Federal Register Vol. 83, No.181,

I. Summary of the Interim Final Rule

Effective September 21, 2018, new section 605A(i)(5) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), added by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the Act), requires that a new notice of rights be included whenever a consumer is required to receive a summary of rights required by FCRA section 609. This new notice of rights does not appear in the model forms currently in Appendices I and K, which were published on November 14, 2012. The interim final rule amends the model forms to incorporate the new required notice of rights, amends the model form in Appendix I to reflect a statutory change to the minimum duration of initial fraud alerts, and makes adjustments to update contact information for certain FCRA enforcement agencies in the model form in Appendix K. To mitigate the impact of these changes on users of the existing model forms, the interim final rule also provides that the Bureau will regard the use of the model forms published in Appendices I and K on November 14, 2012, to constitute compliance with the FCRA provisions requiring such forms, so long as a separate page that contains the additional required information is provided in the same transmittal. The Bureau is soliciting comment on the interim final rule's amendments to Appendices I and K to inform possible further revisions to the model forms that the Bureau may consider in the future.

Section 609 of the FCRA requires the Bureau to prepare two consumer disclosures: A model summary of rights to obtain and dispute information in consumer reports and to obtain credit scores (Summary of Consumer Rights); and a model summary of rights of identity theft victims (Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights).1 The Bureau's model forms for the Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights and the Summary of Consumer Rights are found in Appendices I and K to Regulation V, respectively.

The Summary of Consumer Rights explains certain major consumer rights under the FCRA, including the right to obtain a copy of a consumer report, the frequency and circumstances under which a consumer is entitled to receive a free consumer report, the right to dispute information in a consumer's file, and the right to obtain a credit score. A consumer reporting agency must provide a Summary of Consumer Rights whenever it makes a written disclosure of information from a consumer's file or a credit score to the consumer.2 The FCRA also requires certain other persons to provide a Summary of Consumer Rights to consumers under specified circumstances.3

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 A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 14, 2018 (83 FR 22222). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations.

We are issuing this AD to address safety-significant latent failures that would, in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition of avionics, hydraulic systems, fire detection systems, fuel systems, or other critical systems.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0203, dated October 12, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 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-2018-0365.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We have considered the comment received. FedEx Express indicated its support for the NPRM.

Airbus requested that we release this final rule at the same time as the following related ADs to provide clarity to operators. All four pending ADs are related to the removal of the same 15 nose landing gear parts from ALS Part 1, on different airplane models.

• Docket No. FAA-2018-0390, Product Identifier 2017-NM-130-AD (EASA AD 2017-0145, dated August 31, 2017).

• Docket No. FAA-2018-0364, Product Identifier 2017-NM-154-AD (EASA AD 2017-0204, dated October 12, 2017).

• Docket No. FAA-2018-0396, Product Identifier 2017-NM-156-AD (EASA AD 2017-0202, dated October 12, 2017).

We agree with the request. While we cannot ensure that all four final rules will be published on the same date, we will coordinate with the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) and attempt to issue all four final rules at the same time.

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 change 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.

Airbus SAS has issued A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 01, dated August 28, 2017; and A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 01, dated August 28, 2017. This service information describes mandatory maintenance tasks that operators must perform at specified intervals. 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 127 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although this figure may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Learjet, Inc. Models 28, 29, 31, 31A, 35, 35A, 36, 36A, 55, 55B, 55C, and 60 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2018 (83 FR 20740). The NPRM was prompted by a report that a skewed flap and aileron became bound on a Model 31A airplane, which was later found to have fatigue cracks in the flap support structure due to repetitive flap loads. Fatigue cracks in the flap support structure caused by repetitive flap loads can result in failure of the flap nose roller support bracket. Repetitive flap loads occur on all models identified by this AD. The NPRM proposed to require replacement of the flap nose roller fitting, nose roller support bracket, and adjacent rib support structure with improved components. This condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of roll control on approach with consequent loss of control of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

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 have revised this action to clarify that operators are not required to obtain repair instructions from Learjet. Instead, operators must use a repair method approved by the Manager, Wichita ACO Branch, FAA.

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed except for the changes described previously and other minor editorial changes. We have determined that these 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 reviewed Bombardier Learjet 28/29 Service Bulletin SB 28/29-27-31 Recommended, dated September 11, 2017; Bombardier Learjet 31 SB 31-27-35 Recommended, dated September 11, 2017; Bombardier Learjet 35/36 SB 35/36-27-50 Recommended, dated September 11, 2017; Bombardier Learjet 55 SB 55-27-41 Recommended, dated September 11, 2017; and Bombardier Learjet 60 SB 60-27-39 Recommended, Revision 1, dated January 15, 2018. For the applicable models, the service information describes procedures for replacement of the flap nose roller fitting, nose roller support bracket, and adjacent rib support structure with improved components. The service information also contains instructions to ensure correct flap alignment. 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 706 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

This AD 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 small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation 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:

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 A300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 11, 2018 (83 FR 21955). The NPRM was prompted by a revision of an ALI document. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the specified maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations.

We are issuing this AD to address the reduced structural integrity of the airplane and possible loss of controllability of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0145, dated August 31, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A300 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-2018-0390.

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

Airbus questioned the need to keep AD 2014-16-13 and whether the proposed AD should instead supersede AD 2014-16-13. Airbus noted that the proposed AD lists all of the ALIs in EASA AD 2017-0145, dated August 31, 2017, not just the ALIs that have been updated since we issued AD 2014-16-13. We infer that Airbus wanted the proposed AD changed to a supersedure AD.

We disagree with the request to change this AD to a supersedure AD. To address the unsafe condition, we chose to match EASA AD 2017-0145, dated August 31, 2017, and include the same ALIs. Because accomplishment of the requirements of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2014-16-13, a supersedure is not necessary. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Airbus requested that we release this final rule at the same time as the following related ADs to provide clarity to operators. All four pending ADs are related to the same removal of 15 nose landing gear parts from ALS Part 1, on different airplane models.

• Docket No. FAA-2018-0364, Product Identifier 2017-NM-154-AD (EASA AD 2017-0204, dated October 12, 2017).

• Docket No. FAA-2018-0365, Product Identifier 2017-NM-155-AD (EASA AD 2017-0203, dated October 12, 2017).

• Docket No. FAA-2018-0396, Product Identifier 2017-NM-156-AD (EASA AD 2017-0202, dated October 12, 2017).

We agree with the request insofar as we can control the publication schedule. While we cannot ensure that all four will be published on the same date, we will coordinate with the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) and attempt to issue all four final rules at the same time.

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 estimate that this AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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:

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 A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes), and Model A310 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2018 (83 FR 20743). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations.

We are issuing this AD to address the risks associated with the effects of aging on airplane systems. Such effects could change system characteristics, leading to an increased potential for failure of certain life-limited parts, and reduced structural integrity or controllability of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0202, dated October 12, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes), and Model A310 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-2018-0396.

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. FedEx Express stated that they had no objections to the proposed AD.

Airbus requested in docket numbers, FAA-2018-0390 and FAA-2018-0365 that we release this final rule and the following related ADs at the same time to provide clarity to operators. All four pending ADs are related to the removal of the same 15 nose landing gear parts from ALS Part 1, on different airplane models.

• Docket No. FAA-2018-0390, Product Identifier 2017-NM-130-AD (EASA AD 2017-0145, dated August 31, 2017).

• Docket No. FAA-2018-0364, Product Identifier 2017-NM-154-AD (EASA AD 2017-0204, dated October 12, 2017).

• Docket No. FAA-2018-0365, Product Identifier 2017-NM-155-AD (EASA AD 2017-0203, dated October 12, 2017).

We agree with the commenter's request insofar as we can control the publication schedule. While we cannot ensure that all four final rules will be published on the same date, we will coordinate with the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) regarding publication of all four final rules at the same time.

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.

Airbus SAS has issued A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR),” Revision 03, dated August 28, 2017; and A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR),” Revision 03, dated August 28, 2017. This service information describes new maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. 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 127 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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:

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 A300 and A310 series airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 14, 2018 (83 FR 22219). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue damage in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity 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 2017-0204, dated October 12, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A300 and A310 series airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The MCAI states:

This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate certain maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. The unsafe condition is fatigue damage in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. 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-2018-0364.

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.

Airbus asked that we remove the duplicated language in the Discussion section of the NPRM which repeats the phrase “compiling all ALS Part 1.”

We agree that the specified language in the Discussion section was duplicated, and have removed this duplication accordingly.

Airbus requested in docket numbers, FAA-2018-0390 and FAA-2018-0365 that we release this final rule and the following related ADs at the same time to provide clarity to operators. All four pending ADs are related to the same removal of 15 nose landing gear parts from ALS Part 1, on different airplane models.

• Docket No. FAA-2018-0390, Product Identifier 2017-NM-130-AD (EASA AD 2017-0145, dated August 31, 2017).

• Docket No. FAA-2018-0365, Product Identifier 2017-NM-155-AD (EASA AD 2017-0203, dated October 12, 2017).

