Federal Register Vol. 81, No.78,

I. Background Information

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) guarantees bid, payment and performance bonds for small and emerging contractors who cannot obtain surety bonds through regular commercial channels. SBA's guarantee gives Sureties an incentive to provide bonding for small businesses and, thereby, assists small businesses in obtaining greater access to contracting opportunities. SBA's guarantee is an agreement between a Surety and SBA that SBA will assume a certain percentage of the Surety's loss should a contractor default on the underlying contract.

On April 14, 2015, SBA published a notice of proposed rulemaking with a request for comments in the Federal Register (80 FR 19886). The rule proposed to change the regulations governing SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program (SBG Program) in the following four areas that had prompted questions from participating Sureties:

(1) The rule proposed to clarify that to participate in the Prior Approval and Preferred Surety Bond (PSB) Programs, a Surety must directly employ underwriting and claims staffs sufficient to perform and manage these functions, and that final settlement authority for claims and recoveries must be vested only in the Surety's salaried claims staff.

(2) The rule proposed to specify that the costs that the Surety incurs for its salaried claims staff are ineligible for reimbursement by SBA and that the Surety may seek reimbursement for amounts actually paid by the Surety for specialized services that are provided by an outside consultant, which is not an Affiliate of the Surety, in connection with the processing of a claim, provided that such services are beyond the capability of the Surety's salaried claims staff.

(3) The rule proposed to modify the conditions under which a Principal, and its Affiliates, would be deemed ineligible for a bond guaranteed by SBA in the circumstance where the Principal has previously defaulted on an SBA guaranteed surety bond. The rule provided that a Principal, or any of its Affiliates, would lose eligibility for further SBA bond guarantees if the Principal, or any of its Affiliates, had defaulted on an SBA guaranteed bond resulting in a Loss (as defined in 13 CFR 115.16) that had not been fully reimbursed to SBA, or if SBA had not been fully reimbursed for any Imminent Breach payments. It also provided that the Principal, or any of its Affiliates, may be reinstated only if SBA had been fully repaid for the Loss or for the Imminent Breach payment, unless SBA's Office of Surety Guarantees (OSG) found good cause for reinstating the Principal. In addition, the discharge of the indebtedness in bankruptcy would no longer be specifically included as a condition for reinstatement, but the circumstances of such discharge could be considered as part of OSG's good cause analysis for reinstatement. The Proposed Rule also clarified that the same standards regarding the loss of eligibility and the conditions for reinstatement would apply to both the Prior Approval Program and the PSB Program.

(4) The rule proposed to modify the criteria for admitting a Surety to participate in the PSB Program by increasing the Surety's underwriting limitation, as certified by the U.S. Treasury Department on its list of acceptable sureties on Federal bonds, from at least $2 million to at least $6.5 million.

The comment period was open until June 15, 2015, and SBA received comments from one trade association and one surety company. One other comment was received from an individual, but this comment did not relate to the Proposed Rule or the SBG Program.

One of the commenters indicated its support for the proposed changes that modify the conditions under which a Principal, and its Affiliates, would be deemed ineligible for a bond guaranteed by SBA and that modify the requirements for reinstatement. The commenter also expressed support for SBA's effort to address the failure of some participating Sureties to maintain adequate in-house claims personnel, and to ensure that participating Sureties handle their SBA-guaranteed bond claims in the same manner as their other bond claims.

However, both commenters expressed concern that the proposed changes to 13 CFR 115.11 and 115.16(e)(1) would not create clear standards with respect to when SBA would reimburse Sureties for the costs of using outside consultants in connection with bond claims. Under the proposed 13 CFR 115.16(e)(1), a Surety may seek reimbursement for “[a]mounts actually paid by the Surety for specialized services that are provided under contract by an outside consultant, which is not an Affiliate of the Surety, in connection with the processing of a claim, provided that such services are beyond the capability of the Surety's salaried claims staff.” The commenters were concerned that this standard is too limiting, and instead suggested that SBA amend 13 CFR 115.16(e)(2) to allow Sureties to seek reimbursement for the “reasonable” costs of any outside consultants. The commenters indicated that this standard would cover a broader range of consultants, such as construction, accounting or other professionals, that assist Sureties in investigating and settling claims. They argued that the services of these outside consultants may become necessary to avoid delay and to mitigate expenses and that these expenses would be recoverable from the Principal under the General Indemnity Agreement obtained under 13 CFR 115.17(a).

SBA has considered the suggestion but has concluded that the reasonable cost standard proposed by the commenters does not adequately reflect the requirement that Sureties employ sufficient in-house staff to handle all customary claims and recovery functions. SBA expects participating Sureties to employ adequate in-house staff to perform these functions and to bear the full cost of performing such functions. The Proposed Rule does recognize that there may be circumstances where an outside consultant with a particular expertise beyond the capabilities of the Surety's salaried claims staff is needed in connection with a claim, and would allow Sureties to seek reimbursement for the costs of such expertise. As described in the preamble to the Proposed Rule, an example of such “specialized services . . . beyond the capability of the Surety's salaried claims staff” would be the services of a structural engineer that are needed to evaluate the Principal's compliance with engineering specifications, and a commenter agreed with this example. SBA believes that its proposed language is sufficiently broad to cover the various situations that may arise.

In addition, a commenter suggested that the proposed requirement in 13 CFR 115.11 that the Surety must have a salaried staff “to perform all claims and recovery functions” be revised by removing the term “all” to account for those instances where outside consultants are retained to assist in claim and recovery functions. Instead of removing the term “all”, SBA is revising this section to recognize that the Surety may seek reimbursement for specialized services provided by outside consultants under 13 CFR 115.16(e)(1). Again, SBA expects that these consultants will be needed to provide a specialized service that is beyond the expertise of the Surety's salaried claims staff.

Finally, both commenters stated that travel by in-house claims staff is often necessary and expressed concern that the proposed language in 13 CFR 115.16(f)(1) excludes travel costs as a reimburseable expense. SBA agrees that Sureties may seek reimbursement for reasonable and necessary travel expenses by their in-house claims staff, and has amended the language in 13 CFR 115.16(e)(1) and 115.16(f)(1) accordingly.

Section 115.11. As proposed, this provision required that an applicant have a salaried staff that is employed directly (not an agent or other individual or entity under contract with the applicant) to oversee its underwriting functions and to perform all claims and recovery functions. For clarity, SBA is revising this section to recognize that, with respect to claims functions, a Surety may contract with an outside consultant for a specialized service the costs of which may be reimbursable under 13 CFR 115.16(e)(1). SBA expects Sureties to employ salaried claims staff capable of handling the routine processing and administration of claims and recovery, and to not seek reimbursement for the costs of these functions under 115.16(e)(1), except, as revised by this final rule, Sureties may seek reimbursement for the reasonable and necessary travel expenses of its salaried claims staff. This section also provides that final settlement authority for claims and recovery actions must be vested only in the applicant's “claims staff” and, for clarity and consistency, SBA is revising this phrase to read “salaried claims staff”. There are no other changes to this section as proposed.

Section 115.13(a). As proposed, this provision added a new paragraph (7) to provide that, to be eligible for an SBA guaranteed bond, neither the Principal nor any of its Affiliates may be ineligible for an SBA guaranteed bond under the grounds set forth in 13 CFR 115.14. There are no changes to this provision as proposed.

Section 115.14. SBA is modifying the criteria regarding the loss of the Principal's eligibility for future assistance and the conditions for reinstatement by providing that a Principal loses eligibility for further SBA bond guarantees if the Principal, or any of its Affiliates, has defaulted on an SBA guaranteed bond that resulted in a Loss (as defined in 13 CFR 115.16) that has not been fully reimbursed to SBA, or if SBA has not been fully reimbursed for any Imminent Breach payments. OSG will have the authority to waive this requirement for good cause.

In addition, as proposed, the same criteria on ineligibility and conditions for reinstatement would apply to both the Prior Approval Program and the PSB Program. As the same conditions for reinstatement will apply to both the Prior Approval Program and the PSB Program, the conditions for reinstatement set forth in 13 CFR 115.36(b) and (c) will be moved in their entirety to 13 CFR 115.14(b) and (c), and the heading of this section will be changed to “Loss of Principal's eligibility for future assistance and reinstatement of Principal.”

There are no changes to this provision as proposed.

Section 115.16(e)(1). As proposed, this provision provided that SBA would reimburse amounts actually paid by a Surety for specialized services provided under contract by outside consultants in connection with the processing of a claim, provided that such services are beyond the capability of the Surety's salaried claims staff. Based on comments, SBA is revising this provision to allow the Surety to seek reimbursement for travel expenses incurred by the Surety's claims staff, and to provide that the cost of the consultant's services and the travel expenses of the Surety's claims staff must be reasonable and necessary, and must specifically concern the investigation, adjustment, negotiation, compromise, settlement of, or resistance to a claim for Loss resulting from the breach of the terms of the bonded Contract. These changes, coupled with the changes made to 115.11, clarify that a Surety cannot outsource routine claims functions and responsibilities or include such costs in its reimbursement requests submitted to SBA under the bond guarantee agreement. With the exception of specialized work that falls outside the scope of the routine processing and administration of claims, the Surety will perform the claims function at no cost to the Agency (other than the reasonable and necessary travel costs of claims staff).

Section 115.16(f)(1). As proposed, this provision clarified that all costs incurred by the Surety's salaried claims staff, whether or not specifically allocable to an SBA guaranteed bond, are excluded from the definition of Loss. Costs incurred by the Surety's salaried claims staff, like all other overhead of the Surety, are the responsibility of the Surety. Based on the comments, and for consistency with section 115.16(e)(1), an exception for the reasonable and necessary travel expenses of the Surety's salaried claims staff is being added to this provision.

Section 115.18(a)(2). As proposed, SBA is revising this paragraph to provide that the Surety's failure to continue to comply with the requirements set forth in section 13 CFR 115.11 are sufficient grounds for refusal to issue further guarantees, or in the case of a PSB Surety, termination of preferred status. There are no changes to this provision as proposed.

Section 115.36. By including the conditions for reinstatement and the standard for underwriting after reinstatement in 13 CFR 115.14(b) and (c), the rule, as proposed, renamed the heading of this section to “§ 115.36 Indemnity settlements”, deleted the paragraph heading “(a) Indemnity settlements.”, removed paragraphs (b) and (c), and renumbered paragraphs “(1)”, “(2)”, and “(3)”, as “(a)”, “(b)”, and “(c)”, respectively. There are no changes to this provision as proposed.

Section 115.60(a)(1). As proposed, SBA conformed this provision to the statutory increase in the maximum contract amount for which a bond may be guaranteed by removing “$2,000,000” and inserting “$6,500,000” in its place. There are no changes to this provision as proposed.

Section 115.60(a)(5). By including in 13 CFR 115.11 the requirement that all Sureties vest final settlement authority for claims and recovery only in their salaried claims staff, this rule removes 13 CFR 115.60(a)(5) and renumbers the existing paragraph 13 CFR 115.60(a)(6) accordingly. There are no changes to this provision as proposed.

Compliance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 12988, and 13132, the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 35) and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612).

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule does not constitute a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This rule is also not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 800).

In accordance with Executive Order 13563, SBA discussed with several surety companies issues regarding the SBG Program regulations. In particular, SBA discussed the underwriting and claims staffing requirements that Sureties must meet in order to participate in SBA's SBG Program. SBA also discussed with these companies the conditions for reimbursement of the costs incurred by their claims staffs. Generally, the Sureties responded favorably to SBA's position that changes were necessary to clarify or amend the regulations on these issues.

This action meets applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have retroactive or preemptive effect.

SBA has determined that this rule will not have substantial, direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, for purposes of Executive Order 13132, SBA has determined that this rule has no federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment.

For the purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, SBA has determined that this rule will not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 5 U.S.C. 601, requires administrative agencies to consider the effect of their actions on small entities, small non-profit enterprises, and small local governments. Pursuant to the RFA, when an agency issues a rulemaking, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis which describes the impact of the rule on small entities. However, section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There are 23 Sureties that participate in the SBA program, and no part of this rule would impose any significant additional cost or burden on them. Consequently, this rule does not meet the significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses criterion anticipated by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, SBA amends 13 CFR part 115 as follows:

The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

On July 1, 2012, Dassault Aviation applied for a type certificate for their new Model Falcon 5X airplane. This airplane is a transport-category airplane to be operated in private/corporate transportation with a maximum of 19 passengers. The Model Falcon 5X airplane incorporates a low, swept wing and twin rear-fuselage-mounted Snecma Silvercrest turbofan engines. The fuselage is about 23 m long with a 26 m wingspan.

