Federal Register Vol. 81, No.85,

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-6139; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-061-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed 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 proposed AD.

The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88”), Amendment 21-78. Subsequently, SFAR 88 was amended by: Amendment 21-82 (67 FR 57490, September 10, 2002; corrected at 67 FR 70809, November 26, 2002) and Amendment 21-83 (67 FR 72830, December 9, 2002; corrected at 68 FR 37735, June 25, 2003, to change “21-82” to “21-83”).

Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design approval (i.e., type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design approval holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.

In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, combination of failures, and unacceptable (failure) experience. For all three failure criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action.

We have determined that the actions identified in this proposed AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

The design of the in-tank FQIS components and wiring has the potential for a latent FQIS electrical fault condition inside the fuel tank combined with an electrical hot short condition connecting a high power source to the FQIS wiring to cause an ignition source in a fuel tank.

Under the policy contained in FAA Policy Memo PS-ANM100-2003-112-15 [http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgPolicy.nsf/0/DC94C3A46396950386256D5E006AED11?OpenDocument&Highlight=anm-100-2003-112-15], the FAA determined that this ignition source risk combined with the fleet average flammability for the center wing tank on Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes created an unsafe condition for the center fuel tank. Applying that same policy, the FAA determined that due to a lower fleet average flammability, that same unsafe condition does not exist in the main (wing) tanks of these airplanes.

On March 21, 2016, we issued AD 2016-07-07, Amendment 39-18452 (81 FR 19472, April 5, 2016), for certain Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. AD 2016-07-07 requires similar actions to those proposed in this NPRM. AD 2016-07-07 addressed the numerous public comments that were submitted on the proposal.

We are proposing 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 proposed AD would require modifying the FQIS to prevent development of an ignition source inside the center fuel tank due to electrical fault conditions. As an alternative for cargo airplanes, this proposed AD would provide the alternative to modify the airplane by separating FQIS wiring routed between the FQIS processor and the center fuel tank, provided repetitive BITE checks (checks of built-in test equipment) of the FQIS are also performed.

There are approximately 1,393 U.S.-registered Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes in service. All of those airplanes are currently operated as passenger airplanes. Beginning with line number 2620, however, Boeing has delivered airplanes with flammability reductions means (FRM)/nitrogen generation system (NGS) installed. We estimate that 831 affected airplanes on the U.S. Register were delivered without FRM installed, but we do not know the number of airplanes that have had FRM installed post-production. However, because of the requirement in 14 CFR 121.1117 to install FRM on U.S. air-carrier passenger airplanes by the end of 2017, it is likely that no U.S. airplanes would actually be affected by this proposed AD. For any affected airplane, we estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed 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 determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-6144; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-088-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed 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 proposed AD.

The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88”), Amendment 21-78. Subsequently, SFAR 88 was amended by: Amendment 21-82 (67 FR 57490, September 10, 2002; corrected at 67 FR 70809, November 26, 2002) and Amendment 21-83 (67 FR 72830, December 9, 2002; corrected at 68 FR 37735, June 25, 2003, to change “21-82” to “21-83”).

Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.

In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, combination of failures, and unacceptable (failure) experience. For all three failure criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action.

We have determined that the actions identified in this proposed AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

The design of the in-tank FQIS components and wiring has the potential for a latent FQIS electrical fault condition inside the fuel tank combined with an electrical hot short condition connecting a high power source to the FQIS wiring to cause an ignition source in a fuel tank.

Under the policy contained in FAA Policy Memo PS-ANM100-2003-112-15, SFAR 88—Mandatory Action Decision Criteria, dated February 25, 2003 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgPolicy.nsf/0/dc94c3a46396950386256d5e006aed11/$FILE/Feb2503.pdf), the FAA determined that this ignition source risk combined with the fleet average flammability for the center wing tank on airplanes affected by this NPRM created an unsafe condition for the center fuel tank. Applying that same policy, the FAA determined that due to a lower fleet average flammability, that same unsafe condition does not exist in the main wing tanks (inner and outer) and tail trim tank of these airplanes.

On March 21, 2016, we issued AD 2016-07-07, Amendment 39-18452 (81 FR 19472, April 5, 2016), for certain Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. AD 2016-07-07 requires similar actions to those proposed in this NPRM. AD 2016-07-07 addressed the numerous public comments that were submitted on the proposal.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. We are proposing 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.

In accordance with FAA policy memo SFAR 88—Mandatory Action Decision Criteria, dated February 25, 2003, we have determined that the unsafe condition warrants issuance of an AD to mandate the actions proposed in this NPRM.

This proposed AD would require modifying the FQIS to prevent development of an ignition source inside the center fuel tank due to electrical fault conditions. As an alternative for cargo airplanes, this proposed AD would provide the alternative to modify the airplane by separating FQIS wiring routed between the fuel quantity indicating (FQI) computer and the center fuel tank, provided repetitive BITE (built-in test equipment) checks of the FQI computer are also performed.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1 airplane of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 1,200 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the parts needed to do the actions specified in this proposed AD. Based on these figures, we estimate the labor cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $102,000.

We have not received definitive information on the costs for the alternative wire separation modification specified in this NPRM. The cost for this action in similar rulemaking on other airplanes, however, suggests that this modification could take about 74 work-hours with parts costing about $10,000, for a total estimated cost to U.S. operators of $16,290 per product.

We estimate that the repetitive FQIS tank circuit checks associated with the alternative wire separation modification would take about 1 work-hour per check. We estimate the cost of this check on U.S. operators to be $85 per product, per check.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-6145; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-056-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed 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 proposed AD.

The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88”), Amendment 21-78. Subsequently, SFAR 88 was amended by: Amendment 21-82 (67 FR 57490, September 10, 2002; corrected at 67 FR 70809, November 26, 2002) and Amendment 21-83 (67 FR 72830, December 9, 2002; corrected at 68 FR 37735, June 25, 2003, to change “21-82” to “21-83”).

Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires holders of certain type designs (i.e., type certificates (TCs) and supplemental type certificate (STCs)) to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.

In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, combination of failures, and unacceptable (failure) experience. For all three failure criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action.

We have determined that the actions identified in this proposed AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

The design of the in-tank FQIS components and wiring has the potential for latent faults that could cause arcs, sparks, or resistive heating in the event of a hot short of an FQIS tank circuit to power wiring. The wiring of the FQIS is in some areas cobundled or closely adjacent to power wiring. An ignition source combined with flammable conditions in a center fuel tank could result in ignition of flammable vapor in the fuel tank, causing a structural failure of the wing and inflight breakup of the airplane.

Under the policy contained in FAA Policy Memo PS-ANM100-2003-112-15, SFAR 88—Mandatory Action Decision Criteria, dated February 25, 2003 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgPolicy.nsf/0/dc94c3a46396950386256d5e006aed11/$FILE/Feb2503.pdf), the FAA determined that this ignition source risk combined with the fleet average flammability for the center wing tank on Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes created an unsafe condition for the center fuel tank. Applying that same policy, the FAA determined that due to a lower fleet average flammability, that same unsafe condition does not exist in the main (wing) or reserve tanks of Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes.

On March 21, 2016, we issued AD 2016-07-07, Amendment 39-18452 (81 FR 19472, April 5, 2016), for certain Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. AD 2016-07-07 requires similar actions to those proposed in this NPRM. AD 2016-07-07 addressed the numerous public comments that were submitted on the proposal.

We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28-2340, dated June 6, 2014. The service information describes procedures for a BITE check (check of built-in test equipment) of the FQIS. Refer to this service information for information on the procedures and compliance times. 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 proposing 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 proposed AD would require modifying the FQIS to prevent development of an ignition source inside the center fuel tank due to electrical fault conditions. As an alternative for cargo airplanes, this proposed AD would provide the alternative to modify the airplane by separating FQIS wiring routed between the FQIS processor and the center fuel tank, provided repetitive BITE checks (checks of built-in test equipment) of the FQIS are also performed.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 54 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed 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 determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

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

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-6143; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-028-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed 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 proposed AD.

The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88”), Amendment 21-78. Subsequently, SFAR 88 was amended by: Amendment 21-82 (67 FR 57490, September 10, 2002; corrected at 67 FR 70809, November 26, 2002) and Amendment 21-83 (67 FR 72830, December 9, 2002; corrected at 68 FR 37735, June 25, 2003, to change “21-82” to “21-83”).

Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.

In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, combination of failures, and unacceptable (failure) experience. For all three failure criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action.

We have determined that the actions identified in this proposed AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

The design of the in-tank FQIS components and wiring has the potential for a latent FQIS electrical fault condition inside the fuel tank combined with an electrical hot short condition connecting a high power source to the FQIS wiring to cause an ignition source in a fuel tank.