• Docket No. FAA-2018-0396, Product Identifier 2017-NM-156-AD (EASA AD 2017-0202, dated October 12, 2017).

We agree with the request insofar as we can control the publication schedule. While we cannot ensure that all four will be published on the same date, we will coordinate with the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) and attempt to issue all four final rules at the same time.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, 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 SAS has issued the following service information, which describes procedures for revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

• For Model A300 series airplanes: Section 4, “Life Limits (LL)/Demonstrated Fatigue Lives (DF),” of Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL—ALI),” Revision 02, dated August 28, 2017, of the Airbus Model A300 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS).

• For Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes): Section 4, “Life Limits (LL)/Demonstrated Fatigue Lives (DF),” of Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL—ALI),” Revision 02, dated August 28, 2017, of the Airbus Model A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS).

• For Model A310 series airplanes: Section 4, “Life Limits (LL)/Demonstrated Fatigue Lives (DF),” of Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL—ALI),” Revision 02, dated August 28, 2017, of the Airbus Model A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS).

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 132 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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:

This action amends the prohibition of flight operations in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) 1 by all: U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except where the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier. From February 17, 1998, until November 3, 2017, the FAA prohibited U.S. civil aviation operations in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) west of 132 degrees east longitude under SFAR No. 79 due to the hazardous situation created by North Korea's military capabilities and its rules of engagement. On November 3, 2017, the FAA issued KICZ Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) A0023/17, prohibiting U.S. civil aviation operations in the entire Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) due to the hazardous situation created by North Korean military capabilities and activities, including unannounced North Korean missile launches and air defense weapons systems. This amendment to SFAR No. 79 incorporates the November 3, 2017 NOTAM's expanded flight prohibition into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The FAA finds this action necessary due to continued hazards to U.S. civil aviation operations in the entire Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP).

Further, this action moves SFAR No. 79 into subpart M, Special Federal Aviation Regulations, of part 91 and adds an expiration date, consistent with other flight prohibition SFARs. The FAA also is providing an approval process and exemption information for SFAR No. 79, 14 CFR 91.1615, consistent with the approval process and exemption information for more recently published flight prohibition SFARs.

SFAR No. 79, § 91.1615, will expire on September 18, 2020.

The FAA is responsible for the safety of flight in the U.S. and for the safety of U.S. civil operators, U.S.-registered civil aircraft, and U.S.-certificated airmen throughout the world. The FAA Administrator's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in title 49, U.S. Code, Subtitle I, sections 106(f) and (g). Subtitle VII of title 49, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. Section 40101(d)(1) provides that the Administrator shall consider in the public interest, among other matters, assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air commerce. Section 40105(b)(1)(A) requires the Administrator to exercise his authority consistently with the obligations of the U.S. Government under international agreements.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, subpart III, section 44701, General requirements. Under that section, the FAA is charged broadly with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, among other things, regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.

This regulation is within the scope of FAA's authority, because it prohibits the persons subject to paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 79, § 91.1615, (formerly paragraph (1)) from conducting flight operations in the entire Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) due to the continued hazards to the safety of such persons' flight operations, as described in the Background section of this final rule.

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of title 5, U.S. Code, authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Section 553(d) also authorizes agencies to forgo the delay in the effective date of the final rule for good cause found and published with the rule. In this instance, the FAA finds good cause to forgo notice and comment because notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. To the extent that the rule is based upon classified information, such information is not permitted to be shared with the general public. Also, threats to U.S. civil aviation and intelligence regarding these threats are fluid. As a result, the agency's original proposal could become unsuitable for minimizing the hazards to U.S. civil aviation in the affected airspace during or after the notice and comment process. The FAA further finds an immediate need to address the hazardous situation for U.S. civil aviation that exists in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) due to North Korean military capabilities and activities, including unannounced North Korean missile launches and air defense weapons systems. These hazards are further described in the Background section of this rule.

For these reasons, the FAA finds good cause to forgo notice and comment and any delay in the effective date for this rule. The FAA also finds that this action is fully consistent with the obligations under 49 U.S.C. 40105(b)(1)(A) to ensure that the FAA exercises its duties consistently with the obligations of the United States under international agreements.

On April 24, 1997, the FAA published a final rule, SFAR No. 79, which prohibited certain U.S. civil flight operations within the entire FIR of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea), i.e., the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP). 62 FR 20076. In its original form, SFAR No. 79 prohibited all U.S. air carriers or commercial operators; all persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except such persons operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and all operators of aircraft registered in the U.S., except where the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier, from conducting flight operations through the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP). At that time, North Korea had begun allowing routine international overflights, and the U.S. Government had lifted its prohibition on the payment of overflight fees to North Korea, which had the practical effect of allowing U.S. operators to fly in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP). Nevertheless, the FAA determined that a variety of factors in North Korea posed a potential threat to civil aircraft flying through the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP), necessitating an FAA flight prohibition.

These factors included the potential for periods of heightened tension on the Korean peninsula, North Korea's high state of military readiness and emphasis on air defense of certain areas, and the fact that the North Korean air defense system included modern surface-to-air missile systems and interceptor aircraft capable of engaging aircraft at cruising altitudes. The FAA further stated that it had been unable to determine the level of coordination and cooperation between North Korean civil air traffic authorities and air defense commanders for civil aircraft overflights, including military rules of engagement if an aircraft were to stray from its assigned flight route. The FAA was concerned that any lack of coordination, combined with North Korea's air defense capabilities, including its rules of engagement and limited capability to distinguish between military and civil aircraft, could result in civil aircraft operating in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) west of 132 degrees east longitude being misidentified and inadvertently engaged by North Korea. In the FAA's view, this potential threat justified a prohibition on U.S. civil aviation operations in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) west of 132 degrees east longitude.

With respect to U.S. civil aviation operations in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) east of 132 degrees east longitude, the FAA indicated that, since it had not yet reviewed all applicable safety information provided by North Korea and necessary for operators to meet international safety standards prescribed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), it had not determined that the proper level of operational overflight safety could be assured. Remaining issues for review included, but were not limited to: Differences from ICAO standards, if any; search and rescue capabilities and procedures; and North Korean military pilot training in the proper civil aircraft intercept procedures. The FAA stated that, once this information was reviewed, the FAA was prepared to amend SFAR No. 79, as warranted, to permit U.S. civil flights in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) east of 132 degrees east longitude. 62 FR 20077.

Subsequently, North Korea provided the FAA with a copy of its Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP). Following a review of North Korea's AIP, the FAA determined that the proper level of flight safety could be assured for overflights occurring in the international airspace of the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) east of 132 degrees east longitude. On February 17, 1998, the FAA published a final rule amending SFAR No. 79 to permit U.S. civil aviation to conduct flights in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) east of 132 degrees east longitude. 63 FR 8016; corrected at 63 FR 19286, (Apr. 17, 1998).

In recent years, North Korea has conducted a number of provocative actions that posed flight safety hazards and necessitated the FAA's issuance of various advisory NOTAMs regarding the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) and adjacent areas to warn U.S. civil aviation of these hazards. In 2014, North Korea initiated a ballistic missile test program involving frequent unannounced missile launches into the Sea of Japan. A number of the missiles impacted in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) east of the eastern boundary of SFAR No. 79 and in relatively close proximity to international air routes transiting the region. North Korea, as recently as April 2016, has also employed electronic jamming equipment on several occasions for intentional interference with aviation and maritime navigation and communication networks. While these intentional interference events have primarily impacted flight operations in the Incheon (RKRR) FIR, the associated capabilities and effects could also affect operations in adjoining airspace, including the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP). In recent months, increased North Korean military capabilities and activities, including upgraded air defense weapons systems and unannounced North Korean missile launches, have increased the risk of U.S. civil aviation operating in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) east of 132 degrees east longitude being either misidentified as a threat and inadvertently engaged by North Korea or struck by a missile or debris from an unannounced launch. Such events could involve loss of life, injuries, and property damage.

In response to this situation, the FAA issued KICZ NOTAM A0023/17 on November 3, 2017, to prohibit flight operations in the entire Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP), including the area east of 132 degrees east longitude, by all: U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except where the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier.

As a result of the significant continuing risk to U.S. civil aviation in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP), including the area east of 132 degrees east longitude, and given the uncertainty about when the above-described hazards will abate sufficiently to allow for safe U.S. civil aviation operations therein, this amendment to SFAR No. 79, § 91.1615, incorporates the flight prohibition contained in KICZ NOTAM A0023/17. To maintain consistency with other flight prohibition SFARs, the FAA moves SFAR No. 79 into subpart M of part 91, Special Federal Aviation Regulations. SFAR No. 79 will now be found at 14 CFR 91.1615. The FAA also adds an expiration date to SFAR No. 79 of September 18, 2010. Finally, the FAA is also publishing an approval process and exemption information for this SFAR, which is similar to those for more recently published flight prohibition SFARs.

The FAA will continue to actively monitor the situation and evaluate the extent to which U.S. civil operators and airmen may be able to operate safely in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP). Amendments to SFAR No. 79, § 91.1615, may be appropriate if the risk to aviation safety and security changes. The FAA may amend or rescind SFAR No. 79, § 91.1615, as necessary, prior to its expiration date.

