Federal Register Vol. 83, No.204,

Table of Contents I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments II. Rulemaking Procedure III. Background IV. Discussion of Changes V. Voluntary Consensus Standards VI. Agreement State Compatibility VII. Plain Writing VIII. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification XI. Regulatory Analysis XII. Backfitting and Issue Finality XIII. Congressional Review Act XIV. Availability of Documents I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0075 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0075.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.

• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0075 in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

This direct final rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 6 to CoC No. 1015 and does not include other aspects of the NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System design. The NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing CoC that is expected to be noncontroversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The amendment to the rule will become effective on January 7, 2019. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this direct final rule by November 21, 2018, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register. Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action.

A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

(a) The comment causes the NRC to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC.

(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

(3) The comment causes the NRC to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or TSs.

For detailed instructions on filing comments, please see the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register.

Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”

To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule that added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) entitled “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new subpart L in 10 CFR part 72 entitled “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on October 19, 2000 (65 FR 62581), that approved the NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs provided in § 72.214 as CoC No. 1015.

On May 23, 2017, NAC International submitted a request to the NRC to amend CoC No. 1015. NAC International supplemented its request on January 16, 2018. Amendment No. 6 revises the CoC's TSs to: (1) Remove a redundant requirement for inspection of the concrete cask and canister; (2) revise an LCO for heat removal to clarify that “LCO not met” means that the concrete heat removal system is inoperable; (3) remove an inspection requirement that is already covered by LCO surveillance requirements for off-normal, accident, or natural phenomenon events; (4) clarify that “immediate” restoration of a concrete cask's heat removal capabilities means “within the design-basis time limit” in Section 11.2.13 of the FSAR, “or within the time limit for a less than design-basis heat load case, as evaluated”; and (5) clarify that an LCO for loaded cask surface dose rates applies prior to storage conditions, when dose rates will be highest.

As documented in the preliminary safety evaluation report (PSER), the NRC performed a safety review of the proposed CoC amendment request. There are no significant changes to cask design requirements in the proposed CoC amendment. Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of containment, shielding, and criticality control in the event of an accident. This amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 6 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. There will be no significant change in the types or amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for, or consequences from, radiological accidents.

This direct final rule revises the NAC-UMS® System listing in § 72.214 by adding Amendment No. 6 to CoC No. 1015. The amendment consists of the changes previously described, as set forth in the revised CoC and TSs. The revised TSs are identified and evaluated in the PSER.

The amended NAC-UMS® cask design, when used under the conditions specified in the CoC, the TSs, and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be ensured. When this direct final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under § 72.210 may, consistent with the license conditions under § 72.212, load spent nuclear fuel into those NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System casks that meet the criteria of Amendment No. 6 to CoC No. 1015.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC will revise the NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System design listed in § 72.214. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the Federal Register on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), this rule is classified as Compatibility Category “NRC.” Compatibility is not required for Category “NRC” regulations. The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the provisions of 10 CFR. Although an Agreement State may not adopt program elements reserved to the NRC, and the Category “NRC” does not confer regulatory authority on the State, the State may wish to inform its licensees of certain requirements by means consistent with the particular State's administrative procedure laws.

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).

The action is to amend § 72.214 to revise the NAC International NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System listing of casks that power reactor licensees can use for dry storage of spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license. This direct final rule amends the listing to add Amendment No. 6 to CoC No. 1015. Specifically, Amendment No. 6 revises the CoC's TSs to: (1) Remove a redundant requirement for inspection of the concrete cask and canister; (2) revise an LCO for heat removal to clarify that “LCO not met” means that the concrete heat removal system is inoperable; (3) remove an inspection requirement that is already covered by LCO surveillance requirements for off-normal, accident, or natural phenomenon events; (4) clarify that “immediate” restoration of a concrete cask's heat removal capabilities means “within the design-basis time limit” in Section 11.2.13 of the FSAR, “or within the time limit for a less than design-basis heat load case, as evaluated”; and (5) clarify that an LCO for loaded cask surface dose rates applies prior to storage conditions, when dose rates will be highest.

This direct final rule amends the CoC for the NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license. Specifically, Amendment No. 6 clarifies and removes redundancies in requirements for the use of the NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System. The amendment facilitates the dry cask storage of spent fuel that might otherwise have to be stored in the affected power reactors' spent fuel storage pools.

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was initially analyzed in the environmental assessment (EA) for the 1990 final rule. The EA for this Amendment No. 6 tiers off of the EA for the July 18, 1990, final rule. Tiering off past EAs is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA).

NAC-UMS® Universal Storage Systems are designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an independent spent fuel storage installation, the type of facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license would store spent fuel in casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72, include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other events.

Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of confinement, shielding, and criticality control in the event of an accident. If there is no loss of confinement, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts resulting from an accident would be insignificant. This amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. Because there are no significant design or process changes, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 6 would remain well within 10 CFR part 20 limits. Therefore, the proposed CoC changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the EA supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in individual or cumulative radiation exposures, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences of radiological accidents. The NRC documented its safety findings in a PSER.

The alternative to this action is to deny approval of Amendment No. 6 and end the direct final rule. Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee that seeks to load spent nuclear fuel into NAC International NAC-UMS® Universal Storage Systems in accordance with the changes described in proposed Amendment No. 6 would have to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, interested licensees would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee. Therefore, the environmental impacts of the alternative action would be the same as, or more likely greater than, the preferred action.

Approval of Amendment No. 6 to CoC No. 1015 would result in no irreversible commitment of resources.

No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this EA.

The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in NEPA, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” Based on the foregoing EA, the NRC concludes that this direct final rule entitled, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1015, Amendment No. 6” will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this direct final rule.

This direct final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing collections of information were approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), approval number 3150-0132.

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this direct final rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and NAC International. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (§ 2.810).

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in § 72.214. On October 19, 2000 (65 FR 62581), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 that approved the NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System design by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in § 72.214.

On May 23, 2017, and as supplemented on January 16, 2018, NAC International submitted an application to amend the NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System as described in Section IV, “Discussion of Changes,” of this document.

The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of Amendment No. 6 and to require any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into NAC International NAC-UMS® Universal Storage Systems under the changes described in Amendment No. 6 to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee.

Approval of this direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the PSER and EA, this direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other Government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of this direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and therefore, this action is recommended.

The NRC has determined that the actions in this direct final rule do not require a backfit analysis because they either do not fall within the definition of backfitting under § 72.62 or § 50.109(a)(1), or they do not impact any general licensees currently using these systems. Additionally, the actions in this direct final rule do not impact issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses under 10 CFR part 52.

This direct final rule revises CoC No. 1015 for the NAC International NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System, as currently listed in § 72.214. The revision consists of Amendment No. 6, which revises the CoC's TSs to: (1) Remove a redundant requirement for inspection of the concrete cask and canister; (2) revise an LCO for heat removal to clarify that “LCO not met” means that the concrete heat removal system is inoperable; (3) remove an inspection requirement that is already covered by LCO surveillance requirements for off-normal, accident, or natural phenomenon events; (4) clarify that “immediate” restoration of a concrete cask's heat removal capabilities means “within the design-basis time limit” in Section 11.2.13 of the FSAR, “or within the time limit for a less than design-basis heat load case, as evaluated”; and (5) clarify that an LCO for loaded cask surface dose rates applies prior to storage conditions, when dose rates will be highest.

Amendment No. 6 to CoC No. 1015 for the NAC International NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System was initiated by NAC International and was not submitted in response to new NRC requirements, or an NRC request for amendment. Amendment No. 6 applies only to new casks fabricated and used under Amendment No. 6. These changes do not affect existing users of the NAC International NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System, and the current Amendment No. 5 continues to be effective for existing users. While current CoC users may comply with the new requirements in Amendment No. 6, this would be a voluntary decision on the part of current users.

For these reasons, Amendment No. 6 to CoC No. 1015 does not constitute backfitting under § 72.62 or § 50.109(a)(1), or otherwise represent an inconsistency with the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52. Accordingly, the NRC has not prepared a backfit analysis for this rulemaking.

This direct final rule is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.

The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal Rulemaking website at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2018-0075. The Federal Rulemaking website allows you to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2018-0075); (2) click the “Sign up for Email Alerts” link; and (3) enter your email address and select how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or monthly).

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:

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

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

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

On November 22, 2017, Boeing applied for an amendment to Type Certificate No. T00001SE for the installation of oblique (side-facing) passenger seats with or without airbag devices or 3-point restraints in the Boeing Model 777 series airplanes. The Boeing Model 777 series airplanes are twin-engine, transport category airplanes with a maximum certified passenger capacity of up to 550 and a maximum takeoff weight of approximately 775,000 lbs.

Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Boeing must show that the Model 777 series airplanes meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. T00001SE, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Boeing Model 777 series airplanes because of novel or unusual design features, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Boeing Model 777 series airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

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

The business-class seating configuration Boeing proposes is novel or unusual due to the seat installation at 30 degrees to the airplane centerline, the airbag-system installation, and the seat/occupant interface with the surrounding furniture that introduces occupant alignment and loading concerns. The proposed business-class seating configuration is also beyond the limits of current acceptable equivalent-level-of-safety findings. These oblique (side-facing) seats may be installed at an angle of 18 to 45 degrees to the airplane centerline and may include a 3-point or airbag restraint system, or both, for occupant restraint and injury protection.

The existing regulations do not provide adequate or appropriate safety standards for occupants of oblique-angled seats with airbag systems. To provide a level of safety that is equivalent to that afforded occupants of forward- and aft-facing seats, additional airworthiness standards, in the form of special conditions, are necessary. These special conditions supplement part 25 and, more specifically, supplement §§ 25.562 and 25.785.

The requirements contained in these special conditions consist of both test conditions and injury pass/fail criteria.

The FAA has been conducting and sponsoring research on appropriate injury criteria for oblique (side-facing) seat installations. However, the FAA research program is not complete and we may update these criteria as we obtain further research results. To reflect current research findings, the FAA issued policy statement PS-ANM-25-03-R1 to update injury criteria for fully side-facing seats, and policy statement PS-AIR-25-27, to define injury criteria for oblique (side-facing) seats.

The proposed Boeing Model 777 series airplanes business-class seat installation is novel such that the current Boeing Model 777 series airplanes certification basis does not adequately address protection of the occupant's neck and spine for seat configurations that are positioned at an angle greater than 18 degrees from the airplane centerline. The FAA issued special conditions No. 25-569-SC for Model 777-300ER airplanes on September 25, 2014, and special conditions No. 25-621-SC for certain Model 777-300ER airplanes on August 3rd, 2016. These special conditions contained injury criteria for oblique seats based on the best knowledge the FAA had at the time. These special conditions for oblique seat installations do not adequately address oblique seats, reflecting the current research results, with or without 3-point or airbag restraint systems. Therefore, Boeing's proposed configuration will require amended special conditions.

The installation of passenger seats at angles of 18 to 45 degrees to the airplane centerline are unique due to the seat/occupant interface with the surrounding furniture that introduces occupant alignment/loading concerns with or without the installation of a 3-point or airbag restraint system, or both. On-going research has invalidated previously released special conditions for oblique (side-facing) seat installations. These updated special conditions further address potential injuries to the occupant's neck and spine. As a result, these special conditions replace special conditions 25-569-SC and 25-621-SC. This amendment adds a note to special condition number 7 and adds special condition number 8 to the Special Condition section. The note and special condition 8 were unintentionally omitted from the previous issuance of these special conditions. This additional text is standard, in all material respects, in previously issued special conditions of the same topic.

FAA-sponsored research has found that an un-restrained flailing of the upper torso, even when the pelvis and torso are nearly aligned, can produce serious spinal and torso injuries. At lower impact severities, even with significant misalignment between the torso and pelvis, these injuries did not occur. Tests with an FAA H-III anthropomorphic test device (ATD) have identified a level of lumbar spinal tension corresponding to the no-injury impact severity. This level of tension is included as a limit in the special conditions. The spine tension limit selected is conservative with respect to other aviation injury criteria since it corresponds to a no-injury loading condition.

As noted in the special conditions for each airbag restraint system, because an airbag restraint system is essentially a single use device, there is the potential that it could deploy under crash conditions that are not sufficiently severe as to require head injury protection from the airbag restraint system. Since an actual crash is frequently composed of a series of impacts before the airplane comes to rest, this could render the airbag restraint system useless if a larger impact follows the initial impact. This situation does not exist with energy absorbing pads or upper torso restraints, which tend to provide protection according to the severity of the impact. Therefore, the installation of the airbag restraint system should be such that the airbag restraint system will provide protection when it is required, and will not expend its protection when it is not needed.

Because these airbag restraint systems may or may not activate during various crash conditions, the injury criteria listed in these special conditions and in § 25.562 must be met in an event that is slightly below the activation level of the airbag restraint system. If an airbag restraint system is included with the oblique seats, the system must meet the requirements in one of the airbag (inflatable restraint) special conditions applicable to the Boeing Model 777 series airplanes.

These amended special conditions will provide head injury criteria, neck injury criteria, spine injury criteria, and body-to-wall contact criteria. They contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Boeing Model 777 series airplane. Should Boeing apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

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

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Boeing Model 777 series airplanes.

In addition to the requirements of § 25.562:

Compliance with § 25.562(c)(5) is required, except that, if the ATD has no apparent contact with the seat/structure but has contact with an airbag, a HIC unlimited score in excess of 1000 is acceptable, provided the HIC15 score for that contact (calculated in accordance with 49 CFR 571.208) is less than 700.

If a seat is installed aft of structure (e.g., interior wall or furnishings) that does not provide a homogenous contact surface for the expected range of occupants and yaw angles, then additional analysis and tests may be required to demonstrate that the injury criteria are met for the area which an occupant could contact. For example, different yaw angles could result in different airbag device performance, then additional analysis or separate tests may be necessary to evaluate performance.

The seating system must protect the occupant from experiencing serious neck injury. The assessment of neck injury must be conducted with the airbag device activated, unless there is a reason to also consider that the neck-injury potential would be higher for impacts below the airbag-device deployment threshold.

a. The Nij, calculated in accordance with 49 CFR 571.208, must be below 1.0, where Nij = Fz/Fzc + My/Myc, and Nij critical values are:

b. In addition, peak upper-neck Fz must be below 937 lbs. in tension and 899 lbs. in compression.

c. Rotation of the head about its vertical axis, relative to the torso is limited to 105 degrees in either direction from forward-facing.

d. The neck must not impact any surface that would produce concentrated loading on the neck.

a. The lumbar spine tension (Fz) cannot exceed 1,200 lbs.

b. Significant concentrated loading on the occupant's spine, in the area between the pelvis and shoulders during impact, including rebound, is not acceptable. During this type of contact, the interval for any rearward (X direction) acceleration exceeding 20g must be less than 3 milliseconds as measured by the thoracic instrumentation specified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart E, filtered in accordance with SAE recommended practice J211/1, “Instrumentation for Impact Test-Part 1-Electronic Instrumentation.”

c. The occupant must not interact with the armrest or other seat components in any manner significantly different than would be expected for a forward-facing seat installation.

Any part of the load-bearing portion of the bottom of the ATD pelvis must not translate beyond the edges of the seat bottom seat-cushion supporting structure.

Axial rotation of the upper leg (about the z-axis of the femur per SAE Recommended Practice J211/1) must be limited to 35 degrees from the nominal seated position. Evaluation during rebound does not need to be considered.

Longitudinal tests conducted to measure the injury criteria above must be performed with the FAA Hybrid III ATD, as described in SAE 1999-01-1609, “A Lumbar Spine Modification to the Hybrid III ATD for Aircraft Seat Tests.” The tests must be conducted with an undeformed floor, at the most-critical yaw cases for injury, and with all lateral structural supports (e.g., armrests or walls) installed.

If inflatable airbag restraint systems are installed, the airbag systems must meet the requirements in one of the airbag (inflatable restraint) special conditions applicable to the Boeing Model 777 series airplanes.

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

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

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

On August 19, 2009, Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation applied for a type certificate for their new Model MRJ-200 airplane. The Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation Model MRJ-200 airplane is a low-wing, conventional-tail design with two wing-mounted turbofan engines. The primary structure is metal with an aluminum wing and composite empennage. The airplane is equipped with an electronic flight control system. The airplane has seating for 96 passengers and a maximum takeoff weight of 98,800 lbs.

Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation must show that the Model MRJ-200 airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by amendments 25-1 through 25-141; part 36, as amended by amendments 36-1 through 36-30; and part 34, as amended by amendments 34-1 through the amendment effective at the time of design approval.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation Model MRJ-200 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation Model MRJ-200 airplane must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

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

The Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation Model MRJ-200 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:

Passenger seats that incorporate non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels in lieu of the traditional metal frame covered by fabric.

A non-traditional, large, non-metallic panel, in this case, is defined as a panel with exposed surface areas greater than 1.5 square feet installed per seat place. The panel may consist of either a single component or multiple components in a concentrated area. Examples of parts of the seat where these non-traditional panels are installed include, but are not limited to: seat backs, bottoms and leg/foot rests, kick panels, back shells, credenzas and associated furniture. Examples of traditional exempted parts of the seat include: arm caps, armrest close-outs such as end bays and armrest-styled center consoles, food trays, video monitors and shrouds.

“Exposed” includes those panels directly exposed to the passenger cabin in the traditional sense, plus those panels enveloped such as by a dress cover. Traditional fabrics or leathers currently used on seats are excluded from these special conditions. These materials must still comply with 14 CFR 25.853(a) and (c) if used as a covering for a seat cushion, or 14 CFR 25.853(a) if installed elsewhere on the seat. Non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels covered with traditional fabrics or leathers will be tested without their coverings or covering attachments.

In the early 1980s, the FAA conducted extensive research on the effects of post-crash flammability in the passenger cabin. As a result of this research and service experience, the FAA adopted new standards for interior surfaces associated with large surface area parts. Specifically, the rules require measurement of heat release and smoke emission (part 25, appendix F, parts IV and V) for the affected parts. Heat release has been shown to have a direct correlation with post-crash fire survival time. Materials that comply with the standards (i.e., § 25.853, Compartment interiors, as amended by amendment 25-61 and amendment 25-66) extend survival time by approximately two minutes over materials that do not comply.

At the time these standards were written, the potential application of the requirements of heat release and smoke emission to seats was explored. The seat frame itself was not a concern because it was primarily made of aluminum and there were only small amounts of non-metallic materials. It was determined that the overall effect on survivability was negligible, whether or not the food trays met the heat release and smoke requirements. The requirements, therefore, did not address seats. The preambles to both the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Notice No. 85-10, 50 FR 15038, April 16, 1985, and the Final Rule, amendment 25-61, 51 FR 26206, July 21, 1986, specifically note that seats were excluded because the recently-adopted standards for flammability of seat cushions will greatly inhibit involvement of the seats.

Subsequently, the Final Rule, amendment 25-83, 60 FR 6615, March 6, 1995, clarified the definition of minimum panel size by stating that it is not possible to cite a specific size that will apply in all installations; however, as a general rule, components with exposed surface areas of one square foot or less may be considered small enough that they do not have to meet the new standards. Components with exposed surface areas greater than two square feet may be considered large enough that they do have to meet the new standards. Those with exposed surface areas greater than one square foot, but less than two square feet, must be considered in conjunction with the areas of the cabin in which they are installed before a determination could be made.

The FAA issued Policy Statement PS-ANM100-97-112-39, Guidance for Flammability Testing of Seat/Console Installations, on October 17, 1997 (http://rgl.faa.gov). That document was issued when it became clear that seat designs were evolving to include large, non-metallic panels with surface areas that would impact survivability during a cabin fire event, comparable to partitions or galleys. The document noted that large surface area panels must comply with heat release and smoke emission requirements, even if they were attached to a seat. If the FAA had not issued such policy, seat designs could have been viewed as a loophole to the airworthiness standards that would result in an unacceptable decrease in survivability during a cabin fire event.

In October of 2004, an issue was raised regarding the appropriate flammability standards for passenger seats that incorporated non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels in lieu of the traditional metal covered by fabric. The FAA determined that special conditions would be promulgated to apply the standards defined in 14 CFR 25.853(d) to seats with large, non-metallic panels in their design.

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

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation Model MRJ-200 airplane. Should Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

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

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

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

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

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

On June 10, 2015, Bombardier applied for a supplemental type certificate for multiple-place side-facing seats equipped with active leg-flail restraint devices and shoulder-belt airbags in the Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes.

These airplanes are derivatives of the Model BD-700 series of airplanes and are marketed as the Bombardier Global 7000 (Model BD-700-2A12) and Global 8000 (Model BD-700-2A13). These airplanes are twin-engine, transport-category, executive-interior business jets. The maximum passenger capacity is 19 and the maximum takeoff weights are 106,250 lb. (Model BD-700-2A12) and 104,800 lb. (Model BD-700-2A13).

Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Bombardier must show that the Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. T00003NY or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

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

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

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

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

The Bombardier Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:

Multiple-place side-facing seats with active leg-flail restraint devices and shoulder-belt airbags.

Many proposed airplane interior configurations include multiple-place side-facing seats and single-place side-facing seats (hereafter referred to as side-facing seats). Some of these side-facing seat designs include an airbag system in the shoulder belt, and some may also include leg-flail protection. The FAA has determined that the existing regulations do not provide adequate or appropriate safety standards for occupants of side facing seats. In addition, the FAA has determined that the existing regulations do not provide adequate or appropriate safety standards for the addition of airbag systems in the shoulder belt on side-facing seats.

Side-facing seats are considered a novel design for transport-category airplanes that include § 25.562 in their certification basis. The performance measures of § 25.562(c) only address forward- and aft-facing seats, and do not provide adequate or appropriate safety standards for occupants of side-facing seats because they do not consider the differences in the dynamic forces that apply to a side-facing occupant.

The FAA issued Policy Statement PS-ANM-25-03-R1 to provide technical criteria for approving side-facing seats, to be issued as special conditions for the design approval of such seats. The technical criteria set forth in that policy are the result of FAA research findings and provide the level of safety envisioned in § 25.562. These technical criteria are applicable to all fully side-facing seats, both multiple-place and single-place.

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

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

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the Bombardier BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Bombardier BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes as modified by Bombardier.

1. Additional requirements applicable to tests or rational analysis conducted to show compliance with §§ 25.562 and 25.785 for side-facing seats:

a. The longitudinal test(s) conducted in accordance with § 25.562(b)(2) to show compliance with the seat-strength requirements of § 25.562(c)(7) and (8), and these special conditions must have an ES-2re anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD) (49 CFR part 572, subpart U) or equivalent, or a Hybrid-II ATD (49 CFR part 572, subpart B, as specified in § 25.562) or equivalent, occupying each seat position and including all items contactable by the occupant (e.g., armrest, interior wall, or furnishing) if those items are necessary to restrain the occupant. If included, the floor representation and contactable items must be located such that their relative position, with respect to the center of the nearest seat place, is the same at the start of the test as before floor misalignment is applied. For example, if floor misalignment rotates the centerline of the seat place nearest the contactable item 8 degrees clockwise about the aircraft x-axis, then the item and floor representations must be rotated by 8 degrees clockwise also to maintain the same relative position to the seat place. Each ATD's relative position to the seat after application of floor misalignment must be the same as before misalignment is applied. To ensure proper loading of the seat by the occupants, the ATD pelvis must remain supported by the seat pan, and the restraint system must remain on the pelvis and shoulder of the ATD until rebound begins. No injury-criteria evaluation is necessary for tests conducted only to assess seat-strength requirements.

b. The longitudinal test(s) conducted in accordance with § 25.562(b)(2), to show compliance with the injury assessments required by § 25.562(c) and these special conditions, may be conducted separately from the test(s) to show structural integrity. In this case, structural-assessment tests must be conducted as specified in paragraph 1a, above, and the injury-assessment test must be conducted without yaw or floor misalignment. Injury assessments may be accomplished by testing with ES-2re ATD (49 CFR part 572, subpart U) or equivalent at all places. Alternatively, these assessments may be accomplished by multiple tests that use an ES-2re at the seat place being evaluated, and a Hybrid-II ATD (49 CFR part 572, subpart B, as specified in § 25.562) or equivalent used in all seat places forward of the one being assessed, to evaluate occupant interaction. In this case, seat places aft of the one being assessed may be unoccupied. If a seat installation includes adjacent items that are contactable by the occupant, the injury potential of that contact must be assessed. To make this assessment, tests may be conducted that include the actual item, located and attached in a representative fashion. Alternatively, the injury potential may be assessed by a combination of tests with items having the same geometry as the actual item, but having stiffness characteristics that would create the worst case for injury (injuries due to both contact with the item and lack of support from the item).

c. If a seat is installed aft of structure (e.g., an interior wall or furnishing) that does not have a homogeneous surface contactable by the occupant, additional analysis and/or test(s) may be required to demonstrate that the injury criteria are met for the area which an occupant could contact. For example, different yaw angles could result in different injury considerations and may require additional analysis or separate test(s) to evaluate.

d. To accommodate a range of occupant heights (5th percentile female to 95th percentile male), the surface of items contactable by the occupant must be homogenous 7.3 inches (185 mm) above and 7.9 inches (200 mm) below the point (center of area) that is contacted by the 50th percentile male size ATD's head during the longitudinal test(s) conducted in accordance with paragraphs a, b, and c, above. Otherwise, additional head-injury criteria (HIC) assessment tests may be necessary. Any surface (inflatable or otherwise) that provides support for the occupant of any seat place must provide that support in a consistent manner regardless of occupant stature. For example, if an inflatable shoulder belt is used to mitigate injury risk, then it must be demonstrated by inspection to bear against the range of occupants in a similar manner before and after inflation. Likewise, the means of limiting lower-leg flail must be demonstrated by inspection to provide protection for the range of occupants in a similar manner.

e. For longitudinal test(s) conducted in accordance with § 25.562(b)(2) and these special conditions, the ATDs must be positioned, clothed, and have lateral instrumentation configured as follows:

f. ATD positioning:

i. Lower the ATD vertically into the seat while simultaneously:

ii. Aligning the midsagittal plane (a vertical plane through the midline of the body; dividing the body into right and left halves) with approximately the middle of the seat place.

iii. Applying a horizontal x-axis direction (in the ATD coordinate system) force of about 20 lb (89 N) to the torso at approximately the intersection of the midsagittal plane and the bottom rib of the ES-2re or lower sternum of the Hybrid-II at the midsagittal plane, to compress the seat back cushion.

iv. Keeping the upper legs nearly horizontal by supporting them just behind the knees. Once all lifting devices have been removed from the ATD:

1. Rock it slightly to settle it in the seat.

2. Separate the knees by about 4 inches (100 mm).

3. Set the ES-2re's head at approximately the midpoint of the available range of z-axis rotation (to align the head and torso midsagittal planes).

4. Position the ES-2re's arms at the joint's mechanical detent that puts them at approximately a 40 degree angle with respect to the torso. Position the Hybrid-II ATD hands on top of its upper legs.

5. Position the feet such that the centerlines of the lower legs are approximately parallel to a lateral vertical plane (in the aircraft coordinate system).

g. ATD clothing: Clothe each ATD in form-fitting, mid-calf-length (minimum) pants and shoes (size 11E) weighing about 2.5 lb (1.1 Kg) total. The color of the clothing should be in contrast to the color of the restraint system. The ES-2re jacket is sufficient for torso clothing, although a form-fitting shirt may be used in addition if desired.

h. ES-2re ATD lateral instrumentation: The rib-module linear slides are directional, i.e., deflection occurs in either a positive or negative ATD y-axis direction. The modules must be installed such that the moving end of the rib module is toward the front of the aircraft. The three abdominal-force sensors must be installed such that they are on the side of the ATD toward the front of the aircraft.

2. The combined horizontal/vertical test, required by § 25.562(b)(1) and these special conditions, must be conducted with a Hybrid II ATD (49 CFR part 572, subpart B, as specified in § 25.562), or equivalent, occupying each seat position.

3. Restraint systems:

a. If inflatable restraint systems are used, they must be active during all dynamic tests conducted to show compliance with § 25.562.

b. The design and installation of seat-belt buckles must prevent unbuckling due to applied inertial forces or impact of the hands/arms of the occupant during an emergency landing.

4. Additional performance measures applicable to tests and rational analysis conducted to show compliance with §§ 25.562 and 25.785 for side-facing seats:

a. Body-to-body contact: Contact between the head, pelvis, torso, or shoulder area of one ATD with the adjacent-seated ATD's head, pelvis, torso, or shoulder area is not allowed. Contact during rebound is allowed.

b. Thoracic: The deflection of any of the ES-2re ATD upper, middle, and lower ribs must not exceed 1.73 inches (44 mm). Data must be processed as defined in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 571.214.

c. Abdominal: The sum of the measured ES-2re ATD front, middle, and rear abdominal forces must not exceed 562 lbs (2,500 N). Data must be processed as defined in FMVSS 571.214.

d. Pelvic: The pubic symphysis force measured by the ES-2re ATD must not exceed 1,350 lbs (6,000 N). Data must be processed as defined in FMVSS 571.214.

e. Leg: Axial rotation of the upper-leg (femur) must be limited to 35 degrees in either direction from the nominal seated position.

f. Neck: As measured by the ES-2re ATD and filtered at CFC 600 as defined in SAE J211:

i. The upper-neck tension force at the occipital condyle (O.C.) location must be less than 405 lb (1,800 N).

ii. The upper-neck compression force at the O.C. location must be less than 405 lb (1,800 N).

iii. The upper-neck bending torque about the ATD x-axis at the O.C. location must be less than 1,018 in-lb (115 Nm).

iv. The upper-neck resultant shear force at the O.C. location must be less than 186 lb (825 N).

g. Occupant (ES-2re ATD) retention: The pelvic restraint must remain on the ES-2re ATD's pelvis during the impact and rebound phases of the test. The upper-torso restraint straps (if present) must remain on the ATD's shoulder during the impact.

h. Occupant (ES-2re ATD) support:

i. Pelvis excursion: The load-bearing portion of the bottom of the ATD pelvis must not translate beyond the edges of its seat's bottom seat-cushion supporting structure.

ii. Upper-torso support: The lateral flexion of the ATD torso must not exceed 40 degrees from the normal upright position during the impact.

5. For seats with an airbag system in the shoulder belts, show that the airbag system in the shoulder belt will deploy and provide protection under crash conditions where it is necessary to prevent serious injury. The means of protection must take into consideration a range of stature from a 2-year-old child to a 95th percentile male. The airbag system in the shoulder belt must provide a consistent approach to energy absorption throughout that range of occupants. When the seat system includes an airbag system, that system must be included in each of the certification tests as it would be installed in the airplane. In addition, the following situations must be considered:

a. The seat occupant is holding an infant.

b. The seat occupant is a pregnant woman.

6. The airbag system in the shoulder belt must provide adequate protection for each occupant regardless of the number of occupants of the seat assembly, considering that unoccupied seats may have an active airbag system in the shoulder belt.

7. The design must prevent the airbag system in the shoulder belt from being either incorrectly buckled or incorrectly installed, such that the airbag system in the shoulder belt would not properly deploy. Alternatively, it must be shown that such deployment is not hazardous to the occupant, and will provide the required injury protection.

8. It must be shown that the airbag system in the shoulder belt is not susceptible to inadvertent deployment as a result of wear and tear, or inertial loads resulting from in-flight or ground maneuvers (including gusts and hard landings), and other operating and environmental conditions (vibrations, moisture, etc.) likely to occur in service.

9. Deployment of the airbag system in the shoulder belt must not introduce injury mechanisms to the seated occupant, or result in injuries that could impede rapid egress. This assessment should include an occupant whose belt is loosely fastened.

10. It must be shown that inadvertent deployment of the airbag system in the shoulder belt, during the most critical part of the flight, will either meet the requirement of § 25.1309(b) or not cause a hazard to the airplane or its occupants.

11. It must be shown that the airbag system in the shoulder belt will not impede rapid egress of occupants 10 seconds after airbag deployment.

12. The airbag system must be protected from lightning and high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF). The threats to the airplane specified in existing regulations regarding lightning, § 25.1316, and HIRF, § 25.1317, are incorporated by reference for the purpose of measuring lightning and HIRF protection.

13. The airbag system in the shoulder belt must function properly after loss of normal aircraft electrical power, and after a transverse separation of the fuselage at the most critical location. A separation at the location of the airbag system in the shoulder belt does not have to be considered.

14. It must be shown that the airbag system in the shoulder belt will not release hazardous quantities of gas or particulate matter into the cabin.

15. The airbag system in the shoulder-belt installation must be protected from the effects of fire such that no hazard to occupants will result.

16. A means must be available for a crewmember to verify the integrity of the airbag system in the shoulder-belt activation system prior to each flight, or it must be demonstrated to reliably operate between inspection intervals. The FAA considers that the loss of the airbag-system deployment function alone (i.e., independent of the conditional event that requires airbag deployment) is a major-failure condition.

17. The inflatable material may not have an average burn rate of greater than 2.5 inches/minute when tested using the horizontal flammability test defined in part 25, appendix F, part I, paragraph (b)(5).

18. The airbag system in the shoulder belt, once deployed, must not adversely affect the emergency-lighting system (i.e., block floor proximity lights to the extent that the lights no longer meet their intended function).

Comments Invited

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

Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, issued Emergency AD No. CF-2018-18, dated July 11, 2018, to correct an unsafe condition for Bell Model 429 helicopters. Transport Canada advises of two reports of T/R gearbox assemblies loosely attached to the gearbox support. According to Transport Canada, this condition could lead to structural damage and possible loss of control of the helicopter.