Under the policy contained in FAA Policy Memo PS-ANM100-2003-112-15, SFAR 88—Mandatory Action Decision Criteria, dated February 25, 2003 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgPolicy.nsf/0/dc94c3a46396950386256d5e006aed11/$FILE/Feb2503.pdf), the FAA determined that this ignition source risk combined with the fleet average flammability for the center wing tank on Model A300-600 and A310 series airplanes created an unsafe condition for the center fuel tank. Applying that same policy, the FAA determined that due to a lower fleet average flammability, that same unsafe condition does not exist in the main wing tanks (inner and outer) and tail trim tank (on certain Model A300-600 series airplanes) of these airplanes.

On March 21, 2016, we issued AD 2016-07-07, Amendment 39-18452 (81 FR 19472, April 5, 2016), for certain Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. AD 2016-07-07 requires similar actions to those proposed in this NPRM. AD 2016-07-07 addressed the numerous public comments that were submitted on the proposal.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. We are proposing 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.

In accordance with FAA policy memo SFAR 88—Mandatory Action Decision Criteria, dated February 25, 2003, we have determined that the unsafe condition warrants issuance of an AD to mandating the actions proposed in this NPRM.

This proposed AD would require modifying the FQIS to prevent development of an ignition source inside the center fuel tank due to electrical fault conditions. As an alternative for cargo airplanes, this proposed AD would provide the alternative to modify the airplane by separating FQIS wiring routed between the fuel quantity indicating (FQI) computer and the center fuel tank, provided repetitive BITE (built-in test equipment) checks of the FQI computer are also performed.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 140 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 1,200 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the parts needed to do the actions specified in this proposed AD. Based on these figures, we estimate the labor cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $14,280,000, or $102,000 per product.

We have not received definitive information on the costs for the alternative wire separation modification specified in this NPRM. The cost for this action in similar rulemaking on other airplanes, however, suggests that this modification could take about 74 work-hours with parts costing about $10,000, for a total estimated cost to U.S. operators of $16,290 per product.

We estimate that the repetitive FQIS tank circuit checks associated with the alternative wire separation modification would take about 1 work-hour per check. We estimate the cost of this check on U.S. operators to be $85 per product, per check.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

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

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-6146; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-120-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

On September 12, 2008, we issued AD 2008-19-08, Amendment 39-15675 (73 FR 54492, September 22, 2008) (“AD 2008-19-08”). AD 2008-19-08 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 10 airplanes.

Since we issued AD 2008-19-08, additional reports were received of collapse of the flexible hoses installed in the slat anti-icing systems on airplanes equipped with new, improved hoses.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0104, dated May 7, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 10 airplanes. The MCAI states:

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

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 124 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions that are required by AD 2008-19-08 and retained in this proposed AD take about 8 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $880. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2008-19-08 is up to $1,560, per replacement cycle.

We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $936 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $158,224, or $1,276 per product.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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 would amend Class E airspace at Hutchinson Municipal Airport-Butler Field, Hutchinson, MN; Jackson Municipal Airport, Jackson, MN; Pipestone Municipal Airport, Pipestone, MN; Richard B. Helgeson Airport, Two Harbors, MN; and Waseca Municipal Airport, Waseca, MN.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-4271/Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-6.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

This document would amend 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.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Hutchinson Municipal Airport-Butler Field, Hutchinson, MN; within a 6.3-mile radius of Jackson Municipal Airport, Jackson, MN; within a 6.5-mile radius of Pipestone Municipal Airport, Pipestone, MN; within a 7-mile radius of Richard B. Helgeson Airport, Two Harbors, MN; and within a 6.3-mile radius of Waseca Municipal Airport, Waseca, MN. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of non-directional radio beacons (NDB), cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures at the above airports. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airports. Geographic coordinates would be adjusted for the following airports: Hutchinson Municipal-Butler Field, Jackson Municipal Airport, Pipestone Municipal Airport, and Richard B. Helgeson Airport, to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.

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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 would amend Class E airspace at Vigil I. Grissom Municipal Airport, Bedford, IN; Goshen Municipal Airport, Goshen, IN; Putnam County Airport, Greencastle, IN; Huntingburg Airport, Huntingburg, IN; North Vernon Airport, North Vernon, IN; Jasper County Airport, Rensselaer, IN; Perry County Municipal Airport, Tell City, IN; O'Neal Airport, Vincennes, IN; and Daviess County Airport, Washington, IN.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-4291/Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-7.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

This document would amend 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.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at the following airports:

Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of NDBs, cancellation of NDB approaches, or implementation of RNAV procedures at the above airports. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airports. Additionally, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be removed at O'Neal Airport, Vincennes, IN, due to closure of 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 would amend Class E airspace at Gratiot Community Airport, Alma, MI; Antrim County Airport, Bellaire, MI; Wexford County Airport, Cadillac, MI; Drummond Island Airport, Drummond Island, MI; Charles C. Zettel Memorial Airport, Gladwin, MI; Park Township Airport and West Michigan Regional Airport, Holland, MI; and Three Rivers Municipal Dr. Haines Airport, Three Rivers, MI.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-4629/Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-8.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

This document would amend 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.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at the following airports:

Within a 6.5-mile radius of Gratiot Community Airport, Alma, MI;

Within a 6.5-mile radius of Antrim County Airport, Bellaire, MI, with a segment extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 6.9 miles south of the airport;

Within a 6.7-mile radius of Wexford County Airport, Cadillac, MI;

Within a 6.5-mile radius of Drummond Island Airport, Drummond Island, MI, with a segment extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 8.5 miles east of the airport;

Within a 6.5-mile radius of Charles C. Zettel Memorial Airport, Gladwin, MI;

Within a 6.5-mile radius of West Michigan Regional Airport (formerly Tulip City Airport), Holland, MI; Park Township Airport would be removed as it no longer has instrument procedures and no longer requires Class E airspace; and

Within a 6.4 mile radius of Three Rivers Municipal Dr. Haines Airport, Three Rivers, MI, and updating the geographic coordinates of this airport to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database. These airspace reconfigurations are necessary due to the decommissioning of NDBs, cancellation of NDB approaches, or implementation of RNAV procedures at the above airports. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airports.

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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 would remove Class E surface area airspace at Alliance Municipal Airport, Alliance, NE; and modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Albion Municipal Airport, Albion, NE; Alliance Municipal Airport; Quinn Field, Gothenburg, NE; Brewster Field Airport, Holdrege, NE; Imperial Municipal Airport, Imperial, NE; Jim Kelly Field, Lexington, NE; and Millard Airport, Omaha, NE.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-5388/Airspace Docket No. 16-ACE-4.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

This document would amend 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.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by removing Class E surface area airspace at Alliance Airport, Alliance, NE., as the airspace is no longer needed. This proposal also would modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Albion Municipal Airport, Albion, NE; Alliance Municipal Airport, Alliance, NE; Quinn Field, Gothenburg, NE; Brewster Field Airport, Holdrege, NE; Imperial Municipal Airport, Imperial, NE; Jim Kelly Field, Lexington, NE; and Millard Airport, Omaha, NE. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of NDBs, cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of RNAV procedures at the above airports. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airports. The geographic coordinates for Quinn Field, Imperial Municipal Airport, and Jim Kelly Field would also be updated to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 would amend Class E airspace at Arkansas International Airport, Blytheville, AR; Blytheville Municipal Airport, Blytheville, AR; Frank Federer Memorial Airport, Brinkley, AR; Clarksville Municipal Airport, Clarksville, AR; and J. Lynn Helms Sevier County Airport, De Queen, AR.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-4172/Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-7.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

This document would amend 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.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at the following airports:

Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of NDBs, cancellation of NDB approaches, or implementation of RNAV procedures at the above airports. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airports.

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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TTB received a petition from Johnnie James, owner of Bethel Valley Farms, on behalf of members of the High Country Wine Growers Association, proposing to establish the approximately 2,400-square mile “Appalachian High Country” AVA. Twenty-one commercial vineyards, covering approximately 71 acres, are distributed across the proposed AVA. According to the petition, an additional 8 vineyards comprising approximately 37 acres are planned in the near future. There are also 10 bonded wineries within the proposed AVA.

The distinguishing features of the proposed Appalachian High Country AVA include its topography, climate, and soils. Unless otherwise noted, all information and data pertaining to the proposed AVA contained in this proposed rule come from the petition for the proposed Appalachian High Country AVA and its supporting exhibits.

The region of the proposed Appalachian High Country AVA is often referred to as the “High Country” because of its high elevations, which, according to the petition, are considered to be the highest average elevations east of the Mississippi River. The High Country Wine Growers Association chose to add “Appalachian” to the proposed AVA name as a reference to the proposed AVA's location within the Appalachian Mountains, as well as to distinguish the proposed AVA from other regions across the country that are also referred to as “High Country.”