In some instances, U.S. Government departments, agencies, or instrumentalities may need to engage U.S. civil aviation to support their activities in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP). If a department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government determines that it has a critical need to engage any person covered under SFAR No. 79, § 91.1615, including a U.S. air carrier or commercial operator, to conduct a charter to transport civilian or military passengers or cargo, or other operations, in the Pyongyang (ZKKP) FIR, that department, agency, or instrumentality may request the FAA to approve persons covered under SFAR No. 79, § 91.1615, to conduct such operations.

An approval request must be made directly by the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government to the FAA's Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety in a letter signed by an appropriate senior official of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality. The senior official signing the letter requesting FAA approval on behalf of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality must be sufficiently highly placed within his or her organization to demonstrate that the senior leadership of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality supports the request for approval and is committed to taking all necessary steps to minimize operational risks to the proposed flights. The senior official must also be in a position to: (1) Attest to the accuracy of all representations made to the FAA in the request for approval and (2) ensure that any support from the requesting U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality described in the request for approval is in fact brought to bear and is maintained over time. The FAA will not accept or consider requests for approval by anyone other than the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality. Unless justified by exigent circumstances, requests for approval must be submitted to the FAA no less than 30 calendar days before the date on which the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality intends to commence the proposed operations.

The letter must be sent to the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591. Electronic submissions are acceptable, and the requesting entity may request that the FAA notify it electronically as to whether the approval request is granted. If a requestor wishes to make an electronic submission to the FAA, the requestor should contact the Air Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, at (202) 267-8166, to obtain the appropriate email address. A single letter may request approval from the FAA for multiple persons covered under SFAR No. 79, § 91.1615, and/or for multiple flight operations. To the extent known, the letter must identify the person(s) expected to be covered under the SFAR on whose behalf the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality is seeking FAA approval, and it must describe—

• The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the mission being supported;

• The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by the SFAR;

• To the extent known, the specific locations in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) where the proposed operation(s) will be conducted, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while it is operating in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) and the airports, airfields and/or landing zones at which the aircraft will take-off and land; and

• The method by which the department, agency, or instrumentality will provide, or how the operator will otherwise obtain, current threat information and an explanation of how the operator will integrate this information into all phases of the proposed operations (i.e., pre-mission planning and briefing, in-flight, and post-flight phases).

The request for approval must also include a list of operators with whom the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality requesting FAA approval has a current contract(s), grant(s), or cooperative agreement(s) (or its prime contractor has a subcontract(s)) for specific flight operations in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP). Additional operators may be identified to the FAA at any time after the FAA approval is issued. However, all additional operators must be identified to, and obtain an Operations Specification (OpSpec) or Letter of Authorization (LOA), as appropriate, from the FAA for operations in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP), before such operators commence such operations. The approval conditions discussed below apply to any such additional operators. Updated lists should be sent to the email address to be obtained from the Air Transportation Division by calling (202) 267-8166.

If an approval request includes classified information, requestors may contact Aviation Safety Inspector Michael Filippell for instructions on submitting it to the FAA. His contact information is listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this final rule.

FAA approval of an operation under SFAR No. 79, § 91.1615, does not relieve persons subject to this SFAR of their responsibility to comply with all other applicable FAA rules and regulations. Operators of civil aircraft must comply with the conditions of their certificate, OpSpecs, and LOAs, as applicable. Operators must also comply with all rules and regulations of other U.S. Government departments or agencies that may apply to the proposed operation(s), including, but not limited to, regulations issued by the Transportation Security Administration.

If the FAA approves the request, the FAA's Aviation Safety Organization (AVS) will send an approval letter to the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality informing it that the FAA's approval is subject to all of the following conditions:

(1) The approval will stipulate those procedures and conditions that limit, to the greatest degree possible, the risk to the operator, while still allowing the operator to achieve its operational objectives.

(2) Before any approval takes effect, the operator must submit to the FAA:

(a) A written release of the U.S. Government from all damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses; and

(b) The operator's written agreement to indemnify the U.S. Government with respect to any and all third-party damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses, relating to any event arising from or related to the approved operations in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP).

(3) Other conditions that the FAA may specify, including those that may be imposed in OpSpecs or LOAs, as applicable.

The release and agreement to indemnify do not preclude an operator from raising a claim under an applicable non-premium war risk insurance policy issued by the FAA under chapter 443 of title 49, U.S. Code.

If the proposed operations are approved, the FAA will issue an OpSpec or an LOA, as applicable, to the operator(s) identified in the original request. The FAA-issued OpSpec or LOA, as applicable, authorizes the operator(s) to conduct the approved operations. The FAA will also notify the department, agency, or instrumentality that requested FAA approval of such operation(s) of any additional conditions beyond those contained in the approval letter.

Any operations not conducted under an approval issued by the FAA through the approval process set forth previously must be conducted under an exemption from SFAR No. 79, § 91.1615. A petition for an exemption must comply with 14 CFR part 11 and requires exceptional circumstances beyond those contemplated by the approval process described in the previous section. In addition to the information required by 14 CFR 11.81, at a minimum, the requestor must describe in its submission to the FAA—

• The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the operation;

• The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by the SFAR;

• The specific locations in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) where the proposed operation(s) will be conducted, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while it is operating in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) and the airports, airfields and/or landing zones at which the aircraft will take-off and land;

• The method by which the operator will obtain current threat information, and an explanation of how the operator will integrate this information into all phases of its proposed operations (i.e., pre-mission planning and briefing, in-flight, and post-flight phases); and

• The plans and procedures that the operator will use to minimize the risks, identified in the Background section of this rule, to the proposed operations, so that granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety or would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by this SFAR. The FAA has found comprehensive, organized plans and procedures of this nature to be helpful in facilitating the agency's safety evaluation of petitions for exemption from flight prohibition SFARs.

Additionally, the release and agreement to indemnify, as referred to previously, are required as a condition of any exemption issued under SFAR No. 79, § 91.1615.

The FAA recognizes that operations that may be affected by SFAR No. 79, § 91.1615, may be planned for the governments of other countries with the support of the U.S. Government. While these operations will not be permitted through the approval process, the FAA will consider exemption requests for such operations on an expedited basis and prior to any private exemption requests.

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), as codified in 5 U.S.C. 603 et seq., requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), 19 U.S.C. chapter 13, prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Agreements Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards.

Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), as codified in 2 U.S.C. chapter 25, requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.

In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this final rule has benefits that justify its costs. This rule is a significant regulatory action, as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as it raises novel policy issues contemplated under that Executive Order. As notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 are not required for this final rule, the regulatory flexibility analyses described in 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 regarding impacts on small entities are not required. This rule will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, by exceeding the threshold identified previously.

This rule prohibits U.S. civil flights in the entire Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP), including the area east of 132 degrees east longitude, due to the significant hazards to U.S. civil aviation described in the Background section of this preamble. By mid-summer 2017, most, if not all, U.S. scheduled operators had voluntarily ceased flying in the portion of the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) east of 132 degrees east longitude due to the hazards posed by unannounced North Korean missile launches and increased tensions in the region. Nevertheless, in the rare cases where U.S. operators might have opted to transit that area but for this final rule, alternative flight routes could result in additional fuel usage and other flight time-associated operator costs, as well as costs attributed to passenger time. The FAA believes there are very few, if any, U.S. operators who intend to operate in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) at this time due to the hazards described in the Background section of this final rule. The FAA anticipates receiving very few, if any, requests to operate in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) east of 132 degrees east longitude due to the previously discussed hazards.

Consequently, the FAA expects the costs of this rule to be minimal and these minimal costs to be exceeded by the benefits of avoided risks of deaths, injuries, and property damage that could result from a U.S. operator's aircraft being shot down (or otherwise damaged).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, in 5 U.S.C. 603, requires an agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing impacts on small entities whenever an agency is required by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed rule. Similarly, 5 U.S.C. 604 requires an agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis when an agency issues a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking. The FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment and any delay in the effective date for this rule. As notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 are not required in this situation, the regulatory flexibility analyses described in 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 are not required.

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to this Act, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

The FAA has assessed the effect of this final rule and determined that its purpose is to protect the safety of U.S. civil aviation from hazards to their operations in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP), a location outside the U.S. Therefore, the rule is in compliance with the Trade Agreements Act of 1979.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100 million.

This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this final rule.

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA's policy to conform to ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to this regulation.

While the FAA's flight prohibition does not apply to foreign air carriers, DOT codeshare authorizations prohibit foreign air carriers from carrying a U.S. codeshare partner's code on a flight segment that operates in airspace for which the FAA has issued a flight prohibition. In addition, foreign air carriers and other foreign operators may choose to avoid, or be advised/directed by their civil aviation authorities to avoid, airspace for which the FAA has issued a flight prohibition.

The FAA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions (44 FR 1957, January 4, 1979), and DOT Order 5610.1C, Paragraph 16. Executive Order 12114 requires the FAA to be informed of environmental considerations and take those considerations into account when making decisions on major Federal actions that could have environmental impacts anywhere beyond the borders of the United States. The FAA has determined that this action is exempt pursuant to Section 2-5(a)(i) of Executive Order 12114, because it does not have the potential for a significant effect on the environment outside the United States.

In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 8-6(c), FAA has prepared a memorandum for the record stating the reason(s) for this determination; this memorandum has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have Federalism implications.

The FAA analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it would not be a “significant energy action” under the executive order and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

This rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, Feb. 3, 2017) because it is issued with respect to a national security function of the United States.

An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained from the internet by—

• Searching the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

• Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or

• Accessing the Government Publishing Office's web page at http://www.fdsys.gov.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by amendment or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677.

Except for classified material, all documents the FAA considered in developing this rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the internet through the Federal Document Management System Portal referenced previously.

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104-121) (set forth as a note to 5 U.S.C. 601) requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

You may obtain an electronic copy using the internet by:

(1) Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

(2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or

(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.

You also may obtain a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking.

The FAA has historically limited the number of arrivals and departures at LGA during peak demand periods through the implementation of the High Density Rule (HDR), to address constraints based on LGA's limited runway capacity.1 By statute enacted in April 2000, the HDR's applicability to LGA operations terminated as of January 1, 2007.2

The FAA issued an Order on December 27, 2006, adopting temporary limits pending the completion of rulemaking to address long term limits and related policies.3 This Order was amended on November 8, 2007, and August 19, 2008.4 The FAA extended the December 27, 2006, Order placing temporary limits on operations at LGA, as amended, on October 7, 2009, April 4, 2011, May 14, 2013, March 27, 2014, and May 25, 2016.5

Under the Order for LGA, as amended, the FAA (1) maintains the current hourly limits on scheduled and unscheduled operations at LGA during the peak period; (2) imposes an 80 percent minimum usage requirement for Operating Authorizations (OAs) with defined exceptions; (3) provides a mechanism for withdrawal of OAs for FAA operational reasons; (4) provides for a lottery to reallocate withdrawn, surrendered, or unallocated OAs; and (5) allows for trades and leases of OAs for consideration for the duration of the Order.

The reasons for issuing the Order have not changed appreciably since it was implemented. Runway capacity at LGA remains limited, while demand for access to LGA remains high. The average weekday hourly flights are generally scheduled to a level consistent with the limits under this Order. The FAA has reviewed the on-time and other performance metrics in the peak May to August 2017 and 2018 months and found continuing improvements relative to the same period in 2008.6 However, the FAA has determined that the operational limitations imposed by this Order remain necessary. Without the operational limitations imposed by this Order, the FAA expects severe congestion-related delays due to the anticipated demand of new operations and the retiming of existing flights into more desirable hours. The FAA, in coordination with the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), will continue to consider potential rulemaking in the future to codify the slot management policies at LGA, and also at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK).7

The FAA has received specific proposals for policy changes that would necessitate amending the LGA and JFK Orders. For example, several carriers have requested a simplified process for the administrative management of temporary slot transfers, whereby the marketing and operating carriers would not be required to formally transfer slots for operation by carriers under common marketing control and whereby the slot holder could choose whether the holder or the operator would be responsible for reporting slot usage to the FAA. The FAA is considering proposing this and other potential changes in a future action on the LGA and JFK Orders.

However, the Orders expire at the end of the current summer scheduling season and carriers are planning winter schedules. There is insufficient time to publish for comment proposed policy changes, adjudicate comments, and issue a final Order before the Orders expire. The FAA has therefore determined to proceed with an extension of the Orders, without policy changes, to meet current needs and allow time to further develop any proposed changes to the Orders. Accordingly, the FAA is extending the expiration date of this Order until October 24, 2020. This expiration date coincides with the extended expiration date for the Order limiting scheduled operations at JFK, as also published in today's Federal Register. This extension of the LGA Order includes minimal changes for clarification purposes only, including the removal of obsolete references to rulemaking in paragraph A7. In addition, the description of unscheduled operations in paragraph B3 and footnote 12 has been revised to provide greater clarity of existing policy.

The FAA finds that notice and comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest, as carriers have begun planning schedules for the winter 2018/2019 season and no significant policy changes are included in this action. For these reasons, the FAA also finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

The Order, as amended, is recited below in its entirety:

With respect to scheduled operations at LaGuardia:

1. The Order governs scheduled arrivals and departures at LaGuardia from 6 a.m. through 9:59 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday and from 12 noon through 9:59 p.m., Eastern Time, Sunday. Seventy-one (71) Operating Authorizations are available per hour and will be assigned by the FAA on a 30-minute basis. The FAA will permit additional, existing operations above this threshold; however, the FAA will retire Operating Authorizations that are surrendered to the FAA, withdrawn for non-use, or unassigned during each affected hour until the number of Operating Authorizations in that hour reaches seventy-one (71).

2. The Order takes effect on January 1, 2007, and will expire on October 24, 2020.

3. The FAA will assign operating authority to conduct an arrival or a departure at LaGuardia during the affected hours to the air carrier that holds equivalent slot or slot exemption authority under the High Density Rule of FAA slot exemption rules as of January 1, 2007; to the primary marketing air carrier in the case of AIR-21 small hub/non-hub airport slot exemptions; or to the air carrier operating the flights as of January 1, 2007, in the case of a slot held by a non carrier. The FAA will not assign operating authority under the Order to any person or entity other than a certificated U.S. or foreign air carrier with appropriate economic authority under 14 CFR part 121, 129 or 135. The Chief Counsel of the FAA will be the final decision maker regarding the initial assignment of Operating Authorizations.

4. For administrative tracking purposes only, the FAA will assign an identification number to each Operating Authorization.

5. An air carrier may lease or trade an Operating Authorization to another carrier for any consideration, not to exceed the duration of the Order. Notice of a trade or lease under this paragraph must be submitted in writing to the FAA Slot Administration Office, facsimile (202) 267-7277 or email [email protected], and must come from a designated representative of each carrier. The FAA must confirm and approve these transactions in writing prior to the effective date of the transaction. However, the FAA will approve transfers between carriers under the same marketing control up to 5 business days after the actual operation. This post-transfer approval is limited to accommodate operational disruptions that occur on the same day of the scheduled operation.

6. Each air carrier holding an Operating Authorization must forward in writing to the FAA Slot Administration Office a list of all Operating Authorizations held by the carrier along with a listing of the Operating Authorizations actually operated for each day of the two-month reporting period within 14 days after the last day of the two-month reporting period beginning January 1 and every two months thereafter. Any Operating Authorization not used at least 80 percent of the time over a two-month period will be withdrawn by the FAA except:

A. The FAA will treat as used any Operating Authorization held by an air carrier on Thanksgiving Day, the Friday following Thanksgiving Day, and the period from December 24 through the first Saturday in January.

B. The FAA will treat as used any Operating Authorization obtained by an air carrier through a lottery under paragraph 7 for the first 120 days after allocation in the lottery.

C. The Administrator of the FAA may waive the 80 percent usage requirement in the event of a highly unusual and unpredictable condition which is beyond the control of the air carrier and which affects carrier operations for a period of five consecutive days or more.

7. In the event that Operating Authorizations are withdrawn for nonuse, surrendered to the FAA or are unassigned, the FAA will determine whether any of the available Operating Authorizations should be reallocated. If so, the FAA will conduct a lottery using the provisions specified under 14 CFR 93.225. The FAA may retime an Operating Authorization prior to reallocation in order to address operational needs.

8. If the FAA determines that a reduction in the number of allocated Operating Authorizations is required to meet operational needs, such as reduced airport capacity, the FAA will conduct a weighted lottery to withdraw Operating Authorizations to meet a reduced hourly or half-hourly limit for scheduled operations. The FAA will provide at least 45 days' notice unless otherwise required by operational needs. Any Operating Authorization that is withdrawn or temporarily suspended will, if reallocated, be reallocated to the air carrier from which it was taken, provided that the air carrier continues to operate scheduled service at LaGuardia.

With respect to unscheduled flight operations at LaGuardia, the FAA adopts the following:

1. The Order applies to all operators of unscheduled flights, except helicopter operations, at LaGuardia from 6 a.m. through 9:59 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday and from 12 noon through 9:59 p.m., Eastern Time, Sunday.

2. The Order takes effect on January 1, 2007, and will expire on October 24, 2020.

3. No person can operate an aircraft other than a helicopter to or from LaGuardia unless the operator has received, for that unscheduled operation, a reservation that is assigned by the David J. Hurley Air Traffic Control System Command Center's Airport Reservation Office (ARO), or for unscheduled visual flight rule operations, received clearance from ATC. Additional information on procedures for obtaining a reservation is available via the internet at http://www.fly.faa.gov/ecvrs.

4. Three (3) reservations are available per hour for unscheduled operations at LaGuardia. The ARO will assign reservations on a 30-minute basis.

5. The ARO receives and processes all reservation requests. Reservations are assigned on a “first-come, first-served” basis, determined as of the time that the ARO receives the request. A cancellation of any reservation that will not be used as assigned is required.

6. Filing a request for a reservation does not constitute the filing of an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan, as separately required by regulation. After the reservation is obtained, an IFR flight plan can be filed. The IFR flight plan must include the reservation number in the “remarks” section.

7. Air Traffic Control will accommodate declared emergencies without regard to reservations. Nonemergency flights in direct support of national security, law enforcement, military aircraft operations, or public aircraft operations will be accommodated above the reservation limits with the prior approval of the Vice President, System Operations Services, Air Traffic Organization. Procedures for obtaining the appropriate reservation for such flights are available via the internet at http://www.fly.faa.gov/ecvrs.

8. Notwithstanding the limits in paragraph 4, if the Air Traffic Organization determines that air traffic control, weather, and capacity conditions are favorable and significant delay is not likely, the FAA can accommodate additional reservations over a specific period. Unused operating authorizations can also be temporarily made available for unscheduled operations. Reservations for additional operations are obtained through the ARO.

9. Reservations cannot be bought, sold, or leased.

The FAA may enforce the Order through an enforcement action seeking a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. 46301(a). The FAA also could file a civil action in U.S. District Court, under 49 U.S.C. 46106, 46107, seeking to enjoin any carrier from violating the terms of the Order.

In the Federal Register of June 7, 2018 (83 FR 26356), we amended the color additive regulations to add § 74.3054, “D&C Black No. 4,” (21 CFR 74.3054) to provide for the safe use of D&C Black No. 4 for coloring UHMWPE non-absorbable sutures for use in general surgery.

We gave interested persons until July 9, 2018, to file objections or requests for a hearing. We received no objections or requests for a hearing on the final rule. Therefore, we find that the effective date of the final rule that published in the Federal Register of June 7, 2018, should be confirmed.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 342, 343, 348, 351, 352, 355, 361, 362, 371, 379e) and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, we are giving notice that no objections or requests for a hearing were filed in response to the June 7, 2018, final rule. Accordingly, the amendments issued in the final rule became effective July 10, 2018.

It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on removing DoD internal policies and procedures.

DLA internal guidance concerning the implementation of the FOIA within DLA will be published in DLA Instruction (DLAI) 5400.11.

This rule is one of 14 separate DoD FOIA rules. With the finalization of the DoD-level FOIA rule at 32 CFR part 286, the Department is eliminating the need for this separate FOIA rule and reducing costs to the public as explained in the preamble of the DoD-level FOIA rule published at 83 FR 5196-5197.

This rule is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review”; therefore, E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” does not apply.

In the Federal Register of August 13, 2018, in FR Doc. 2018-17282:

1. On page 39879, in the first column, correct the DATES caption to read:

On September 20, 2016, the Secretary published final regulations for this program in the Federal Register (81 FR 64728). The amendatory instructions for § 222.161 resulted in some of the definitions from § 222.161 being mistakenly removed. It was not our intention to remove these definitions through that rulemaking and the preamble to the proposed or final rule never indicated that we were removing these definitions. We are taking this action to correct the regulations. The definitions that were removed and that we are adding back in their proper place are: Equalize expenditures, local tax revenues, local tax revenues covered under a State equalization program, revenue, State aid, and total local tax.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, the APA provides that an agency is not required to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking when the agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). There is good cause to waive rulemaking here as unnecessary.

Rulemaking is “unnecessary” in those situations in which “the administrative rule is a routine determination, insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential to the industry and to the public.” Utility Solid Waste Activities Group v. EPA, 236 F.3d 749, 755 (D.C. Cir. 2001), quoting U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 31 (1947) and South Carolina v. Block, 558 F. Supp. 1004, 1016 (D.S.C. 1983).

These regulations merely restore the regulatory definitions as they appeared in the CFR prior to their unintended removal in connection with the 2016 Impact Aid final rule. Because the definitions were originally adopted through notice-and-comment rulemaking and their removal was in error, rulemaking to restore the definitions is unnecessary.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Accordingly, part 222 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations is corrected by making the following amendments:

Background

National Park Service (NPS) regulations at 36 CFR 2.4(b)(3) allow bows and crossbows that are not ready for immediate use to be possessed by individuals in NPS-administered areas within a mechanical mode of conveyance. This provides regulatory relief for transient individuals passing through park areas in vehicles and other forms of mechanical transport. This rule extends this relief to individuals transporting unloaded bows and crossbows on foot or horseback when accessing otherwise inaccessible lands or waters contiguous to a park area when other means of access are otherwise impracticable or impossible. Possessing bows and crossbows in this manner is subject to applicable state laws and is not allowed if the individual is otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a bow or crossbow.

This rule recognizes and addresses the difficulties faced by some individuals attempting to access private property or other lands and waters adjacent to NPS-administered areas. In some cases, the use of mechanical transport to access these adjacent lands and waters is impracticable. As a result, individuals must traverse NPS areas on foot or horseback to reach these lands and waters but under existing regulations cannot do so with bows and crossbows without first obtaining a permit from the park Superintendent. This rule removes the permit requirement in order to carry or possess bows or crossbows for this purpose. This rule does not change the regulations in 36 CFR part 2 governing the use of a bow or crossbow in park areas.

The NPS published the proposed rule on March 2, 2018 (83 FR 8959), with request for public comment through the Federal eRulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov, or by mail or hand delivery. The 60-day comment period ended on May 1, 2018. The NPS received 40 comments, 34 of which supported the proposed rule and did not request any changes. Other comments were not in favor of the proposed rule or were in favor but suggested changes. A summary of these comments and NPS responses is provided below. After taking the public comments into consideration, the NPS has not made any changes in the final rule.

1. Comment. Several commenters expressed concern that the rule will cause individuals to use bows and crossbows illegally, either within the National Park System or on adjacent lands where hunting is not allowed. These commenters are concerned that this illegal activity will adversely impact threatened or endangered wildlife.

NPS Response: This rule does not change NPS regulations governing the use of weapons, including bows and crossbows, within the National Park System. Illegal hunting will remain illegal in the same manner that it was before this rule. Unfortunately illegal hunting and trapping does occur. NPS law enforcement staff work alone and with state and local partners to identify illegal activity and prosecute offenders according to the law. The NPS does not believe that individuals who are willing to hunt and trap illegally will be emboldened by this rule. These individuals are unlikely to have requested a permit from the NPS prior to bringing bows and crossbows into NPS areas in order to hunt or trap illegally. Existing NPS regulations allow individuals to travel through NPS lands with bows and crossbows in a motor vehicle. The NPS does not believe that a person who is willing to engage in illegal hunting would be deterred from doing so by existing regulation, which requires motorized transport of his or her bow or crossbow, especially when NPS regulations allow individuals to carry firearms within the National Park System outside of a motor vehicle without needing to obtain a permit.

2. Comment. Several commenters were concerned that this rule would result in individuals leaving bows, crossbows, and related equipment, such as arrows and quivers, behind on NPS lands.

NPS Response: The NPS has no reason to believe that individuals would intentionally leave this type of equipment behind in NPS areas. NPS regulations at 36 CFR 2.22 prohibit abandoning property.

3. Comment. One commenter supported removing the permit requirement, but suggested that the NPS also remove the requirement that an individual must be accessing otherwise “inaccessible” lands or waters. This commenter also suggested that the NPS change the requirement that “other means of access are otherwise impracticable or impossible” to “impracticable or less convenient.”

NPS Response: The language limiting possession to situations when individuals are “accessing otherwise inaccessible lands or waters contiguous to a park area when other means of access are otherwise impracticable or impossible” has been part of NPS regulations concerning permits to carry weapons since 1983 (48 FR 30282, June 30, 1983). This language helps ensure that individuals transport bows and crossbows through NPS lands for legitimate purposes, such as accessing private property or other public lands that cannot be accessed another way—either through the National Park System in a motor vehicle or through a non-NPS area.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The NPS has developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

This rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action because it imposes less than zero costs by removing a regulatory permit requirement that imposes unnecessary costs upon individuals seeking to safely access remote lands and waters. The costs associated with the requirement to obtain a permit before transporting a bow or crossbow across NPS lands or waters outside of a mechanical conveyance are eliminated.

This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This certification is based on information contained in the economic analyses found in the report entitled “Benefit-Cost and Regulatory Flexibility Analyses: Cost-Benefit and Regulatory Flexibility Analyses: Transporting Bows and Crossbows Across National Park System Units” that is available to the public on regulations.gov in Docket ID: NPS-2018-0003.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. It addresses public use of national park lands, and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is not required.

This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. This rule only affects use of federally-administered lands and waters. It has no outside effects on other areas. A Federalism summary impact statement is not required.

This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. This rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. The NPS has evaluated this rule under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and under the Department's tribal consultation policy and has determined that tribal consultation is not required because the rule will have no substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian tribes.

This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required. The NPS may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because the NPS intends to categorically exclude this rule under 516 DM 12.5(A)(10). This rule modifies existing NPS regulations in a manner that does not increase public use or introduce non-compatible uses to the extent of compromising the nature and character of the National Park System or causing physical damage to it. The rule does not conflict with adjacent ownerships or lands uses, or cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants. We have also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects in not required.

In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service amends 36 CFR part 2 as set forth below:

Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

On July 19, 2018, the EPA proposed to approve Oregon as meeting the requirement that each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state (83 FR 34094). An explanation of the Clean Air Act requirements, a detailed analysis of the submittal, and the EPA's reasons for proposing approval were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and will not be restated here. The public comment period for the proposal ended August 20, 2018.

We received one comment in support of the proposed rulemaking and several anonymous comments unrelated to Oregon's submission. After reviewing the anonymous comments, we have determined that the comments are outside the scope of our proposed action and fail to identify any material issue necessitating a response. For more information, please see our memorandum included in the docket for this action.

The EPA is approving Oregon's October 20, 2015, submission certifying that the SIP is sufficient to meet the interstate transport requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), specifically prongs one and two, as set forth in the proposed rulemaking for this action.

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

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

• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because actions such as SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

• 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 this action does not involve technical standards; and

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

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land and is also not approved to apply in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 19, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (See section 307(b)(2)).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

On July 16, 2018, the EPA published a Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion (83 FR 32825) and a direct final Notice of Partial Deletion (83 FR 32798) for the Research Center Property (RCP) of the Beloit Superfund Site (Beloit Site) from the National Priorities List (NPL). After consideration of the comments received, if appropriate, EPA will publish a Notice of Partial Deletion in the Federal Register based on the parallel Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion and place a copy of the final partial deletion package, including a Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, in docket EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011, accessed through the http://www.regulations.gov website and in the Beloit Site repositories.

Information Repositories: Comprehensive information on the Beloit Site, as well as the comments that we received during the comment period, are available in docket [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011], accessed through the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the docket index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Superfund Records Center, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 7th Floor South, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: (312) 886-0900, Hours: Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

Talcott Free Library, 101 East Main Street, Rockton, IL 61072, Phone: (815) 624-7511, Hours: Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, 9 a.m. to 8 p.m., Wednesday and Friday 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and Saturday 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.

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

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

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

National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has determined that the community suspension(s) included in this rule is a non-discretionary action and therefore the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) does not apply.

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

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 18-126, MD Docket No. 18-175, adopted on August 28, 2018 and released on August 29, 2018. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, or by downloading the text from the Commission's website at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0906/FCC-17-111A1.pdf.

1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA),1 the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) relating to this Report and Order. The FRFA is located towards the end of this document.

2. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

3. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

1. This Report and Order adopts a schedule of regulatory fees to assess and collect $322,035,000 in regulatory fees for fiscal year (FY) 2018, pursuant to section 9 2 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the Commission's FY 2018 Appropriation.3 The schedule of regulatory fees for FY 2018 adopted herein is attached in Table 4. The regulatory fees for all payors are due in September 2018.

2. Additionally, we amend our rules in accordance with the directives of the RAY BAUM'S Act regarding the collection of delinquent debts.4 This rule change will become effective on October 1, 2018.

3. The Commission is required by Congress to assess regulatory fees each year in an amount that can reasonably be expected to equal the amount of its appropriation.5 Regulatory fees, mandated by Congress, are collected “to recover the costs of . . . enforcement activities, policy and rulemaking activities, user information services, and international activities.” 6 Regulatory fees are to “be derived by determining the full-time equivalent number of employees performing” these activities, “adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payer of the fee by the Commission's activities. . . . .” 7 Regulatory fees recover direct costs, such as salary and expenses; indirect costs, such as overhead functions; and support costs, such as rent, utilities, and equipment.8 Regulatory fees also cover the costs incurred in regulating entities that are statutorily exempt from paying regulatory fees,9 entities whose regulatory fees are waived,10 and entities providing services for which we do not assess regulatory fees.

4. Congress sets the amount of regulatory fees the Commission must collect each year in the Commission's fiscal year appropriations. Section 9(a)(2) of the Communications Act requires the Commission to collect fees sufficient to offset the amount appropriated.11 To calculate regulatory fees, the Commission allocates the total collection target across all regulatory fee categories. The allocation of fees to fee categories is based on the Commission's calculation of Full Time Employees (FTEs) in each regulatory fee category.12 FTEs are classified as “direct” if the employee is in one of the four “core” bureaus; otherwise, that employee is considered an “indirect” FTE.13 The total FTEs for each fee category includes the direct FTEs associated with that category, plus a proportional allocation of indirect FTEs.14 The Commission then allocates the total amount to be collected among the various regulatory fee categories within each of the core bureaus. Each regulatee within a fee category pays its proportionate share based on an objective measure (e.g., revenues or number of subscribers).15 These calculations are illustrated in Table 3. The sources for the unit estimates that are used in these calculations are listed in Table 5.

5. The Commission annually reviews the regulatory fee schedule, proposes changes to the schedule to reflect changes in the amount of its appropriation, and proposes increases or decreases to the schedule of regulatory fees.16 As part of its annual review, the Commission also regularly seeks to improve the regulatory fee process.17

6. In the FY 2018 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposed to collect $322,035,000 in regulatory fees for FY 2018 and sought comment on a detailed proposed fee schedule.18 The Commission sought comment specifically on an incremental increase in the DBS regulatory fee 19 and on proposed regulatory fees for terrestrial and satellite international bearer circuits for FY 2018.20 Additionally, the Commission sought comment on the methodology for calculating broadcast television station regulatory fees for FY 2019 21 and whether to adopt a new regulatory fee category for small satellites for FY 2019, and if so, what the appropriate regulatory fee for small satellites should be.22 We received 9 comments and four reply comments on the FY 2018 NPRM. 23

7. In this FY 2018 Report and Order, we adopt the regulatory fee schedule proposed in the FY 2018 NPRM for FY 2018, pursuant to section 9 of the Communications Act, to collect $322,035,000 in regulatory fees. Of this amount, we project approximately $20.3 million (6.25 percent of the total FTE allocation) in fees from the International Bureau regulatees; $84.7 million (26.3 percent of the total FTE allocation) in fees from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau regulatees; $103.99 million (32.29 percent of the total FTE allocation) in fees from the Wireline Competition Bureau regulatees; and $113.22 million (35.16 percent of the total FTE allocation) in fees from the Media Bureau regulatees. These regulatory fees are due in September 2018. The schedule of regulatory fees for FY 2018 adopted herein is attached as Table 4.

8. Among other activities, the Media Bureau oversees the regulation of video distribution providers like multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), i.e., regulated companies that make available for purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple channels of video programming. The Media Bureau relies on a common pool of FTEs to carry out its oversight of MVPDs and other video distribution providers. These responsibilities include market modifications, local-into-local, must-carry and retransmission consent disputes, program carriage and program access complaints, over-the-air reception device declaratory rulings and waivers, media rule modernization, media ownership, and proposed transactions.24

9. For these activities in FY 2018, the Commission must collect $62,330,000 in regulatory fees from three categories of providers: Cable TV systems, IPTV providers, and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) operators. Although the Commission decided to assess cable TV systems and IPTV providers the same for regulatory fee purposes—assessing each provider based on its subscribership—the Commission took a different approach when it began to assess Media Bureau-based regulatory fees on DBS operators. Specifically, the Commission decided to phase in the new Media Bureau-based regulatory fee for DBS, starting at 12 cents per subscriber per year.25 At the same time, the Commission committed to updating the regulatory fee rate in future years “as necessary for ensuring an appropriate level of regulatory parity and considering the resources dedicated to this new regulatory fee subcategory.” 26 Accordingly, the Commission increased the regulatory fee for DBS operators to 27 cents (including a three cent moving fee) and then 38 cents (including a two cent moving fee) per subscriber per year, with the regulatory fees paid by DBS operators reducing those paid by other MVPDs.27

10. For FY 2018, the Commission proposed to continue the transition by increasing the DBS regulatory fee rate to 48 cents per subscriber per year, thereby leaving other MVPDs with a regulatory fee of 77 cents per subscriber per year.28 Although a common pool of FTEs work on MVPD and related issues for DBS operators, IPTV providers, and cable TV systems, which some commenters argue justifies immediate parity in regulatory fees across these providers,29 we believe it prudent to adopt our proposal to increase such rates by less than one cent per subscriber per month, or 10 cents per subscriber per year. Doing so reflects the statutory imperative to take into account the FTEs devoted to oversight of this common category of regulatees, “adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities, including . . . factors that the Commission determines are necessary in the public interest,” 30 such as our concern to mitigate the impact of increases on MVPDs should we move to immediate parity (which a regulatory fee of 67 cents per subscriber per year would achieve).31

11. AT&T and DISH—the two DBS operators—reiterate several arguments against any increase in DBS regulatory fees that they have raised, and the Commission has rejected, in previous years. For example, AT&T and DISH claim that the proposed fee increase will result in “rate shock,” 32 even though last year the Commission held an increase of about one penny per subscriber per month would not cause such shock.33 AT&T and DISH also claim the Commission cannot increase DBS regulatory fees without an allocation of “additional FTEs to handle DBS matters,” 34 even though last year the Commission held that the DBS regulatory fee is based on the significant number of Media Bureau FTEs that work on MVPD issues that include DBS, “not a particular number of FTEs focused solely on DBS” or “specific recent proceedings.” 35 For these reasons, we reject these arguments and agree with commenters that the continued participation of DBS operators in Commission proceedings, along with the use of a common pool of FTEs to oversee MVPD matters (including matters related to DBS operators in particular), justifies an increase in the DBS regulatory fee rate.

12. As discussed in the FY 2018 NPRM, the Commission has previously sought comment on adopting a tiered methodology for assessing terrestrial and satellite international bearer circuit regulatory fees, and we should have sufficient information from payors in September 2018 to be able to consider a tiered rate structure for FY 2019.36 In the meantime, the Commission proposed to continue assessing terrestrial and satellite IBC regulatory fees on a per-circuit basis for FY 2018, using Gbps as the measurement rather than 64 kbps.37 CenturyLink observes that the proposed rate of $0.02 per circuit in Appendix B to the FY 2018 NPRM used 64 kbps instead of Gbps.38 We agree with CenturyLink that the measurement listed in the FY 2018 NPRM should have been Gbps instead of 64 kbps, and we are therefore adopting the proposed per-circuit fee of $176, using Gbps, in lieu of 64 kbps. No commenter opposed this proposal.

13. Full service television station licensees are subject to regulatory fee payments based on the market served. Historically, broadcast full service television stations pay regulatory fees based on the schedule of regulatory fees established in section 9(g) of the Communications Act, which consolidated stations into market groupings 1-10, 11-25, 26-50, 51-100, and remaining markets.39 The Commission subsequently established a separate fee category for broadcast television satellite stations.40 The Commission uses Nielsen Designated Market Areas (DMAs) to define the market a station serves. For FY 2017, the regulatory fees for full service stations ranged from $1,725 for satellite stations to $59,750 for stations in markets 1-10.

14. In the FY 2018 NPRM, we sought comment on whether we could more accurately ascertain the actual market served by a station for purposes of assessing regulatory fees by examining the actual population covered by the station's contours rather than using DMAs.41 Specifically we sought comment on whether, for FY 2019 and going forward, regulatory fees should be assessed for full-power broadcast television stations based on the population covered by the station's contour, instead of DMAs.42 No commenter opposed this proposal. In the FY 2018 NPRM, we also sought comment on whether to phase in the implementation of this methodology over a two-year, or longer, period of time.43 In order to facilitate the transition to this new fee structure, for FY 2019, we plan to adopt a fee based on an average of the current DMA methodology and the population covered by a full-power broadcast station's contour. Thereafter, in 2020, we plan to assess regulatory fees for full-power broadcast stations based on the population covered by the station's contour. Such an approach is consistent with the methodology used for AM and FM broadcasters, in which fees are based on population served and the class of service based on the signal contours. In addition, this approach addresses concerns about the assessment of regulatory fees on broadcast television satellite stations serving small markets at the fringe of larger DMAs.44 The population data for broadcasters' service areas will be extracted annually from the TVStudy database, based on a station's projected noise-limited service contour, consistent with our rules,45 and we will enable broadcasters to review population data for their service area in our annual regulatory fee NPRM. We will multiply the population by a factor for which we will seek comment in the annual regulatory fee NPRM, e.g., 0.63 cents ($.0063).

15. The adoption of these methodologies for assessing regulatory fees for broadcast television stations is a permitted amendment as defined in section 9(b)(3) of the Act,46 and pursuant to section 9(b)(4)(B), it must be submitted to Congress at least 90 days before it would become effective.47 Therefore, for FY 2018, we will assess regulatory fees for all broadcast television stations using the same methodology as we did for FY 2017.48 The regulatory fees for broadcast television stations for FY 2018 are in Table 4.

16. The Commission's rules requires the assessment of administrative costs incurred for processing and handling delinquent debts.49 However, the RAY BAUM'S Act amended the Communications Act, in relevant part, prohibiting the Commission from assessing its administrative costs of collecting delinquent regulatory and application fee debt (or related penalties), effective October 1, 2018.50 Therefore, we amend our rules to reflect these statutory changes.51 This rule change will become effective on October 1, 2018.

17. We find good cause under section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act 52 to adopt this change without prior notice and comment. Section 553(b)(B) provides that notice and public comment procedures do not apply when “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” New section 9A of the Communications Act is clear in its directive that the Commission must cease applying to regulatory and application fees or penalties the provisions of section 3717 of Title 31, United States Code, that do not involve interest rates. The Commission is thus afforded no discretion to apply such provisions of section 3717 to such fees or penalties because its prior authority has been eliminated by statute. As a result, prior notice or comment is unnecessary.53

18. On March 29, 2016, the Commission commenced the incentive auction to allow broadcast television stations to make their spectrum available for wireless broadband licensees. On April 13, 2017, the Commission released a Public Notice formally closing the auction 54 and beginning the 39-month post-auction transition period during which some broadcast television stations will transition to new channel assignments and other stations will go off the air. We remind licensees that those who held a broadcast television station license on October 1, 2017 are responsible for FY 2018 regulatory fees for that license.55 Licensees who have relinquished their licenses by September 30, 2017 are not responsible for FY 2018 regulatory fees for the cancelled license.56

19. All regulatory fee payments must be made by online Automated Clearing House (ACH) payment, online credit card, or wire transfer. Any other form of payment (e.g., checks, cashier's checks, or money orders) will be rejected. For payments by wire, a Form 159-E should still be transmitted via fax so that the Commission can associate the wire payment with the correct regulatory fee information.

20. Since June 1, 2015, in accordance with U.S. Treasury Announcement No. A-2014-04 (July 2014), the amount that can be charged on a credit card for transactions with federal agencies has is $24,999.99.57 Transactions greater than $24,999.99 will be rejected. This limit applies to single payments or bundled payments of more than one bill. Multiple transactions to a single agency in one day may be aggregated and treated as a single transaction subject to the $24,999.99 limit. Customers who wish to pay an amount greater than $24,999.99 should consider available electronic alternatives such as Visa or MasterCard debit cards, ACH debits from a bank account, and wire transfers. Each of these payment options is available after filing regulatory fee information in Fee Filer. Further details will be provided regarding payment methods and procedures at the time of FY 2018 regulatory fee collection in Fact Sheets, available at https://www.fcc.gov/regfees.

21. During the fee season for collecting FY 2018 regulatory fees, regulatees can pay their fees by credit card through Pay.gov,58 ACH, debit card,59 or by wire transfer. Additional filing and payment instructions are posted on the Commission's website at https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees/regulatory-fees. The receiving bank for all wire payments is the U.S. Treasury, New York, New York. When making a wire transfer, regulatees must fax a copy of their Fee Filer generated Form 159-E to the Federal Communications Commission at (202) 418-2843 at least one hour before initiating the wire transfer (but on the same business day) so as not to delay crediting their account. Regulatees should discuss arrangements (including bank closing schedules) with their bankers several days before they plan to make the wire transfer to allow sufficient time for the transfer to be initiated and completed before the deadline. Complete instructions for making wire payments are posted at https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees/wire-transfer.

22. Under the Commission's de minimis rule for regulatory fee payments, a regulatee is exempt from paying regulatory fees if the sum total of all of its annual regulatory fee liabilities is $1,000 or less for the fiscal year. The de minimis threshold applies only to filers of annual regulatory fees, not regulatory fees paid through multi-year filings, and it is not a permanent exemption. Each regulatee will need to reevaluate the total annual fee liability each fiscal year to determine whether they meet the de minimis exemption.

23. The Commission will accept fee payments made in advance of the window for the payment of regulatory fees. The responsibility for payment of fees by service category is as follows:

• Media Services: Regulatory fees must be paid for initial construction permits that were granted on or before October 1, 2017 for AM/FM radio stations, VHF/UHF full service television stations, and satellite television stations. Regulatory fees must be paid for all broadcast facility licenses granted on or before October 1, 2017. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2017, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

• Wireline (Common Carrier) Services: Regulatory fees must be paid for authorizations that were granted on or before October 1, 2017. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2017, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date. Audio bridging service providers are included in this category.60 For Responsible Organizations (RespOrgs) that manage Toll Free Numbers (TFN), regulatory fees should be paid on all working, assigned, and reserved toll free numbers as well as toll free numbers in any other status as defined in § 52.103 of the Commission's rules.61 The unit count should be based on toll free numbers managed by RespOrgs on or about December 31, 2017.

• Wireless Services: CMRS cellular, mobile, and messaging services (fees based on number of subscribers or telephone number count): Regulatory fees must be paid for authorizations that were granted on or before October 1, 2017. The number of subscribers, units, or telephone numbers on December 31, 2017 will be used as the basis from which to calculate the fee payment. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2017, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

• Wireless Services, Multi-year fees: The first eight regulatory fee categories in our Schedule of Regulatory Fees pay “small multi-year wireless regulatory fees.” Entities pay these regulatory fees in advance for the entire amount period covered by the five-year or ten-year terms of their initial licenses, and pay regulatory fees again only when the license is renewed or a new license is obtained. We include these fee categories in our rulemaking to publicize our estimates of the number of “small multi-year wireless” licenses that will be renewed or newly obtained in FY 2018.

• Multichannel Video Programming Distributor Services (cable television operators, CARS licensees, DBS, and IPTV): Regulatory fees must be paid for the number of basic cable television subscribers as of December 31, 2017.62 Regulatory fees also must be paid for CARS licenses that were granted on or before October 1, 2017. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2017, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date. For providers of Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) service and IPTV-based MVPDs, regulatory fees should be paid based on a subscriber count on or about December 31, 2017. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2017, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

• International Services: Regulatory fees must be paid for (1) earth stations and (2) geostationary orbit space stations and non-geostationary orbit satellite systems that were licensed and operational on or before October 1, 2017. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2017, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

• International Services (Submarine Cable Systems): Regulatory fees for submarine cable systems are to be paid on a per cable landing license basis for all systems that are licensed and operational as of October 1, 2017. The fee is based on circuit capacity as of December 31, 2017. In instances where a license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2017, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the license as of the fee due date. For regulatory fee purposes, the allocation in FY 2018 will remain at 87.6 percent for submarine cable and 12.4 percent for satellite/terrestrial facilities.

• International Services (Terrestrial and Satellite Services): Regulatory fees for Terrestrial and Satellite IBCs are to be paid based on active (used or leased) international bearer circuits as of December 31, 2017 in any terrestrial or satellite transmission facility for the provision of service to an end user or resale carrier. When calculating the number of such active circuits, entities must include circuits used by themselves or their affiliates. For these purposes, “active circuits” include backup and redundant circuits as of December 31, 2017 and include both common carrier and non-common carrier circuits for both terrestrial and satellite services. Whether circuits are used specifically for voice or data is not relevant for purposes of determining that they are active circuits.63 In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2017, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date based on circuit counts as of December 31, 2017. For regulatory fee purposes, the allocation in FY 2018 will remain at 87.6 percent for submarine cable and 12.4 percent for satellite/terrestrial facilities.

24. The Commission will compile data from the Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast (NRUF) report that is based on “assigned” telephone number (subscriber) counts that have been adjusted for porting to net Type 0 ports (“in” and “out”).64 This information of telephone numbers (subscriber count) will be posted on the Commission's electronic filing and payment system (Fee Filer) along with the carrier's Operating Company Numbers (OCNs).

25. A carrier wishing to revise its telephone number (subscriber) count can do so by accessing Fee Filer and follow the prompts to revise their telephone number counts. Any revisions to the telephone number counts should be accompanied by an explanation or supporting documentation.65 The Commission will then review the revised count and supporting documentation and either approve or disapprove the submission in Fee Filer. If the submission is disapproved, the Commission will contact the provider to afford the provider an opportunity to discuss its revised subscriber count and/or provide additional supporting documentation. If we receive no response from the provider, or we do not reverse our initial disapproval of the provider's revised count submission, the fee payment must be based on the number of subscribers listed initially in Fee Filer. Once the timeframe for revision has passed, the telephone number counts are final and are the basis upon which CMRS regulatory fees are to be paid. Providers can view their final telephone counts online in Fee Filer. A final CMRS assessment letter will not be mailed out.

26. Because some carriers do not file the NRUF report, they may not see their telephone number counts in Fee Filer. In these instances, the carriers should compute their fee payment using the standard methodology that is currently in place for CMRS Wireless services (i.e., compute their telephone number counts as of December 31, 2017), and submit their fee payment accordingly. Whether a carrier reviews its telephone number counts in Fee Filer or not, the Commission reserves the right to audit the number of telephone numbers for which regulatory fees are paid. In the event that the Commission determines that the number of telephone numbers that are paid is inaccurate, the Commission will bill the carrier for the difference between what was paid and what should have been paid.

27. To be considered timely, regulatory fee payments must be made electronically by the payment due date for regulatory fees. Section 9(c) of the Act requires us to impose a late payment penalty of 25 percent of the unpaid amount to be assessed on the first day following the deadline for filing these fees.66 Failure to pay regulatory fees and/or any late penalty will subject regulatees to sanctions, including those set forth in § 1.1910 of the Commission's rules,67 which generally requires the Commission to withhold action on “applications, including on a petition for reconsideration or any application for review of a fee determination, or requests for authorization by any entity found to be delinquent in its debt to the Commission” and in the DCIA.68 We also assess administrative processing charges on delinquent debts to recover additional costs incurred in processing and handling the debt pursuant to the DCIA and § 1.1940(c) of the Commission's rules.69 These administrative processing charges will be assessed on any delinquent FY 2018 regulatory fee, in addition to the 25 percent late charge penalty. In the case of partial payments (underpayments) of regulatory fees, the payor will be given credit for the amount paid, but if it is later determined that the fee paid is incorrect or not timely paid, then the 25 percent late charge penalty (and other charges and/or sanctions, as appropriate) will be assessed on the portion that is not paid in a timely manner.

28. In addition to financial penalties, section 9(c)(3) of the Act,70 and § 1.1164(f) of the Commission's rules 71 grant the FCC the authority to revoke authorizations for failure to pay regulatory fees in a timely fashion. Should a fee delinquency not be rectified in a timely manner the Commission may require the licensee to file with documented evidence within sixty (60) calendar days that full payment of all outstanding regulatory fees has been made, plus any associated penalties as calculated by the Secretary of Treasury in accordance with § 1.1164(a) of the Commission's rules,72 or show cause why the payment is inapplicable or should be waived or deferred. Failure to provide such evidence of payment or to show cause within the time specified may result in revocation of the station license.73

29. Pursuant to the “red light rule,” we will withhold action on any applications or other requests for benefits filed by anyone who is delinquent in any non-tax debts owed to the Commission (including regulatory fees) and will ultimately dismiss those applications or other requests if payment of the delinquent debt or other satisfactory arrangement for payment is not made.74 Failure to pay regulatory fees can also result in the initiation of a proceeding to revoke any and all authorizations held by the entity responsible for paying the delinquent fee(s).75

30. Providing a 30-day period after Federal Register publication before this Report and Order becomes effective as required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) will not allow sufficient time to collect the FY 2018 fees before FY 2018 ends on September 30, 2018. For this reason, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), we find there is good cause to waive the requirements of section 553(d), and this Report and Order will become effective upon publication in the Federal Register. Because payments of the regulatory fees will not actually be due until late September, persons affected by this Report and Order will still have a reasonable period in which to make their payments and thereby comply with the rules established herein.

31. In our Order above, we amend § 1.1940 of our rules and find that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to adopt the clarification without following the notice and comment procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act.76 Similarly, under these circumstances, we find that these actions fall under the good cause exemption to the 5 U.S.C. 553(d) effective date requirements and the clarification of § 1.1940 of our rules will become effective on October 1, 2018.

Regulatory fees for the categories shaded in gray are collected by the Commission in advance to cover the term of the license and are submitted at the time the application is filed.

Regulatory fees for the categories shaded in gray are collected by the Commission in advance to cover the term of the license and are submitted at the time the application is filed.

On April 6, 2018, VA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (83 FR 14833) which announced VA's intent to amend regulations for VAAR Case RIN 2900-AQ05 (Parts 844 and 845). In particular, this final rule implements FAR part 44 by making public VA's additional requirements for providing its consent to subcontract, describes items that should be evaluated as a part of a contractor's purchasing system review and establishes that contractors should determine whether subcontract items meet the FAR definition of a commercial item and implements and supplements FAR part 45 by addressing procedures for contractors to document their acquisition of property for use in the service of VA contracts; to address the transfer of title to the Government of contractor-acquired property; and to outline the procedures for the use of such property on a successor contract.

VA provided a 60-day comment period for the public to respond to the proposed rule. The comment period for the proposed rule ended on June 5, 2018 and VA received no comments. This document adopts as a final rule the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on April 6, 2018, with minor formatting and/or grammatical edits.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal Governments or on the private sector.

This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

This final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The overall impact of this final rule will be of benefit to small businesses owned by Veterans or service-disabled Veterans as the VAAR is being updated to remove extraneous procedural information that applies only to VA's internal operating procedures. VA is merely adding existing and current regulatory requirements to the VAAR and removing any guidance that is applicable only to VA's internal operation processes or procedures. VA estimates no cost impact to individual businesses would result from these rule updates. This rulemaking does not change VA's policy regarding small businesses, does not have an economic impact to individual businesses, and there are no increased or decreased costs to small business entities. On this basis, the final rule would not have an economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this regulatory action is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review defines “significant regulatory action” to mean any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: “(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal Governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive order.”

VA has examined the economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action, and it has been determined this rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. This final rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's website at http://www.va.gov/orpm by following the link for VA Regulations Published from FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to Date.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on August 24, 2018, for publication.

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

The 2018 “other flatfish” ITAC in the BSAI is 3,400 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (83 FR 8365, February 27, 2018). In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2018 “other flatfish” ITAC in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that “other flatfish” in the BSAI be treated as prohibited species in accordance with § 679.21(b).

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay prohibiting retention of “other flatfish” in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as September 12, 2018.

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

This action is required by § 679.20 and § 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.