The current requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 are inadequate for addressing approach climb using ATTCS. Part 25 appendix I limits the application of performance credit for ATTCS to takeoff only.

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Dassault Aviation must show that the Model Falcon 5X airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-136.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model Falcon 5X airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model Falcon 5X airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

The Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 5X airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature.

An automatic takeoff thrust-control system (ATTCS), described as an automatic power reserve (APR) system, which is available at all times without any additional action or input from the pilot; and which the applicant proposes would not only function during the go-around, in addition to the takeoff phase of flight, but also allow the applicant to take performance credit for the system's function during that phase.

Dassault Aviation proposes to include an APR system (a part 23 term; the part 25 term is ATTCS) in the Model Falcon 5X airplane. Dassault proposes to use the APR system during go-around, and is requesting approach climb performance credit for the use of the additional power APR up-trim provides.

The Model Falcon 5X powerplant control system comprises a full-authority digital electronic control (FADEC) for the Snemca Silvercrest engine. The engine FADEC system includes APR system functions. The proposed configuration, which is novel or unusual, provides for APR activation during takeoff and go-around flight operations, requiring no additional action from the pilot. The airplane performance data will be based on the availability of the up-trim power during takeoff and approach climb.

The part 25 standards applicable to the automatic advancement of reserve power, known as ATTCS and contained in § 25.904 and appendix I, specifically restrict performance credit for ATTCS to the takeoff phase of flight. At the time these standards were issued, the FAA considered including other phases of flight, including go-around. Concerns about flightcrew workload precluded including those additional phases of flight. As the preamble of Amendment 25-62 to part 25 states:

The ATTCS incorporated on the Model Falcon 5X airplane allows the pilot to use the same power-setting procedure during a go-around regardless of whether or not an engine fails. Because the ATTCS is always active, it will function automatically following an engine failure, and will advance the remaining engine to the APR power level.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model Falcon 5X airplane. Should Dassault Aviation apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 5X airplanes.

1. The Model Falcon 5X airplane must comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 25.904 and appendix I to 14 CFR part 25 and the following requirements pertaining to the go-around phase of flight:

2. Definitions

a. Takeoff/go-around (TOGA): Throttle lever in takeoff or go-around position.

b. Automatic takeoff thrust control system (ATTCS): The ATTCS in Model Falcon 5X airplanes is defined as the entire automatic system available during takeoff and in go-around mode, including all devices, both mechanical and electrical, that sense engine failure, transmit signals, actuate fuel controls or power levers (or increase engine power by other means on operating engines to achieve scheduled thrust or power increase), and furnish cockpit information on system operation.

c. Critical time interval: The definition of the critical time interval in 14 CFR appendix I 25.2(b) must be expanded to include the following:

i. When conducting an approach for landing using ATTCS, the critical time interval is defined as follows:

1. The critical time interval begins at a point on a 2.5 degree approach glide path from which, assuming a simultaneous engine and ATTCS failure, the resulting approach climb flight path intersects a flight path originating at a later point on the same approach path corresponding that corresponds to the 14 CFR part 25 one-engine-inoperative approach climb gradient. The period of time from the point of simultaneous engine and ATTCS failure to the intersection of these flight paths must be no shorter than the time interval used in evaluating the critical time interval for takeoff beginning from the point of simultaneous engine and ATTCS failure and ending upon reaching a height of 400 feet.

2. The critical time interval ends at the point on a minimum performance, all-engines-operating go-around flight path from which, assuming a simultaneous engine and ATTCS failure, the resulting minimum approach climb flight path intersects a flight path corresponding to the 14 CFR part 25 minimum one-engine-inoperative approach climb gradient. The all-engines-operating go-around flight path and the 14 CFR part 25 one-engine-inoperative approach climb gradient flight path originate from a common point on a 2.5 degree approach path. The period of time from the point of simultaneous engine and ATTCS failure to the intersection of these flight paths must be no shorter than the time interval used in evaluating the critical time interval for the takeoff beginning from the point of simultaneous engine and ATTCS failure and ending upon reaching a height of 400 feet.

ii. The critical time interval must be determined at the altitude resulting in the longest critical time interval for which one-engine-inoperative approach climb performance data are presented in the airplane flight manual (AFM).

iii. The critical time interval is illustrated in the following figure:

The all-engines-operating go-around flight path, and the 14 CFR part 25 one-engine-inoperative approach climb gradient flight path (engine failed, ATTCS operating path in Figure 1), originate from a common point, point C, on a 2.5-degree approach path. The period of time, “time interval DE,” from the point of simultaneous engine and ATTCS failure, point D, to the intersection of these flight paths, point E, must be no shorter than the corresponding time in Figure 2, “I25.2(b) time interval FG.”

d. The critical time interval must be determined at the altitude resulting in the longest critical time interval for which one-engine-inoperative approach climb performance data are presented in the AFM.

e. The “critical time interval AD” is illustrated in Figure 1.

3. Performance and system reliability requirements: The applicant must comply with the performance and ATTCS reliability requirements as follows:

a. An ATTCS failure or a combination of failures in the ATTCS during the critical time interval (Figure 2):

i. Must not prevent the insertion of the maximum approved go-around thrust or power, or must be shown to be a remote event.

ii. Must not result in a significant loss or reduction in thrust or power, or must be shown to be an extremely improbable event.

b. The concurrent existence of an ATTCS failure and an engine failure during the critical time interval must be shown to be extremely improbable.

c. All applicable performance requirements of 14 CFR part 25 must be met with an engine failure occurring at the most critical point during go-around with the ATTCS functioning.

d. The probability analysis must include consideration of ATTCS failure occurring after the time at which the flightcrew last verifies that the ATTCS is in a condition to operate until the beginning of the critical time interval.

e. The propulsive thrust obtained from the operating engine after failure of the critical engine during a go-around used to show compliance with the one-engine-inoperative climb requirements of § 25.121(d) may not be greater than the lesser of:

i. The actual propulsive thrust resulting from the initial setting of power or thrust controls with the ATTCS functioning; or

ii. 111% of the propulsive thrust resulting from the initial setting of power or thrust controls with the ATTCS failing to reset thrust or power and without any action by the flightcrew to reset thrust or power.

4. Thrust setting

a. The initial go-around thrust setting on each engine at the beginning of the go-around phase may not be less than any of the following:

i. That required to permit normal operation of all safety-related systems and equipment dependent upon engine thrust or power lever position; or

ii. That shown to be free of hazardous engine response characteristics and not to result in any unsafe aircraft operating or handling characteristics when thrust or power is advanced from the initial go-around position to the maximum approved power setting.

b. For approval to use an ATTCS for go-arounds, the thrust setting procedure must be the same for go-arounds initiated with all engines operating as for go-arounds initiated with one engine inoperative.

5. Powerplant controls

a. In addition to the requirements of § 25.1141, no single failure or malfunction, or probable combination thereof, of the ATTCS, including associated systems, may cause the failure of any powerplant function necessary for safety.

b. The ATTCS must be designed to:

i. Apply thrust or power on the operating engine(s), following any one-engine failure during a go-around, to achieve the maximum approved go-around thrust without exceeding the engine operating limits;

ii. Permit manual decrease or increase in thrust or power up to the maximum go-around thrust approved for the airplane under the existing conditions through the use of the power lever. For airplanes equipped with limiters that automatically prevent the engine operating limits from being exceeded under existing ambient conditions, other means may be used to increase the thrust in the event of an ATTCS failure, provided that the means:

1. Is located on or forward of the power levers;

2. Is easily identified and operated under all operating conditions by a single action of either pilot with the hand that is normally used to actuate the power levers; and

3. Meets the requirements of § 25.777(a), (b), and (c).

iii. Provide a means to verify to the flightcrew before beginning an approach for landing that the ATTCS is in a condition to operate (unless it can be demonstrated that an ATTCS failure combined with an engine failure during an entire flight is extremely improbable); and

iv. Provide a means for the flightcrew to deactivate the automatic function. This means must be designed to prevent inadvertent deactivation.

6. Powerplant instruments: In addition to the requirements of § 25.1305:

a. A means must be provided to indicate when the ATTCS is in the armed or ready condition; and

b. If the inherent flight characteristics of the airplane do not provide adequate warning that an engine has failed, a warning system that is independent of the ATTCS must be provided to give the pilot a clear warning of any engine failure during a go-around.

The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected airplane.

In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

On March 29, 2012, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation applied for a type certificate for their new Model GVII-G500 series airplane. The Model GVII-G500 series airplane will be a business jet capable of accommodating up to 19 passengers. It will incorporate a low, swept-wing design with winglets and a T-tail. The powerplant will consist of two aft-fuselage-mounted Pratt & Whitney turbofan engines.

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Gulfstream must show that the Model GVII-G500 series airplane meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-129.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model GVII-G500 series airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model GVII-G500 series airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

The Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

An enhanced flight vision system (EFVS) that includes a head-up display (HUD) capable of displaying forward-looking infrared (FLIR) imagery, intended to be used for instrument approaches under provisions of § 91.175(l) and (m).

The EFVS uses novel technology for which the FAA has no certification criteria. Furthermore, 14 CFR 25.773, which was not written in anticipation of such technology, does not permit visual distortions and reflections that could interfere with the pilot's compartment view. The video image potentially interferes with the pilot's ability to see the natural scene in the center of their forward field of view. Because § 25.773 does not provide for alternatives or considerations for such a novel system, it is necessary to establish safety requirements that assure an equivalent level of safety and effectiveness of the pilot compartment view as intended by this rule. These special conditions for the EFVS are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16. Other applications for certification of such technology are anticipated in the near future, and magnify the need to establish FAA safety standards that can be applied consistently for all such approvals.

Unlike the pilot's natural forward vision, the EFVS image is infrared-based, monochrome, 2-dimensional (i.e., providing no depth perception), and of lower resolution. While the pilot may be readily able to see around and through small individual stroke-written symbols on the HUD, the pilot may not be able to see around or through the image that fills the display without some interference of the outside view. Nevertheless, the EFVS may be capable of meeting an equivalent level of safety when considering the combined view of the image and the outside scene, which is visible to the pilot through the image. It is essential that the pilot be able to use this combination of image and natural view of the outside scene as safely and effectively as the pilot compartment view currently allows without the EFVS image.

These special conditions provide the unique pilot-compartment view requirements for the EFVS installation.

Compliance with these special conditions is required for the EFVS to be found acceptable, for the following intended functions, in accordance with § 91.175(l) and (m):

1. Presenting an image that would aid the pilot during a straight-in instrument approach.

2. Enable the pilot to determine the “enhanced flight visibility,” as required by § 91.175(l)(2), for descent and operation below MDA/DH.

3. Enable the pilot to use the EFVS imagery to detect and identify the “visual references for the intended runway,” required by § 91.175(l)(3), to continue the approach with vertical guidance to 100 feet height above touchdown-zone elevation.

Note: The term “Enhanced Vision System,” or EVS, commonly refers to a system comprising a HUD, imaging sensor(s), and avionics interface(s) that displays the sensor imagery on the HUD and overlays it with alpha-numeric and symbolic flight information. However, the term has also been used to refer to systems that display the sensor imagery, with or without other flight information, on a head-down display. Therefore, to avoid confusion, the FAA has defined the term “Enhanced Flight Vision System” (EFVS) to refer to certain EVS that meet the requirements of § 91.175(m), in particular the requirement for a HUD and specified flight information, and the ability to determine “enhanced flight visibility.” Accordingly, an EFVS can be considered a subset of systems otherwise labeled EVS.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplane. Should Gulfstream apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one model series of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register.

The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplanes.

1. Enhanced flight vision system (EFVS) imagery on the head-up display (HUD) must not degrade the safety of flight or interfere with the effective use of outside visual references for required pilot tasks during any phase of flight in which it is to be used.

2. To avoid unacceptable interference with the safe and effective use of the pilot-compartment view, the EFVS device must meet the following requirements:

a. EFVS design must minimize unacceptable display characteristics or artifacts (e.g. noise, “burlap” overlay, running water droplets) that obscure the desired image of the scene, impair the pilot's ability to detect and identify visual references, mask flight hazards, distract the pilot, or otherwise degrade task performance or safety.

b. Control of EFVS display brightness must be sufficiently effective, in dynamically changing background (ambient) lighting conditions, to prevent full or partial blooming of the display that would distract the pilot, impair the pilot's ability to detect and identify visual references, mask flight hazards, or otherwise degrade task performance or safety. If automatic control for image brightness is not provided, it must be shown that a single manual setting is satisfactory for the range of lighting conditions encountered during a time-critical, high-workload phase of flight (e.g., low-visibility instrument approach).

c. A readily accessible control must be provided that permits the pilot to immediately deactivate and reactivate display of the EFVS image on demand, without removing the pilot's hands from the primary flight controls (yoke or equivalent) or thrust control.

d. The EFVS image on the HUD must not impair the pilot's use of guidance information, or degrade the presentation and pilot awareness of essential flight information displayed on the HUD, such as alerts, airspeed, attitude, altitude and direction, approach guidance, wind-shear guidance, traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) resolution advisories, and unusual-attitude recovery cues.

e. The EFVS image and the HUD symbols, which are spatially referenced to the pitch scale, outside view, and image, must be scaled and aligned (i.e., conformal) to the external scene and, when considered singly or in combination, must not be misleading, cause pilot confusion, or increase workload. There may be airplane attitudes or cross-wind conditions which cause certain symbols, such as the zero-pitch line or flight-path vector, to reach field-of-view limits such that they cannot be positioned conformably with the image and external scene. In such cases, these symbols may be displayed, but with an altered appearance which makes the pilot aware that they are no longer displayed conformably (for example, “ghosting”).

f. A HUD system used to display EFVS images must, if previously certified, continue to meet all of the requirements of the original approval.

3. The safety and performance of the pilot tasks associated with the use of the pilot-compartment view must be not be degraded by the display of the EFVS image. Pilot tasks which must not be degraded by the EFVS image include:

a. Detection, accurate identification, and maneuvering, as necessary, to avoid traffic, terrain, obstacles, and other hazards of flight.

b. Accurate identification and utilization of visual references required for every task relevant to the phase of flight.

4. Appropriate limitations must be stated in the Operating Limitations section of the Airplane Flight Manual to prohibit the use of the EFVS for functions that have not been found to be acceptable.

The FAA anticipates that non-rechargeable lithium batteries will be installed in other makes and models of airplanes. We have determined to require special conditions for all applications requesting non-rechargeable lithium battery installations, except the installations excluded in the Applicability section, until the airworthiness requirements can be revised to address this issue. Applying special conditions to these installations across the range of all transport-airplane makes and models will ensure regulatory consistency among applicants.

These are the first special conditions the FAA has issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on any airplane. The FAA has determined that these special conditions become effective 1 year after their publication in the Federal Register for reasons explained below in response to a public comment. The FAA intends for future special conditions for other makes and models to be effective on this same date or 30 days after their publication, whichever is later.

Gulfstream applied for several changes to type certificate no. T00015AT to install non-rechargeable lithium batteries in the Model GVI airplane. The Gulfstream Model GVI airplane is a twin-engine, transport-category airplane with a maximum passenger capacity of 19 and maximum takeoff weight of 99,600 pounds.

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Gulfstream must show that the design change and areas affected by the change continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. T00015AT, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. The regulations listed in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations listed in type certificate no. T00015AT are 14 CFR part 25 effective February 1, 1965, including Amendments 25-1 through 25-120, 25-122, 25-124, and 25-132. The certification basis also includes certain special conditions, exemptions, and equivalent-safety findings that are not relevant to these special conditions.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Gulfstream Model GVI airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Gulfstream Model GVI airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the Gulfstream Model GVI airplane model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.101.

The Gulfstream Model GVI airplane will incorporate non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery, and venting capability where necessary. For the purpose of these special conditions, we refer to a battery and battery system as a battery.

The FAA derived the current regulations governing installation of batteries in transport-category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b.625(d) as part of the re-codification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. This re-codification basically reworded the CAR 4b battery requirements, which are currently in § 25.1353(b)(1) through (b)(4). Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology considered when these requirements were codified. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery-cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure modes that require unique design considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.

Recent events involving rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA to initiate a broad evaluation of these energy-storage technologies. In January 2013, two independent events involving rechargeable lithium-ion batteries revealed unanticipated failure modes. A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) letter to the FAA, dated May 22, 2014, which is available at http://www.ntsb.gov, filename A-14-032-036.pdf, describes these events.

On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium battery, in an emergency-locator-transmitter installation, demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. The United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event.

Some known uses of rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries on airplanes include:

• Flight deck and avionics systems such as displays, global-positioning systems, cockpit voice recorders, flight-data recorders, underwater locator beacons, navigation computers, integrated avionics computers, satellite network and communication systems, communication-management units, and remote-monitor electronic line-replaceable units;

• Cabin safety, entertainment, and communications equipment, including emergency-locator transmitters, life rafts, escape slides, seatbelt air bags, cabin-management systems, Ethernet switches, routers and media servers, wireless systems, internet and in-flight entertainment systems, satellite televisions, remotes, and handsets;

• Systems in cargo areas including door controls, sensors, video-surveillance equipment, and security systems.

Some known potential hazards and failure modes associated with non-rechargeable lithium batteries are:

• Internal failures: In general, these batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion.

• Fast or imbalanced discharging: Fast discharging or an imbalanced discharge of one cell of a multi-cell battery may create an overheating condition that results in an uncontrollable venting condition, which in turn leads to a thermal event or an explosion.

• Flammability: Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, lithium batteries use higher energy and current in an electrochemical system that can be configured to maximize energy storage of lithium. They also use liquid electrolytes that can be extremely flammable. The electrolyte, as well as the electrodes, can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire if the battery casing is breached.

Special condition no. 1 requires that each individual cell within a non-rechargeable lithium battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Special condition no. 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Special condition no. 2 requires the battery be designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrolled increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.

Special condition nos. 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the non-rechargeable lithium battery and its cells are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrollable failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control of the battery designer. Therefore, other special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.

Special condition nos. 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory; the FAA does not provide further explanation for them at this time.

The FAA requires special condition no. 4 to make it clear that the flammable-fluid fire-protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable-fluid leakage from airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries contain an electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.

Special condition no. 5 requires each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation to not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape.

Special condition no. 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, whereas special condition no. 6 addresses heat. Special condition no. 6 requires each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation to have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery installation can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The means of meeting these special conditions may be the same, but they are independent requirements addressing different hazards.

These special conditions apply to all non-rechargeable lithium battery installations in lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (b)(4) at Amendment 25-113. Sections 25.1353(b)(1) through (b)(4) at Amendment 25-113 remain in effect for other battery installations.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Notice of proposed special conditions no. 25-15-09-SC, for the Gulfstream GVI airplane, was published in the Federal Register on November 20, 2015 (80 FR 72618). Five commenters provided comments.

The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) recommended revising proposed special condition no. 1 to read (see italics), “. . . each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must maintain safe cell temperatures and pressure under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion by validating that the performance of non-rechargeable lithium cells selected for use are acceptable with regards to the operating environment.” AIA stated that this revision helps clarify the term “foreseeable operating conditions” as “airplane operating and environmental conditions over which proper functioning of the equipment, systems, and installations is required to be considered includes the full normal operating envelope of the airplane as defined by the Airplane Flight Manual together with any modification to that envelope associated with abnormal or emergency procedures.” AIA referenced FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 25.1309-1A and AC 25-11A to support this definition. The FAA does not agree with the proposal. The FAA intends for the term “foreseeable operating conditions” in these special conditions to not only apply at the airplane level but also at the battery-cell level. Therefore, we have not incorporated this proposed revision into the special condition.

AIA recommended revising proposed special condition no. 2 to read, “. . . each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrolled increases in temperature or pressure which would preclude continued safe flight and landing.” AIA states that this change allows the use of airplane-level mitigation or design change to appropriately address the hazard. The FAA does not agree with the proposal. The FAA has determined that these special conditions are intended to require the battery, which includes its installation provisions, to be designed to prevent uncontrollable failure, and to not rely only on mitigation of a battery failure at the airplane level. Therefore, we have not revised proposed special condition no. 2.

AIA recommended revising proposed special condition no. 3 to read, “. . . each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must not emit explosive or toxic gases in normal operation, or as a result of any failure which is not shown to be extremely remote . . .” The FAA does not agree with the proposal to exclude extremely remote failures. To ensure that all failures that are not extremely improbable are properly anticipated and accounted for, we have not revised proposed special condition no. 3 to include the proposed words. Note that service history currently shows that battery failure is more frequent than extremely remote.

AIA recommended deleting proposed special condition no. 4. AIA stated that it does not introduce a new airworthiness requirement and that it seems more appropriate to clarify applicability of an existing airworthiness requirement via policy. The FAA does not agree with the proposal. Section 25.863 historically has been applied to flammable fluids related to propulsion and hydraulic systems. The FAA has not issued guidance material at this time that would ensure a proper understanding that this section also applies to non-rechargeable lithium battery installations, which contain flammable fluid. We have determined to not delete proposed special condition no. 4.

AIA recommended revising proposed special condition no. 5 to read, “. . . each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must not allow escape of corrosive fluids or gases that may damage surrounding structure or any adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring of the aircraft in such a way as to cause a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition.” The FAA agrees with the comment in that the special condition requires clarification. The FAA intends for special condition no. 5 to be consistent with § 25.1309. So, we added the words “. . . in such a way as to cause a major or more-severe failure condition.” The revised special condition now reads, “. . . each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more-severe failure condition.” The FAA does not concur with excluding major failure conditions, nor limiting the types of failure conditions as proposed.

AIA recommended revising proposed special condition no. 6 to read, “. . . each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of a single cell within a battery pack, which precludes continued safe flight and landing.” AIA stated that they believe the intent of this special condition is to show that the battery design can tolerate a failure of a single cell. The FAA does not concur with AIA's recommendation. We intend for special condition no. 6 to require consideration of the maximum heat the battery can generate if it fails (that is, not just the heat from one cell for multi-cell batteries), including the heat generated from thermal runaway propagating from one cell to the other cells. AIA's proposed wording could be interpreted as only requiring consideration of the heat generated from a single cell. AIA also stated that design mitigation or analysis at the airplane level may be applied to show the design to be compliant. This comment addresses how to show compliance with the special condition and would not change the special condition. This comment can be addressed during the type certification projects.

AIA recommended deleting proposed special condition no. 7, which reads, “. . . each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must be capable of automatically controlling the discharge rate of each cell to prevent cell imbalance, back-charging, overheating, and uncontrollable temperature and pressure.” AIA stated that the hazard intended to be addressed by this special condition would be prevented by meeting special condition nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. The intent of proposed special condition no. 7 was to also address charge imbalance because an in-service event demonstrated that a charge imbalance is one of many failure modes that can lead to a thermal runaway condition. However, the FAA agrees with deleting proposed special condition no. 7 because compliance with special condition nos. 1 and 2 accomplish the safety objectives of proposed special condition no. 7.

AIA recommended deleting proposed special condition no. 8, which reads, “. . . each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must have a means to automatically disconnect from its discharging circuit in the event of an over-temperature condition, cell failure, or battery failure.” The FAA agrees with deleting this proposed special condition because doing so does not relieve applicants from the need to comply with § 25.1309. In addition to § 25.1309, all applicable system-level requirements may require the connected system to automatically disconnect from the battery discharging circuit in the event of an over-temperature condition, cell failure, or battery failure.

AIA recommended revising proposed special condition no. 9 (which is now special condition no. 7 in these special conditions) to read, “. . . each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if its failure affects precludes continued safe flight and landing of the airplane.” AIA stated that this proposed special condition repeats the criteria defined in § 25.1309, and therefore is a duplication of current Federal aviation requirements. Proposed special condition no. 9 has the same purpose as that of § 25.1309(c), which is to require flightcrew alerting if failure of a battery installation, in itself or in relation to a system that performs an airplane-level function, could result in “unsafe system operating conditions” as stated in § 25.1309(c). The FAA's intent for this special condition is to emphasize this requirement specifically for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. We do not concur with AIA's recommendation because the revised wording does not fully address the “unsafe system operating conditions” as required in § 25.1309(c).

AIA recommended revising proposed special condition no. 10 (which is now special condition no. 8 in these special conditions) to read, “. . . each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is required for continued safe flight and landing of the airplane.” AIA stated that this proposed special condition repeats the criteria defined in § 25.1309, and therefore is a duplication of current Federal aviation requirements. For similar reasons given in our response to the AIA comment on proposed special condition no. 9, we do not concur with AIA's recommendation. The FAA's intent for this special condition is to emphasize this requirement specifically for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. We do not concur with AIA's recommendation because the revised wording does not fully address the “unsafe system operating conditions” as required in § 25.1309(c).

The Boeing Company commented that they concur with AIA's comments.

The Boeing Company also requested that the FAA provide adequate time before non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions become effective, to support validation activities by foreign civil airworthiness authorities (FCAA) and to not adversely impact future airplane deliveries by all applicants. The Boeing Company stated that they have been “informed by FCAAs that validation activities for FAA type certificate data sheet certification basis changes can take up to 12 months after receipt of application.” The FAA agrees that adequate time is necessary to allow Gulfstream, and other applicants for which similar special conditions will be issued, to coordinate with FCAAs, and to conduct other activities associated with implementing these special conditions, which have not been required for previous approvals. These are the first special conditions the FAA has issued for a non-rechargeable lithium battery installation on any airplane. Likewise, we have determined that an effective date of one year after special conditions publication is appropriate. The FAA also has been coordinating with other applicants to develop proposed special conditions for their projects involving non-rechargeable lithium batteries. The FAA intends for future special conditions, for other airplane makes and models, to be effective on this same date or 30 days after their publication, whichever is later.

The Boeing Company commented that “. . . these special conditions should clearly indicate the scope of changes for which the certification basis is deemed inadequate and requires application of the special conditions.” The Boeing Company made this comment in regards to the applicability of these special conditions to batteries that have less than 2 watt-hours of energy and meet Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 1642 or UL 2054. The FAA has determined that the use of UL 1642 and UL 2054 should be addressed as a method-of-compliance issue rather than exclusion criteria for certain battery sizes. These special conditions are to apply to all non-rechargeable lithium batteries regardless of their size. These special conditions require this where it states “. . . each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must . . .”

Airbus commented that they assume that the FAA considers the standards in Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) DO-227, Minimum Operational Performance Standard for Lithium Batteries, to be an acceptable means of compliance with the special conditions that address battery-qualification aspects. Airbus also commented that they assume that compliance with the other special conditions is demonstrated through analysis of battery integration in the airplane physical and functional environment. These comments address how to show compliance with the special conditions and would not change the special conditions. These comments can be addressed during the type certification projects.

Airbus commented that batteries that are Category I, as defined in RTCA DO-227, should be excluded from proposed special condition nos. 1 through 8 (which are special condition nos. 1 through 6 in these special conditions). RTCA DO-227 defines these batteries as “solid-cathode cells that contain less than 0.15 grams of lithium or lithium alloy, and batteries that use not more than four such cells.” The FAA does not concur. These special conditions are intended to provide an appropriate level of safety for all non-rechargeable lithium battery installations.

Bombardier provided the following comment on proposed special condition no. 3: “The quantity of [lithium battery] gas that will constitute a hazard is difficult to define and test. An outgassing limit in corresponding to cell size/number would be easier to comply with and test. This should only apply in the failure case, as in normal cell operation non-rechargeable [lithium batteries] are expected to remain sealed. We recommend wording that would instead limit cell size/number and require cell isolation to minimize hazard to airplane and occupant in case of failure and be sealed in normal operation. Exposure to occupants may be achieved by locating battery installations away from occupant areas on the airplane.” The FAA does not agree with the proposal. The FAA considers that a special condition that limits the number of cells and their size would be unnecessarily restrictive. Note that this special condition does not require applicants to determine the quantity of gas that would constitute a hazard. For example, an acceptable means of complying with this special condition is to demonstrate, through tests, that all emitted gasses are contained or vented overboard through designed ports. However, this special condition does allow explosive and toxic gases to be uncontained and not vented overboard if they do not accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

Bombardier commented that a design that prevents fluids and gases from escaping the installation should be an acceptable means of complying with proposed special condition no. 5. Bombardier recommended addressing the need for fluid containment. These comments address how to show compliance with the special conditions and would not change the special conditions. These comments can be addressed during the type certification projects.

Transport Canada recommended revising proposed special condition no. 1 to address “all hazards.” We have not revised this special condition because it is intended to address only the cell-level hazards, which are fire and explosion. All hazards are addressed through compliance with the complete set of applicable special conditions.

Transport Canada recommended adding a sentence to proposed special condition no. 2 that reads, “Batteries that are capable of venting toxic gases shall not be installed or used in the aircraft cockpit.” Transport Canada stated that adding this sentence would harmonize the special condition with Technical Standard Order (TSO) TSO-C142a, Non-Rechargeable Lithium Cells and Batteries, and RTCA DO-227, Minimum Operational Performance Standard for Lithium Batteries. The FAA does not agree with the proposal and did not add this sentence to special condition no. 2. We consider the special condition without this sentence more appropriate because it allows an applicant to demonstrate that the amount of gases a battery vents is not a hazard to the flight deck, and allows installation of those batteries.

Transport Canada recommended revising proposed special condition no. 5 to read, “. . . each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.” The FAA concurs, and has incorporated the recommended wording into special condition no. 5. We explain our agreement with adding these words in our above response to AIA's comment on this special condition.

Transport Canada recommended revising proposed special condition no. 6 to refer to “essential systems” instead of “systems,” because the FAA previously found that wording acceptable for rechargeable lithium battery special conditions. Alternatively, Transport Canada recommended that the FAA be consistent and use “systems” for both rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions in the future. The intent of this special condition is to address the hazards to the airplane regardless of the system critically. The FAA agrees with using “systems” in this special condition and in the next special conditions we propose for a rechargeable lithium battery installation.

Transport Canada recommended revising proposed special condition no. 6 to read, “. . .each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any discharge condition and/or failure of it or its individual cells.” The FAA does not agree with the proposal. The maximum heat generated due to any battery or cell failure (for example, the heat generated during thermal runaway) represents the worst-case condition. The maximum heat generated during “any discharge condition” will not exceed this worst-case condition. Therefore, the FAA did not revise this special condition.

Transport Canada recommended including “unbalanced discharge” in the list of conditions intended to be prevented in proposed special condition no. 7. As a result of a comment from AIA addressed above, the FAA deleted proposed special condition no. 7 because compliance with special condition nos. 1 and 2 accomplish its safety objectives. Special conditions 1 and 2 also address unbalanced discharge.

Transport Canada recommended revising proposed special condition no. 8 to read, “. . . each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must have a means to automatically and permanently disconnect from its discharging circuit in the event of an over-temperature condition, over-current condition, cell failure, or battery failure.” Transport Canada recommended this change to raise awareness of issues associated with positive temperature coefficient protective devices in lithium battery design. As discussed above in response to an AIA comment, the FAA deleted proposed special condition no. 8, and therefore, has not incorporated the recommended revision.

Transport Canada recommended adding a special condition to require instructions for continued airworthiness (ICAs) to address handling and storage of non-rechargeable lithium batteries at a minimum. The FAA has not added the recommended special condition because § 25.1529 requires ICAs for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. To ensure compliance with § 25.1529, the FAA is documenting acceptable methods of compliance with § 25.1529 for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations as part of the certification process. These methods of compliance address the issues Transport Canada raised. The FAA previously included a special condition that requires compliance with § 25.1529 in rechargeable lithium battery special conditions. For consistency and the above-stated reasons, the FAA plans to no longer include that special condition in special conditions applicable to rechargeable lithium batteries.

Transport Canada recommended “the special condition be written in such a way as to drive the requirement for original equipment manufacturers to complete an adequate failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) in order to discover and mitigate for all failure modes, including those that are less well known.” The FAA does not agree with the proposal. The current FAA AC 25.1309-1A and Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) recommended AC 25.1309-Arsenal contain guidance to utilize FMEA in the safety-assessment process. The FAA believes that these special conditions, and the hazards identified, drive the FMEA or any other system-safety assessment tool to comprehensively assess the risk of battery failures. We believe that we have accomplished Transport Canada's recommendation.

Transport Canada recommended changes to FAA TSO-142a, Non-Rechargeable Lithium Cells and Batteries. Their comment did not recommend changes to these special conditions; as such, this comment does not affect these special conditions.

Transport Canada recommended adding a special condition that reads, “Equipment manufacturers intending to use lithium-metal batteries in aircraft equipment must demonstrate that the battery design incorporates an acceptable level of circuit protection to mitigate against known failure modes including, but not limited to, external short-circuits and unbalanced discharge.” Transport Canada referenced Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) Safety Recommendation 2015-016 to support this recommendation, which states, “It is recommended that the Federal Aviation Administration, in conjunction with the European Aviation Safety Agency and Transport Canada, require equipment manufacturers intending to use lithium-metal batteries in aircraft equipment to demonstrate that the battery design incorporates an acceptable level of circuit protection to mitigate against known failure modes including, but not limited to, external short-circuits and unbalanced discharge.” The FAA does not concur with adding this special condition. The AAIB wrote their recommendation based on a non-rechargeable lithium battery installation that was approved before the FAA determined the need to apply special conditions. Their recommendation is specific to incorporating circuit protection, which is a means to achieve the safety level defined in these special conditions. The FAA intends for these special conditions to be performance-based. Additionally, type certificate and supplemental type certificate applicants, and not the equipment manufacturers who have not applied for the installation approval, are required to demonstrate compliance to applicable special conditions.

The FAA has determined that “uncontrolled” in special condition no. 2 should be “uncontrollable” to more accurately describe the concern. This revision does not change the intended meaning of this special condition.

Except as discussed above, the special conditions are adopted as proposed.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Gulfstream Model GVI airplane. Should Gulfstream apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

These special conditions are only applicable to design changes applied for after its effective date. The existing airplane fleet and follow-on deliveries of airplanes with previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations are not affected.

These special conditions are not applicable to changes to previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations where the only change is either cosmetic or relocating the installation to improve the safety of the airplane and occupants. The FAA determined that this exclusion is in the public interest because the need to meet all of the special conditions might otherwise deter design changes that solely involve relocating batteries to improve safety. A cosmetic change is a change in appearance only, and does not change any function or safety characteristic of the battery installation.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, the following special conditions are part of the type certification basis for Gulfstream Model GVI airplanes.

In lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (b)(4) at Amendment 25-113, each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must:

1. Maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion.

2. Prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure.

3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

4. Meet the requirements of § 25.863.

5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more-severe failure condition.

6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.

7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.

8. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is required for safe operation of the airplane.

The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

On June 13, 2012, Bombardier Inc. applied for an amended type certificate for their new Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes. These airplanes are derivatives of the Model BD-700 series of airplanes, and are marketed as the Bombardier Global 7000 and Global 8000, respectively. These airplanes are ultra-long-range, executive-interior business jets.

The Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes have a maximum certified passenger capacity of 19, and include new high-speed transonic wings with improved aerodynamic efficiency and a pressurized cabin for luxury interiors.

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Bombardier Inc. must show that the Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes meet the applicable provisions of part 25 as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-137.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

The Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: A digital-systems network architecture composed of several connected networks. This network architecture and network configuration will have the capability to allow access to or by external network sources, and may be used for or interfaced with a diverse set of functions, including:

• Flight-safety-related control, communication, and navigation systems (airplane-control domain);

• Operator business and administrative support (operator-information domain); and

• Passenger information and entertainment systems (passenger-entertainment domain).

The Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes' digital-systems network architecture is novel or unusual for commercial transport airplanes as it allows connection to airplane electronic systems and networks, and access from sources external to the airplane (e.g., operator networks, wireless devices, Internet connectivity, service-provider satellite communications, electronic flight bags, etc.) to the previously isolated airplane electronic assets. Airplane electronic assets include electronic equipment and systems, instruments, networks, servers, software and electronic components, field-loadable software and hardware applications, databases, etc. This proposed design may result in network security vulnerabilities from intentional or unintentional corruption of data and systems required for the safety, operation, and maintenance of the airplane.

The existing regulations and guidance material did not anticipate these types of digital-system network architectures, nor access to airplane systems. Furthermore, 14 CFR part 25 regulations, and current system-safety assessment policy and techniques, do not address potential security vulnerabilities by unauthorized access to airplane data busses and servers. Therefore, these special conditions are issued to ensure that the security, integrity, and availability of airplane systems are not compromised by certain wired or wireless electronic connections between airplane data busses and networks.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes. Should Bombardier Inc. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for electronic system-security protection from unauthorized external access on Bombardier Inc. Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes.

1. The applicant must ensure that the airplane electronic systems are protected from access by unauthorized sources external to the airplane, including those possibly caused by maintenance activity.

2. The applicant must ensure that electronic system-security threats are identified and assessed, and that effective electronic system-security protection strategies are implemented to protect the airplane from all adverse impacts on safety, functionality, and continued airworthiness.

3. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the airplane is maintained, including all post-type-certification modifications that may have an impact on the approved electronic system-security safeguards.

The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

On March 29, 2012, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation applied for a type certificate for their new Model GVII-G500 airplane.

The Model GVII-G500 airplane will be a business jet capable of accommodating up to 19 passengers. It will incorporate a low, swept-wing design with winglets and a T-tail. The powerplant will consist of two aft-fuselage-mounted Pratt & Whitney turbofan engines.

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Gulfstream must show that the Model GVII-G500 airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-137.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model GVII-G500 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model GVII-G500 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17.

The Model GVII-G500 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: A digital-systems network architecture composed of several connected networks. This network architecture and network configuration will have the capability to allow access to or by external network sources, and may be used for or interfaced with a diverse set of functions, including:

• Flight-safety-related control, communication, and navigation systems (airplane-control domain);

• Operator business and administrative support (operator-information domain); and

• Passenger information and entertainment systems (passenger-entertainment domain).

The Model GVII-G500 airplane's digital-systems network architecture is novel or unusual for commercial transport airplanes as it allows connection to airplane electronic systems and networks, and access from sources external to the airplane (e.g., operator networks, wireless devices, Internet connectivity, service-provider satellite communications, electronic flight bags, etc.) to the previously isolated airplane electronic assets. Airplane electronic assets include electronic equipment and systems, instruments, networks, servers, software and electronic components, field-loadable software and hardware applications, databases, etc. This proposed design may result in network security vulnerabilities from intentional or unintentional corruption of data and systems required for the safety, operation, and maintenance of the airplane.

The existing regulations and guidance material did not anticipate these types of digital-system architectures, nor access to airplane systems. Furthermore, 14 CFR part 25, and current system-safety assessment policy and techniques, do not address potential security vulnerabilities by unauthorized access to airplane data busses and servers. Therefore, these special conditions are issued to ensure that the security, integrity, and availability of airplane systems are not compromised by certain wired or wireless electronic connections between airplane data busses and networks.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model GVII-G500 airplane. Should Gulfstream apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one model series of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for electronic system-security protection from unauthorized external access on the Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVII-G500 airplane.

1. The applicant must ensure that the airplane electronic systems are protected from access by unauthorized sources external to the airplane, including those possibly caused by maintenance activity.

2. The applicant must ensure that electronic system-security threats are identified and assessed, and that effective electronic system-security protection strategies are implemented to protect the airplane from all adverse impacts on safety, functionality, and continued airworthiness.

3. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the airplane is maintained, including all post-type-certification modifications that may have an impact on the approved electronic system-security safeguards.

Discussion

On March 14, 2016, we issued AD 2016-06-08, Amendment 39-18439 (81 FR 14704, March 18, 2016) (“AD 2016-06-08”), for Boeing Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes powered by GE GEnx engines. AD 2016-06-08 was prompted by a report of a significant fan rub event involving a GEnx-1B Performance Improvement Program (PIP) 2 engine, apparently caused by partial fan ice shedding and a resulting fan imbalance that in turn caused substantial damage to the engine and an in-flight non-restartable power loss. GEnx-1B PIP1 engines have model designators GEnx-1B( )/P1. GEnx-1B PIP2 engines have model designators GEnx-1B( )/P2.

We continue to investigate this issue with Boeing and GE; however, the engine damage appears to be a result of susceptibility to heavy fan blade rubs common to the GEnx-1B PIP2 engine. The other engine on the event airplane was an older design GEnx-1B PIP1 configuration that incurred expected wear and minor damage during the icing event and continued to operate normally. The event occurred in icing conditions at an altitude of 20,000 feet.

The urgency of this issue stems from the safety concern over continued safe flight and landing for airplanes that are powered by two GEnx-1B PIP2 engines operating in a similar environment to the event airplane. In this case both GEnx-1B PIP2 engines may be similarly damaged and unable to be restarted in flight. The potential for common cause failure of both engines in flight is an urgent safety issue.

AD 2016-06-08 requires revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) to provide the flight crew a new fan ice removal procedure to reduce the likelihood of engine damage due to fan ice shedding. AD 2016-06-08 also requires, for certain airplanes, reworking the fan stator module assembly on GEnx-1B PIP2 engines.

Susceptibility to heavy fan blade rubs, if not corrected, could result in engine damage and a possible in-flight non-restartable power loss of one or both engines. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

The preamble to AD 2016-06-08 explains that we regard the requirements “interim action” and were considering further rulemaking. We now have determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary, and this AD follows from that determination.

We reviewed GE GEnx-1B Service Bulletins 72-0309 R00, dated March 11, 2016; and 72-0314 R00, dated April 1, 2016. The service information describes procedures for reworking the fan stator module assembly on GEnx-1B PIP2 engines. 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 are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This AD requires revising the AFM to provide the flight crew a revised fan ice removal procedure and a new associated mandatory flight crew briefing to reduce the likelihood of engine damage due to fan ice shedding. This AD also removes certain dispatch relief. For an airplane with two GEnx-1B PIP2 engines having specified model and part numbers, this AD also requires reworking or replacing at least one engine.

We consider this AD interim action. This action addresses rework of a single engine on any airplane that has two GEnx-1B PIP2 engines having certain model and part numbers. We may consider issuing further rulemaking to require rework of the remainder of the GEnx-1B PIP2 engines in this fleet.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because susceptibility to heavy fan blade rubs could result in engine damage and a possible in-flight non-restartable power loss of one or both engines. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has evaluated the safety risk associated with this condition and has determined that in the interest of safety it is necessary to mandate three actions:

• Revise the Boeing Model 787 AFM to provide the flight crew a revised fan ice removal procedure and a new daily flight crew briefing on the existing engine ice shed procedure. The compliance time is 7 days.

• Removes certain dispatch relief, effective within 7 days.

• Rework or replacement of at least one engine, for airplanes with two GEnx-1B PIP2 engines. The compliance time is about 150 calendar days after issuance of this AD. Boeing and the engine manufacturer, GE, have developed a maintenance plan to support this compliance schedule.

The FAA has determined that allowing for notice and public comment through a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) prior to mandating these actions is neither practicable nor in the public interest.

Recognizing the urgency of this safety issue, this AD represents a compressed schedule to rework a large number of airplanes located around the world. Both specialized tooling and trained personnel are required on-site to perform the rework at various maintenance facilities around the world. To complete the work, 29 airlines will need to reallocate 176 airplanes from revenue service to maintenance in order to conduct the (on-wing) rework. The FAA has determined that 150 days is the minimum time to rework one engine per airplane on the entire fleet.

Issuing an NPRM would require time to allow for public comment, and time for the FAA to consider and respond to those comments. As a result, the time allowed for the operators to perform the engine rework would be significantly reduced from 150 days, owing to the time that elapsed during the notice and comment period.

As a result, the considerable reduction in allowable compliance time would require operators to perform the rework significantly out of sequence with the maintenance schedule plan. In some cases, airplanes could be grounded. Thus, the reduced compliance time could substantially disrupt certain operators. The FAA considers that this is neither practicable nor in the public interest.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2016-5592 and Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-040-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 43 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2012-17-13, Amendment 39-17176 (77 FR 55681, September 11, 2012) (“AD 2012-17-13”). AD 2012-17-13 applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 707 airplanes, and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 30, 2015 (80 FR 45453) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that all chord segments made of 7079 aluminum must be replaced with new, improved chord segments made of 7075 aluminum. The NPRM proposed to continue to require, for certain airplanes, using redefined flight cycle counts, determining the type of material of the horizontal stabilizer, rear spar, and upper and lower chords on the inboard and outboard ends of the rear spar; repetitively inspecting for cracking of the horizontal stabilizer components; and repairing or replacing the chord, or modifying chord segments made from 7079 aluminum, if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to continue to require, for all airplanes, inspecting certain structurally significant items, and repairing discrepancies if necessary. The NPRM proposed to add a requirement to replace all chord segments made of 7079 aluminum with new, improved chord segments made of 7075 aluminum. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct stress corrosion and potential early fatigue cracking in the horizontal stabilizer, which could compromise the structural integrity of the stabilizer.

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.

Boeing asked that we clarify the description of the affected components specified in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD, which is a restatement of paragraph (i) of AD 2012-17-13. Boeing stated that the intent of paragraph (i) of AD 2012-17-13 was to specify the inspection requirements for rear spar upper inboard chord segments made from 7075 aluminum. Boeing added that the restatement in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD specifies, “For all airplanes with horizontal stabilizer components made from 7075 . . .” and noted that this description could apply to any chord segment, not just the inboard upper. Boeing asked that the description be clarified to specify “any horizontal stabilizer with a rear spar upper inboard chord segment made from 7075 aluminum, as determined during the inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD.”

We agree to clarify paragraph (i) of this AD. The inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD must be done on upper chords made from 7075 aluminum that are on the inboard end of the rear spar, as specified in Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3515, dated December 19, 2007; and Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3515, Revision 1, dated October 10, 2014; which are the appropriate sources of service information for accomplishing the required actions. We have revised paragraph (i) of this AD to clarify the inspection requirements. No additional action is necessary for operators that have already complied with paragraph (i) of this AD.

Boeing also asked that we clarify the language in the restatement of actions specified in paragraph (j) of the proposed AD in order to specify that the inspections in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD can only be deferred for 4,000 flight cycles if the upper inboard chord is replaced with a new chord. Boeing stated that changing paragraph (i) of the proposed AD ensures that it is clear that the inspection can only be deferred for 4,000 flight cycles if the upper inboard chord is replaced.

We agree with the commenter for the reason provided. We have changed paragraph (j) of this AD to specify “For airplanes on which the rear spar upper inner chord is replaced with a new chord . . . :”

Boeing also asked that we clarify the language in the new actions specified in paragraph (q) of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that paragraph (j) of the proposed AD states when to resume the inspections after the chord is replaced. Boeing added that paragraph (i) of the proposed AD states the type of inspection and the repetitive inspection interval. Therefore, Boeing stated that paragraph (q) of the proposed AD should point to paragraph (i) of the proposed AD.

We agree to clarify paragraph (q) of this AD. As noted above, paragraph (j) of the this AD specifies inspecting the new chord within 4,000 flight cycles after the chord replacement, as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, and repeating the inspections thereafter at the times specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. Therefore, we have included similar language in paragraph (q) of this AD.

In addition, Boeing asked that we include 707 in the title for “Boeing Service Bulletin 3381,” as identified in paragraphs (k) and (l) of the proposed AD, to be consistent with all the other service information references in the NPRM.

We agree with the commenter for the reasons provided. We have changed the service information references in paragraphs (k)(3)(i) and (l) of this AD to specify “Boeing 707 Service Bulletin 3381.”

Boeing also asked that we change the semi-colon (located between the service information references) in paragraph (k)(3)(ii) of the proposed AD to a comma, because it breaks up the sentence in an unintended way.

We do not agree to change the semi-colon in paragraph (k)(3)(ii) of this AD. In ADs, we use a semi-colon to separate service information references, except in cases where the semi-colon between service information might cause confusion, e.g., a sentence that already uses semi-colons between text other than the service information. The semi-colon in paragraph (k)(3)(ii) of this AD does not change the intent of that paragraph. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

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

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

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

We reviewed Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3515, Revision 1, dated October 10, 2014. The service information describes procedures for incorporating a new cycle counting procedure, determining the material for the horizontal stabilizer rear spar chord segment, inspecting for stress corrosion cracking and fatigue cracking, repair, and replacing all chord segments made of 7079 aluminum with new, improved chord segments made of 7075 aluminum. 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 10 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 establishes controlled airspace at Comanche County Airport, Coldwater, KS.

On February 11, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E Airspace in the Coldwater, KS area. (81 FR 7251) FAA 2015-5194. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

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

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.5-mile radius of Comanche County Airport, Coldwater, KS, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. Additionally, the airport name is corrected from Commanche County Airport to Comanche County Airport.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The 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 5-6.5. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists 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 establishes controlled airspace at Moriarty Airport, Moriarty, NM.

On February 3, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E Airspace in the Moriarty, NM area. (81 FR 5676) FAA-2015-8060. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

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

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.5-mile radius of Moriarty Airport, Moriarty, NM, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The 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 5-6.5. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists 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 airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace at Danville Municipal Airport, Danville AR

On December 24, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Danville Municipal Airport, Danville, AR. (80 FR 80301). Docket No. FAA-2015-4836. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

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

This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 11.0-mile radius of Danville Municipal Airport, Danville, AR, to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;(2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore— (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;(2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979) ; and (3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

On February 26, 2016, the ODNI published a direct final rule providing procedures for members of the public to request from ODNI an MDR of information classified under the provisions of Executive Order 13526 or predecessor orders such that the agency may retrieve it with reasonable effort. The purpose of this rule was to assist in implementing specific sections of Executive Order 13526 concerning the MDR. In response to this direct final rule, ODNI received comments regarding the fee provisions stated in Section 1704.8 and the recommendation that those provisions be withdrawn and replaced with fee provisions comparable to those in ODNI's Freedom of Information Act program (32 CFR 1700.6). ODNI agrees and therefore is withdrawing its direct final rule. It will simultaneously issue a new direct final rule and a proposed rule reflecting that recommendation.

The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation in 33 CFR 100.909 from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. on June 25, 2016, for the Chinatown Chamber of Commerce Dragon Boat Race. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on a navigable waterway during the regatta. Our regulation for the Recurring Marine Events in Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone, § 100.909, specifies the location of the regulated area as all waters of the South Branch of the Chicago River from the West 18th St. Bridge at position 41°51′28″ N., 087°38′06″ W. to the Amtrak Bridge at position 41°51′20″ N., 087°38′13″ W. (NAD 83). During the enforcement period, no vessel may transit this regulated area without approval from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.

Vessels that obtain prior approval to transit the regulated area are required to operate at a no wake speed to reduce wake to a minimum, and in a manner which will not endanger participants in the event or any other craft. These rules shall not apply to participants in the event or vessels of the patrol operating in the performance of their assigned duties. The Captain of the Port or a designated representative may direct the anchoring, mooring, or movement of any boat or vessel within the regulated area.

This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.909, Chinatown Chamber of Commerce Dragon Boat Race; Chicago, IL and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of the enforcement of this special local regulation via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or a designated on-scene representative may be contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM.

The special local regulations listed in 33 CFR 100.501 and safety zones in 33 CFR 165.506 were last amended on April 16, 2015, (80 FR 20418). The Coast Guard is issuing this interim final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because immediate action is necessary to protect the maritime public during certain marine events. The potential dangers posed by certain marine events and fireworks displays conducted on waterways in close proximity to other vessel traffic makes special local regulations and safety zones necessary to provide for the safety of participants, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area. Accordingly, waiting for a comment period to run would be contrary to the public interest of protecting life and property. In addition, publishing an NPRM is impracticable because the necessary information regarding these annual recurring marine events and fireworks displays was not available in sufficient time to ensure accurate and up to date listings to allow for a comment period prior to the events.

For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Additionally, providing a 30-day notice would unnecessarily delay the effective dates for the events listed to occur in May and June of 2016, which are also noticed to the public through local media outlets, and are planned on by the local communities where they take place.

This interim rule is effective upon publication without prior notice through publication in the Federal Register, however we invite comments regarding the updated list of marine events. The Coast Guard will address all comments accordingly, whether through response, additional revision to the regulations, or otherwise.

This rule is prepared to provide the most up to date list of recurring marine events, special local regulations and safety zones, provides ample notice for all listed events occurring after May 2016. Additionally, these recurring events are noticed to the public through local media and planned on by the local communities in which they take place.

The current lists of annual and recurring special local regulations and safety zones for marine events and fireworks displays within the Fifth Coast Guard District area of responsibility (AOR) are published under 33 CFR part 100.501 and part 165.506, respectively. These lists were last updated April 16, 2015 through a previous rulemaking (80 FR 20418), and generated no adverse comments. Like this interim rule, the April 2015 rule added to, removed from, and amended 33 CFR 100.501 and 33 CFR 165.506 to create a comprehensive list of recurring marine events and fireworks displays requiring special local regulations and safety zones.

The Coast Guard regularly updates special local regulations and safety zones established for recurring marine events and fireworks displays that take place either on or over the navigable waters of the United States. Under that rule, the list of recurring marine events requiring special local regulations or safety zones is updated with revisions, additional events, and removal of events that no longer take place within the Fifth Coast Guard District. The Fifth Coast Guard District area of responsibility is defined in 33 CFR 3.25.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of persons, vessels and the navigable waters within close proximity to marine events and or fireworks displays before, during, and after the scheduled event. Publishing these regulatory updates in a single rulemaking promotes administrative efficiency and reduces costs involved in producing a separate rule for each individual recurring event. This action also provides the public with notice through publication in the Federal Register of future recurring marine events and fireworks displays and their accompanying regulations, special local regulations and safety zones. This rule provides separate tables for each Coast Guard Sector within the Fifth Coast Guard District. The Coast Guard issues this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 U.S.C. 1233; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

This rule adds 4 new special local regulations for marine events, removes 7 regulations and revises 18 previously established regulations for marine events listed in the Table to § 100.501. Other than changes to the dates and locations of certain events, the other provisions in 33 CFR 100.501 remain unchanged.

This rule provides additional information about regulated areas and the restrictions that apply to mariners and new terms including “Race Area”, “Spectator Area” and “Buffer Zone”. The 24 hour contact phone numbers are updated for Coast Guard Sectors Delaware Bay and North Carolina.

The Coast Guard revises regulations at 33 CFR 100.501 by adding 4 new special local regulations. The special local regulations are listed in Table 1, including reference by section as printed in the Table to § 100.501.

The Coast Guard amends regulations at 33 CFR 100.501 by disestablishing the following 7 special local regulated areas listed in Table 2.

This rule revises 18 preexisting special local regulations that involves change to marine event date(s) and/or coordinates. These events are listed in Table 3, with reference by section as printed in the Table to § 100.501.

Based on the nature of marine events, large number of participants and spectators, and event locations, the Coast Guard has determined that the events listed in this rule could pose a risk to participants or waterway users if normal vessel traffic were to interfere with the event. Possible hazards include risks of injury or death resulting from near or actual contact among participant vessels and spectator vessels or mariners traversing through the regulated area. In order to protect the safety of all waterway users including event participants and spectators, this rule establishes special local regulations for the time and location of each marine event.

This rule provides designated spectator areas for commercial small passenger vessels at certain marine event(s). The purpose of a commercial small passenger vessel spectator area is to ensure the safe operation of commercial vessels that carry a greater number of passengers onboard and operating within the widespread, high capacity spectator fleet at marine events. These spectator areas facilitate direct and unobstructed accesses for first responders should an emergency occur aboard one of the higher capacity commercial passenger vessels. Commercial passenger vessels holding a valid Certificate of Inspection issued under 46 CFR 114.110, and 175.110, (subchapter K or T vessels) are eligible for access to the designated spectator area as directed by the marine event Patrol Commander.

Owners or operators of vessels that meet the requirements of subchapter K or T vessels may request access to the Severn River spectator area for the U.S. Naval Academy Blue Angels Air Show by contacting the City of Annapolis Harbormaster Office, at telephone (410) 263-7973 or email at [email protected]. Application must be made no later than seven days prior to the date of the event. Applicants will be notified by the Captain of the Port or representative regarding status of applications generally the Friday before the date of the event.

Owners or operators of vessels that meet the requirements of subchapter K or T vessels may request access to the Patapsco River spectator area for the Baltimore Air Show by contacting Sail Baltimore at telephone (410) 522-7300 or email at [email protected]. Application must be made no later than ten days prior to the date of the event. Applicants will be notified by the Captain of the Port or representative regarding status of applications generally the Friday before the date of the event.

This rule prevents vessels from entering, transiting, mooring or anchoring within areas specifically designated as regulated areas during the periods of enforcement unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP), or designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The designated “Patrol Commander” includes Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the COTP to act on their behalf. On-scene patrol commander may be augmented by local, State or Federal officials authorized to act in support of the Coast Guard.

This rule adds 4 new safety zones, and revises 22 previously established safety zones listed in the Table to § 165.506. Other than changes to the dates and locations of certain safety zones, the other provisions in 33 CFR 165.506 remain unchanged.

The Coast Guard revises the regulations at 33 CFR 165.506 by adding 4 new safety zone locations to the permanent regulations listed in this section. The new safety zones are listed in Table 4, including reference by section as printed in the Table to § 165.506.

The rule revises 22 preexisting safety zones that involves change to event date(s) and coordinates. These revised safety zones are shown in Table 5, with reference by section as printed in the Table to § 165.506.

Each year, organizations in the Fifth Coast Guard District sponsor fireworks displays in the same general location and time period. Each event uses a barge or an on-shore site near the shoreline as the fireworks launch platform. A safety zone is used to control vessel movement within a specified distance surrounding the launch platforms to ensure the safety of persons and property. Coast Guard personnel on scene may allow boaters within the safety zone if conditions permit.

The enforcement period for these safety zones is from 5:30 p.m. to 1 a.m. local time. However, vessels may enter, remain in, or transit through these safety zones during this time frame if authorized by the COTP or designated Coast Guard patrol commander on scene, as provided for in 33 CFR 165.23. This rule provides for the safety of life on navigable waters during the events. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the short amount of time that vessels will be restricted from regulated areas, and the small size of these areas that are usually positioned away from high vessel traffic zones. Generally vessels would not be precluded from getting underway, or mooring at any piers or marinas currently located in the vicinity of the regulated areas. Advance notifications would also be made to the local maritime community by issuance of Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Marine information and facsimile broadcasts so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Notifications to the public for most events will typically be made by local newspapers, radio and TV stations. The Coast Guard anticipates that these special local regulated areas and safety zones will only be enforced one to three times per year.

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 certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated areas or safety zones may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. However this rule will affect the following entities some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in these regulated areas during the times the zones are enforced.

These special local regulated areas and safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The Coast Guard will ensure that small entities are able to operate in the areas where events are occurring to the extent possible while ensuring the safety of event participants and spectators. The enforcement period will be short in duration and, in many of the areas, vessels can transit safely around the regulated area. Generally, blanket permission to enter, remain in, or transit through these regulated areas will be given, except during the period that the Coast Guard patrol vessel is present. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories widely.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination 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 implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 that apply to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States. Some marine events by their nature may introduce potential for adverse impact on the safety or other interest of waterway users or waterfront infrastructure within or close proximity to the event area. The category of water activities includes but is not limited to sail boat regattas, boat parades, power boat racing, swimming events, crew racing, and sail board racing. This section of the rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are not required for this section of the rule.

This rule involves implementation of regulations at 33 CFR part 165 that establish safety zones on navigable waters of the United States for fireworks events. These safety zones are enforced for the duration of fireworks display events. The fireworks are generally launched from or immediately adjacent to navigable waters of the United States. The category of activities includes fireworks launched from barges or at the shoreline that generally rely on the use of navigable waters as a safety buffer. Fireworks displays may introduce potential hazards such as accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. This section of the rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary 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.

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

Documents mentioned in this rule as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR parts 100 and 165 as follows:

The Lehigh Valley Drawbridge across Newark Bay, mile 4.3, at Jersey City, New Jersey, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 35 feet at mean high water and 39 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.5.

The waterway is transited by seasonal recreational vessels and commercial vessels of various sizes.

The bridge owner, Consolidated Rail Corporation (CONRAIL), requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate replacement of the rails and ties at the bridge.

Under this temporary deviation, the Lehigh Valley Drawbridge may remain in the closed position for 26 hours, from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. on June 5, 2016 and from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on June 6, 2016, and a rain date from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. on June 12, 2016 and from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on June 13, 2016.

Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass.

The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our Local Notice and Broadcast to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operations 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 AK Railroad Bridge, across Arthur Kill, mile 11.6, between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 31 feet at Mean High Water and 35 feet at Mean Low Water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.702.

The waterway supports both commercial and recreational navigation of various vessel sizes. The operator of the bridge, Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), requested a temporary deviation to facilitate scheduled bridge inspection of the movable span of the bridge. The bridge must remain in the closed position to perform this inspection.

Under this temporary deviation, the AK Railroad Bridge may remain in the closed position as follows:

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may do so at anytime. There are no alternate routes for vessel traffic. The bridge can be opened in an emergency. 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), 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.

On February 8, 2016, Set Up Events notified the Coast Guard that it will sponsor the Xterra Myrtle Beach Swim from 7:15 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. on April 24, 2016. In response, on March 3, 2016, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled, Safety Zone; Xterra Swim, Myrtle Beach, SC Intracoastal Waterway; Myrtle Beach, SC [2016 FR 04664]. There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this special local regulation. During the comment period that ended April 4, 2016, we received no comments.

Under good cause provisions in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), we are making this rule effective less than 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register. The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective starting April 24, 2016 because the Coast Guard did not receive notice of this event in time to publish an NPRM and publish a final rule 30 days before the event. The Coast Guard also finds good cause for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because the public was provided details of the event on March 3, 2016 in the NPRM and designated representatives will be on scene to help the public understand how to comply with this rule.

The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's Authority to establish a safety zone: 33 U.S.C. 1231. The purpose of the proposed rule is to ensure safety of life on the navigable water of the United States during the swim portion of the Xterra Myrtle Beach Triathlon

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published March 3, 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 from 7:15 to 9:15 a.m. on April 24, 2016. The safety zone will cover a portion of Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Approximately 75 swimmers are anticipated to participate in the race. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area 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 regulated area is granted, 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.

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

The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The temporary safety zone would be enforced for only two hours; (2) although persons and vessels would not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they would be able to operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement periods; (3) persons and vessels would still be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard would provide advance notification of the regulated area 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 no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive 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 made a preliminary determination 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 temporary safety zone issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction.

