1 (except for the 2016 fishing year).

This form will use production data that will be available to the owner on the eLandings Web site. Given the simplicity of the form, and the accessibility of the data needed to complete it, NMFS estimates that it will take no more than 30 minutes to complete and file the form. For Paperwork Reduction Act estimation purposes, NMFS values this type of effort at $37 per hour. Approximately nine small entities could be affected by this requirement. Thus, the total public time required to complete nine forms a year x 30 minutes is 4.5 hours. At a cost of $37 per hour, the estimated cost is about $167.

A FRFA must describe the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statues, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency that affect the impact on small entities was rejected. “Significant alternatives” are those that achieve the stated objectives for the action, consistent with prevailing law, with potentially lesser adverse economic impacts on small entities as a whole.

The Council and NMFS considered a range of alternatives and options to the preferred alternative that is implemented by this final rule. These alternatives and options are described in Section 2 of the RIR/IRFA and are not repeated here. The Council and NMFS did not identify alternatives to the preferred alternative that would minimize the impact on small entities better than the preferred alternative and still meet the objectives for this final rule—to provide a relatively limited exception to the general requirement that all catcher/processors are in the full observer coverage category, and maintain the full observer coverage requirement for all trawl catcher/processors and catcher/processors participating in a catch share program that requires full observer coverage.

The preferred alternative implemented by this final rule modifies existing regulations that are necessary to meet the objectives of this final rule. The preferred alternative is not anticipated to have adverse impacts on small entities. As noted in the IRFA, this action is expected to create a net benefit for the directly regulated small entities. In other words, the benefits of this action are expected to outweigh the reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance costs described above.

The Council and NMFS adopted the average weekly production threshold of 79,000 lb (35.8 mt) as its preferred alternative. This production threshold allows a catcher/processor to qualify for placement in the partial observer coverage category for a year, if its round weight equivalent of their processed product, two years previous, averaged less than 79,000 lb (35.8 mt) a week. If the vessel had not operated two years previously, NMFS will use its production in the first year with production since 2009, inclusive of 2009. If the vessel has not produced in this period, NMFS will allow the vessel to be placed in the partial observer coverage category in the year in which application is made, unless it is a trawl vessel, in which case it will be in the full observer coverage category.

This action reduces the relative burden on directly regulated small catcher/processors in comparison with the status quo. Vessels that qualify can forego full observer coverage and operate with less expensive partial observer coverage, should they choose to do so. The three catcher/processors that were permanently placed in the partial observer coverage category under the status quo now have to qualify for placement in the partial observer coverage category each year. The Council and NMFS chose the 79,000-lb average weekly threshold, rather than an alternative 42,000-lb average weekly threshold, to maximize the potential for these three vessels to qualify for the option to be placed in the partial observer coverage category in future years. Moreover, one of the objectives of this action was to end permanent placement in the partial observer coverage category for catcher/processor vessels and create a flexible system that could respond if a vessel increased production.

The Council and NMFS considered multiple elements and options under Alternative 2 that would qualify more vessels or fewer vessels for placement in the partial observer coverage category. In addition to the two average weekly production thresholds, a low and a high average daily, maximum daily production, maximum weekly, and annual production measures were considered.

The production thresholds analyzed under Element 1 Option 4B (high maximum weekly production) and Option 5B (high annual production) could have qualified one more small catcher/processor for partial observer coverage than is qualified under the preferred alternative (Option 2B: average weekly production threshold of 79,000 lb). The Council and NMFS did not select Option 4B because basing a threshold on maximum weekly production would have excluded some catcher/processors that had one week of relatively high production, but had relatively low average production over the remainder of the year. The Council did not select Option 5B because it would allow catcher/processors with relatively high production levels over the course of several weeks or months during the year into the partial observer coverage category. NMFS recommended that catcher/processors with these high intensity production periods during the year should remain in the full observer coverage category so that all of their fishing activity is observed.

The average weekly measure was chosen, because it provided a measure of production intensity, which the annual, maximum daily, and maximum weekly measures, did not provide; it was readily measurable; and it was less prone to manipulation or unusually high levels of production than the other options considered. A week is also the standard measure of production for a catcher/processor trip in current regulation (Section 2.2.1 of the Analysis and the Classification section of the proposed rule (80 FR 81262, December 29, 2015; corrected January 22, 2016 (81 FR 3775))).

This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) which have been approved by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under control numbers 0648-0318, 0648-0515, and 0648-0711. The information collections are presented by OMB control number.

Public reporting burden for Catcher/Processor Observer Partial Coverage Request is estimated to average 30 minutes per response.

Public reporting burden for Catcher/Processor Landing Report through eLandings is estimated to average one minute per response.

Public reporting burden for submittal of Observer Fee through eFISH is estimated to average 1 minute per response.

Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of these collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES), and by email to [email protected] or fax to 202-395-5806.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is amended as follows: