Federal Register Vol. 83, No.175,

Background

FCIC amends the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising 7 CFR 457.109 Sugar Beet Crop Insurance Provisions (Crop Provisions), to be effective for the 2019 and succeeding crop years in states with a November 30 contract change date and for the 2020 and succeeding crop years in all other states. The intended effect of this action is to update existing policy provisions and definitions to better reflect current agricultural practices.

The changes are as follows:

1. FCIC is removing the paragraph immediately preceding section 1, which refers to the order of priority if a conflict exists among the policy provisions. This same provision is contained in the Basic Provisions. Therefore, the appearance here is duplicative and should be removed from the Crop Provisions.

2. FCIC is removing parentheticals identifying the titles of sections of the Basic Provisions throughout the Crop Provisions as the parenthetical section name is unnecessary and removing these titles will prevent FCIC from having to revise the Crop Provisions should these section titles change in the Basic Provisions.

3. Section 1—FCIC is revising the definition of “Crop Year.” The previous definition required a reference to specific counties, as the crop year was defined differently for several California counties. In 2013, the actuarial information that made insurance available was removed from all California counties except Imperial County, which has the same definition of “crop year” as used in all remaining insurable states and counties. Consequently, the revised definition removes references to specific counties such that all insurable counties have the same definition of “crop year.”

FCIC is removing the definition of “Local Market Price” as this term is no longer used in the Crop Provisions.

FCIC is revising the definition of “Practical to Replant.” FCIC is removing those provisions that are duplicative of the definition in the Basic Provisions and leaves the requirement that it is practical to replant if the terms of the processor contract can be met.

FCIC is adding a definition of “Processor Contract” and removing the definition of “Sugar Beet Processor Contract.” FCIC has identified several different Crop Provisions contain a variation of a definition for a “processor contract,” which has created ambiguity across Crop Provisions, and poses challenges for insurance providers to administer the program consistently across different crops. The definition of “processor contract” matches the definition found in other Crop Provisions, in order to improve standardization of language regarding use of contracts across crop insurance programs. References throughout the Crop Provisions will be revised accordingly. The new definition also requires that contracts be executed by the acreage reporting date, which is consistent with all other crop insurance policies that insure contract crops. Contracts must be executed by the acreage reporting date so that liabilities and prices can be established for the purpose of determining guarantees and premium.

FCIC is removing the definition of “Production Guarantee (per acre).” The definition is contained in the Basic Provisions. This definition was previously necessary due to inclusion of stage guarantees, which, as stated below, have been removed from the policy. Further, as stated below, section 3 specifies that the production guarantee is expressed in pounds of raw sugar.

FCIC is removing the definitions of “Standardized Ton” and “Ton.” The definitions are no longer necessary, since, as stated below, FCIC is changing the basis of insurance from “tons” to “pounds of raw sugar” in section 3(c).

FCIC is removing the definition of “Thinning” as this term is no longer used in the Crop Provisions.

4. Section 3—FCIC is revising the basis of insurance from “standardized tons” to “pounds of raw sugar.” This change is made to align the policy with the current sugar beet industry standard for payment. All references to the basis of insurance throughout the Crop Provisions will consequently be revised.

FCIC is removing stage guarantees from the policy. FCIC had previously offered an option to obtain coverage without the stage guarantees for an additional premium. FCIC has observed an increasing number of sugar beet producers electing the stage removal option, such that very few producers have coverage with stage guarantees. Removal of stage guarantees from the policy will better reflect the risk management needs of producers and simplify their existing coverage options. Premiums will be revised to reflect the removal of the stage guarantees from the policy.

5. Section 4—FCIC is removing references to a July 15 contract change date because, since 2013, this date was removed from the actuarial information for all counties. Additionally, FCIC proposes to edit the remaining date references to apply to states instead of counties. The edit does not change any county dates, merely provides consistency in reference to states or counties within the Crop Provisions and actuarial documents.

6. Section 5—FCIC is removing the table of county-specific cancellation and termination dates since many of the counties with differing cancellation and termination dates no longer have insurance for sugar beets. With the removal of insurance from these counties, there are only two remaining cancellation and termination dates, so the provisions have been revised to only refer to these dates. The revision will not result in any changed dates for counties where insurance for sugar beets is currently available.

7. Section 6—FCIC is removing and reserving this section. With the removal of stage guarantees, this section is no longer necessary. The premium computation method appears in the Basic Provisions and will reflect this removal.

8. Section 7—In section 7(b)(2), FCIC is replacing “duly promulgated” with “executed and adopted” and “sets forth” with “contains.” FCIC is also adding the modifier “corporate” to “resolution.” This revised terminology uses more common language, makes clear the connection to later uses of the term “corporate resolution,” and provides consistency with other Crop Provisions.

9. Section 8—FCIC is removing the parenthetical in 8(b) referring to counties without a final planting date because all insurable counties now have a specified final planting date.

10. Section 9—FCIC is removing the list of end of insurance dates by geographic region and instead referring to the calendar date shown in the actuarial documents for the end of the insurance period. This change will simplify the provision and allow FCIC to timely provide area-specific dates, allow for future program expansion, and provide greater flexibility to adjust end of insurance period dates to new or evolving regional conditions as needed in the future.

11. Section 11—In section 11(b), FCIC is removing the formula for calculating a replanting payment and replacing it with the phrase “dollar amount of the replant payment is specified in the Special Provisions” because the costs for replanting the crop may vary by county or region and this change gives FCIC the flexibility to ensure that the costs of replanting are reflected in the actuarial documents and adjusted as needed.

12. Section 12—FCIC is decapitalizing the words “in the” in the section heading for consistency throughout these Crop Provisions. In section 12(b), FCIC is adding a comma after “processor contract” to separate the two requirements. This change provides clarity on the issue of provision of contracts or corporate resolutions for specific entity types: For non-processors, a processor contract is required. For insureds who are also processors, a corporate resolution is required.

13. Section 13—In section 13(c)(1)(iii) FCIC is removing the parenthetical following the term “unharvested production,” which is no longer necessary due to the use of pounds of raw sugar as the basis of insurance, removal of stage guarantees, and the inclusion of an early harvest factor.

FCIC is removing section 13(c)(1)(iv), which is unnecessary due to the removal of stage guarantees. This also results in the redesignation of section 13(c)(1)(v) as section 13(c)(1)(iv).

In section 13(d) and (e), FCIC is revising the language to clarify the determination of production to count by referring to pounds of raw sugar and including the use of the raw sugar percentage specified in the Special Provisions only if a sugar test is not performed or is not deemed acceptable.

FCIC is adding a new subsection (f) to allow for an “early harvest factor.” The addition of this factor comes in response to a lack of clarity in the event of the periodic decisions by sugar beet processors to request a portion of their contracted acres be harvested early. In these events, the actual harvested beets are often lower in weight and sugar content, resulting in what could appear to be a production loss. This provision provides more clear guidance for insurance providers in the event of early harvested acres and eliminates the unnecessary reduction in grower APH. The adjustment for early harvest will not be made if the sugar beets are damaged by an insurable cause of loss and leaving the crop in the field would reduce production, and cannot result in a production to count in excess of the insured's actual production history. Further, the adjustment will only be made in the event that the portion of a unit harvested early exceeds a percentage of acreage threshold specified in the actuarial documents.

14. Section 14—FCIC is removing and reserving this section. This section was necessary because of the distinction between certain counties in California. Now that insurance is no longer available in those counties, the provision is no longer necessary and the late planting provisions in the Basic Provisions will apply.

15. Section 15—FCIC is removing section 15(a), because insurance is no longer available for those counties that previously had a July 15 contract change date.