The petition included evidence that the phrase “High Country” applies to the region of the proposed AVA. Several tourism Web sites that feature the region of the proposed AVA include the phrase “High Country” in their names, including High Country Host,1 High Country Journey,2 and GO NC High Country.3 The High Country Council of Governments 4 is a planning and development association comprised of county and municipal governments in northwestern North Carolina, including Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Mitchell, and Watauga Counties. The petition also included a listing of over 100 businesses and organizations within the proposed AVA that use the phrase “High Country” in their names, including High Country Wedding and Event Coordinators 5 in Butler, Tennessee (Johnson County); High Country Horse Camp 6 in Troutdale, Virginia (Grayson County); High Country Bottling Company 7 in West Jefferson, North Carolina (Ashe County); High Country Hearth and Chimney 8 in Banner Elk, North Carolina (Avery County); High Country Academy Tutoring Service 9 (Watauga County); and High Country Drywall 10 in Laurel Springs, North Carolina (Alleghany County).

The petition also included a listing of over 40 additional businesses and organizations that routinely use the phrase “High Country” in their printed or radio advertisements. For example, Boone Drug, which has locations in all of the Tennessee and North Carolina counties within the proposed AVA, advertises that the pharmacy chain was established in 1919 and “has proudly been serving the High Country ever since * * *.” 11 Prospect Hill Bed and Breakfast, located in Mountain City, Tennessee and also within the proposed AVA, invites guests to “enjoy the wonders of the Appalachian High Country.” 12 Red Tail Mountain Resort and Golf, which is also located in Mountain City, Tennessee, advertises itself as “the finest mountain golf in the High Country.” 13 Finally, Appalachian Blinds and Closet Company, located in Boone, North Carolina, is advertised as the “High Country's one-stop shop” for home decorating needs.14

The proposed Appalachian High Country AVA includes all or portions of Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Mitchell, and Watauga Counties in North Carolina; Carter and Johnson Counties in Tennessee; and Grayson County in Virginia. A portion of the proposed eastern boundary follows the Ashe, Alleghany, and Watauga County lines to separate the proposed Appalachian High Country AVA from the adjacent Yadkin Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.174), which has lower elevations. The remainder of the proposed eastern boundary follows the Blue Ridge Parkway to separate the proposed AVA from the Pisgah National Forest, which is unavailable for commercial viticulture due to its status as a National Forest. The proposed southern and southwestern boundaries follow the Mitchell County line, to separate the proposed AVA from the steeper slopes of the Black Mountains. Additionally, the petition states that the phrase “High Country” is not commonly used in reference to the region southwest of Mitchell County. A portion of the western boundary follows the 2,000-foot elevation line through Carter County and separates the high elevations of the proposed AVA from the lower elevations to the west. The remainder of the proposed western boundary, along with the proposed northwestern and northern boundary, follows the Johnson and Grayson County lines, to separate the proposed AVA from regions that have shallower slope angles and are not generally referred to as “High Country.”

The distinguishing features of the proposed Appalachian High Country AVA include its topography, climate, and soils.

The proposed Appalachian High Country is a mountainous region with high elevations and steep slopes. Elevations range from 1,338 feet to over 6,000 feet, with vineyards planted at elevations between 2,290 and 4,630 feet. According to the petition, 12 of the 21 vineyards within the proposed AVA are located at elevations at or above 3,000 feet. The average slope angle within the proposed AVA is 35.9 degrees, with vineyards planted on slope angles ranging from 9 to 46 degrees. The petition states that 11 of the vineyards within the proposed AVA are planted on slopes with angles of 30 degrees or higher. The following tables compare the elevations and slope angles of the proposed AVA to those of the surrounding areas.

I. Background

On March 12, 2008, EPA revised both the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) (annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration, averaged over three years) to provide increased protection of public health and the environment. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). The 2008 ozone NAAQS retains the same general form and averaging time as the 0.08 ppm NAAQS set in 1997, but is set at a more protective level. Effective July 20, 2012, EPA designated any area that was violating the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent years (2008-2010) of air monitoring data as a nonattainment area. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). The Atlanta Area, consisting of Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Newton, Paulding, and Rockdale counties, was designated as a marginal ozone nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 81.311. Areas that were designated as marginal ozone nonattainment areas were required to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS no later than July 20, 2015, based on 2012-2014 monitoring data. The Atlanta Area did not attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by July 20, 2015, and therefore on April 11, 2016, the EPA Administrator signed a final rule reclassifying the Atlanta Area from a marginal nonattainment area to a moderate nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. A pre-publication version of the final rule can be found at EPA's Web site at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-04/documents/20160411fr.pdf. Moderate areas are required to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by no later than July 20, 2018, six years after the effective date of the initial nonattainment designations. See 40 CFR 51.1103. Air quality monitoring data from the 2013-2015 monitoring period show that the Atlanta Area is now attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

Under the provisions of EPA's ozone implementation rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR part 51, subpart AA), if EPA issues a determination that an area is attaining the relevant standard, also known as a Clean Data Determination, the area's obligations to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, RFP, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS are suspended until EPA: (i) Redesignates the area to attainment for the standard or approves a redesignation substitute, at which time those requirements no longer apply; or (ii) EPA determines that the area has violated the standard, at which time the area is again required to submit such plans. See 40 CFR 51.1118. While these requirements are suspended, EPA is not precluded from acting upon these elements at any time if submitted to EPA for review and approval.