As a result, on July 20, 2018, we issued Emergency AD 2018-15-51 (Emergency AD 2018-15-51), which required inspecting the T/R gearbox installation for looseness, visually inspecting the T/R gearbox retaining hardware and support attachment point areas, and torque inspecting the gearbox retaining nuts. Depending on the inspection results, Emergency AD 2018-15-51 required replacing or repairing the affected parts in accordance with FAA-approved procedures. Emergency AD 2018-15-51 was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. The actions in Emergency AD 2018-15-51 were intended to prevent detachment of the T/R gearbox, loss of T/R control, and loss of control of the helicopter.

After we issued Emergency AD 2018-15-51, we discovered an error in the replacement nut P/N. The required replacement nut P/N is NAS9926-6L; not NAS9926-5L as incorrectly stated in Emergency AD 2018-15-51. Therefore, on July 26, 2018, we issued Emergency AD 2018-16-51 to supersede Emergency AD 2018-15-51 to correct the nut P/N. Emergency AD 2018-16-51 otherwise retains all of the requirements of Emergency AD 2018-15-51. Emergency AD 2018-16-51 was also sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters.

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Canada, Transport Canada, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the Transport Canada AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by Transport Canada and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design.

We reviewed Bell Alert Service Bulletin 429-18-40, dated July 6, 2018, which specifies a one-time inspection of the T/R gearbox installation and a one-time visual and torque inspection of the six installation attachment points. This service information also specifies contacting Bell Product Support Engineering with the results of the T/R gearbox installation inspection, any findings of the visual inspection, and the results of the torque inspection.

This AD requires inspecting the T/R gearbox installation for looseness, visually inspecting the T/R gearbox retaining hardware and each support attachment point area, and torque inspecting each gearbox retaining nut. Depending on the inspection results, this AD requires replacing or repairing the affected parts in accordance with FAA-approved procedures.

The Transport Canada AD applies to helicopters with specific serial numbers, whereas this AD applies to all Model 429 helicopters. The Transport Canada AD includes a calendar based compliance time, whereas this AD does not. The Transport Canada AD requires reporting certain information to Bell Product Support Engineering and this AD does not. If there is looseness, this AD requires performing the visual inspection and torque inspection before further flight, while the Transport Canada AD requires contacting Bell. Lastly, if the torque of a T/R gearbox retaining nut is below 160 in-lbs (19 Nm), this AD requires removing the T/R gearbox and inspecting the mounting surfaces and retaining hardware, while the Transport Canada AD requires contacting Bell.

We consider this AD to be an interim action. If final action is later identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.

We estimate that this AD affects 90 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85.00 per work-hour.

Inspecting the T/R gearbox installation takes about 0.25 work-hour for an estimated cost of $21 per helicopter and $1,890 for the U.S. fleet. Inspecting the T/R gearbox retaining hardware and the support attachment points takes about 0.5 work-hour for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter and $3,870 for the U.S. fleet. Replacing the nuts takes about 1 work-hour and parts cost about $20 for an estimated cost of $105 per helicopter and $9,450 for the U.S. fleet.

An unsafe condition exists that required the immediate adoption of Emergency AD 2018-16-51, issued on July 26, 2018, to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. The FAA found that the risk to the flying public justified waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because there are required actions that must be completed before further flight and within 5 hours time-in-service. These conditions still exist and the AD is hereby published in the Federal Register as an amendment to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it effective to all persons. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reasons stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a document published in the Federal Register on June 19, 2015 (80 FR 35246), VA amended its regulation at 38 CFR 3.307 governing individuals presumed to have been exposed to certain herbicides. VA provided the public 60 days in which to comment on the amendment made by the interim final rule, with the comment period ending August 18, 2015. VA received 46 comments from various organizations and individuals. The issues raised by the commenters that concerned a similar topic have been grouped together and VA's discussion of the comments organized accordingly. For the reasons set forth in the interim final rule and for those reasons discussed below, we are adopting the interim final rule as final without changes.

The majority of public comments asserted a need for retroactive application of the effective date assigned for the interim final rule. Retroactivity is generally not favored in the law and an agency will not generally be considered to have authority to provide retroactive effect unless an exception to this general rule is provided via an express statutory delegation of authority. See Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988). Further, 38 U.S.C. 5110(g) stipulates that the effective date of an award or increase based on a liberalizing law or VA issue will either be the “effective date of the Act or administrative issue,” or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. This statute is implemented through regulation (38 CFR 3.114), which generally does not contemplate VA providing benefits effective prior to the effective date of the liberalizing regulation itself.

Even to the extent VA's rulemaking authority under 38 U.S.C. 501 includes authority to issue retroactive regulations, and assuming such an understanding can be reconciled with section 5110(g), VA declines to do so in this matter. Even if VA's rulemaking authority extends to assigning a retroactive effective date in the abstract, doing so is nevertheless inconsistent with the intent of section 5110(g) and would certainly be inconsistent with VA's usual and longstanding practice to make substantive rules effective prospectively. Maintaining a general policy of applying new regulations prospectively helps ensure that all new liberalizing regulations are applied in a fair and consistent manner. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reviewed this authority and held that VA did not act unreasonably in using a prospective effective date for a liberalizing regulation rather than a retroactive effective date in circumstance similar to this. McKinney v. McDonald, 796 F.3d 1377, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Additionally, we note that avoiding retroactivity serves the interests of orderly administration and clarity in the law. If new regulations apply only prospectively, then determining what law applied to a past claim as of a given point in time is a matter of looking up the regulation for the applicable year. When new regulations are given retroactive effect, agency personnel must navigate considerably more complexity (e.g., having to consult the law in 2018 in order to figure out what the law was in 1990). Retroactive application of a new regulation also entails significant complexity insofar as adjudicators may have to assess intervening changes to other relevant statutes and regulations and seek to develop evidence, years after the fact, regarding the existence and extent of disability during past periods. This would increase the potential for confusion, inconsistency, and delay in VA claim adjudications, in addition to the disparate treatment that would result from making some presumptions retroactive, but not others. Therefore, although it may be possible for VA to provide retroactive effect in some exceptional circumstance, this would be inappropriate as a routine matter. VA will make the provisions addressed herein effective prospectively from the date of enactment consistent with the approach both VA and Congress generally have followed in establishing liberalizing regulations and statutes benefitting other groups of veterans, and makes no change based on the comments suggesting a retroactive effective date for the amendments to 38 CFR 3.307.

Multiple sub-categories were present within the broad category of requests for a retroactive effective date. Numerous commenters argued that this regulation is unnecessary as current VA policies and procedures already allow for establishing service-connected disability status based on exposure to residual dioxin aboard C-123 aircraft and the subsequent development of disabilities related thereto. Multiple commenters theorized that the regulation is unnecessary to establish presumption of exposure as an in-service injury during inactive duty training or active duty for training status. The comments referenced an opinion of VA's Office of General Counsel (OGC), VAOPGCPREC 4-2002, as a basis for establishing that the exposure to residual dioxin was an in-service “injury” sufficient to satisfy the criteria for service connection under 38 U.S.C. 101(24). Similarly, other comments received referenced another OGC opinion, VAOPGCPREC 08-2001, as a basis to establish occurrence of an “injury” for the purposes of establishing active service to satisfy section 101(24).

The two cited opinions and the argument that reservists can meet the statutory definition of “veteran” simply on the basis of injury are all inapposite to this rulemaking. Current law, specifically 38 U.S.C. 101(2), defines “veteran” as “a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.” Section 101(24) then clarifies that “active military, naval, or air service” includes active duty for training during which an injury or disease is incurred or aggravated in the line of duty, or inactive duty for training during which an injury was incurred or aggravated in the line or duty or during which an acute myocardial infarction, a cardiac arrest, or a cerebrovascular accident occurs. Further, in both scenarios, section 101(24) requires that, “during” the referenced duty period, the putative veteran “was disabled or died” from a covered injury or disease. Thus, two discrete elements are required before VA can conclude that active duty for training (ADT) or inactive duty training (IDT) are considered active service: Injury (or in the case of ADT, disease as well, or in the case of IDT, the events specified in section 101(24)(C)(ii)) incurred or aggravated in the line of duty, and incurrence of disability during such duty period from that same covered injury or disease. Although the commenters are correct in that VA stated in the interim final rule that exposure to Agent Orange constitutes injury for veteran status purposes, insofar as the commenters argue that injury alone is sufficient to establish veteran status they are incorrect. In both ADT and IDT cases, disability must be incurred during the period of service. See section 101(24) (B) and (C). In the absence of incurrence of disability or death during service, veteran status is still not established. The operation of the presumption at issue in this regulation is therefore necessary for the putative veterans in question to achieve service connection on a presumptive basis.