The FCIC is issuing this final rule without opportunity for prior notice and comment. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) exempts rules “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts” from the statutory requirement for prior notice and opportunity for public comment (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). A Federal crop insurance policy is a contract and is thus exempt from APA notice-and-comment procedures. Previously, changes made to the Federal crop insurance policies codified in the Code of Federal Regulations were required to be implemented through the notice-and-comment rulemaking process. Such action was not required by the APA, which exempts contracts. Rather, the requirement originated with a notice USDA published in the Federal Register on July 24, 1971 (36 FR 13804), stating that the Department of Agriculture would, to the maximum extent practicable, use the notice-and-comment rulemaking process when making program changes, including those involving contracts. FCIC complied with this notice over the subsequent years. On October 28, 2013, USDA published a notice in the Federal Register (78 FR 64194) rescinding the prior notice, thereby making contracts again exempt from the notice-and-comment rulemaking process. This exemption applies to the 30-day notice prior to implementation of a rule. Therefore, the policy changes made by this final rule are effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

However, FCIC is providing a 30-day comment period and invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments. FCIC will consider the comments received and may conduct additional rulemaking based on the comments.

The changes will be effective for the 2019 and succeeding crop years in states with a November 30 contract change date and for the 2020 and succeeding crop years in all other states.

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” established a federal policy to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens on the American people. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and, therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rule. The rule is not subject to Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.”

Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, subchapter I), the collections of information in this rule have been approved by OMB under control number 0563-0053.

FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. FCIC has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, FCIC will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.

FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine the indemnity amount for an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act (FCIA) authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure that small entities are given the same opportunities as large entities to manage their risks through the use of crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, and, therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605).

This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450.

This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See 2 CFR part 415, subpart C.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC or action by FCIC directing the insurance provider to take specific action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before any action against FCIC for judicial review may be brought.

This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the quality of the human environment, health, or safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed.

Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, FCIC amends 7 CFR part 457 effective for the 2019 and succeeding crop years in states with a November 30 contract change date and for the 2020 and succeeding crop years in all other states as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 29, 2018 (83 FR 24427). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracked slat tracks at the location of the front stop attachment to the track. The NPRM proposed to require a detailed inspection, repetitive special detailed inspections, and corrective actions if necessary.

We are issuing this AD to address cracked slat tracks which could affect the structural integrity of the slat surface, possibly leading to detachment of an outer or inner slat surface, and resulting in reduced control of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0060, dated April 7, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0454.

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

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

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

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

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A330-57-3123, Revision 01, dated September 27, 2017; and Service Bulletin A340-57-4130, Revision 01, dated September 27, 2017. This service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection of the front stop lateral and aft surfaces for marks (dents or scratches), repetitive special detailed inspections of the front stop attachment areas, of slat track numbers 5 to 16 inclusive, both LH and RH wings for cracks, and corrective actions. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A330-57-3126, dated December 21, 2017; and Service Bulletin A340-57-4133, dated December 21, 2017. This service information describes procedures for modification of all affected slat tracks on an airplane. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 101 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

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

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

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Invited

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

In June 2017, we received a report of an incident involving an Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B3 helicopter fitted with an IBF. The helicopter took off in heavy rain and experienced an engine flameout as the pilot increased power. The helicopter was less than 10 feet off the ground when the pilot was forced to land immediately. An inspection showed that violent water ingestion damaged six axial compressor blades. During our investigation, the FAA received additional reports of previous incidents of helicopters equipped with IBFs or induction filter installations experiencing abnormal engine operations during heavy precipitation.

The FAA issued Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin SW-17-30, dated October 13, 2017 1 (SAIB), to warn operators that persistent or heavy rains may result in the inlet barrier filter media collecting and retaining water. The SAIB recommended the following to affected owners and operators:

• Use IBF covers when the rotorcraft is parked or towed outside, particularly when precipitation is reported in the area;

• During the helicopter preflight inspection, visually inspect the inlet and filter to verify that the inlet and filter medium are dry and free of accumulated moisture;

• If the filter medium has moisture during the preflight inspection, or if the rotorcraft is operating in heavy precipitation, open the bypass doors if equipped; and

• When operating in precipitation, sudden and rapid power transients should be avoided whenever practical.

After the SAIB was issued, we continued to investigate this issue and determined that AD action was necessary for certain Pall Corporation IBF dry-media filter elements. Filters that have a hydrophobic coating resist water accumulation, while the dry-media filters that are the subject of this AD accumulate water. The risk of engine failure caused by the ingestion of an excessive amount of water through the IBF element results in an unsafe condition that requires AD action.