An attainment determination is not equivalent to a redesignation under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. The designation status of the Atlanta Area will remain nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that the Area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment, including an approved maintenance plan, and redesignates the Area. Additionally, the determination of attainment is separate from, and does not influence or otherwise affect, any future designation determination or requirements for the Atlanta Area based on any new or revised ozone NAAQS, and the determination of attainment remains in effect regardless of whether EPA designates this Area as a nonattainment area for purposes of any new or revised ozone NAAQS.

The 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS are met at a monitor when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations at the ozone monitor is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm based on complete, consecutive calendar years of certified, quality-assured ambient air monitoring data. See 40 CFR 50.15; 40 CFR part 50, appendix P. This 3-year average is referred to as the design value. When the design value is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm at each monitor within the area, then the area is attaining the NAAQS. Also, the data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than or equal to 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness as determined in 40 CFR part 50, appendix P. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS).

EPA has reviewed the complete, quality-assured, and certified ozone ambient air monitoring data for the 2013-2015 monitoring period for the Atlanta Area. The design values for each monitor for this period are less than or equal to 0.075 ppm, and all of the monitors meet the data completeness requirements (see Table 1, below). Based on this data and consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPA has preliminarily concluded that this Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

The data in Table 1 are taken from EPA's AQS database, available at: https://www.epa.gov/aqs. The AQS report with this data is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

EPA is proposing to determine that the Atlanta Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This proposed determination is based upon complete, quality assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing that the Atlanta Area has monitored attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2013-2015 monitoring period. If EPA finalizes this proposal, the requirement for this Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS will be suspended until EPA redesignates the Area to attainment, approves a redesignation substitute, or determines that the Area has violated the standard.

This proposed attainment determination would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain federal requirements and would not impose any additional requirements. For that reason, this proposed action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• 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

• Will not have disproportionate human health or environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The Commission is proposing to update or reorganize several subparts of 46 CFR part 502, its Rules of Practice and Procedure, and to substantively revise the subpart regarding how hearings are conducted to improve guidance concerning the presentation of evidence in Commission proceedings. Certain current rules would also be removed to clarify current practice and eliminate duplication.

Part 502 sets out the rules governing procedure in all types of Commission proceedings. However, after years of revisions, some users find the grouping and ordering of the subparts confusing. The Commission proposes to reorder and rename certain subparts to better reflect the chronology of a typical adjudication, and to distinguish other types of proceedings, as enumerated in this table:

In subpart A several cross references would be corrected and current § 502.141 that establishes the Commission may hold hearings that are not part of an adjudicatory process, would be moved to this subpart as general information and retitled.

Cross references are corrected in subpart D.

Subpart E, currently “Proceedings, Pleading, Motions, Replies” would apply only to adjudications of private complaints and Commission investigations and would be renamed “Private Complaints and Commission Investigations.” Revised subpart E would contain the procedures for institution of those proceedings, motions practice, opportunity for settlement, and other related rules. Section 502.61 which opens the subpart would be revised by moving and amending a rule on notice of hearings from subpart J.

Current subpart F addresses Settlement and Prehearing Procedure. Inasmuch as those subject areas are part of the process in adjudicatory proceedings, they would be divided and moved into subpart E and a revised subpart L governing presentation of evidence.

Subpart F would be revised to apply to proceedings other than private complaints and Commission investigations, titled: “Petitions, Exemptions, and Orders to Show Cause.” These types of proceedings are generally distinct from complaint and investigation proceedings. With clear headings, the proposed rules are intended to be easier for the user to locate. Revised subpart F would encompass current §§ 502.73 through 502.77.

The Commission proposes changes to subpart J, “Hearings; Presiding Officers; Evidence”, and subpart L, “Disclosure and Discovery” to more logically and chronologically group the processes conducted in a formal adjudication. Subpart L, Disclosure and Discovery would be moved in its entirety to subpart J. Current subpart J, Hearings, would be revised to encompass all rules governing the presentation of evidence and presented in revised subpart L titled “Presentation of Evidence.” The proposed revisions to subpart J are discussed more extensively below.