Both of the OGC opinions cited by commenters addressed whether specific incidents during service were legally sufficient to satisfy the definition of injury in section 101(24). The opinions did not address whether the injuries at issue could or did cause a disability or death during the same period of service, much less create a presumption that the injuries at issue would do so. See VAOPGCPREC 08-2001, 04-2002. Nor did the opinions create a presumption that an entire class of servicemembers was, in fact, exposed to herbicide. Claimants who present evidence of both injury during ADT or IDT service and disability first manifest or aggravated during that same service—the situation addressed in both VAPGCPREC 08-2001 and 04-2002—could be entitled to service connection on a direct basis if the elements for service connection are otherwise established. This rule does not affect that basis of service connection for any individual. Rather, this rule creates presumptions for individuals who performed service in the Air Force or Air Force Reserve under circumstances in which they had regular and repeated contact with C-123 aircraft known to have been used to spray an herbicide agent regarding exposure to herbicides, injury, and onset of diseases specified in 38 CFR 3.309(e). Thus, we disagree that this rule is unnecessary and/or conflicts with VAPGCPREC 08-2001 and 04-2002. No changes are made in response to these comments.

Multiple comments referenced a March 2013 correspondence from the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) to VA. JSRRC had cited the findings of a study by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) as relevant documentation establishing exposure to residual dioxin. The commenters requested that this memorandum be utilized as a basis for a retroactive effective date. Similarly, multiple comments referenced the 2015 findings of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and requested that the date of these findings be utilized as a basis for the effective date of this regulation.

VA finds no basis to utilize the JSRRC correspondence or the IOM findings to establish an earlier effective date for the regulation. For all regulations in which VA has established a presumption of exposure, there is a body of scientific evidence that must be considered and ultimately informs the decision to establish the presumption of exposure. This body of scientific evidence, by logical necessity, predates the effective date of the regulation. Exposure aboard contaminated C-123 aircraft is no different. As discussed above, to the extent VA has legal authority to establish a retroactive effective date, it is unquestionably the well-established practice of VA and Congress to establish liberalizing regulations and statutes benefitting other groups of veterans with prospective effective dates. Therefore, no change is warranted based on any of these multiple theories asserted in support of assigning a retroactive effective date for this regulation.

Some comments referenced prior VA decisions to grant service-connected disability benefits based on exposure during inactive or active duty for training status aboard contaminated C-123 aircraft and utilized this as a basis for the argument to assign an earlier effective date for this regulation. Prior decisions granting benefits as described were made on the basis of the facts found in the individual case and the law that existed at the time, and are not a means for assigning an effective date for a regulation. As previously noted, under 38 U.S.C. 5110(g), effective dates “shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found but shall not be earlier than the effective date of the Act or administrative issue.” The prior cases referenced in the comments were all granted on the basis of individual facts found, and as already discussed above, the current regulation establishes entitlement on a presumptive basis. Thus, no change is warranted based on these comments.

Some commenters objected to the regulation on the basis that the regulation imposes an additional challenge for cases already on appeal as veteran status must now be considered. Determining veteran status is always part of the claims process. Although veteran status may not be directly addressed and discussed in the adjudication of every claim or an appeal, it is one of many determinations that must be made along the path of considering entitlement to any VA benefit, and is frequently at issue in claims arising from periods of active duty for training or inactive duty training. See, e.g., Collaro v. West, 136 F.3d 1304, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (noting that “status as a veteran” is one of five elements to be resolved in an application for service-connected disability benefits). Thus, no change is made based upon these comments as veteran status is and has been a consideration always inherent in deciding claims for VA benefits.

An additional category of comments objected to the effective date on the basis that failure to allow for retroactive benefits results in denial of due process for those individuals who had previously submitted claims. For a denial of due process to occur, there must be a property interest, such as entitlement to a benefit, and deprivation of the property interest flowing from the defective process. At the time any claim was received prior to the effective date of this regulation, presumptive entitlement to a benefit did not exist as a matter of law (38 U.S.C. 5110(g) and 38 CFR 3.114). Due process serves to protect property interests that are recognized or created by the law—it does not itself create property interests. Leis v. Flynt, 439 U.S. 438, 441 (1979); Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, 545 U.S. 748, 771 (2005). The requirements of due process therefore cannot serve to create a presumption of entitlement to benefits prior to the time that presumption actually existed. Additionally, the creation of a presumption of exposure to dioxin effective June 19, 2015, does not prevent a claimant from introducing evidence in an earlier claim in order to establish service connection on a facts found basis. As noted earlier, VA granted entitlement to benefits on the basis of individual facts found before enactment of this rule. Consequently, there is no deprivation of due process, and no change is warranted based upon these comments.

Multiple comments referenced what was viewed as unfavorable treatment of reserve service as compared to individuals who established status as a veteran after other types of service. As described in the explanation of responses to effective date comments, the term “veteran” is defined in existing statutes. This rule serves as a vehicle to help members of the Air Force Reserve establish that their herbicide-related disease was incurred during active service. VA is without authority to ignore the statutory definition of the term “veteran” regardless of whether that term treats reserve service differently than other types of service. Therefore, no change is warranted based on these comments.

VA received comments requesting action in accordance with the effective date rules governed by the class action case of Nehmer v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs, No. CV-86-6160 TEH (N.D. Cal.). The Nehmer case established herbicide exposure claim procedures for veterans who served in Vietnam. Thus, reservists who served aboard C-123 aircraft outside Vietnam are not Nehmer class members, unless the individual in question separately deployed to Vietnam, in which case they have long been presumed exposed to herbicides without regard to the impact of this regulation. The stipulations that the parties entered into in Nehmer therefore do not apply to this rulemaking. Consequently, no changes are warranted based on these comments.

VA received four comments in which the commenter objected to concession of exposure based on a lack of and/or faulty scientific evidence confirming actual exposure to residual dioxin. One of these comments also cited a 20-year Air Force Health Study that showed no correlation between exposure in crews participating in Operation Ranch Hand and those disabilities that VA presumes associated with herbicide exposure. VA has based its decision to add presumptions for C-123 veterans on the entire body of relevant evidence, including the findings of the February 24, 2015, IOM report “Post-Vietnam Dioxin Exposure in Agent Orange-Contaminated C-123 Aircraft.” The report found evidence of potentially harmful exposure to residual dioxin for those Air Force Reservists who worked aboard contaminated, former Operation Ranch Hand C-123 aircraft. VA considered the comments and evidence cited by the commenters, but determined that they are not sufficient to outweigh the IOM's finding that “[Air Force] Reservists working in [Operation Ranch Hand] C-123s were exposed (in the technical sense of the word of having bodily contact with the chemicals) to the components of Agent Orange to some extent.” Therefore, no change is warranted based on these comments.

Further, with regard to the comment questioning the validity of the presumptive correlation between exposure to residual dioxin and the subsequent development of diseases, the IOM report clearly states and provides sufficient analysis to confirm that it is plausible that Air Force Reservists “would have experienced some exposure to chemicals from herbicide residue when working inside [Operation Ranch Hand] C-123s.” The IOM committee reported that “[n]o matter what” decontamination methods were used, “TCDD and phenoxy herbicide residues were still detected 30 years later in several of the C-123 aircraft at levels in excess of international guidelines.” TCDD refers to the dioxin, an unintended contaminant in Agent Orange, which was later determined to be a human carcinogen. The IOM was able to find sufficient sampling data to demonstrate that the C-123s experienced long-term contamination with Agent Orange and TCDD. The report further explains that the available data was sufficient to suggest that “the C-123s did contribute to some adverse health consequences among the [Air Force] Reservists who worked in [Operation Ranch Hand] C-123s.” It has been longstanding VA policy to presume service-connection for certain disabilities determined to have been related to exposure to Agent Orange or related herbicides during military service. See 38 CFR 3.309(e), Disease associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents. Consequently, no changes are made with regard to that comment.

Two comments were received requesting Agent Orange Registry examinations. Entitlement to Agent Orange Registry examinations is not within the scope of this rule making. Agent Orange Registry examinations are made available to individuals who may have been exposed to herbicides during a military operation or as a result of testing, transporting, or spraying herbicides for military purposes. This rulemaking does not impact the availability of Agent Orange Registry examinations. Consequently, no change is made based upon these comments.