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

We reviewed Pall Corporation Service Information Letter CE01301F2SINFOL, Revision A, dated July 15, 2015, which recommends covering the engine inlet if the helicopter is outside while not operating. The letter also recommends conducting pre-flight inspections to ensure the engine inlet is clear of water.

This AD requires, within 30 days, revising the rotorcraft flight manual supplement by inserting Appendix A of this AD into the limitations section.

The service information allows for removing water and reinstalling the IBF element if there is standing water on the engine inlet. This AD prohibits operation unless the IBF element is dry.

We consider this AD to be an interim action. The design approval holder is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.

We estimate that this AD will affect 81 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 per work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect the following costs:

• Incorporating Appendix A of this AD into the rotorcraft flight manual requires 1 work-hour and no parts for a cost of $85 per helicopter and $6,885 for the U.S. fleet.

• Replacing the inlet barrier filter, if required, requires 2 work-hours and parts cost $3,995 for a cost of $4,165 per filter replacement.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the unsafe condition requires corrective action within 30 days. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2018 (83 FR 16010). The NPRM was prompted by several reports of cracks in a certain floor beam lower chord at door stop fitting No. 1 of the forward airstair door cutout. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for any cracks and applicable on-condition actions.

We are issuing this AD to address such cracking, which could result in the inability of a principal structural element to sustain limit loads and possible rapid decompression.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing stated that it concurs with the NPRM.

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM.

We agree with the commenter's request. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Swiftair S.A. requested that a note be included in this AD to allow for fully manual operation of the forward airstair door instead of the electrical operation as specified in Appendix A of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1370 RB, dated December 13, 2017. Swiftair S.A. observed that two steps in Appendix A of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1370 RB, dated December 13, 2017, cannot be performed on aircraft that have incorporated Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1092. Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1092 provides instructions for temporary or permanent removal of the forward airstair assembly, deactivation of the electrical system, and removal of the forward airstair door motor, among other actions.

We agree because the forward airstair door cannot be operated electrically if the electrical system is deactivated and the motor is removed. We have changed paragraph (h) of this AD to include exceptions to certain steps of Appendix A of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1370 RB, dated December 13, 2017, that allow for both manual and electrical operation of the airstair door.

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

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

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

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

We reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1370 RB, dated December 13, 2017. The service information describes procedures for repetitive high frequency eddy current inspections of the station (STA) 312 floor beam lower chord, and door stop fittings No. 2, No. 5, and No. 8 on the forward airstair door for any cracks and applicable on-condition actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 67 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

We issued AD 2018-12-08, Amendment 39-19312 (83 FR 33821, July 18, 2018) (“AD 2018-12-08”), which applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-212, -213, -312, and -313 airplanes. AD 2018-12-08 was prompted by a report of cracking at fastener holes located at FR40 on the lower shell panel junction. AD 2018-12-08 required repetitive inspections of certain fastener holes, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We issued AD 2018-12-08 to address cracking at FR40 on the lower shell panel junction; such cracking could lead to reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.

Since we issued AD 2018-12-08, we have determined that it is necessary to correct certain service bulletin table references, which provide the compliance times for the initial inspection. Table 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2018-12-08 pointed to “table 1” of the service information for the initial compliance time. However, table 2 and table 3 in the service bulletins also apply to certain airplanes (those in Configuration 1). All airplanes belonging to affected U.S. operators are in Configuration 2 or Configuration 3, which use only table 1 in the service bulletins. This AD corrects the service bulletin table references for the compliance times. We have changed table 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD by removing the limitation to “table 1” of the service bulletins, and instead referring to the compliance times in “paragraph 1.E., `Compliance,' ” of the service bulletins.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0063, dated April 12, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200, A330-300, and A340-200 series airplanes, and Model A340-312 and -313 airplanes. The MCAI states:

AD 2017-07-07 included Model A340-211 airplanes in its applicability. Airbus SAS Model A340-211 airplanes are not identified in the applicability of this AD because those airplanes are not affected by the identified unsafe condition. All of those airplanes are in the pre-Airbus SAS modification 44360 configuration. The MCAI also does not include Model A340-211 airplanes in its applicability.