The Commission proposes to remove and reserve subpart K, “Shortened Procedure.” Shortened procedure provides that, if the respondent consents, after briefing by the parties, the record is closed and a decision may be issued without discovery or an oral hearing. The procedure has rarely been requested, although parts of the procedure have become standard practice (e.g. not requiring an oral hearing). The procedure has not resulted in an ALJ decision in recent history, as the three proceedings utilizing shortened procedure since 1998 have resulted in settlement. The Commission has made several rule revisions in the past five years that have enhanced the efficiency of formal complaint proceedings including the requirement for initial disclosures in discovery, (current § 502.201), and the establishment of default rules in the absence of an answer, § 502.62(b)(6). Shortened procedure rules are not consistent with the requirement for initial disclosures, which help expedite all proceedings. If parties want to further limit discovery, that is possible without the provisions of Subpart K. Moreover the subparts S and T small claims proceedings may offer a solution to litigants seeking faster resolution of their disputes. The rules governing small claims proceedings are designed to make the litigation process faster and simpler for litigants seeking reparations of $50,000 or less.

The Commission proposes to revise subpart M to cover only matters that occur after conclusion of the parties' presentations in proceedings (i.e., decisions, appeals and exceptions). The rules concerning briefs would be moved into revised subpart L, “Presentation of Evidence.” However, rules governing briefs to accompany exceptions will remain in subpart M. Current § 502.153, Appeal from ruling of presiding officer other than orders or dismissal in whole or in part, would be moved into subpart M as it concerns an appeal.

Currently subpart J, Hearings, presents the Commission's rules on hearings and presentation of evidence. The Commission proposes that these rules governing presentation of evidence be revised and presented in revised subpart L. The proposed revisions are intended to reflect the procedures currently used by the Commission, to utilize current language and standards set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure where appropriate, and to clarify and simplify rules where possible. Several rules currently in the subpart would be removed in their entirety to eliminate duplication and reflect current practice. The proposed revisions to subpart J are enumerated in the table below:

Following is a more detailed description of each proposed rule that would appear in revised subpart L.

Proposed § 502.201 is derived and moved from current § 502.142 and sets out the proceedings for which the rules in the subpart will apply. The term hearing would be defined as “a formal adjudicatory proceeding in which evidence is presented orally, or through written statement, or by combination thereof” to reflect the broader and more inclusive meaning of the term in current administrative practice.

Proposed § 502.202 is derived and moved from current § 502.154 but would be revised to reflect that the presiding officer may limit introduction of evidence if it is “irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious” mirroring the Administrative Procedure Act.

Proposed § 502.203 is derived and moved from current § 502.155 and clarifies the language to include reference to motions for ease of understanding the burden of proof.

Currently § 502.156 states “[u]nless inconsistent with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and these Rules, the Federal Rules of Evidence . . . will also be applicable.” The proposed revision would simplify the standard. Proposed § 502.204 would revise § 502.156 by restating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) standard for admissibility that allows admission of all evidence which is relevant, material, reliable, and probative, and not unduly repetitious or cumulative, and by stating that the Presiding Officer may also look to the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) for guidance. The Commission is particularly interested to receive comment from the public on this particular revision and the applicability of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

The Commission adopted the original language in § 502.156 in 1976, shortly after the FRE went into effect. 41 FR 20585, 20588 (May 19, 1976). In the 1975 notice proposing the language, the Commission stated that the FRE could be of great use to the Commission's ALJs in disposing of evidentiary issues that arise in Commission proceedings, so long as they were consistent with the requirements of the APA. 40 FR 43295, 43927 (September 24, 1975). The Commission went on to assert that, as a general matter, the FRE did not appear to be inconsistent with the APA. Id.

In the years since the Commission promulgated this section, however, it has been generally acknowledged that there are, in fact, meaningful distinctions between the FRE and the APA. Specifically, the FRE are exclusionary in nature and were designed for jury trials in order to allow a presiding officer to determine what evidence a body of lay jurors should consider. See, e.g., Richard J. Pierce, Jr., 2 Admin. Law Treatise 909, Section 10, Evidence, 5th Ed. (2010). The APA, on the other hand, is founded on the principle that the presiding officer who is the decision maker is qualified to determine what evidence is relevant, probative and substantial.