Several comments were received pertaining to exposure aboard C-123 aircraft at specific locations. This regulation does not establish criteria based on specific locations, but rather based on the type of service (Air Force or Air Force Reserve) and circumstances of that service (regular and repeated contact with C-123 aircraft known to have been used to spray Agent Orange during the Vietnam era). Specifically, the amended regulation establishes that VA will presume exposure to herbicides and in-service injury and incurrence of disability for individuals who suffer from specified herbicide-related diseases and “regularly and repeatedly operated, maintained, or served onboard C-123 aircraft known to have been used to spray an herbicide agent during the Vietnam era.” It further clarifies that the individual had to have been assigned to an Air Force or Air Force Reserve squadron that was permanently assigned one of the affected aircraft, and that he/she had an Air Force specialty code indicating duties as a flight, ground maintenance, or medical crew member. VA procedures have been established based upon the interim final rule to set forth this criteria in order to determine whether an individual was exposed based on the circumstances of service. Therefore, no change is warranted in response to these comments.

One commenter requested that breast cancer be designated as a disability presumptively related to exposure to residual dioxin on C-123 aircraft. This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. This rulemaking establishes means for presuming exposure to herbicides and establishing veteran status. The designation of a presumptive relationship between herbicide exposure and the subsequent development of any type of disease, such as breast cancer, is not within the scope of this rulemaking. Consequently, no change is warranted based upon this comment. However, VA will continue to monitor relevant scientific and medical reports for conditions associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents. If, at a later date, there is sufficient evidence to suggest a relationship between exposure and additional disabilities, VA will initiate additional rulemaking as appropriate.

One comment was received requesting clarification of entitlement to survivor benefits within the rulemaking. Although clarification of entitlement to survivor benefits is not within the scope of this rulemaking in particular, we note that status to claim entitlement to survivor benefits is generally predicated on the basis of the survivor's relationship to a veteran, while the benefits that a survivor may claim can be dependent on the benefits to which that veteran was entitled. Whether a veteran's entitlement to benefits is established based in part on this liberalizing rule would not itself impact a suvivor's ability to claim benefits or the benefits to which the survivor would be entitled. No change is warranted based upon this comment.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” which requires review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as “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.”

The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined and it has been determined to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, because it rasises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order. 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 FYTD. This rule is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 because this rule results in no more than de minimis costs.

The Secretary hereby certifies that 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). This final rule will directly affect only individuals and will not directly affect small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

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 regulatory action contains provisions constituting a collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Specifically, this rule is associated with information collections related to the filing of disability benefits claims, VA Forms 21-526EZ and 21P-534EZ. The information collections are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been assigned OMB control numbers 2900-0747 and 2900-0004. There are no changes to any of these collections and, thus, no incremental costs associated with this rulemaking.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.100, Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment for Certain Disabled Veterans and Members of the Armed Forces; 64.101, Burial Expenses Allowance for Veterans; 64.102, Compensation for Service-Connected Deaths for Veterans' Dependents; 64.104, Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for Veterans; 64.105, Pension to Veterans Surviving Spouses and Children; 64.106, Specially Adapted Housing for Disabled Veterans; 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability; and 64.110, Veterans Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for Service-Connected Death.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jacquelyn Hayes-Byrd, Acting Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on June 12, 2018, for publication.

Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

The background for this action is discussed in detail in our August 10, 2018, proposal (83 FR 39641). In that document we proposed to approve a request from the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) to update its existing NESHAP regulations for receiving delegation and approval of its program for the implementation and enforcement of certain National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for all sources (both part 70 and non-part 70 sources), as provided for under previously approved delegation mechanisms. We received five anonymous public comments on the proposed rulemaking action. The comments are posted to the docket (EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0063). None of the comments are relevant to our proposed rulemaking to approve ODEQ's request updating the delegation of certain NESHAP. Since these comments are not relevant to the specific action EPA proposed, the EPA will not be responding to these comments or making any changes to our proposed rulemaking because of these comments.

EPA is providing notice that it is taking final action to approve ODEQ's request updating the delegation of certain NESHAP. With this delegation, ODEQ has the primary responsibility to implement and enforce the delegated standards. See sections VII and VIII, below, for a discussion of which standards are being delegated and which are not being delegated.

Section 112(l) of the CAA and 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, authorize the EPA to delegate authority for the implementation and enforcement of emission standards for hazardous air pollutants to a State or local agency that satisfies the statutory and regulatory requirements in subpart E. The hazardous air pollutant standards are codified at 40 CFR parts 61 and 63.

Section 112(l)(5) of the CAA requires the EPA to disapprove any program submitted by a State for the delegation of NESHAP standards if the EPA determines that:

(A) The authorities contained in the program are not adequate to assure compliance by the sources within the State with respect to each applicable standard, regulation, or requirement established under section 112;

(B) adequate authority does not exist, or adequate resources are not available, to implement the program;

(C) the schedule for implementing the program and assuring compliance by affected sources is not sufficiently expeditious; or

(D) the program is otherwise not in compliance with the guidance issued by the EPA under section 112(l)(2) or is not likely to satisfy, in whole or in part, the objectives of the CAA.

In carrying out its responsibilities under section 112(l), the EPA promulgated regulations at 40 CFR part 63, subpart E setting forth criteria for the approval of submitted programs. For example, in order to obtain approval of a program to implement and enforce Federal section 112 rules as promulgated without changes (straight delegation) for part 70 sources, a State must demonstrate that it meets the criteria of 40 CFR 63.91(d). 40 CFR 63.91(d)(3) provides that interim or final Title V program approval will satisfy the criteria of 40 CFR 63.91(d).1

The NESHAP delegation for Oklahoma, as it applies to both part 70 and non-part 70 sources, was most recently approved on December 13, 2005 (70 FR 73595).

As to the NESHAP standards in 40 CFR parts 61 and 63, as part of its Title V submission ODEQ stated that it intended to use the mechanism of incorporation by reference to adopt unchanged Federal section 112 into its regulations. This commitment applied to both existing and future standards as they applied to part 70 sources. EPA's final interim approval of Oklahoma's Title V operating permits program delegated the authority to implement certain NESHAP, effective March 6, 1996 (61 FR 4220, February 5, 1996). On December 5, 2001, EPA promulgated final full approval of the State's operating permits program, effective November 30, 2001 (66 FR 63170). These interim and final Title V program approvals satisfy the up-front approval criteria of 40 CFR 63.91(d). Under 40 CFR 63.91(d)(2), once a State has satisfied up-front approval criteria, it needs only to reference the previous demonstration and reaffirm that it still meets the criteria for any subsequent submittals for delegation of the section 112 standards. ODEQ has affirmed that it still meets the up-front approval criteria. With respect to non-part 70 sources, the EPA has previously approved delegation of NESHAP authorities to ODEQ after finding adequate authorities to implement and enforce the NESHAP for such sources. See 66 FR 1584 (January 9, 2001).

By letter dated June 25, 2018, the EPA received a request from ODEQ to update its existing NESHAP delegation.2 With certain exceptions noted in section VII below, Oklahoma's request included NESHAP in 40 CFR part 61 and 40 CFR part 63. ODEQ's request included newly incorporated NESHAP promulgated by the EPA and amendments to existing standards currently delegated, as they existed though September 1, 2016. This action is being taken in reponse to ODEQ's request noted above.

All authorities not affirmatively and expressly delegated by this action are not delegated. These include the following part 61 and 63 authorities listed below:

• 40 CFR part 61, subpart B (National Emission Standards for Radon Emissions from Underground Uranium Mines);

• 40 CFR part 61, subpart H (National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other Than Radon From Department of Energy Facilities);

• 40 CFR part 61, subpart I (National Emission Standards for Radionuclide Emissions from Federal Facilities Other Than Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensees and Not Covered by Subpart H);

• 40 CFR part 61, subpart K (National Emission Standards for Radionuclide Emissions from Elemental Phosphorus Plants);

• 40 CFR part 61, subpart Q (National Emission Standards for Radon Emissions from Department of Energy facilities);

• 40 CFR part 61, subpart R (National Emission Standards for Radon Emissions from Phosphogypsum Stacks);

• 40 CFR part 61, subpart T (National Emission Standards for Radon Emissions from the Disposal of Uranium Mill Tailings);

• 40 CFR part 61, subpart W (National Emission Standards for Radon Emissions from Operating Mill Tailings); and

• 40 CFR part 63, subpart J (National Emission Standards for Polyvinyl Choride and Copolymers Production).

In addition, the EPA regulations provide that we cannot delegate to a State any of the Category II Subpart A authorities set forth in 40 CFR 63.91(g)(2). These include the following provisions: § 63.6(g), Approval of Alternative Non-Opacity Standards; § 63.6(h)(9), Approval of Alternative Opacity Standards; § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Test Methods; § 63.8(f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Monitoring; and § 63.10(f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Recordkeeping and Reporting. Also, some part 61 and part 63 standards have certain provisions that cannot be delegated to the States. Furthermore, no authorities are delegated that require rulemaking in the Federal Register to implement, or where Federal overview is the only way to ensure national consistency in the application of the standards or requirements of CAA section 112. Finally, this action does not delegate any authority under section 112(r), the accidental release program.