The compliance time ranges between 20,000 flight cycles or 65,400 flight hours and 20,800 flight cycles or 68,300 flight hours, depending on airplane utilization and configuration. The repetitive inspection interval ranges between 14,000 flight cycles or 95,200 flight hours and 24,600 flight cycles or 98,700 flight hours, depending on airplane utilization and configuration.

You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0789.

Airbus SAS has issued Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, Revision 03, dated January 22, 2018; and Service Bulletin A340-53-4215, Revision 02, dated November 23, 2016. This service information describes procedures for repetitive rototest inspections of certain fastener holes, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

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

This AD corrects an error that affects compliance for non-U.S.-registered airplanes only. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0789; Product Identifier 2018-NM-120-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 99 airplanes of U.S. registry. This AD adds no new economic burden. The current costs for this AD are repeated for the convenience of affected operators, as follows:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the required inspections. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:

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

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

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it supports the removal of the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D surface area no longer needed at Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport, Springfield, OH.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (83 FR 19986; May 7, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2017-1051 to remove Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area at Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport, Springfield, OH. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6004 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 removes the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D airspace at Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport, Springfield, OH.

The air traffic control tower has closed, and Class E extension airspace removed, as the airport no longer qualifies for controlled airspace.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. This safety zone must be established by September 12, 2018, and we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule. The NPRM process would delay the establishment of the safety zone until after the date of the oil spill response exercise and compromise public safety.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary to respond to the potential hazards associated with the oil spill response exercise.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with oil spill response exercise activities and equipment deployment will be a safety concern for anyone on the navigable waters of the Upper Mississippi River from mile marker (MM) 824 to MM 832. This rule is needed to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters within the safety zone while the oil spill response crews are operating in the area and while the oil spill removal equipment is deployed in the river.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 8 a.m. through 5 p.m. on September 12, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Upper Mississippi River from MM 824 to MM 832. The duration of the zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the oil spill response crews are operating in the area and while the oil spill removal equipment is deployed in the river. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River.

Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted by telephone at 314-269-2332 or on VHF-FM channel 16. Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.

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

Executive Orders 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) and 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum “Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (April 5, 2017).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. This safety zone impacts an eight mile stretch of the Upper Mississippi River for eight hours on one day. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting approximately eight hours on one day that will prohibit entry on the navigable waters of the Upper Mississippi River from MM 824 to MM 832. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels in vicinity of the fireworks display.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of enhancing safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels in vicinity of the Helocast Water Insertion Training Event.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that helicopter training with swimmers jumping to the water presents significant risks to the public safety and property. Such hazards include excessive winds from helicopter, rougher than normal waters, dangerous projectiles, and falling debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the Helocast Water Insertion Training takes place.

This rule establishes a safety zone on September 14, 2018, from 6:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Black River Bay, Sackets Harbor, NY contained within a 1,000-foot radius of: 43°57′11.1″ N, 76°07′26.3″ W.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the conclusion that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. We anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule establishes a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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

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

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register TIR Temporary Interim Rule NPRM Notice of Proposed Rule Making § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

On June 1, 2018, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a notice allowing the Joint Venture of Cashman Dredging Inc. and Dutra Group to proceed with the improvement-dredging project of Broad Sound North Channel, Boston's Inner Harbor Main Ship Channel, Conley Terminal including the turning basin or “MSC Notch,” and President Roads Anchorage. The project consists of deepening Broad Sound North Channel to 51 feet below the surface, and Boston's Inner Harbor Main Ship Channel, Conley Terminal including the turning basin or “MSC Notch,” and President Roads Anchorage each to 47 feet below the surface.