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:

New classification changes are available under Docket Number MC2016-118 on the Postal Regulatory Commission's Web site at http://www.prc.gov.

This final rule describes the international classification changes and the corresponding mailing standards changes for the following Competitive Service:

Priority Mail International® service provides reliable and affordable international delivery service to more than 180 countries. The price for Priority Mail International service is unchanged. The following classification changes are made to support the shift of certain volumes to the air parcel stream:

Currently, the Postal Service dispatches Priority Mail International Flat Rate Envelopes and Small Flat Rate Priced Boxes in the letter post stream, while all other Priority Mail International items are dispatched in the air parcel stream. We are moving the Priority Mail International Flat Rate Envelopes and Small Flat Rate Priced Boxes to the air parcel stream so that these items can receive the expanded access to tracking and insurance available to all other Priority Mail International items.

The Postal Service hereby adopts the following changes to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, International Mail Manual (IMM), which is incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 20.1. Accordingly, 39 CFR part 20 is amended as follows:

I. Background

On March 14, 2014, TDEC submitted to EPA several revisions to the Knox County portion of the Tennessee SIP. At this time, EPA is acting on one portion of the submittal: Section 25 of the Knox County Air Quality Management Regulations, Permits, has been revised to add regulations that streamline the permitting process for sources that have the potential to emit volatile organic compounds (VOC), and EPA is approving the incorporation of that revision into the Tennessee SIP. The submittal also included revisions to section 25.6, adding a permit exemption, and to section 26.5, adding a requirement that certain sources of oxides of nitrogen and VOC submit an annual emissions statement. The revision to section 25.6 was withdrawn from the submittal in an August 7, 2015, letter sent to EPA by TDEC on behalf of Knox County, a copy of which is included in the Docket for today's action. EPA approved the revision to section 26.5 on November 5, 2015. See 80 FR 68448. Therefore, today's final rule completes EPA's action with respect to the March 14, 2014, submittal.

The portion of Tennessee's March 14, 2014, SIP submittal that EPA is approving today is the addition to the Knox County Air Quality Management Regulations of section 25.11, Limiting a Source's Potential to Emit of VOC by Recordkeeping, which sets forth recordkeeping and reporting requirements for a source that has the potential to emit above the major-source threshold but that prefers to be a synthetic minor source (i.e., to accept limits lower than the major-source threshold of 100 tons per year). Section 25.11 establishes a three-tiered system of recordkeeping and reporting requirements, whereby sources that elect to set their limits at the highest threshold have the most stringent requirements and sources that opt for the lowest threshold have the least stringent requirements. These changes are consistent with “Guidance for State Rules for Optional Federally-Enforceable Emissions Limits Based on Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Use” and “Potential to Emit (PTE) Guidance for Specific Source Categories,” which are both EPA memoranda issued by the Office of Air Quality Planning Standards. EPA has reviewed Tennessee's requested changes to the Knox County Air Quality Management Regulations, and has concluded that the addition of Section 25.11 is consistent with the CAA.

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Knox County Air Quality Management Regulations section 25.11, Limiting a Source's Potential to Emit of VOC by Recordkeeping. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

EPA is approving a portion of Tennessee's March 14, 2014, SIP revision addressing changes to a Knox County regulation regarding permits. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective June 21, 2016 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by May 23, 2016.

If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on June 21, 2016 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 21, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Does this action apply to me?

Entities potentially affected by this rule include gasoline refiners and importers, ethanol producers, ethanol denaturant producers, butane and pentane producers, gasoline additive manufacturers, transmix processors, terminals, and fuel distributors.

Potentially regulated categories include:

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your activities are regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in the referenced regulations. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

In this action we are finalizing amendments withdrawn from a February 2015 direct final rule and parallel Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (80 FR 9078 and 80 FR 8826, February 19, 2015). Both of those actions were initiated to correct and clarify various provisions of the Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards (“Tier 3”) rule without either expanding or making substantive changes to the applicable provisions. We also stated that if we received adverse comment by April 6, 2015, as to any part of the direct final rule, those parts would be withdrawn by publishing a timely notice in the Federal Register. We received adverse comment on three specific amendments—two provisions intended to correct and clarify portions of the Tier 3 rule (79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014) and one intended to clarify an aspect of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Renewable Identification Number (RIN) Quality Assurance Program (“QAP”) rule (79 FR 42078, July 18, 2014). We withdrew all of the proposed amendments that received adverse comment, and they did not take effect. These changes are discussed in Sections II and III.

In the final QAP rule (79 FR 42078, July 18, 2014), the EPA added additional product transfer document (PTD) requirements for renewable fuels that informed parties who took ownership of renewable fuel that they would need to (a) use the fuel as it was intended, i.e., for transportation use; and (b) incur a renewable volume obligation (RVO) if the fuel was exported. Shortly after publication of the QAP final rule, we received questions on whether these PTD requirements would apply downstream to the end users, including residential heating oil owners and individuals filling up their vehicle fuel tanks at fuel retail stations. The EPA provides downstream end-user exemptions to the PTD requirements in other fuels programs, and the February 2015 direct final rule included similar exemptions for RFS PTD requirements. However, when the introductory text of 40 CFR 80.1453(a) was amended in the February 2015 direct final rule and parallel proposed rule to provide these exemptions for RFS PTD requirements, the words “custody or” were inadvertently added. The addition of the language “custody or” would have further changed this provision such that we would also be adding PTD requirements to the transfer of custody of renewable fuels, which was not our intent. We received several comments pointing out that this would be costly to industry and not beneficial to the RFS program. Commenters noted that applying PTD requirements to transfers of custody went beyond the PTD requirements of all other 40 CFR part 80 fuels programs, and would impose a new obligation on several parties in the fuel supply chain who otherwise do not have specific PTD obligations.

The February 2015 direct final rule and parallel proposal also included an amendment to the introductory text of 40 CFR 80.1453(a)(12) to remove an extraneous reference to § 80.1433, as this section does not exist in the regulations (80 FR 9084, February 19, 2015). We did not receive any adverse comments on this amendment.

In this action, we are finalizing the originally intended changes to 40 CFR 80.1453: In the introductory text of paragraph (a), we are providing downstream end-user exemptions to the PTD requirements in the RFS program similar to other EPA fuels programs, without the “custody or” language that was inadvertently added in the February 2015 direct final rule and parallel proposal; and, in the introductory text of paragraph (a)(12), we are deleting the extraneous reference to § 80.1433.

After promulgation of the Tier 3 final rulemaking (79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014), we discovered some typographical errors and other imprecise language in the fuels regulations of 40 CFR part 80 that we believed would benefit from additional clarity. Subsequently, we published amendments to certain provisions, including 40 CFR 80.1616 and 80.1621 in the February 2015 direct final rule and parallel proposal (80 FR 9078 and 80 FR 8826, February 19, 2015). We explained that these amendments would correct and/or clarify various provisions of the Tier 3 rule without either expanding or making substantive changes to the applicable provisions. We received adverse comment on the amendments to 40 CFR 80.1616 and 80.1621. We are responding to those comments and finalizing changes to these provisions in this action, as described further below.

In the parallel proposal, we proposed to amend 40 CFR 80.1616(a) to correct a numbering error. The regulations currently jump from paragraph (a)(3) to (a)(5), so we added a “Reserved” paragraph (a)(4) for continuity in the February direct final rule. We did not receive adverse comment on this amendment. We are now finalizing this amendment in this action.

We also proposed a clarifying amendment to 40 CFR 80.1616(b)(2). In the April 2014 Tier 3 final rule, we finalized language in paragraph (b)(2) specifying that credits generated relative to the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standard of 30 parts per million (ppm) will expire “after March 31, 2020, when the 2019 annual compliance report is due.” The intent of this language was to state that unused credits (that are still valid for use) that were generated relative to the 30 ppm Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standard would expire at the end of the 2019 compliance year (December 31, 2019), and must be reconciled in the 2019 annual compliance report. Refiners and importers are required to submit their annual compliance reports for the 2019 compliance year by March 31, 2020. (Compliance reports for a given year are due on March 31 of the following year.) We also note that in the Tier 3 final rule preamble we specified that all credits generated relative to the Tier 2 30 ppm sulfur standard prior to January 1, 2017 would be valid for five years or through December 31, 2019, whichever is earlier. (79 FR 23547, April 28, 2014.) In the Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur program, as with all of our 40 CFR part 80 fuels programs, credits that expire on December 31 of a given year must be retired and reconciled in that year's annual compliance report, which is due on March 31 of the following year. The language we finalized in the Tier 3 final rule regulations was intended to express this. However, following promulgation of the Tier 3 final rule, we were contacted by regulated entities who believed that the language was confusing and suggested that we should edit the language to clarify that the credits themselves expire on December 31, 2019 and must be reconciled in the 2019 annual compliance report (due on March 31, 2020). We proposed to amend the language of 40 CFR 80.1616(b)(2) in the proposal accompanying the February 2015 direct final rule to make this clarification.

We received adverse comments on the clarifying amendment regarding the expiration of the credits on December 31, 2019. These comments advocated for small refiners and small volume refineries to be allowed to use credits for five years in all cases (i.e., past December 31, 2019, for those credits where December 31, 2019 would be earlier than five years). The Tier 3 rule established January 1, 2020 as the date small refiners and small volume refineries must begin complying with the 10 ppm sulfur standard, and also as the date that credits generated relative to the Tier 2 program 30 ppm sulfur standard will no longer be available to use for compliance. EPA explained in the Tier 3 final rule (79 FR 23547, April 28, 2014), that it is important for the Tier 3 sulfur program to be fully implemented and enforceable beginning January 1, 2020, in part because it provides a date certain to give auto manufacturers greater confidence in designing their vehicles that the in-use sulfur level will be at a 10 ppm average. Allowing credits generated against the 30 ppm standard to be used for compliance with the 10 ppm standard past December 31, 2019 would likely allow higher sulfur levels to continue well beyond January 1, 2020.

The proposed amendment to 40 CFR 80.1616(b)(2) was simply intended to ensure that the regulations clearly reflected EPA's interpretation of the applicable requirement,1 not to reopen the opportunity for comments on the issue of previous actions taken on credit generation and use periods for small refiners and small volume refineries. Therefore, EPA considers these comments as beyond the scope of the technical amendments. However, to the extent a response is required, we continue to believe that this issue was properly addressed in the April 2014 Tier 3 Final Rule, for the reasons stated above and in that rulemaking. Therefore, in this action, we are finalizing the amendment as originally published in the direct final rule.

Following publication of the April 2014 Tier 3 Final Rule, we were contacted by some refiners to clarify if or when small volume refineries could be disqualified from receiving small volume refinery status. At that time, we learned that a provision providing the disqualification criteria for small volume refineries had been inadvertently deleted from the regulatory text of the Tier 3 final rule. The regulations specified in 40 CFR 80.1622(e) that a “refiner who qualifies as a small refiner or small volume refinery under this subpart and subsequently fails to meet all the qualifying criteria as set out in §§ 80.1620 and 80.1621 will be disqualified pursuant to § 80.1620(f) or § 80.1621(d).” The criteria and process for disqualifying small refiners appears in 40 CFR 80.1620(f), but there is no 40 CFR 80.1621(d) that provides similar criteria for disqualifying small volume refineries. The provision was inadvertently deleted prior to publication of the Tier 3 rule. We proposed to restore the language that was intended to be included in 40 CFR part 80, and as previously noted, is currently referenced in 40 CFR 80.1622(e).

We received adverse comment on the amendments to 40 CFR 80.1621 arguing that:

• EPA neither proposed nor finalized disqualification criteria for small volume refineries for the April 2014 Tier 3 rule, and thus did not provide regulated entities the opportunity to comment on the 20-day notification requirement following disqualification, and further that the restoration of 40 CFR 80.1621(d) was not a technical amendment.

• The wording of the February 2015 direct final rule and parallel proposal is confusing because it does not explicitly state exactly when and under which circumstances disqualification could occur.

• Small volume refineries should not be constrained or treated differently than small refiners regarding disqualification, including in the case of growth or mergers.

• The term “small refinery” was used instead of the correct term “small volume refinery.”

• EPA did not clarify if credits could continue to be generated during the 30-month grace period allowed for a disqualified small volume refinery to come into compliance.

• 40 CFR 80.1621 should be reorganized—disqualification criteria should not appear in this section of the regulations.

Our intent in the February 2015 direct final rule and parallel proposal was to correct an inadvertent omission of regulatory text for the disqualification of small volume refineries as discussed in the Tier 3 final rule preamble. (This discussion can be found at 79 FR 23552-53, April 28, 2014.) We explained (in both the April 2014 Tier 3 final rule, and in the February 2015 actions) that the application process for qualification for small volume refinery status was similar to the process for small refiner status. We further explained that a small refiner that owned and operated a small volume refinery would only need to apply for small refiner status. As explained above, the fact that the deletion of 40 CFR 80.1621(d) was inadvertent can be seen from the cross-reference to this provision in 40 CFR 80.1622(e) in both the proposed and final Tier 3 rule regulations. Thus, as previously explained, the amendment was intended to fix an omission, which was merely to restore 40 CFR 80.1621(d).

The inadvertent deletion of 40 CFR 80.1621(d) can be seen from the reference in 40 CFR 80.1622(e) in both the proposed and final regulations, which states that “A refiner who qualifies as a small refiner or small volume refinery under this subpart and subsequently fails to meet all the qualifying criteria as set out in §§ 80.1620 and 80.1621 will be disqualified pursuant to § 80.1620(f) or § 80.1621(d).” (79 FR 23662, April 28, 2014.) Further, the Tier 3 final rule preamble reflected our discussion of the similar treatment of both small volume refineries and small refiners, as evidenced by 40 CFR 80.1622. (79 FR 23549-23550, 23552-23553; April 28, 2014.) Moreover, the current small refiner disqualification provision at 40 CFR 80.1620(f), which contains both disqualification criteria and 20-day notification requirements, is analogous to the 40 CFR 80.1621(d) small volume refinery disqualification provision. Again, the April 2014 final Tier 3 rule intended for small refiner and small volume refinery qualification and disqualification for the Tier 3 program to be similar.

Regarding the comments that EPA should clarify when a disqualifying event occurs, we note that this would not be retroactive. Rather, such disqualification would occur after the effective date of the amended 40 CFR 80.1621(d), which is being amended in this regulatory action. For example, a refiner whose refinery was approved as a small volume refinery in 2015 prior to the restoration of 40 CFR 80.1621(d) would not be disqualified before the effective date of this final rulemaking. As such, the 30-month grace period afforded to small refiners and small volume refineries to come into compliance with the Tier 3 sulfur standards would not begin until the point that the refiner or its refinery is disqualified.

With regard to comments about the treatment of small volume refineries and small refiners with regard to growth or merger, we note that this is outside the scope of the rulemaking. While our intent with the Tier 3 program is to treat small refiners and small volume refineries similarly, there are some differences between small refiners and small volume refineries that require separate treatment, such as in the case of mergers.

As explained in the Tier 3 final rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. As also explained in the preamble to the Tier 3 final rule, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (RFA/SBREFA), we assessed the impacts of the rule on small entities. For refiners, a small entity is defined in the Small Business Administration's size standards 2 as a refiner whose company-wide employee count is 1,500 employees or fewer across all of the refiner's facilities. Small volume refineries are individual facilities—and these facilities may be owned by a refiner that does not meet the definition of a small entity. This assessment can be found in Section XII.C of the preamble to the Tier 3 final rule (79 FR 23624-26, April 28, 2014).

Further, we finalized a “small volume refinery” definition in the Tier 3 program because, as stated in the preambles to both the proposed and final rulemakings, our modeling during the development of the Tier 3 program showed that the cost of compliance could be higher for certain facilities. We explained that some of these facilities, which may be owned by refiners that would not qualify as small entities, could potentially benefit from additional time for compliance with the Tier 3 program. Thus, we included flexibilities for small volume refineries that are similar to those for small refiners.3

We note that the Tier 3 program's small volume refinery provisions are separate from the RFS program's small refinery provisions. The RFS program is required by statute to provide specific provisions for small refineries.4 While EPA chose to use the same 75,000 barrel threshold for Tier 3 small volume refineries that the RFS program uses for small refineries, we note that the choice to extend flexibilities to small volume refineries in the Tier 3 program was not a statutory requirement as with the RFS program. With the exception of the RFS program, the Tier 3 program is the first EPA fuels program under 40 CFR part 80 in which we have offered flexibilities based on facility size.

Regarding comments requesting more clarity in the language of 40 CFR 80.1621(d), we note that the February 2015 direct final rule and parallel proposal used the imprecise term “small refinery” in place of the correct term “small volume refinery,” and we are correcting this language in this action. As disqualification is not meant to disallow the generation and use of credits during the 30-month period that is afforded to small refiners and small volume refineries to come into compliance with the Tier 3 program following a disqualifying event, clarifying language is also being added with this action. Lastly, we believe the comments regarding organization of this section of the regulations are outside of the scope. We also note that this organization is used in both the small refiner and small volume refinery provisions, to ensure that aspects of small refiner and small volume refinery qualification and related requirements were intentionally contained in the same sections of the regulations to provide a more streamlined approach for these parties to locate this information.

Thus, in this action, we are finalizing the restoration of 40 CFR 80.1621(d), with changes to ensure that the correct terminology (“small volume refinery”) is used, and to clarify when a disqualifying event could occur and that credits can be generated during the 30-month period following disqualification.

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 a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket.

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA, since it merely clarifies and corrects existing regulatory language. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control numbers as noted in the table below.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. 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 relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This rule merely clarifies and corrects existing regulatory language. We therefore anticipate no costs and therefore no regulatory burden associated with this rule. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments. Requirements for the private sector do not exceed $100 million in any one year.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule merely corrects and clarifies regulatory provisions. Tribal governments would be affected only to the extent they purchase and use regulated vehicles or engines. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 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 a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy.

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

This action is not expected to have any adverse human health or environmental impacts; as a result, the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations.

This action is subject to the CRA, 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).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 80 as follows:

NMFS published a proposed rule to revise the authorized methods for payment of cost recovery fees for the Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program (IFQ Program) and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program (CR Program) on December 31, 2015 (80 FR 81798). The comment period on the proposed rule ended on February 1, 2016.

The following is a brief description of the IFQ Program and CR Program cost recovery and the authorized payment methods. For a more detailed description, please see Section 1.2 of the RIR (see ADDRESSES) and the preamble of the proposed rule (80 FR 81798, December 31, 2015) for this action.

Section 304(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) specifies that the Secretary of Commerce is authorized, and shall collect a fee, to recover the actual costs directly related to the management, data collection, and enforcement of any limited access privilege program (LAPP) and community development quota program (CDQ) that allocates a percentage of the total allowable catch of a fishery to such program. Section 304(d) also specifies that such fee shall not exceed three percent of the ex-vessel value of fish harvested under any such program.

The IFQ Program is a LAPP as defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS implemented cost recovery for the IFQ Program in 2000 (65 FR 14919, March 20, 2000). Regulations implementing IFQ Program cost recovery are located at § 679.45. The CR Program is also a LAPP as defined in section 304(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Section 313(j) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides supplementary authority to section 304(d) and additional detail for cost recovery provisions specific to the CR Program. NMFS implemented cost recovery with the final rule to implement the CR Program in 2005 (70 FR 10174, March 2, 2005). Regulations implementing CR Program cost recovery are located at § 680.44.

NMFS recovers the incremental costs of managing and enforcing the IFQ Program and CR Program annually through a fee paid by persons who hold a permit granting an exclusive access privilege to a portion of the total allowable catches in IFQ Program and CR Program fisheries. NMFS calculates cost recovery fees for fish (including crab) that are landed and deducted from the total allowable catch in the fisheries subject to cost recovery. NMFS annually calculates the cost recovery fee percentage for the halibut and sablefish IFQ Program and for the CR Program by dividing the total program costs for each program by the total ex-vessel value of the catch subject to the cost recovery fee for the current year. Section 1.2 of the RIR and the preamble of the proposed rule (80 FR 81798, December 31, 2015) for this action describe these processes in greater detail.

The method used by NMFS to calculate the IFQ cost recovery fee percentage is described at § 679.45(d)(2)(ii). The IFQ permit holder is responsible for submitting their cost recovery payment to NMFS on or before the due date of January 31 following the year in which the IFQ halibut and sablefish landings were made. Additional information on the administration of IFQ Program cost recovery is provided in Section 3.5.1.1 of the RIR.

The method used by NMFS to calculate the CR Program cost recovery fee percentage is described at § 680.44(c)(2). The Registered Crab Receiver (RCR) is responsible for submitting payment to NMFS on or before the due date of July 31, following the crab fishing year in which payment for the crab is made. Additional information on the administration of CR Program cost recovery is provided in Section 3.5.2.2 of the RIR.

This final rule revises the authorized cost recovery fee payment methods for the IFQ and CR Programs by revising regulations at § 679.45(a)(4)(ii) through (iv), § 680.5(g)(3)(iii), and § 680.44(a)(4)(iii) and (iv), and eliminates the option for IFQ permit holders and CR Program RCRs to submit credit card payment information by mail or facsimile upon the effective date of this final rule. Prior to this final rule, cost recovery regulations for the IFQ Program and CR Program (§ 679.45(a)(4)(iv) and § 680.44(a)(4)(iv), respectively) allowed permit holders to pay their fee electronically or non-electronically in U.S. dollars by personal check drawn on a U.S. bank account, money order, bank-certified check, or credit card. Electronic payments could be made using credit card or electronic check via the pay.gov web-based system, or by wiring payment directly from the permit holder's financial institution via the Fedwire Funds Service (Fedwire) funds transfer system. Non-electronic payments could be made by submitting a paper form to NMFS with credit card information via mail or facsimile, or by submitting a paper check or money order via mail.

Non-electronic submission of payment information to NMFS via mail or facsimile is less secure and results in higher administrative costs than electronic payments because it results in transmission of permit holders' financial information over the NMFS information network and requires NMFS to manually process payments. Before this final rule, permit holders could pay a cost recovery fee with a credit card by submitting a form via mail or facsimile with their credit card information to NMFS. Manual credit card processing results in the possession and transmission of IFQ Program and CR Program permit holders' credit card information over the NMFS information network. Manual credit card processing is a less secure method of payment than the permit holder directly entering their credit card information into pay.gov, and results in higher administrative costs for NMFS. Administrative costs to collect fees are subject to cost recovery. Therefore, the higher administrative costs to process credit cards manually results in an increased fee liability for the IFQ and CR Programs relative to electronic payments.

This final rule also eliminates paper checks, money orders, and bank-certified checks as authorized payment methods beginning with the 2020 cost recovery fee payment billing cycle. Payment with a paper check, money order, or bank-certified check can also increase administrative costs. Payment with paper check, money order, or bank certified check requires NMFS to manually update the internal cost recovery payment tracking system to reflect the payment. Discrepancies or errors between the cost recovery amount owed and the amount paid by check must be addressed by NMFS. Payment with paper check, money order, or bank-certified check results in higher administrative costs for NMFS, and those additional costs increase the fee liability for the IFQ and CR Programs relative to electronic payments.

This final rule requires all permit holders to submit payments through pay.gov or Fedwire beginning with the IFQ Program cost recovery fee payment due by January 31, 2020, and beginning with the CR Program cost recovery fee payment due by July 31, 2020. All cost recovery fee payments must be made electronically for any payment made on or after the first day of the billing cycle for IFQ Program and CR Program cost recovery fee payments that will be due in 2020. NMFS will allow non-electronic payments via paper check or money order until the 2020 cost recovery fee billing cycle to provide a transition period for permit holders to become familiar with, and begin transitioning to, electronic payment methods.

Electronic payments via the pay.gov system and the Fedwire system are the most secure methods of transmitting financial information and result in the lowest administrative costs for NMFS. IFQ Program and CR Program permit holders can access pay.gov through the NMFS Alaska Region online system called eFISH. Pay.gov is operated by the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and offers the highest level of security for the personal and financial information submitted to pay fees to NMFS. Pay.gov uses the latest industry-standard methods and encryption to safely collect, store, and transmit information that is submitted.

Through pay.gov, permit holders can make cost recovery payments using a credit card, debit card, or direct debit (electronic check). Due to the transaction fee incurred by the Treasury, there is a payment limit of $24,999.99 on credit card transactions through pay.gov (see notice online at: http://tfm.fiscal.treasury.gov/v1/announc/a-14-04.html). There is currently no payment limit on debit card or direct debit payments. Payments made through pay.gov automatically update the NMFS internal cost recovery payment tracking system to reflect the payment.

Permit holders may also make cost recovery fee payments through Fedwire. Fedwire is a real-time transfer system that allows financial institutions to electronically transfer funds. Fedwire allows wire transfers of fee payments from any bank or wire transfer service to NMFS to fulfill cost recovery fee obligations. Payments are processed individually through Fedwire, which uses a highly secure electronic network.

Table 1 contains the implementation schedule for this final rule to revise authorized cost recovery fee payment methods.