All inquiries and requests concerning implementation and enforcement of the excluded standards in the State of Oklahoma should be directed to the EPA Region 6 Office.

In addition, this delegation to ODEQ to implement and enforce certain NESHAP does not extend to sources or activities located in Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Oklahoma is not seeking delegation for such areas, and neither the EPA nor ODEQ is aware of any existing facilities in Indian country subject to the NESHAP being delegated. ODEQ may submit a request to expand this program to non-reservation areas of Indian country in the future, at which time the EPA would evaluate the request through the appropriate process.

In approving the NESHAP delegation, ODEQ will obtain concurrence from the EPA on any matter involving the interpretation of section 112 of the CAA or 40 CFR parts 61 and 63 to the extent that implementation or enforcement of these provisions have not been covered by prior EPA determinations or guidance.

We retain the right, as provided by CAA section 112(l)(7) and 40 CFR 63.90(d)(2), to enforce any applicable emission standard or requirement established under section 112. In addition, the EPA may enforce any federally approved State rule, requirement, or program under 40 CFR 63.90(e) and 63.91(c)(1)(i). The EPA also has the authority to make certain decisions under the General Provisions (subpart A) of parts 61 and 63. We are delegating to the ODEQ some of these authorities, and retaining others, as explained in sections VI and VII above. In addition, the EPA may review and disapprove State determinations and subsequently require corrections. See 40 CFR 63.91(g)(1)(ii). EPA also has the authority to review ODEQ's implementation and enforcement of approved rules or programs and to withdraw approval if we find inadequate implementation or enforcement. See 40 CFR 63.96.

Furthermore, we retain any authority in an individual emission standard that may not be delegated according to provisions of the standard. Also, listed in footnote 2 of the part 63 delegation table at the end of this rule are the authorities that cannot be delegated to any State or local agency which we therefore retain.

Finally, we retain the authorities stated in the original delegation agreement. See “Provisions for the Implementation and Enforcement of NSPS and NESHAP in Oklahoma,” effective March 25, 1982, a copy of which is included in the docket for this action.

ODEQ must provide any additional compliance related information to EPA, Region 6, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance within 45 days of a request under 40 CFR 63.96(a). In receiving delegation for specific General Provisions authorities, ODEQ must submit to EPA Region 6 on a semi-annual basis, copies of determinations issued under these authorities. See 40 CFR 63.91(g)(1)(ii). For part 63 standards, these determinations include: § 63.1, Applicability Determinations; § 63.6(e), Operation and Maintenance Requirements—Responsibility for Determining Compliance; § 63.6(f), Compliance with Non-Opacity Standards—Responsibility for Determining Compliance; § 63.6(h), Compliance with Opacity and Visible Emissions Standards—Responsibility for Determining Compliance; § 63.7(c)(2)(i) and (d), Approval of Site-Specific Test Plans; § 63.7(e)(2)(i), Approval of Minor Alternatives to Test Methods; § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), Approval of Intermediate Alternatives to Test Methods; § 63.7(e)(iii), Approval of Shorter Sampling Times and Volumes When Necessitated by Process Variables or Other Factors; § 63.7(e)(2)(iv), (h)(2) and (3), Waiver of Performance Testing; § 63.8(c)(1) and (e)(1), Approval of Site-Specific Performance Evaluation (Monitoring) Test Plans; § 63.8(f), Approval of Minor Alternatives to Monitoring; § 63.8(f), Approval of Intermediate Alternatives to Monitoring; §§ 63.9 and 63.10, Approval of Adjustments to Time Periods for Submitting Reports; § 63.10(f), Approval of Minor Alternatives to Recordkeeping and Reporting; and § 63.7(a)(4), Extension of Performance Test Deadline.

The EPA oversees ODEQ's decisions to ensure the delegated authorities are being adequately implemented and enforced. We will integrate oversight of the delegated authorities into the existing mechanisms and resources for oversight currently in place. If, during oversight, we determine that ODEQ made decisions that decreased the stringency of the delegated standards, then ODEQ shall be required to take corrective actions and the source(s) affected by the decisions will be notified, as required by 40 CFR 63.91(g)(1)(ii) and (b). Our oversight authorities allow us to initiate withdrawal of the program or rule if the corrective actions taken are insufficient. See 51 FR 20648 (June 6, 1986).

For the delegated NESHAP standards and authorities covered by this action, sources would submit all of the information required pursuant to the general provisions and the relevant subpart(s) of the delegated NESHAP (40 CFR parts 61 and 63) directly to the ODEQ at the following address: State of Oklahoma, Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, P.O. Box 1677, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101-1677. The ODEQ is the primary point of contact with respect to delegated NESHAP. Sources do not need to send a copy to the EPA. The EPA Region 6 waives the requirement that notifications and reports for delegated standards be submitted to EPA in addition to ODEQ in accordance with 40 CFR 63.9(a)(4)(ii) and 63.10(a)(4)(ii).3 For those standards and authorties not delegated as discussed above, sources must continue to submit all appropriate information to the EPA.

As stated in previous NESHAP delegation actions, the EPA has approved Oklahoma's mechanism of incorporation by reference of NESHAP standards into ODEQ regulations, as they apply to both part 70 and non-part 70 sources. See, e.g., 61 FR 4224 (February 5, 1996) and 66 FR 1584 (January 9, 2001). Consistent with the EPA regulations and guidance,4 ODEQ may request future updates to Oklahoma's NESHAP delegation by submitting a letter to the EPA that appropriately identifies the specific NESHAP which have been incorporated by reference into state regulations, reaffirms that it still meets up-front approval delegation criteria for part 70 sources, and demonstrates that ODEQ maintains adequate authorites and resources to implement and enforce the delegated NESHAP requirements for all sources. We will respond in writing to the request stating that the request for delegation is either granted or denied. A Federal Register action will be published to inform the public and affected sources of the updated delegation, indicate where source notifications and reports should be sent, and amend the relevant portions of the Code of Federal Regulations identifying which NESHAP standards have been delegated to the ODEQ. We have not been using this informational notice process but intend to from now on upon receipt of the next NESHAP delegation request from ODEQ.5

EPA is taking final action to approve an update to the Oklahoma NESHAP delegation that would provide the ODEQ with the authority to implement and enforce certain newly incorporated NESHAP promulgated by the EPA, and amendments to existing standards currently delegated, as they existed though September 1, 2016. As requested in ODEQ's June 25, 2018 letter, this final delegation to ODEQ does not extend to sources or activities located in Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151.

Under the CAA, the Administrator has the authority to approve section 112(l) submissions that comply with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. In reviewing section 112(l) submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria and objectives of the CAA and of the EPA's implementing regulations. Accordingly, this final action merely approves the State's request as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this final action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR parts 61 and 63 are amended as follows:

This document announces that, on April 3, 2017, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements relating to the harmful interference rule contained in the Commission's Order, FCC 15-141, published at 80 FR 71731, November 17, 2015. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1229. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the rule. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A620, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1229, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at [email protected].

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on April 3, 2017, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to the Commission's rules in 47 CFR part 27.

Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1229.

The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-1229.

OMB Approval Date: April 3, 2017.

OMB Expiration Date: April 30, 2020.

Title: Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions.

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 832 respondents; 832 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

Frequency of Response: Wireless licensees who are required to conduct an interference study will be required to produce the study upon request and when an interference complaint occurs.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 332, 403, 1452 and 1454.

Total Annual Burden: 832 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $10.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality. However, applicants may request that any information supplied be withheld from public inspection, pursuant to 47 CFR 0.459 of the FCC's rules. This request must be justified pursuant to 47 CFR 0.457.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: The collection was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and approved for the information collection requirements relating to the harmful interference rule contained in the Commission's Order, FCC 15-141.

On October 26, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission released a Third Report and Order and First Order on Reconsideration, FCC 15-141, published at 80 FR 71731, November 17, 2015, Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, ET Docket Nos. 13-26, 14-14 and GN Docket No. 12-268, adopting a final rule—containing information requirements—which resolved the remaining technical issues affecting the operation of 600 MHz wireless licenses and broadcast television stations in areas where they operate on the same or adjacent channels in geographic proximity. Specifically, the Commission adopted a rule requiring wireless licensees to conduct an interference study prior to deploying or operating a wireless base station within a specified distance of a broadcast television station that is co-channel or adjacent channel to their spectrum. A wireless licensee is required to provide this interference study to the Commission upon request or to the broadcast television station when there is an interference complaint.