The project includes dredging approximately 11.7 million cubic yards of silt, blue clay, till and weathered rock from the Broad South North Channel, Boston's Inner Harbor Main Ship Channel, Conley Terminal, and President Roads Anchorage. Most of the material dredged will be placed at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) approximately 20 miles offshore of Boston Harbor. A small fraction of the material dredged will be placed as a cap to the Main Ship Channel Confined Aquatic Disposal Cell, just downstream of the inner confluence of the Chelsea and Mystic Rivers. The initial phase of the dredge operation involves using mechanical dredges and does not involve any type of blasting or drilling operation. At some point, once the silt, blue clay, till and weathered rock have been removed, blasting or drilling may be needed to remove the hard rock. Whether blasting or drilling will be required, it will not be known until the top material has been removed and the contractor can locate the hard rock spots. The dredge operation has begun and will continue for 24 hours a day, seven days a week for approximately four years. The Coast Guard is publishing this rule to be effective, and enforceable, through August 31, 2023, in case the project is delayed due to unforeseen circumstances. If the project is completed prior to August 31, 2023, enforcement of the safety zones will be suspended and notice given via Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, or both.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary interim rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The notice allowing the dredging project to proceed and providing dates for the project was only recently finalized and provided to the Coast Guard, and timely action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with this dredging project. The late finalization of project details did not give the Coast Guard enough time to publish a NPRM, take public comments, and issue a final rule before dredging operations begin. It would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish a NPRM because a safety zone must be established as soon as possible to protect the safety of the waterway users, construction crew, and other personnel associated with the dredging project. A delay of the dredging project to accommodate a full notice and comment period would delay necessary operations, result in increased costs, and delay the date when the dredging project is expected to be completed and reopen Boston Harbor for normal operations.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because timely action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the dredging project.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

The COTP Boston has determined that potential hazards exist associated with a dredging project that has already commenced, and will continue through August 31, 2023. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters of Broad Sound North Channel, Boston's Inner Harbor Main Ship Channel, Conley Terminal including the turning basin or “MSC Notch,” and President Roads Anchorage during the dredging project.

This rule establishes two safety zones that will continue through August 31, 2023.

The first safety zone will have a 100-yard radius centered on any vessel, barge, or dredging equipment while actively engaged in dredging operations, drilling, or blasting. If blasting is needed for hard rock, the second safety zone will have a 500-yard radius centered on the worksite on each day of blasting, to be established once explosives are laid and ready for detonation, and subsequently suspended once a successful detonation has been confirmed. The Coast Guard will notify the public and local mariners of this 500-yard safety zone through appropriate means, which may include, but are not limited to, publication in the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners via marine Channel 16 (VHF-FM) in advance of any enforcement.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the following reasons: (1) These safety zones will only impact a small designated area of the waterway at any given time; (2) vessels wishing to transit the waterway will have sufficient room to transit around the the safety zones; (3) dredging vessel(s) conducting operations will move out of the channel for deep draft vessels that need to pass through that area and deep draft vessel traffic will be well coordinated though daily communications with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contractor, Ship Pilots, and the U.S. Coast Guard; (4) local lobstermen can still set pots in some areas of Boston harbor; (5) the 500-yd safety zone around blasting operations will only be enforced when blasting is in progress for short durations and with substantial public notice days in advance of enforcement through a Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via marine channel 16 (VHF-FM) of the exact location. The Coast Guard will place a notice in the Local Notice to Mariner (LNM); issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via marine channel 16 (VHF-FM), Safety Marine Information Port Bulletin, discuss updates at the monthly Boston Port Operators Group (POG) meeting, and at the Massachusetts Bay Harbor Safety Committee meetings.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of two safety zones on the navigable waters of Broad Sound North Channel, Boston's Inner Harbor Main Ship Channel, Conley Terminal including the turning basin or “MSC Notch,” and President Roads Anchorage: (1) A 100-yard radius centered on any vessel, barge, or dredging equipment while actively engaged in dredging operations, drilling, or blasting. (2) If blasting is needed for hard rock, the second safety zone will have a 500-yard radius centered on the worksite on each day of blasting, to be established once explosives are laid and ready for detonation, and subsequently suspended once a successful detonation has been confirmed. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration for Categorically Excluded Actions is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this temporary interim rule.

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

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

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

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.

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

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