The inconsistences between the FRE and APA standards were evidently not apparent to the Commission when it adopted the language in § 502.156 in 1976. The rulemaking notices and the regulatory text reflect the assumption that both the APA and FRE could be applied in most circumstances without issue. Since promulgation of the section, however, the Commission “has recognized the liberal standards of admissibility of evidence in administrative proceedings and has repeatedly `. . . identified the need for considerable relaxation of the rules of evidence followed by the federal courts in proceedings before the Commission.' ” Eurousa Shipping, Inc., et al—Possible Violations, 31 S.R.R. 540, 547 (FMC 2008) (quoting Pacific Champion Express Co., Ltd.—Possible Violations, 28 S.R.R. 1102, 1105-06 (ALJ 1999). Given the divergence between the FRE and APA standards, the section's attempt to apply both standards simultaneously creates a tension in the regulation and could be confusing to parties.

In 1986, the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) published recommendations regarding the use of the FRE in administrative proceedings. ACUS compared three general categories of agency evidentiary rules. 1986 ACUS 6, 51 FR 25642. The category that is most analogous to § 502.156 included “rules that require presiding officers to apply the [FRE] `so far as practicable.' ” Id. ACUS identified four significant disadvantages with respect to this standard including:

The text of current § 502.152 has been modernized to clarify the procedures governing when and how to make an offer of proof. The rule is moved into revised § 502.204 as paragraph (b) as a logical part of the rule governing admissibility of evidence.

Revising current § 502.160 (proposed § 502.205) allows documents in another Commission proceeding to be incorporated into the record by reference. Proposed § 502.206 would allow material in any document on file with the Commission that is also available to the public to be incorporated into the record by reference.

Current § 502.162 allows for stipulation. The Commission proposes to move the rule to § 502.207 and to revise the language of that rule for clarity.

Proposed § 502.208 would revise current § 502.167, Objection to public disclosure of information. The proposed change would add a cross reference to § 502.5 where the Commission recently spelled out its requirements for submission of confidential material in a final rule. 80 FR 14318 (March 19, 2015).

Current §§ 502.94 and 502.95 would be moved from subpart E as they pertain to hearings. No substantive revisions would be made to the content of these rules.

Proposed §§ 502.211 through 502.213 would deal with oral hearings and would consist of the provisions found in current §§ 502.144, 502.151, and 502.165. Current § 502.165, Official transcript, requires revision as it currently contains a description of section 11 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) interpretation of that section, which are the basis for the Commission's regulations with respect to obtaining copies of transcripts. In order to simplify these provisions, the Commission is proposing to include in the new § 502.213 only the relevant requirements and to delete the aforementioned references to FACA and OMB's interpretation.

Sections 502.221 and 502.222 concerning briefs would be included in this subpart and renumbered as §§ 502.214 and 502.215. The last sentence of § 502.221(a), which requires that the period of time for filing briefs will be the same for both parties, would be removed as setting time is within the powers of the presiding officer as established in recently revised § 502.25. Section 502.221(c) would be deleted as it is not current practice for the Presiding Officer to “require the Bureau of Enforcement to file a request for findings of fact and conclusions within a reasonable time prior to the filing of briefs.” Generally, the Commission's Bureau of Enforcement (BOE) files the first brief unless concurrent briefs are appropriate for the particular case; this is more appropriate to address in the scheduling order issued in each particular proceeding.

Current § 502.230(a), Motion to Reopen, would be renumbered, renamed and revised to provide instructions concerning submission of evidence after final presentations in a proceeding and prior to issuance of an initial decision. The language of the proposed rule and the proposed heading “Supplementing the record” is more descriptive of the current practice before the Commission's Administrative Law Judges but does not substantively revise the process or rights of a party to a proceeding.

Current § 502.169 would be moved to subpart L and the reference to “filing and motions” instead of “paper and requests.”

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. 601-612) provides that whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the agency must prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) describing the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603. An agency is not required to publish an IRFA, however, for the following types of rules, which are excluded from the APA's notice-and-comment requirement: Interpretative rules; general statements of policy; rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice; and rules for which the agency for good cause finds that notice and comment is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to public interest. See 5 U.S.C. 553.

Although the Commission has elected to seek public comment on its proposed regulatory amendments to part 502, these amendments concern the Commission's and procedures. Therefore, the APA does not require publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking in this instance, and the Commission is not required to prepare an IRFA.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) requires an agency to seek and receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before collecting information from the public. 44 U.S.C. 3507. The agency must submit collections of information in proposed rules to OMB in conjunction with the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking. 5 CFR 1320.11. The Commission is not proposing any collections of information, as defined by 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c), as part of this proposed rule.

The Commission assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda, available at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Maritime Commission proposes to amend 46 CFR part 502 as follows: