Federal Register Vol. 83, No.240,

Background

The regulations in 9 CFR part 93 prohibit or restrict the importation of certain animals, birds, and poultry into the United States to prevent the introduction of communicable diseases of livestock and poultry. Subpart D of part 93 (§§ 93.400 through 93.436, referred to below as the regulations) governs the importation of ruminants; within subpart D, § 93.427 specifically addresses the importation of cattle and other bovines from Mexico into the United States.

On April 12, 2018, we published in the Federal Register (83 FR 15756-15758, Docket No. APHIS-2016-0050) a proposal 1 to amend the regulations by changing the branding requirements for steers and spayed heifers from Mexico and the branding option for sexually intact bovines from Mexico. At present, cattle from Mexico carry at least two forms of identification, generally a brand and an approved eartag. Cattle imported from Mexico for other than immediate slaughter are required to be branded with an “M” for steers, an “Mx” for spayed heifers, and an “MX” brand or tattoo for breeding bovines. This rule will change the requirements to increase the size of the brands, simplify them to a simple “M,” and move the brands for sexually intact bovines to the right shoulder of the animal. These changes will help reduce or eliminate branding errors, which in turn would reduce the need for rebranding and the incidence of cattle rejections at port-of-entry inspection. The changes to the description of the placement of the brand for steers and spayed heifers clarifies the requirement by making the description more specific.

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending June 11, 2018. We received 12 comments by that date. They were from veterinary and animal welfare organizations, agriculture and trade associations, and private citizens. Six of the commenters supported the rule as proposed. The remaining commenters asked questions or expressed concerns about the rule. The questions and concerns are discussed below.

One commenter suggested adding a visible, legible, and unequivocal name to the branding requirements for bovines in § 93.427(e)(3). The commenter stated that this would ensure consistency and uniformity of the brands.

It is not clear which name the commenter thinks should be added to the brand; however, we do not agree that adding a name to the brand would ensure consistency and uniformity. The larger size and revised placement of the brands will provide visual identification of the animals' origin. Furthermore, these animals will be bearing official ear tags that will aid in tracing the animals back to their farm of origin in the event that any of them are found to be affected with a disease of concern.

One commenter stated that people may have the same brands and locations registered in States that maintain a brand registry. The commenter expressed concern that changing the brand requirements for cattle imported from Mexico could result in confusion and disputes.

It was not clear from the comment if the concern was about changes to the brand for feeder and slaughter cattle or for sexually intact cattle. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) notes that the regulations currently require an “M” brand on the right hip for steers imported from Mexico. There have been no issues with the current requirements. If the commenter's concern is with sexually intact cattle, APHIS notes that less than 1 percent of cattle imported into the United States are sexually intact animals from Mexico. The likelihood that the change to the branding requirements for such a small number of cattle will result in confusion is low. Furthermore, the option to identify sexually intact cattle from Mexico with an ear tattoo remains available. We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment.

Three commenters recommended that APHIS prioritize the development of alternatives to hot-iron branding. Two of the commenters specifically mentioned electronic animal identification as an alternative to branding.

Another commenter stated that while they strongly support the use of electronic eartags and the sharing of electronic information between the United States and Mexico for purposes of animal disease traceability, they also supported the retention of branding as the only permanent method of identification. The commenter stated that eartags are easily removed or lost and a permanent form of identification is necessary to protect the health of the U.S. herd.

APHIS actively monitors advances in animal identification. However, as the one commenter noted, eartags may be lost and are readily removable, and cannot be considered a permanent form of identification. For this reason we require permanent identification such as a brand or tattoo for imported live bovines. This permanent identification allows APHIS to trace an animal back to the country of origin in the event that the animal shows symptoms of a disease.

A group of three industry organizations expressed concern that the proposed movement of the M brand from the hip to the shoulder for imported breeding cattle and the increased size of the brand would result in lower value for such hides when used for leather. The commenters stated that they would prefer to see the identification requirements for imported breeding cattle be the same as the requirements for feeder cattle, and for cattle imported from Mexico to have the same requirements as cattle imported from Canada.

We agree with the commenters that harmonizing animal identification requirements is desirable. However, because of the risk of introducing brucellosis into the United States, all Mexican feeder cattle are spayed or neutered before being exported to the United States. Sexually intact cattle (that is, breeding animals) are quarantined and tested for bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis at the border. We need to differentiate between breeding and non-breeding cattle imported from Mexico not only at the ports so we may quarantine and test them accordingly, but also through the life of the animal. For example, if an animal identified as a spayed heifer calves, we know that Mexico's spaying procedures have not been followed and we may have to consider changes to the import requirements to safeguard against the introduction of brucellosis from Mexico.

With respect to the larger brands potentially reducing the value of the hides, we anticipate that the new requirements will reduce the likelihood of blotching and therefore the need for rebranding, which also reduces the value of the hides.

As we noted above, sexually intact cattle from Mexico represent a very small percentage of cattle imported into the United States from Mexico, so the number of hides affected by the change to a shoulder brand should not be great. Ear tattoos are also still an option for sexually intact cattle.

One commenter stated that the rule should not characterize hot-iron branding as humane because branding causes pain and distress. The commenter cited both veterinary medical research and international standards in support of their statement.

The proposed rule was referring to the regulations in § 93.427(e)(3), which call for sexually intact bovines to be permanently and humanely identified. We note that those regulations provide for the use of tattoos, freeze brands, and other methods in addition to hot iron branding.

One commenter stated that the rule should specifically identify tattooing as an acceptable alternative. The commenter stated that § 93.427(e)(3) currently provides for the use of tattoos for sexually intact bovines and asked why tattooing is specifically cited as an acceptable method of control for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), but not for tuberculosis. The commenter further stated that because a tattoo inside the ear is not visible from a distance, it is assumed that the ability to read without close examination is not a criterion for acceptable identification techniques.

The commenter is correct that tattooing continues to be an option for sexually intact cattle from Mexico. However, we do not consider tattooing a method of control for BSE; instead, it is a means of identifying non-U.S.-origin cattle that are likely to remain in the population for years. Breeding cattle are usually higher-value animals, and therefore we have always provided the option of tattooing them. In addition, the number of imports of breeding cattle is so small that traceback would be relatively easy in the event that one of these animals was diagnosed with a disease. In contrast, the number of feeder cattle imported into the United States is very large. For these animals, the brand serves not only as identification of to prevent commingling with U.S.-origin cattle as required by some States, but also differentiates these animals from breeding animals. This is important, as we explained above, to ensure that Mexico's spaying procedures are being followed and to safeguard against the introduction of brucellosis from Mexico.

One commenter stated that until branding is replaced as an identification method, APHIS should investigate pain control measures, such as analgesics or anti-inflammatories, and to require relief from the pain associated with hot iron branding.

Requiring the use of pain control measures in association with hot-iron branding is outside the scope of APHIS' regulatory authority. We are making no changes in response to this comment.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, without change.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866. Further, APHIS considers this rule to be a deregulatory action under Executive Order 13771 as the action may result in cost savings. In accordance with guidance on complying with Executive Order 13771, the primary estimate of the cost savings (net social welfare gain) for this rule is $181,300. This value is the mid-point estimate of cost savings annualized in perpetuity using a 7 percent discount rate.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, we have performed a final regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding the economic effects of this rule on small entities. Copies of the full analysis are available on the Regulations.gov website (see footnote 1 in this document for a link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

This final rule will amend the regulations in 9 CFR part 93 to change the identification requirements for bovines imported from Mexico. At present, cattle from Mexico carry at least two forms of identification, generally a brand and an approved eartag. Cattle imported from Mexico for other than immediate slaughter are required to be branded with an “M” for steers, an “Mx” for spayed heifers, and an “MX” brand or tattoo for breeding bovines. With this rule all bovines imported from Mexico will be branded with a single “M” to avoid branding errors. In order to distinguish between feeder and breeding cattle, the brand for steers and spayed heifers will be placed on the back hip and the brand for breeding cattle will be placed on the shoulder. Cattle imported from Mexico will still require an approved eartag.

The new identification requirements will reduce if not eliminate branding errors, reducing the need for rebranding and the incidence of cattle rejections at port-of-entry inspection. Revenue from hides accounts for about 75 percent of the byproduct-value of beef cattle. Damage from rebranding can reduce hide value. Also, re-inspection due to branding errors increases transaction costs. Currently, a $4 inspection fee per head is billed to the broker who in turn charges the exporter. The single “M” brand will both minimize hide damage and the need for re-inspections. Because the approved eartag is a current requirement, we do not anticipate any additional costs would be incurred.

Entities that may be impacted by the rule fall into various categories of the North American Industry Classification System. The majority of these businesses are small entities.

This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.)

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the burden requirements included in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 0579-0040.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR part 93 as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 28, 2018 (83 FR 49020). The NPRM was prompted by reports of electrical arcing between the APU starter motor positive terminal and the APU fuel drain line. The NPRM proposed to require the removal of certain clamps and replacement of the flexible APU fuel drain line.

We are issuing this AD to address reports of electrical arcing between the APU starter motor positive terminal and the APU fuel drain line, which could lead to a fire during APU start and possibly result in damage to the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0008, dated January 16, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0802.

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

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

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

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

Fokker Services B.V. has issued Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-49-037, dated October 31, 2016. This service information describes procedures for removing certain clamps and replacing the flexible APU fuel drain line (which includes making sure there is sufficient clearance between the new APU fuel drain line and the positive terminal of the APU starter motor and that the earth lead is not chafing against the fuel supply or the fuel drain line). This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 9, 2018 (83 FR 50537). The NPRM was prompted by a report of chafing of a wire bundle located at the bottom of the RH electrical cabinet. The NPRM proposed to require a one-time general visual inspection of the wiring bundle for damage, measurement of the clearance between the metallic plate and the wiring bundle, and corrective actions if necessary.

We are issuing this AD to address chafing of a wire bundle located at the bottom of the RH electrical cabinet, which may cause damage to wires within the bundle, and, if not detected and corrected, could lead to improper functioning of airplane systems (such as loss of wing anti-icing or wing anti-icing inoperative indication, loss of normal braking indication, and loss of “No take-off” indication), which could result in reduced control of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0114, dated May 23, 2018, (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0809.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We have considered the comments received. Lucas Kline indicated his support for the NPRM.

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

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

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

Dassault Aviation has issued Service Bulletin F2000-436, dated September 28, 2017. This service information describes procedures for a one-time general visual inspection of the wiring bundle for damage (including chafing), measurement of the clearance between the metallic plate and the wiring bundle, and corrective actions. Corrective actions include modification of the airplane by cutting out the lower part of the ground plate of terminal strip 700J and adding an edge protection to prevent interference and replacement of damaged wires. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 195 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do the necessary on-condition action that would be required based on the results of any required actions. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 14, 2018 (83 FR 46677). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that certain holes for the VTP tension bolts connection are not properly protected against corrosion. The NPRM proposed to require modifying the VTP tension bolts connection by adding sealant and protective treatment to the head of the connection, at the barrel nut cavities, and in the surrounding area.

We are issuing this AD to address corrosion of the VTP tension bolts connection, which could reduce the structural integrity of the VTP, and could ultimately lead to reduced controllability of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0045, dated February 15, 2018; corrected February 22, 2018 (“EASA AD 2018-0045”) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. The MCAI states:

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

The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) and Delta Air Lines (Delta) indicated their support for the NPRM, which was the first AD action using a new process that refers to the EASA AD as the primary source of information for compliance with the FAA AD requirements. Delta noted that the proposed AD would not disallow the “later approved revisions” language typically used in EASA ADs. Delta stated it appreciates the flexibility that the “or later versions of the Service Bulletin” language in typical EASA ADs provides, and hopes that flexibility can remain an option for future ADs.

Delta also contacted the FAA prior to posting its comments and noted that the new format for this Airbus AD is cleaner. Delta also stated that it sees many benefits to this new AD process.

The FAA acknowledges the comments from Delta. Our intent is to rely on the language in the EASA ADs whenever possible in order to simplify FAA ADs. Any differences required by the FAA will continue to be included in the FAA AD. We note that we plan to use this new process initially with certain EASA ADs that are suited to this process.

Delta requested that we include a statement in the proposed AD noting that reporting is not required. Delta noted that in service bulletins containing Required for Compliance (RC) language, requests to report findings are generally in the procedures section, making the reporting RC. Delta added that including a statement in the proposed AD confirming that reporting is not required is helpful. When reporting is mandatory, Delta recommended including a “reporting requirements” paragraph in the AD that permits various reporting methods, includes the “what/how/when,” and includes a compliance time of 30 days from the return to service (not from a finding).

We agree with the commenter that if our AD does not require reporting, and reporting is within an RC paragraph of the service information referenced in the associated EASA AD, our AD should specify “no reporting” in the body of the AD. However, such wording is not necessary for this AD. EASA AD 2018-0045 does not require reporting and the service information referenced in EASA AD 2018-0045 does not specify reporting in the RC paragraphs. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard.

We also agree that if reporting is mandatory in our AD, we will include a “reporting requirements” paragraph that clarifies what needs to be reported and the compliance time for reporting. Regarding the compliance time suggestion, we typically match the compliance time for reporting provided in the EASA AD. If we determine it is too short or long, we may extend or shorten the compliance time as appropriate.

Delta requested that we add an exception to our proposed AD noting that reapplication of corrosion inhibiting compounds (CICs) is not RC. Delta noted that all procedures and tests in the service information referenced in EASA AD 2018-0045 are RC, and the procedure steps include things like reapplying CICs. Delta stated that if the service information or NPRM was not related to corrosion, those procedure steps might include applying CICs, but the CIC steps should not be RC. Delta explained that since the choice of CICs is under the operator's control under their corrosion prevention and control program (CPCP), the operator may now have to obtain an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to use their standard CIC rather than what is called out in the service information, or to use an old out-of-date CIC just because it is listed in the service information. Delta recommended that RC tags never be applied to steps that call for restoring CIC unless that is the driving force in the AD.

We acknowledge that steps that do not address the identified unsafe condition should not be identified as RC steps. However, for this AD, the instructions provided in the service information, which include applying corrosion preventive compounds (CPCs), have been identified as necessary to address the unsafe condition. If an operator's CPCP includes an alternative material and the operator wants to use it instead of the material listed in an RC step, the operator must request an AMOC using the procedures in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

For future ADs, we will address this issue on a case-by-case basis. For some ADs, we might add an exception allowing the use of alternative CICs if they provide an acceptable level of safety. If operators identify CICs that are equal to or better than the CICs identified in the service information, they can request an AMOC using the procedures in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

Delta requested that we revise paragraph (c) of the proposed AD to point to the airplanes (specific serial numbers) specified in the service information referenced in EASA AD 2018-0045, rather than the airplanes identified in EASA AD 2018-0045. Delta noted that the wording of the applicability paragraph of a given AD can create an undue burden on operators. Delta stated, as an example, that if the applicability paragraph states “all 350 aircraft, except those with mod x or y embodied in production” it must prove that all airplanes are not affected, and it must write an engineering document stating that its airplanes are not affected. Delta stated that, in this example, a slight change to the wording can have a big impact. Delta suggested that if the wording in the example was changed to “this AD applies to Airbus A350 aircraft as identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A350-52-P012,” only the applicable airplanes would be identified. Delta concluded that, with revised wording, it would no longer be burdened to prove compliance for its fleet, because the applicable airplanes are listed in the service information.

We disagree with the commenter's request. The applicability in this AD matches that in EASA AD 2018-0045 to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed on all affected airplanes. We agree with EASA's approach to identifying the AD applicability since affected serial numbers may change through modification of an airplane. If airplanes are identified by serial number, rather than airplane configuration, affected airplanes may be excluded from the AD applicability. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard.

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

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

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

EASA AD 2018-0045, dated February 15, 2018; corrected February 22, 2018; describes procedures for modifying the VTP tension bolts connection by adding sealant and protective treatment to the head of the connection, at the barrel nut cavities, and in the surrounding area. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section, and it is publicly available through the EASA website.

We estimate that this AD affects 6 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce Model RB211-Trent 800 engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 10, 2017 (82 FR 17154). The NPRM was prompted by reports of inadequate clearance between the TPS insulation blankets and the EEC wiring, which resulted in damaged wires. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the EEC wire bundles and clips, and corrective actions if necessary.

We are issuing this AD to address damaged wires, which could result in in-flight shutdown of the engine, or the inability to properly control thrust, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

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

The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), Boeing, and Rolls-Royce all supported the NPRM.

Air New Zealand (ANZ) suggested that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD could be complied with using either Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071; or Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082; because certain configurations of thrust reversers (T/Rs) are not covered by Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, but are covered by Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071. ANZ noted that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD provided credit for previous actions if the previous inspections were performed in accordance with either Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071; or Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082.

American Airlines (AAL) explained that Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2015, is not effective to its fleet configuration and requested that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD be revised to include Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013, as an additional method of compliance for those airplanes that are identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013, but not affected by Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2015. AAL also provided the definitions for a general visual inspection and detailed inspection from Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013, to support its justification that a general visual inspection would identify damage to components within the inspection area identified in the service information and therefore offers an equivalent level of safety to that of a detailed inspection.

Delta Air Lines (DAL) explained that Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2015, is not applicable to all the T/Rs affected by the proposed AD, and suggested that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD follow the same structure as AD 2016-11-16, Amendment 39-18543 (81 FR 39547, June 17, 2016) (“AD 2016-11-16”), which allows for the use of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013, in paragraph (k)(1) of AD 2016-11-16 or Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2015, in paragraph (k)(2) of AD 2016-11-16, according to airplane effectivity. DAL observed that the referenced service information was acknowledged in AD 2016-11-16 to provide the same acceptable level of safety, and DAL would prefer that either service bulletin be allowed as an acceptable method of compliance for the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

We do not agree with the commenter's request to include additional service information as an additional method of compliance for the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013; and Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, dated November 9, 2011; do not provide inspection requirements for engine configurations that have incorporated Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RR.211-71-H824, dated July 30, 2014. Only Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2015, contains detailed inspection requirements and instructions that are applicable to engine configurations that either have or have not incorporated Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RR.211-71-H824, dated July 30, 2014. As a result, the EEC wire bundle inspections specified by Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2015, are applicable to the ANZ, AAL, and DAL fleet configurations that are identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013.

Consistent with the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD 2016-11-16, we determined that a general visual inspection as specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013; and Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, dated November 9, 2011; accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD is acceptable when looking for damage of the EEC wire bundle and clips. On or after the effective date of this AD, a detailed inspection is required as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2015. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

DAL found the “and/or” construction of paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of the proposed AD confusing, and requested clarification regarding the applicability of airplanes that meet one of the two conditions or both conditions specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of the proposed AD.

We agree with DAL's request to clarify the applicability of this AD. We have revised paragraph (c) of this AD to include airplanes that have incorporated Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0094, dated July 29, 2014, and the condition specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD is met on any engine, or both conditions specified in (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD are met on any engine.

DAL requested that we clarify that the intent of the proposed AD is to maintain the EEC wire bundles inspections described in paragraph (k) of AD 2016-11-16 until all three of the following terminating actions have been completed: (1) Incorporating Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0094, dated July 29, 2014; (2) incorporating Work Package 7 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013; or Part 8 or Part 9 of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2015; as applicable; and (3) incorporating Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RR.211-71-H824, dated July 30, 2014.

We agree to clarify that the intent of this AD is to maintain the EEC wire bundles repetitive inspections described in paragraph (k) of AD 2016-11-16 for certain airplanes. The repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD are no longer required after re-contoured insulation blankets part numbers (P/N) 315W5115-60, -62, and -64 are installed on the right T/R half by accomplishing either Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013; or Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2015; and the EEC wire bundle and clip are re-routed on the engine by accomplishing Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RR.211-71-H824, dated July 30, 2014. No change to this AD is needed in this regard.

AAL requested that paragraph (c) of the proposed AD be revised to exclude airplanes with the following configuration combinations from the applicability of paragraph (g) of the proposed AD:

• Engines with or without incorporation of Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RR.211-71-H824, dated July 30, 2014; T/R halves that incorporated Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0094, dated July 29, 2014; installed re-contoured insulation blankets (P/N 315W5115-60, -62, and -64 for the right half and P/N 315W5115-63, -59, and -61 for the left half) by incorporating Work Package 7 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013; and accomplishment of EEC wire bundle and clip inspection using Work Package 6 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013, when that T/R was installed.

• Engines with incorporation of Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RR.211-71-H824, dated July 30, 2014, regardless of T/R half insulation blanket standards (re-contoured or non-re-contoured insulation blankets).

AAL provided the following justifications for their request. We have included our response to those justifications.

AAL explained that insulation blanket P/N 315W5115-60, -62, and -64 are optional re-contoured insulation blankets introduced by Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013, to replace original P/N 315W5115-2, -6, or -20 non-re-contoured insulation blankets that caused the initial potential EEC wire bundle and clip frettage condition. AAL noted that the optional re-contoured insulation blankets were designed with the addition of rulon frettage protection on the insulation blanket face sheet to prevent potential EEC wire bundle and clip frettage at the inspection area of paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. AAL stated that the installation of the re-contoured insulation blankets therefore provides an equivalent level of safety to the repetitive EEC wire bundle and clip inspections.

AAL reasoned that Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RR.211-71-H824, dated July 30, 2014, changes the EEC wire bundle routing to provide additional clearance with the T/R non-re-contoured insulation blankets to eliminate the potential frettage in the area of inspection as specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD and provides an equivalent level of safety to the repetitive EEC wire bundle and clip inspections. AAL added that any existing harness damage will be or has been addressed during incorporation of this service bulletin during an engine shop visit.

We agree to clarify. We have determined that after accomplishing the work instructions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0094, dated July 29, 2014, there is still not sufficient clearance between the insulation blankets and EEC wire bundle W0800 and its associated clip. The EEC wire bundle and clip could still be damaged from making contact with insulation blankets when one or both of the following conditions exist:

• The EEC wire and clip are not re-routed on the engine (did not incorporate Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RR.211-71-H824, dated July 30, 2014); or

• Non-re-contoured insulation blankets (P/N 315W5115-2, -6, and -20) are installed on the right T/R half.

We have determined that in order to have proper clearance between the insulation blankets and the EEC wiring, and to prevent damage, Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RR.211-71-H824, dated July 30, 2014, must be incorporated to re-route the EEC wire bundle and clip on the engine; and re-contoured insulation blankets P/N 315W5115-60, -62, and -64 must be installed on the right T/R half by accomplishing either Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013; or Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2015.

AAL pointed out that the insulation blankets have repetitive airworthiness limitation inspection requirements as specified by Boeing Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) D622W001-9, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Airworthiness Limitation Item (ALI) 78-AWL-01 that maintain the blanket rulon material condition. AAL noted that T/Rs that incorporate Work Package 7 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013, for installing re-contoured insulation blankets no longer have a T/R configuration specified by Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, dated November 25, 2009; or Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 1, dated September 8, 2010; and are not applicable to the EEC wire bundle and clip inspection as specified in Work Package 6 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013.

AAL also noted that Rolls-Royce Model RB211-Trent 800 engine EEC wire runs already receive repetitive zonal general visual inspections as specified by Boeing MPD D622W001, Section 3, Zonal Inspection Program, item 71-864-01 and item 71-878-02, and receive repetitive detailed inspections as specified by Boeing MPD D622W001, Section 1, System Maintenance Program, item 20-540-01 and item 20-540-02, as part of a Lightning/High Intensity Radiated Fields maintenance program. AAL stated that these inspections are regulated by the 14 CFR 121.1111 required electrical wiring interconnection systems (EWIS) maintenance program requirements.

In regards to AAL's reference to Boeing MPD D622W001-9, Section 9, AWLs and CMRs, ALI 78-AWL-01, we note that Boeing MPD D622W001-9, Section 9, AWLs and CMRs, ALI 78-AWL-01 has requirements to inspect the insulation blankets for damage, but it does not directly inspect the EEC wire bundle and clip for damage. The intent of this AD is to specifically inspect the EEC wire bundle and clip for damage. We agree with AAL's justification that T/Rs with re-contoured insulation blankets installed no longer have a T/R configuration as specified by Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, November 25, 2009; or Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 1, dated September 8, 2010. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013, does not have clear information and instructions to do a detailed EEC inspection for T/R halves with re-contoured blankets. However, as explained by Boeing and Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2015, instructions, and reinforced by the requirements in this AD, EEC wire bundles and clips are to be inspected when one or both of the previously described conditions exists where the EEC wire bundle and clip could still be damaged from making contact with insulation blankets. We note that this AD mandates the use of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2015, to do the EEC wire bundle and clip detailed inspections, which is applicable to airplanes in a configuration specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013.

We infer that AAL is suggesting that the existing inspections in Boeing MPD D622W001, Section 3, Zonal Inspection Program, item 71-864-01 and item 71-878-02, and detailed inspections in Boeing MPD D622W001, Section 1, System Maintenance Program, item 20-540-01 and item 20-540-02 provide an equivalent level of safety to the repetitive wire bundle and clip inspections. We disagree with that suggestion. We note that part of the EWIS maintenance program requirement for operators is to maintain continued airworthiness of the electrical wiring interconnection systems on the airplane, including the engine. The EWIS maintenance program requirement is based on the assumption that the type design is compliant and is not expected to create wiring problems if the original configuration is maintained. This AD was proposed because the existing design was found to have details that are expected to lead to a wiring chafing problem on at least some airplanes. Therefore, we determined that more frequent and detailed inspections are necessary to address this unsafe condition. The inspections in Boeing MPD D622W001, Section 3, Zonal Inspection Program, item 71-864-01 and item 71-878-02; and Boeing MPD D622W001, Section 1, System Maintenance Program, item 20-540-01 and item 20-540-02; are not sufficient to address the identified unsafe condition of this AD. The repetitive inspection intervals for Boeing MPD D622W001, Section 1, System Maintenance Program, item 20-540-01 and item 20-540-02; and Boeing MPD D622W001, Section 3, Zonal Inspection Program, item 71-864-01 and item 71-878-02; are longer than the 2,000 flight-hour repetitive inspection interval specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, and they can be escalated to a longer interval without FAA ACO Branch approval. In accordance with 14 CFR part 39 (§ 39.5 and § 39.13), this AD is issued to address the unsafe condition identified in paragraph (e) of this AD.

Therefore, we do not agree to revise paragraph (c) of this AD as proposed by the commenter. We did not change the AD in this regard.

DAL requested that we include terminating action for airplanes that accomplish the modification in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of the proposed AD. DAL explained that paragraph (c) of the proposed AD states that if airplanes with Rolls-Royce engines, which have accomplished the action in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0094, dated July 29, 2014, have neither the condition in paragraph (c)(1) of the proposed AD nor the condition in paragraph (c)(2) of the proposed AD, that the rule is not applicable. DAL noted that there is no terminating action paragraph in the proposed AD.

We agree to clarify the requirements of this AD. As discussed in the above comments: For any affected airplane on which the modification specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD, and the replacement of all affected parts (non-re-contoured insulation blankets) identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD with non-affected parts (re-contoured insulation blankets) have been accomplished on both engines, that airplane is no longer affected by this AD. For clarity, we have added paragraph (i) to this AD to specify terminating actions for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD and redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

AAL requested that for engines that have not incorporated Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RR.211-71-H824, dated July 30, 2014, the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD be required within 2,000 flight hours, rather than 500 flight hours, after the effective date of the AD, if re-contoured insulation blankets (P/N 315W5115-60, -62, -64) were installed on the T/R by Work Package 7 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013, and, during installation of the insulation blanket on the T/R halves, the EEC wire bundle inspection was accomplished on the engine in accordance with Work Package 6 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013.

We do not agree with the commenter's request because we have determined that both the EEC wiring modification specified in Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RR.211-71-H824, dated July 30, 2014, and installation of the re-contoured insulation blankets specified in Work Package 7 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013, are necessary to prevent the chafing condition that is the subject of this AD. In the absence of both of those modifications, we have determined that a 2,000 flight hour inspection interval is necessary. The 500 flight hours is meant to be a grace period for those airplanes on which the interval has lapsed (due to inspections being terminated in AD 2016-11-16), as well as airplanes that are nearing the end of the inspection interval. AAL did not provide adequate justification for a longer grace period. We did not change this AD in this regard.

For engines which require inspections as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, AAL requested clarification that the inspection of the wire bundle can be accomplished without removal of any harness polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) tape protection applied to the wire bundle, provided that the PTFE tape protection is not damaged, and provided the wire bundle had received an inspection and was repaired if damaged prior to application of the protective tape wrap. AAL explained that it had already identified the potential wire bundle interference condition through its continuous airworthiness maintenance program (CAMP) prior to release of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013. As a result, AAL accomplished a fleet-wide general visual inspection of the EEC wire bundle W0800 for damage in the inspection area, accomplished any required repairs, and then wrapped the W0800 harness with PTFE tape in accordance with the approved procedures in its CAMP.

We do not agree with the commenter's request because we do not have sufficient information in the AAL request to clarify nor expand paragraph (g) of this AD for wire bundles that have been modified by AAL's CAMP. We do not consider it appropriate to include various provisions in an AD applicable only to individual airplane configurations or to a single operator's unique use of an affected airplane. However, AAL and others may request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD, provided sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the AMOC would provide an acceptable level of safety. We did not change this AD in this regard.

AAL requested clarification to paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to confirm that after the effective date of this AD, installation of an engine that had a shop visit meets the requirements of an inspection, and in that case, that the next inspection is required within 2,000 hours of engine installation.

We agree to clarify paragraph (g) of this AD. If, during a shop visit, an EEC wire bundle and clamp inspection was done as specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013; or Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, dated November 9, 2011; or Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2015; then the next inspection can be done within 2,000 flight hours from the last inspection done in the shop. However, if an inspection other than the one specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013; or Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, dated November 9, 2011; or Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2015; was done, operators must request an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. No change to this AD is needed.

DAL requested that AD 2005-07-24, Amendment 39-14049 (70 FR 18285, April 11, 2005) (“AD 2005-07-24”) and AD 2016-11-16 be added to paragraph (b) of the proposed AD. DAL also requested that the proposed AD be incorporated as a revision to AD 2016-11-16 or a supersedure to AD 2016-11-16 in order to provide a clear relationship between the actions required. DAL observed that paragraph (b) of the proposed AD states that no ADs are affected by this rule, but paragraph (l) of AD 2016-11-16 states that accomplishment of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0094, dated July 29, 2014, will terminate paragraph (k) of AD 2016-11-16. DAL also submitted that paragraph (k) of AD 2016-11-16 pertains to the EEC wire bundle inspections that are described in the “Discussion” section of the proposed rule. DAL stated that paragraph (q) of AD 2016-11-16 describes accomplishments that are terminating actions to AD 2005-07-24, which include the EEC wire bundle inspections as described in paragraph (k) of AD 2016-11-16. DAL contended that the proposed rule reinstates these inspections and therefore affects the requirements of AD 2005-07-24 as described in paragraph (q) of AD 2016-11-16.

We do not agree with the commenter's request because this AD is a stand-alone AD and does not impact nor change the requirements of AD 2005-07-24 or AD 2016-11-16. The T/R inner wall and TPS configuration, and certain engine configurations affected by the actions in this AD are not configurations affected by AD 2005-07-24 or AD 2016-11-16. This AD is only applicable to airplanes with certain T/R halves on which the actions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0094, dated July 29, 2014, have been accomplished, and the condition specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD is met on any engine, or both conditions specified in (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD are met on any engine. This AD is not applicable to airplanes with T/R halves of certain inner wall and TPS configurations specified in AD 2005-07-24 and AD 2016-11-16 on which the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0094, dated July 29, 2014, have not been accomplished. Therefore, this AD has no direct relationship to and does not change the requirements of AD 2005-07-24 or AD 2016-11-16.

After accomplishing paragraph (l) of AD 2016-11-16 to install serviceable thrust reverser halves (by accomplishing Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0094, dated July 29, 2014), and paragraph (n) of AD 2016-11-16 to revise the maintenance or inspection program, the repetitive inspection requirements of AD 2016-11-16 are terminated. However, Boeing and the FAA have determined that inadequate clearance between the TPS non-re-contoured insulation blankets and the EEC wiring still exists after completing the actions required by AD 2016-11-16, which will result in damaged wires, and an unsafe condition still exists.

We have determined not to revise or supersede AD 2016-11-16 because of the high rate of inner wall failures and the urgency of the safety issue. We have also determined that the required actions must be accomplished to ensure continued safety. Revising this AD as requested would necessitate (under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act) reissuing the notice, reopening the period for public comment, considering additional comments subsequently received, and eventually issuing a final rule. In light of this, and in consideration of the unsafe condition, we have determined that further delay of this AD is not appropriate. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

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

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

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

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

We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2015. The service information describes, among other things, procedures for repetitive inspections of the EEC wire bundles and clips, and corrective actions if necessary.

We also reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013. This service information describes, among other things, procedures for installing re-contoured insulation blankets on the right T/R halves and performing an EEC wire bundle and clip inspection.

We also reviewed Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RR.211-71-H824, dated July 30, 2014. This service information describes procedures for modifying the engine by rerouting the EEC wire bundle and clip.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 55 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the repairs specified in this AD. We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs or replacements:

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated as a surface area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and removes Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D or Class E surface area at Jackson County Airport-Reynolds Field, Jackson MI to support instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (83 FR 19987; May 7, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2017-1187 to amend Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated as a surface area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and remove Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D or Class E surface area at Jackson County Airport-Reynolds Field, Jackson MI. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71:

Modifies the Class D airspace at Jackson County Airport-Reynolds Field, Jackson, MI, by updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautic database and makes an editorial change to the airspace legal description replacing “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement”;

Modifies the Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Jackson County Airport-Reynolds Field (formerly Jackson County-Reynolds Field) by removing all airspace extensions from the 4-mile radius in the airspace legal description, updates the name and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database, and makes an editorial change to the airspace legal description replacing “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement”;

Removes the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D or Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Jackson County-Reynolds Field, MI, as it is no longer required; and

Modifies the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.5-mile radius (decreased from a 7-mile radius) of Jackson County Airport-Reynolds Field (formerly Jackson County-Reynolds Field), removes the Jackson VOR/DME from the airspace legal description, and updates the name and geographic coordinates to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Jackson VOR, which provided navigation guidance for the instrument procedures to this airport, as part of the VOR MON Program and to bring the airspace in compliance with FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. This action enhances safety and the management of IFR operations at this airport.

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class D, Class E airspace, and removes Class E airspace designated as an extension at Lompoc, CA, to support of IFR operations at Vandenberg AFB and Lompoc Airport.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (83 FR 7435; February 21, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2017-1146 to modify Class D airspace, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and remove Class E airspace designated as an extension at Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB), Lompoc, CA. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6004 and 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 enlarges Class D airspace, reduces Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and removes Class E airspace designated as an extension at Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB), Lompoc, CA, and also amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface and remove part-time NOTAM status at Lompoc Airport, Lompoc, CA.

Class D airspace is enlarged to within a 5-mile radius (from a 4.3-mile radius) of Vandenberg AFB. Additionally, an editorial change removes the city associated with the airport name in the airspace designation to comply with a recent change to FAA Order 7400.2L, dated October 12, 2017. An editorial change was also made to the Class D airspace legal description replacing “Airport/Facility Directory” with “Chart Supplement”.

Class E airspace designated as an extension is removed, as this airspace is not required to protect IFR arrival and departure aircraft at Vandenberg AFB.

Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Vandenberg AFB has been modified to a 7.3-mile radius of the airport with extensions to 11 miles north, 12.5-miles southeast, and 11 miles south of the airport (from a 7.8-mile radius of the airport and within 1.8 miles each side of the Vandenberg AFB ILS localizer southeast course, extending from 7.8 miles to 10.3 miles southeast of the airport). The exclusionary language contained in the legal description has been removed to comply with FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

This action also amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Lompoc Airport, Lompoc, CA, by enlarging the airspace to within a 6.4-mile radius of the airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 090° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 12.8 miles east of the airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 113° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 20.4 miles southeast of the airport (from a 4.3-mile radius of the airport and within 4.3 miles each side of the Gaviota VORTAC 293° radial extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 10.9 miles west of the Gaviota VORTAC and within 4 miles each side of the 083° bearing from the Lompoc NDB to 8 miles east of the NDB). Also, the part-time NOTAM status has been removed, since this airspace is effective continuously.

Finally, this action updates the geographic coordinates of these airports to match the FAA's aeronautical database.

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

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

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the coordinates of the Pago Pago International Airport, at Pago Pago, American Samoa.

The Aeronautical Information Services branch identified an error in a latitudinal coordinate in the legal description of the Pago Pago International Airport that was not coincidental with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action makes these corrections.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The corrected airport reference points will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by correcting the legal description of the Pago Pago International Airport, Pago Pago, American Samoa. The geographic coordinates of the airport are updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This does not affect the boundaries or operating requirements of the airspace.

This is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class D and E airspace at Aspen-Pitkin County Airport/Sardy Field, Aspen, CO, to support IFR operations at the airport.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (83 FR 21968; May 11, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0016 to modify Class E airspace designated as an extension and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Aspen-Pitkin County Airport/Sardy Field, Aspen, CO. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace designated as an extension and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Aspen-Pitkin County Airport/Sardy Field, Aspen, CO.

Class E airspace designated as an extension is modified to within 3.5 miles west and 2.7 miles east (from 2.7 miles each side) of the 340° bearing (previously 315°) from Aspen-Pitkin County Airport/Sardy Field Airport, extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 7.8 miles north (from 7.4 miles northwest) of the airport. Also, the part-time NOTAM language is removed from the legal description since the airspace is in effect continuously.

Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is reduced to within 6.6 miles west and 3.2 miles east of the 354° bearing from Aspen-Pitkin County Airport/Sardy Field Airport extending to 11.1 miles north of the airport (from a much larger rectangular area defined as beginning at lat. 39°04′00″ N, long. 106°40′02″ W; to lat. 39°04′00″ N, long. 107°44′02″ W; to lat. 39°39′00″ N, long. 107°44′02″ W; to lat. 39°39′00″ N, long. 106°40′02″ W, to the point of beginning). Also, Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet is removed as this airspace is contained in the Denver Class E en route airspace area.

The geographic coordinates of the airport also are updated for the Class D and E airspace areas. An editorial change also is made to the Class D and Class E surface area airspace legal descriptions replacing Airport/Facility Directory with Chart Supplement.

These changes are necessary to accommodate airspace redesign for the safety and management of IFR operations under standard instrument approach procedures at the airport.

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

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

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class D and E airspace at Casper/Natrona County International Airport, Casper, WY, in support of IFR operations at the airport.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (83 FR 4865; February 2, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2017-0223 to amend Class D airspace; remove Class E airspace designated as an extension; reduce Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and remove Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface, at Casper/Natrona County International Airport, Casper WY. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment was received from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA).

AOPA stated that the NPRM did not comply with FAA guidance in Order 7400.2, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, because a graphic was not included in the docket. Additionally, AOPA encouraged the FAA to follow their guidance in the Order by making the action effective date coincidental to the sectional chart publication date.

The FAA has determined AOPA's comments raised no substantive issues with respect to the proposed changes to the airspace addressed in the NPRM. To the extent the FAA failed to follow its policy guidance reference publishing graphics in the docket and establishing the Class D airspace effective date to match the sectional chart date, we note the following.

With respect to AOPA's comment addressing graphics, FAA Order 74002.L, para 2-3-3.c. requires the official docket to include available graphics. For this airspace action, a graphic was produced and added to the docket on February 15, 2018.

Specific to AOPA's comment regarding the FAA already creating a graphical depiction of new or modified airspace overlaid on a Sectional Chart for quality assurance purposes, this is not correct nor required in all cases. During the airspace reviews, airspace graphics may be created, if deemed necessary, to determine if there are any terrain issues, or if cases are considered complex. However, in many cases when developing an airspace amendment proposal, a graphic is not needed. It was unclear if the graphic AOPA suggested was already created with a sectional chart background was actually the airspace graphic created by the Aeronautical Informational Services office in preparation of publishing the sectional charts. However, that graphic is normally created after the rulemaking determination is published.

With respect to AOPA's comment addressing effective dates, FAA Order 7400.2L, para 2-3-7.a.4. states that, to the extent practicable, Class D airspace area and restricted area rules should become effective on a sectional chart date and that consideration should be given to selecting a sectional chart date that matches a 56-day en route chart cycle date. The FAA does consider publishing Class D airspace amendment effective dates to coincide with the publication of sectional charts, to the extent practicable; however, this consideration is accomplished after the NPRM comment period ends. Substantive comments received to NPRMs, flight safety concerns, management of IFR operations at affected airports, and immediacy of requiring proposed airspace amendments are some of the factors that must be taken into consideration when selecting the appropriate effective date. After considering all factors, the FAA may determine that selecting an effective date that conforms to a 56-day enroute chart cycle date that is not coincidental to sectional chart dates is better for the NAS and users than awaiting the next sectional chart date.

Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace at Casper/Natrona County International Airport (formerly Natrona County International Airport) to within a 4.9-mile radius (from a 4.3-mile radius) of the airport from the airport 294° bearing clockwise to the airport 193° bearing, and within a 7-mile radius (from a 4.3-mile radius) of the airport from the 193° bearing clockwise to the airport 294° bearing.

This action also removes Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D or E surface area.

Additionally, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is reduced to within a 9.5-mile radius of the airport (from a 24-mile radius) from the airport 248° bearing clockwise to the airport 294° bearing, and within a 7-mile radius from the airport 294° bearing clockwise to the airport 004° bearing, with segments extending to 13.5 miles northeast, 10.4 miles east, 16.9 miles southwest. Also, Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface is removed since it is wholly contained within the larger Casper Class E en route airspace, and duplication is not needed.

This rule also updates the airport's geographic coordinates in the associated Class D and E airspace to reflect the FAA's current aeronautical database. Lastly, this action replaces the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement” in the Class D and associated Class E airspace legal descriptions. These modifications are necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

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

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Mesquite Airport, Mesquite, NV, by enlarging the area southwest of the airport and updating the airport's geographic coordinates to match the FAA's aeronautical database. These changes are necessary to accommodate new RNAV procedures at this airport.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (83 FR 11443; March 15, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0007 to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Mesquite Airport, Mesquite, NV. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Mesquite Airport, Mesquite, NV, by enlarging the area southwest of the airport and updating the airport's geographic coordinates to match the FAA's aeronautical database. These changes are necessary to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV) procedures at this airport.

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

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

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it supports the removal of controlled airspace at Desert Rock Airport, Mercury, NV.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (83 FR 7430; February 21, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2017-1148 to remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Desert Rock Airport, Mercury, NV. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by removing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Desert Rock Airport, Mercury, NV.

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

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

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at Bethel Regional Airport, Bethel, ME, to support IFR operations at this airport.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (83 FR 50050, October 4, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0883 to amend Class E airspace at Bethel Regional Airport, Bethel, ME, to support IFR operations at this airport.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. Two comments supporting this action were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.11C dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface within an 8.6-mile radius (increased from a 6-mile radius) of Bethel Regional Airport, Bethel, ME, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at Bethel Regional Airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport are amended to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

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

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

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class D and Class E surface airspace at Grant County International Airport, Moses Lake, WA, to support standard instrument approach procedures under IFR operations at the airport.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (83 FR 2018-19650; May 4, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2017-1033 to modify Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, Class E airspace designated as an extension, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 and 1,200 feet above the surface at Grant County International Airport, Moses Lake, WA. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. However, an error omitting the full radius of the Class D airspace was identified in the legal description, and is corrected for the final rule.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, Class E airspace designated as an extension, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and removing Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Grant County International Airport, Moses Lake, WA.

Class D airspace is modified to a 5.3-mile radius (from a 5.7-mile radius) of the airport, and the excluded area southeast of the airport would be re-defined as “within an area bounded by a line beginning at the point where the 147° bearing from the airport intersects the 5.3-mile radius of the airport to lat. 47°09′59″ N, long. 119°14′55″ W, to the point where the 103° bearing from the airport intersects the airport 5.3-mile radius, thence clockwise along the 5.3-mile radius of the airport to the point of beginning.”

Class E surface area airspace is modified to be coincident with the dimensions of the Class D airspace, and would be effective during the hours when the Class D is not in effect to protect IFR operations continuously.

Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area is modified by removing the segments extending to the northeast (within 2.2 miles each side of the Moses Lake VOR/DME 050 radial extending from the 5.7-mile radius of the airport to 13.5 miles northeast of the VOR/DME, and within 3.5 miles each side of the Moses Lake VOR/DME 063° radial extending from the 5.7-mile radius of the airport to 12.9 miles northeast of the VOR/DME). Also, the segment extending north of the airport is enlarged to within 4.2 miles west and 3.9 miles east of the 339° bearing from Grant County International Airport extending from the airport 5.3-mile radius to 15.3 miles north of the airport (from within 1.8 miles each side of the Ephrata VORTAC 156° radial extending from the 5.7-mile radius of Grant County Airport to 2.7 miles southeast of the VORTAC), excluding the Ephrata Municipal Airport, WA, Class E surface area airspace. Also, a small extension south of the airport is added within 1.0 mile each side of the airport 162° bearing extending from the 5.3-mile radius of the airport to 5.9 miles south of the airport. This action also removes the NOTAM part-time status of Class E airspace designated as an extension, which would be in effect continuously.

Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet is modified to within a 7.1-mile (from a 16.6-mile) radius of Grant County International Airport, and within 3.8 miles southwest and 9-miles northeast of a 336° bearing extending from the airport to 27.5 miles northwest of the airport, and within 4 miles north and 8 miles south of the 069° bearing from the airport extending to 22.3 miles east of the airport, and within 8 miles east and 4 miles west of the 162° bearing from the airport extending to 22 miles south of the airport, and within 4-miles northwest and 8 miles southeast of the 223° bearing from the airport extending to 21.5 miles southwest of the airport (from a 16.6-mile radius of the Ephrata VORTAC). Also, the Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at the airport is removed as it is wholly contained within the larger Spokane Class E en route airspace area, and duplication is not necessary.

Additionally, this action updates the airport name from Grant County Airport to Grant County International Airport, and the geographic coordinates for the associated Class D and Class E airspace areas to match the FAA's aeronautical database.

Finally, an editorial change is made to the Class D and Class E airspace legal descriptions replacing “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement”. An editorial change is also made removing the city associated with the airport name in the airspace designation to comply with a recent change to FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, dated October 12, 2017.

Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace at Leitchfield-Grayson County Airport, Leitchfield, KY, to support IFR operations in standard instrument approach procedures at this airport.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (83 FR 49506, October 2, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0485 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Leitchfield-Grayson County Airport, Leitchfield, KY. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment in support of the proposal was received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11C dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Leitchfield-Grayson County Airport, Leitchfield, KY, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at this airport.

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

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

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

This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95.

The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment 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 by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, January 3, 2019.

Background

The purpose of Amendment 20 is to reduce latent (unused) effort in the longfin squid fishery and adjust the management of the fishery during Trimester II to avoid overharvesting the longfin squid resource and harming squid egg masses. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council is concerned that unused longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits could be activated. This could lead to excessive fishing effort, which could lead to premature fishery closures and reduced access to available longfin squid quota by vessels with a history of higher landings in recent years. Excessive effort may also increase the bycatch and discards of both longfin squid and non-target species. The measures adopted by the Council are intended to help prevent excessive catch during Trimester II, a race to fish, frequent and disruptive fishery closures, and reduced fishing opportunities for vessels that are more recently dependent upon longfin squid. Additional information on the mackerel, squid, and butterfish fisheries can be found online at http://www.mafmc.org/msb/ and https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/msb/index.html.

On June 7, 2017, the Council adopted final measures for Amendment 20, submitting the draft amendment and EA to NMFS for preliminary review on June 6, 2018. NMFS published a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register on July 27, 2018 (83 FR 35602), informing the public that the Council had submitted this amendment to the Secretary of Commerce for review and approval. NMFS published a proposed rule that included implementing regulations and corrections to existing regulations on August 31, 2018 (83 FR 44548). The public comment period for the NOA ended on September 25, 2018, while proposed rule comments were accepted through October 1, 2018. After considering public comment on both the NOA and proposed rule, NMFS approved Amendment 20 and the associated measures outlined in the proposed rule on October 22, 2018.

NMFS approved all measures proposed in Amendment 20, as described below.

This action separates the current longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit into a new butterfish moratorium permit and a separate, revised longfin squid moratorium permit, as described further below. The Regional Administrator will automatically issue a new butterfish moratorium permit to all entities currently issued a 2018 longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit, including those held in confirmation of permit history (CPH) in February 2019, as part of the annual permit renewal process. The new butterfish moratorium permit will become effective on March 1, 2019.

The existing permit restrictions and vessel trip report (VTR), observer, slippage, and transfers-at-sea requirements applicable to longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits also apply to the new butterfish moratorium permit, as listed below. Butterfish moratorium permits will maintain existing vessel permit baseline characteristics, vessel replacement and upgrade provisions, and the restriction on permit splitting associated with the previous longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit. The new butterfish moratorium permit must maintain an operational vessel monitoring system (VMS) unit to provide NMFS with automatic position reports, but is not required to submit a specific butterfish trip declaration using the VMS or submit daily VMS catch reports of butterfish. For example, a vessel operator targeting butterfish can continue to declare a longfin squid trip via VMS if the operator anticipates catching more than an incidental amount of longfin squid on that trip. Finally, the existing butterfish possession limits specified at 50 CFR 648.26(d)(1) and (2) (unlimited when fishing with a mesh size of 3 inches (76 mm) or greater, and 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) per trip when fishing with less than 3-inch (76-mm) mesh) remain the same for this new permit.

In February 2019, the Regional Administrator will automatically issue a new Tier 1 longfin squid moratorium permit to any vessel currently issued a 2018 longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit, including those currently held in CPH, that landed at least 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) of longfin squid in any year from 1997-2013. Eligibility will be based on fishing history documented through dealer reports. The new Tier 1 longfin squid moratorium permit will become effective March 1, 2019.

Any vessel owner, including those automatically issued a Tier 2 permit described below, may apply for a Tier 1 longfin squid permit through February 29, 2020. The Regional Administrator will notify any vessel owner that does not qualify to be issued a new Tier 1 longfin squid moratorium permit based on the criteria described above. An owner could appeal that decision within 30 days of the denial notice by submitting a written request to the Regional Administrator. Appeals could be based upon evidence that the information used in the original denial was incorrect. During an appeal, a vessel owner could request the Regional Administrator authorize his/her vessel to continue fishing for longfin squid under the measures for a Tier 1 permit until that appeal is completed. The NOAA Fisheries National Appeals Office will review all appeals submitted to the Regional Administrator.

Tier 1 longfin squid moratorium permits are subject to all measures applicable to the existing longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit, including, but not limited to, the vessel baseline and upgrade, VTR and VMS reporting, observer, slippage, and transfers at sea requirements. A Tier 1 longfin squid moratorium permit may land an unlimited amount of longfin squid per trip, unless the directed longfin squid fishery is closed and incidental limits are implemented, as described further below. Tier 1 permits may possess up to 15,000 lb (6,804 kg) of longfin squid per trip after the longfin squid fishery is closed in Trimester II, provided the vessel is declared into the Illex squid fishery, possesses at least 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) of Illex squid, and is fishing offshore in the area defined in the current regulations at § 648.23(a)(5).

In February 2019, the Regional Administrator will automatically issue a Tier 2 longfin squid moratorium permit to any vessel currently issued a 2018 longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit, including those held in CPH, that does not qualify for a Tier 1 longfin squid moratorium permit based on the criteria described above. The Tier 2 permit will become effective March 1, 2019.

A Tier 2 permit is subject to all measures applicable to the existing longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit, including, but not limited to, the permit, VTR and VMS reporting, observer, slippage, and transfers at sea requirements. However, a Tier 2 permit is only allowed to land up to 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) of longfin squid per trip, unless the directed longfin squid fishery is closed and incidental limits are implemented, as described further below. A Tier 2 moratorium permit may continue to possess up to 5,000 lb (6,804 kg) of longfin squid per trip after the longfin squid fishery is closed in Trimester II if the vessel is declared into the Illex squid fishery, possesses at least 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) of Illex squid, and is fishing offshore in the area specified at § 648.23(a)(5).

Amendment 20 creates a new Tier 3 longfin squid moratorium permit for vessels previously issued an open access squid/butterfish incidental catch permit that landed more than 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) of longfin squid in at least one calendar year from 1997-2013. A vessel owner must apply for a Tier 3 longfin squid moratorium permit by submitting an application to the Regional Administrator by February 29, 2020.

The Regional Administrator will notify the owner of a vessel permit that does not qualify for a new Tier 3 longfin squid moratorium permit. An owner can appeal that decision within 30 days of the denial notice by submitting a written request to the Regional Administrator. The NOAA Fisheries National Appeals Office will review all appeals submitted to the Regional Administrator. Appeals can be based upon evidence that the information used in the original denial was incorrect. During an appeal, a vessel owner can request the Regional Administrator to authorize its vessel to continue fishing for longfin squid under the measures for a Tier 3 longfin squid permit until that appeal is completed.

A vessel issued a Tier 3 longfin squid permit is subject to all measures applicable to the existing squid/butterfish incidental catch permit. Unlike Tier 1 or 2 longfin squid moratorium permits, Tier 3 permits are not issued a vessel baseline and are not subject to the vessel upgrade provisions. A Tier 3 longfin squid moratorium permit may land up to 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of longfin squid per trip, unless the directed longfin squid fishery is closed during Trimester II and incidental limits are implemented, as described further below.

Amendment 20 allows an owner of more than one longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit as of May 26, 2017, a one-time opportunity to move longfin squid moratorium permits onto a different vessel that they own to optimize their fishing operations. A vessel owner may move a qualified Tier 1 longfin squid moratorium permit from one of his/her vessels and place it on another vessel issued a Tier 2 longfin squid moratorium permit that is owned by that same entity. In this exchange, the Tier 2 longfin squid moratorium permit would be moved onto the vessel originally issued the Tier 1 longfin squid moratorium permit to complete the “swap” of permits.

Only permits issued to vessels owned by the same business entity as of May 26, 2017, are able to participate in the permit swap; a permit held in CPH as of May 26, 2017, is not eligible to participate in this transaction. Vessels involved in the swap must be within 10 percent of the baseline length overall and 20 percent of the baseline horsepower of the permit to be placed on each vessel. Only Tier 1 and Tier 2 longfin squid moratorium permits may be transferred as part of this permit swap; no other fishery permits can be swapped as part of this transaction. An owner must apply for the permit swap within one year of the issuance of the Tier 1 or Tier 2 longfin squid moratorium permits. A longfin squid moratorium permit swap application form is available upon request from the Regional Administrator (see ADDRESSES).

Amendment 20 reduces the longfin squid possession limit from 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) per trip to 250 lb (113 kg) per trip for vessels issued an open access squid/butterfish incidental permit, and for all longfin squid permits once the Trimester II quota has been landed. The longfin squid incidental limit applicable to all longfin squid moratorium permits remains 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) per trip for any longfin squid fishery closure implemented during Trimesters I or III.

In § 648.2, the term “Northeast Regional Office” in the definition of “Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Monitoring Committee” is replaced by “Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office.” This rule also adds definitions for “Calendar day,” “Directed fishery,” and “Incidental catch.”

In § 648.4(a)(5)(iii), paragraphs (C), (D), (E), (H) are revised and paragraph (M) is deleted to eliminate outdated and unnecessary regulations regarding Atlantic mackerel moratorium permit qualifications.

In § 648.7, text at (a)(1)(i) and (ii) that was inadvertently deleted in the final rule implementing the Mid-Atlantic Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment (August 28, 2017; 82 FR 40721) is reinserted.

In § 648.10(e)(5)(i), the phrase “. . . or monkfish fishery” is replaced with “monkfish, or any other fishery” to maintain consistency with other language in this paragraph and related text in paragraph (e)(5)(ii).

In § 648.13, paragraph (a) is revised to clarify that longfin squid, Illex squid, and butterfish moratorium permits and squid/butterfish incidental catch permits must be issued a letter of authorization by the Regional Administrator to transfer longfin squid, butterfish, or Illex squid at sea.

In § 648.14, the following corrections are made:

1. The introductory text to paragraph (g)(1)(i) is revised to insert reference to the fishery closure and accountability measure regulations at § 648.24(d) and to replace “Take, retain . . .” with “Take and retain . . .”

2. Paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(B) is revised to use the term “Illex squid.”

3. Paragraph (g)(2)(i) is revised to reference Subpart B instead of § 648.22.

4. Paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(D) and (F) are revised to read that it is unlawful for any person owning or operating a vessel issued a valid mackerel, squid, and butterfish fishery permit, or issued an operator's permit to “Take and retain, possess, or land” these species instead of “Take, retain, possess, or land” these species.

5. Paragraph (g)(2)(v) is revised to replace “limited access” with “directed” to reference the Atlantic mackerel, longfin squid, and Illex squid fisheries.

In § 648.22, the following corrections are made:

1. In paragraph (a), species headings are added to clarify which elements are to be identified for each species during the specifications process and to spell out terms used for the first time in the regulations.

2. The term “Illex squid” replaces the term “Illex” for clarity in several paragraphs.

3. In paragraph (c)(3), the reference to § 648.4(1)(5)(ii) is replaced with reference to § 648.4(a)(5)(vi).

In § 648.25(a)(4)(i), the reference to paragraph (a)(2) would be replaced with the accurate reference to paragraph (a)(3) of that section.

During the public comment periods for the NOA and the proposed rule for this amendment, we received six comments from six individuals, two of which were not responsive to the action. One individual expressed general opposition to the rule, Lund's Fisheries supported all proposed measures, and Pew Charitable Trusts along with one individual supported some, but not all of the proposed measures. The following discussion summarizes the issues raised in the comments that were relevant to this action and associated NMFS's responses. Please note that, pursuant to section 304(a)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, when NMFS considers the responses to comments, NMFS may only approve or disapprove measures proposed in a particular fishery management plan, amendment, or framework adjustment, and may not change or substitute any measure in a substantive way.

Comment 1: Pew Charitable Trusts recommended that NMFS disapprove the Council's decision to not implement a spawning closure under Amendment 20. Pew suggested NMFS implement a 12-mile spawning closure for bottom trawl vessels south of Marthas Vineyard and Nantucket to limit the catch of pre-spawned squid, bycatch of squid egg mops and predator species, and negative impacts to squid egg mops and the greater ecosystem. Pew asserts that the Council's decision to not implement a spawning closure is inconsistent with analysis in the Amendment 20 EA, stating that spawning closure options were analyzed in full during the amendment process and are supported by the best available science.

Response: As noted above, NMFS may only approve or disapprove measures proposed in a particular amendment. Because the Council did not adopt a spawning closure area in this action, there is nothing for us to disapprove in Amendment 20 and we cannot unilaterally implement such a closure through this action.

The Amendment 20 EA includes some analysis of the impacts of squid fishing on squid egg mops and future recruitment and fishery catch, but does not include any analysis of specific closure areas considered early in the development of this action. The Council decided to remove such areas from further consideration at its December 2016 meeting for possible development in a future action. The Council understood the interest in such areas to be more related to user conflicts than squid productivity, as closure areas would likely shift effort from one small area into other areas during Trimester II without reducing overall catch. At its December 2017 meeting, the Council deferred further development of spawning closures until it could evaluate the effects of measures included in Amendment 20, suggesting that the Amendment 20 measures may be sufficient to address some of the concerns regarding excessive fishing effort south of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket.

Comment 2: One individual suggested that there should be zero moratorium permits, indicating that fish species are being overfished and going extinct due to insufficient enforcement of vessel catch. Lund's Fisheries supported the creation of the longfin squid tiered permitting system, stating that it better controls longfin squid landings, avoids excessive catch following the closure of the Trimester II fishery, minimizes discards of other species, prevents the reactivation of latent effort, and maximizes economic opportunities for active participants. Lund's Fisheries also noted that the Tier 2 permit preserves more recent fishing patterns and minimizes squid discards when targeting other species, while the Tier 3 permit eliminates a loophole that previously allowed owners to cancel their federal longfin squid permits to take advantage of higher landing allowances in state waters. Finally, Lund's Fisheries supported creating a separate butterfish moratorium permit, stating that it avoids unintentionally reducing domestic fishing capacity for butterfish.

Response: We disagree that there should be zero moratorium permits. As noted by Lund's Fisheries, limiting access to a fishery through moratorium permits provides many benefits to the fishery and the resource, including greater control of fishery landings by limiting the number of vessels that may participate in the fishery and how much each vessel may catch. The Tier 3 permit covers past incidental catch of longfin squid, particularly by vessels targeting other species such as whiting. This should help reduce the potential for excessive fishing effort, better control longfin squid catch, and avoid discards that may have otherwise occurred under the reduced longfin squid possession limit for open access squid/butterfish incidental permits implemented by this action. A separate butterfish permit preserves fishing opportunities for that species and could help maintain or even expand a domestic fishery consistent with the objectives of the FMP. Therefore, we approved the Amendment 20 changes to longfin squid and butterfish moratorium permits, and we are implementing the proposed regulations through this final rule.

Comment 3: One individual supported a tiered longfin squid permit system, but indicated the proposed landings qualification criteria (less than 30 lb (14 kg) per day) is too low, does not represent even part-time fishing for longfin squid, and is not fair to full-time squid vessels that originally developed this fishery.

Response: The Council recognized that the preferred landings qualification criteria represents just four trips under the current incidental trip limit to enable more vessels to re-qualify, noting that only the least active vessels would be impacted by this action. By only considering landings through 2013 (the control date established for the fishery), the qualification criteria exclude vessels that had been inactive until recently, including those that re-entered the fishery in 2016 when participation increased substantially due to higher than average catch rates that season. This addresses the main concern raised during scoping hearings and preserves the greatest access to those most active in the fishery. The creation of a Tier 2 permit recognizes historic participation in the fishery, and provides such vessels with a higher level of access to the fishery than an incidental permit. The Council concluded that the criteria selected represented the best balance between avoiding a race to fish and ensuring that the fishery can still achieve optimum yield.

Comment 4: Lund's Fisheries supported the measure allowing vessel owners a one-time opportunity to “swap” longfin squid moratorium permits among vessels owned by the same entity. They stated that this would help optimize fishing operations.

Response: We agree, and implement that measure through this final rule.

Comment 5: Both Pew Charitable Trusts and Lund's Fisheries supported reducing the longfin squid possession limit from 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) to 250 lb (113 kg) for open access longfin squid permits and for all longfin squid permits once the Trimester II quota is caught. Pew noted that such a reduction would prevent continued directed fishing once the Trimester II fishery is closed, mitigate the harmful effects of squid fishing during the spawning period, decrease the catch of pre-spawned squid, and limit the destruction of egg mops. Lund's also notes that it allows more animals to survive the summer fishery to benefit the fall and winter longfin squid fisheries.

Response: We agree, and implement the reduced longfin squid incidental possession limits through this final rule.

Comment 6: Lund's Fisheries suggested that we retain reference to the Atlantic mackerel landing limit in metric tons instead of changing it to kilograms in § 648.4(a)(5)(iii)(B), as proposed.

Response: In response to public comment, we have retained reference to Atlantic mackerel landing limits in metric tons.

Comment 7: Pew Charitable Trusts stated that we should disapprove the Council's decision to take no-action on adjustments to the longfin squid Trimester II quota allocation and prohibit the roll-over of unused Trimester I longfin squid quota into Trimester II. Pew is concerned that excessive catch during Trimester II harms spawning squid and egg mops, which negatively impacts future squid recruitment. In conjunction with the reduced longfin squid incidental possession limits and the spawning closure described in Comment 1 above, it suggests that reductions in Trimester II fishing effort will benefit the ecosystem and other species by reducing the catch of longfin squid, which serves as an important forage species, and the bycatch of summer flounder, striped bass, and blueback herring.

Response: NMFS may only approve or disapprove measures proposed in a particular amendment. Because the Council did not adjust the longfin squid Trimester II quota under Amendment 20, there is nothing for us to disapprove in this action. The Council may consider such adjustments in a future action.

As adopted by the Council, Amendment 20 includes several measures that reduce longfin squid fishing effort and better control landings during Trimester II, including revisions to longfin squid permits and adjustments to possession limits for both moratorium and incidental catch permits. The Council recognized that eliminating quota roll-over would additionally limit catch during Trimester II, and that excessive catch during Trimester II could negatively affect the species. However, current estimates of longfin squid biomass are well above target levels. The Council determined that existing quota allocations were sufficiently precautionary and that measures included in Amendment 20 were adequate to keep catch from exceeding the current Trimester II quota.

The proposed rule suggested revising § 648.4(a)(5)(iii)(B) to reflect the Atlantic mackerel landing limit in kg instead of mt. Based on public comment, references to the Atlantic mackerel limits will continue to be listed in metric tons and will not be changed to kilograms.

In § 648.4(a)(5)(i)(A) and (B), the proposed rule included a 90-day delay before new longfin squid moratorium permits became effective or a vessel owner could apply for a permit, respectively. At the time, this was considered necessary to prepare to issue permits and process applications. This final rule delays the effective date of the new longfin squid moratorium permits until March 1, 2019, to align the issuance of the new permits with the annual permit renewal process. Therefore, this final rule revises § 648.4(a)(5)(i)(A) and (B) to indicate the Regional Administrator will begin issuing Tier 1 and 2 permits in February 2019 and to allow vessel owners to begin applying for such permits once this action becomes effective.

15 CFR part 902.1(b) is revised to include reference to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 0648-0679 for the regulations at 50 CFR 648.4 to reflect the new information collections associated with the longfin squid moratorium permit measures approved under Amendment 20 and implemented in this final rule.

The Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, determined that Amendment 20 is necessary for the conservation and management of the longfin squid and butterfish fisheries managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

This proposed rule does not contain policies with Federalism or takings implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.

A Final Regulatory Flexibility Act (FRFA) analysis was prepared for this action. The FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act (IRFA) analysis, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS responses to those comments, a summary of the analyses completed in the Amendment 20 EA, and this portion of the preamble. A summary of the IRFA was published in the proposed rule for this action and is not repeated here. A description of why this action was considered, the objectives of, and the legal basis for this rule is contained in Amendment 20 and in the preamble to the proposed and this final rule, and is not repeated here. All of the documents that constitute the FRFA are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

The public did not raise any significant issues in response to the IRFA, so no changes were made from the proposed rule.

For the purposes of the RFA analysis, the ownership entities (or firms) are defined as those entities or firms with common ownership personnel as listed on the permit application. Because of this, some vessels with Federal longfin squid/butterfish permits may be considered to be part of the same firm because they may have the same owners. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business economy. For purposes of the RFA, a business primarily engaged in commercial fishing activity is classified as a small business if it has combined annual gross receipts not in excess of $11 million (NAICS 11411) for all its affiliated operations worldwide. A business primarily engaged in for-hire (charter/party) operations is characterized as annual gross receipts not in excess of $7.5 million. To identify these small and large firms, vessel ownership data from the permit database were grouped according to common owners and sorted by size. The current ownership data set used for this analysis is based on calendar year 2016 (the most recent complete year available).

This action affects any vessel issued a valid Federal longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit or an open access squid/butterfish incidental permit. According to the commercial database, 295 separate vessels were issued a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit in 2016. These vessels were owned by 222 entities, of which 214 were categorized as small business entities using the definition specified above. In 2016, 1,528 vessels were issued an open access squid/butterfish incidental permit. These vessels were owned by 1,114 entities, of which 1,105 were small business entities. In total, 1,319 small business entities may be affected by this rule out of a potential 1,336 entities (large and small) that may be affected by this action. Therefore, 99 percent of affected entities are categorized as small businesses.

Not all entities affected by this action landed fish for commercial sale in 2016. Nine small business entities issued a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit did not have any fishing revenue in 2016, while 274 small business entities issued an open access squid/butterfish incidental catch permit did not have any fishing revenue in 2016. Only 1,036 small business entities had fishing revenue in 2016, representing 79 percent of the small entities affected by this action.

This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been approved by OMB under control number 0648-0679. Public reporting burden and costs associated with these information collections, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information, are estimated to average, as follows:

1. Application for a longfin squid moratorium permit, OMB# 0648-0679 (60 min/response and an annual cost of $254.80 for postage);

2. Appeal of the denial of a longfin squid moratorium permit, OMB# 0648-0679 (120 min/response and an annual cost of $226.87 for postage); and

3. Application for a longfin squid moratorium permit swap, OMB# 0648-0679 (5 min/response and an annual cost of $1.63 for postage).

Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and by email to [email protected], or fax to 202-395-7285.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

For the longfin squid moratorium permit alternatives, measures implemented by this final rule (Alternative 1C in the EA) more effectively meet the objectives of this action to reduce latent effort in the fishery and avoid overharvest during Trimester II than other alternatives considered. By reducing the number of latent permits and overall fishing capacity consistent with the control date established by the Council, this action will help prevent future races to fish, excess longfin squid catch during Trimester II, and reduced fishing opportunities for permits that have been more dependent on longfin squid. This could improve economic returns for the most active participants in the fishery. Because this action also implements the Tier 2 permit, vessels that do not qualify for a Tier 1 permit are still able to continue to participate in the fishery, but at a lower level than those with higher landings during the qualification period. In addition, the permit “swap” provision allows an owner of multiple longfin squid moratorium permits to move permits among vessels he/she owns to optimize operations and maximize longfin squid revenue. Together, these measures represent the best balance of avoiding excessive landings and a race to fish by not allowing too many vessels to target longfin squid, while ensuring that enough vessels remain in the fishery to achieve optimum yield and minimizing economic impacts to vessels that do not re-qualify for the Tier 1 permit.

The higher Tier 3 longfin squid moratorium permit landings qualification threshold implemented by this action (Alternative 3C) more effectively meets the objectives of this action than other alternatives considered. Approved measures limit vessels without a history of substantial landings to a smaller possession limit (250 lb or 113 kg per trip) and maintains the existing longfin squid incidental possession limit (2,500 lb or 1,134 kg) to minimize longfin squid discards for permits that had more longfin squid landings in recent years. These measures recognize historic landings, allowing vessels landing incidental amounts of longfin squid when targeting other fisheries to continue to do so, maintaining longfin squid as a source of fishing revenue on those trips. Reducing the number of vessels that can land 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of longfin squid also reduces overall fishing effort, particularly when longfin squid are nearshore and more available to the fishery during Trimester II. This could prevent overfishing and preserve more biomass for future seasons, increasing future fishing revenues, particularly during Trimester III and Trimester I of the following year.

Reducing the longfin squid possession limit to 250 (113 kg) per trip once the Trimester II quota is caught will help prevent excessive longfin squid catch and reduce negative impacts to longfin squid and egg mops during the Trimester II spawning season. Unlike the other alternatives, the measures implemented by this action (Alternative 5B) provide additional control over longfin squid catch that will essentially eliminate incentives to target longfin squid once the Trimester II directed fishery is closed. Excessive landings during Trimester II could negatively affect squid productivity and have been shown to reduce longfin squid catch rates in subsequent seasons, which also reduces future fishing revenues. These measures should help reduce fishing effort during the spawning season, which could prolong longfin squid availability into Trimester III and increase future longfin squid productivity. In doing so, this action may produce higher future economic returns than the other alternatives considered.

Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as small entity compliance guide (the guide) was prepared. Copies of the guide (i.e., permit holder letter) will be sent to all entities issued longfin squid and butterfish permits. The guide and this final rule will be available upon request from the Regional Administrator (see ADDRESSES) and online at https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/msb/index.html.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, 15 CFR part 902 and 50 CFR part 648 are amended as follows:

On February 6, 2013, at 78 FR 8448, HUD published a proposed rule to streamline the inspection and home warranty requirements for FHA single-family home insurance. As part of the February 6, 2013 rule, HUD proposed to eliminate its requirement that borrowers purchase a 10-year protection plan in order to qualify for FHA mortgage insurance for high loan-to-value mortgages where the dwelling was not approved for guaranty, insurance, or a direct loan before the beginning of construction and where the dwelling is less than one year old.1 In 2008, HERA (Pub. L. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654, approved July 30, 2008) eliminated the requirement of purchasing a consumer protection plan or warranty plan for such mortgages. While HUD maintained discretion to keep the requirements in place, HUD is no longer statutorily mandated to do so. Upon evaluation, HUD believes that the significant improvements in building technology and the quality of housing, as well as the adoption of uniform building codes and local jurisdictions' more stringent enforcement of building codes, mitigate HUD's previous concerns about needing to protect property owners from defects in workmanship and materials. HUD proposed, however, to retain the requirement that the Warranty of Completion of Construction (form HUD-92544) be executed by the builder and the buyer of a newly constructed home, as a condition for FHA mortgage insurance. This warranty provides assurance to FHA that the home was built according to plan, and protects the buyer against defects in equipment, material, or workmanship supplied or performed by the builder, subcontractor, or supplier. The warrantor agrees to fix and pay for the defect and restore any component of the home damaged in fulfilling the terms and conditions of the warranty. The one-year warranty commences on the date that title is conveyed to the buyer, the date that construction is complete, or upon occupancy, whichever date occurs first.

In addition to eliminating the 10-year protection plan requirements and related regulations in 24 CFR 203.18 and 203.200-209, HUD proposed to amend 24 CFR 203.50 to reflect the statutory change made by HERA and the removal of §§ 203.18(a)(3) and 200-209 of the regulations. Section 203.50(f) (“Eligibility of rehabilitation loans”) cross-references § 203.18(a)(3), and because § 203.18(a)(3) was proposed for removal, HUD proposed to also amend § 203.50(f) accordingly.

As part of the same publication, HUD also proposed to eliminate the FHA Inspector Roster (Roster), which is a list of inspectors approved by FHA as eligible to determine if the construction quality of a property is acceptable security for an FHA-insured loan in limited circumstances. HUD had combined the two proposals as they both involved streamlining requirements for FHA single-family mortgage insurance. However, the two proposals are distinct and the regulations unrelated. In addition to covering separate subjects, the regulations applied to different parties. The procedures and requirements related to the Roster applied to inspectors and lenders, while the regulations regarding 10-year protection plans applied to homebuilders, lenders, and borrowers. The public comments reflect this distinction, in that they treated these proposals separately, with the exception of expressions of general support for both proposals. In order to properly address the separate comments received on each proposal and to be more transparent about how the regulatory changes will affect different parties, this final rule only deals with elimination of the 10-year protection plan requirement. HUD published its final rule removing the FHA Inspector Roster on July 3, 2018 (83 FR 31038).

Interested readers are referred to the preamble of the February 6, 2013, proposed rule for additional historical background and explanation of the proposed regulatory changes.

This final rule follows publication of the February 6, 2013, proposed rule, and takes into consideration the public comments received on the proposed rule. The public comment period closed on April 8, 2013. HUD received 7 public comments in response to the proposed rule, 5 of which provided comments on elimination of the 10-year protection plan requirement. These comments were submitted by a fair housing consulting group, a home warranty provider, a housing trade association, a homebuilder, and an individual.2

Three of these comments expressed support for eliminating the 10-year protection plan requirement. Commenters said the requirement for a ten-year warranty is expensive and unnecessarily increases the cost of homeownership to the consumer. One commenter said it agreed with HUD that a 10-year protection plan is no longer necessary to safeguard FHA's insurance fund since the quality of housing, building technology, and building codes and enforcement have improved significantly. This commenter said that the rule would benefit homeowners who choose to purchase a protection plan because there will be additional market competition, as current FHA approved warranty issuers would have to compete with other warranty issuers. Further, the commenter said that eliminating the 10-year protection plan requirement would relieve warranty providers and HUD of the administrative burdens of application, review, and approval of each warranty plan.

Following is a summary of the significant issues pertaining to the 10-year protection plan requirement raised by the other comments, and HUD's responses. As discussed below, after consideration of all of the comments, HUD has not changed its proposal to eliminate the 10-year protection plan requirement as it was set forth in the February 6, 2013, proposed rule.

Comment: Elimination of the 10-Year Warranty Would Adversely Affect Minority Homeowners. One commenter opposed eliminating the 10-year warranty requirement, writing that African Americans and Hispanic Americans make up a high percentage of FHA mortgage holders, and persons who are eligible for FHA mortgage insurance are those most likely to be targeted with defective products and services and the least likely to have the means to protect their investment if a defect should occur. The commenter wrote that based on the numbers included in the proposed rule used to calculate savings, the average homeowner would pay an annual premium of $510, which is a significant cost, but a cost that directly benefits the homeowner, unlike other fees designed to protect the investor that have no value to the homeowner.

HUD Response. HUD has not revised the rule in response to this comment. HUD takes its mission to expand affordable homeownership opportunities in a non-discriminatory manner seriously, and believes that the regulatory amendments made by this final rule are consistent with those principles. Although the home warranty has been required, HUD records do not document that a claim has ever been made against the warranty discussed in this rule that resulted in a subsequent claim to FHA for unresolved repairs, damages, or foreclosure. Despite this, as acknowledged by the commenter, the warranty requirements impose a significant cost on FHA borrowers. Congress recognized these developments and eliminated the statutory requirement for such plans in the FHA programs. This rule follows suit and eliminates the mandate that borrowers purchase such plans. The rule, however, does not prohibit borrowers who desire, and are able to afford, the extra protection from purchasing warranty protection plans. Further, the rule retains the requirement that the Warranty of Completion of Construction (form HUD-92544) be executed by the builder and the buyer of a newly constructed home, as a condition of FHA mortgage insurance.

Comment: Quality of State and Local Codes is Not Sufficiently High to Warrant Removal of 10-Year Warranty Requirement. Two commenters challenged the assertion that the quality of construction standards is sufficiently high enough to warrant the removal of the warranty requirement. The commenters wrote that warranty companies continue to pay out large sums to repair homes due to improper construction, and cited incidents from 2005 to 2008, when thousands of households were exposed to problem drywall, which caused odd odors, corrosion of metal components, failure of electronics and appliances, and physical ailments. A commenter also wrote that because new homes are comprised of thousands of components, and fallible human beings develop the science behind building products, better building and stricter building codes will not prevent construction defects. The commenters wrote that without the 10-year warranty, homeowners face the possibility that the builder may have gone out of business or entered bankruptcy and they are unable to identify the source of the defective materials. The commenters recommended withdrawing this proposed rule and conducting additional research into the number of complaints filed with state regulators and local building code officials.

HUD Response. HUD agrees that the complete elimination of construction defects, while a worthwhile goal is most likely not a feasible outcome given human fallibility and the limitations of modern technology. HUD does not agree, however, that this justifies the imposition of a costly warranty mandate. The rule does not prohibit homeowners who wish to purchase warranty protection plans from doing so, it only eliminates the mandate that they must purchase such plans. Further, HUD reiterates that the final rule continues to condition FHA mortgage insurance on the Warranty of Completion of Construction (form HUD-92544) which provides assurance that the home was built according to plan and protects the buyer against construction defects. With respect to unforeseen events, such as the concerns noted by the commenter regarding problem drywall, HUD will continue to be at the forefront of efforts to take or support enforcement action, as appropriate, and to provide economic relief for impacted homebuyers. For example, HUD encouraged its mortgage lenders nationwide to consider extending temporary relief to allow families experiencing problems paying their mortgages because of problem drywall, to allow the homeowner time to repair their homes.3 FHA pursued a policy of loan forbearance for one year to borrowers impacted by the drywall problem. Further, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and HUD staff representing the Interagency Task Force on Problem Drywall no longer recommended the removal of all electrical wiring in homes with problem drywall after a study conducted on behalf of CPSC was completed. The change in the government's protocol may have reduced the cost of remediation for many homes (CPSC and HUD Issue Updated Remediation Protocol for Homes with Problem Drywall, Release Number 11-176, Release Date: 18, 2011).

Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” Executive Order 13563 also directs that where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public.

This rule was determined to be a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (although not an economically significant regulatory action, as provided under section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order). The removal of this requirement is consistent with goals of Executive Order 13563.

The rule does not rise to the level of an economically “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. HUD expects the elimination of the 10-year warranty plan to have economic benefits and costs. However, neither the economic costs nor the benefits of the elimination are greater than the $100 million threshold that determines economic significance under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. The preamble to the February 6, 2013, proposed rule at 78 FR 8453-8454, provided a discussion of the anticipated costs and benefits of the regulatory amendments. Please see the below section on the Summary of Benefits and Costs, which summarizes and updates the costs and benefits of the regulatory changes.

Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” was issued on January 30, 2017. This final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found below in the Summary of Benefits and Costs, and in the rule's Regulatory Impact Analysis.

Concurrently with this final rule, HUD is publishing its final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) that examines the costs and benefits of this final rule. The RIA is available on-line at: http://www.regulations.gov. The major findings in the RIA are presented in this summary.

Reducing risk to borrowers and FHA of substandard construction was the primary purpose of requiring the purchase of a home warranty. Positive trends in the housing sector have weakened the need for such a requirement. Increased quality of construction materials, and the standardization of building codes and building code enforcement, protect consumers better now than when the warranty requirement regulation was first promulgated. Although the home warranty is required, HUD records do not document that a claim has ever been made against the warranty discussed in this rule that resulted in a subsequent claim to FHA for unresolved repairs, damages, or foreclosure. Thus, HUD believes that the benefit in cost savings to consumers would exceed the potential cost of any risk introduced.

To understand the magnitude of the potential gain to consumers, HUD first approximated the resources devoted to the purchase of home warranties. On an annual basis, from 50,000 to 60,000 warranties are issued to FHA borrowers (data provided by FHA). The analysis uses 55,000 to represent a typical year. The average coverage of the mandated warranty plans is $200,000. The average premium charged under the plans is $2.70 per $1,000 of coverage (data provided by warranty companies). The average annual cost per homeowner is approximately $540 ($2.70/$1,000 × $200,000). Over ten years, the present value of the $540 annual payment would range from $4,060 (at 7 percent) to $4,740 (at 3 percent).

If the home warranty were a regulatory burden of no utility, then the annual savings to consumers would equal the full amount of the fee of $540. The aggregate savings would be approximately $30 million ($540 times 55,000 warranties). However, the gain is likely less than the estimate of $30 million. There are homebuyers who would demand and sellers who would supply a long-term warranty even when not required. If a buyer is extremely risk-averse or if a seller prefers to use home warranties to facilitate sales, their purchase of the home warranty would be unaffected by a rule not requiring it. Estimates of the general prevalence of home warranties vary, with studies finding that between 10 and 30 percent of homes have warranties. If 10 percent of homebuyers would have purchased a long-term warranty without the requirement, then consumer savings would be $27 million, and if 30 percent of homebuyers would have purchased a long-term warranty without the requirement, then the consumer savings would average $21 million.

The elimination of the warranty requirement also eliminates paperwork burden. Lenders face paperwork burden from reviewing the home warranty before closing. HUD estimates that a lender requires 0.1 hours to process one warranty. Loan officers earn a median hourly wage of $31; 4 the opportunity cost of their time would be twice 5 that, or $62 per hour. The burden per warranty is $6.20 (0.1 hours × $62). At a volume of 55,000 warranties, the total paperwork burden relieved is $341,000. Savings will extend to the U.S. government. The elimination of the warranty requirement eliminates the cost to HUD associated with review of the warranty plans submitted for approval and renewal. Administrative burdens to HUD include review of warranty plans for acceptance, review of plan renewals, and maintenance of HUD's home warranty web page.

There is a potential risk to FHA from eliminating the requirement of construction warranties for high-LTV loans. A major structural defect would adversely affect the value of a property and potentially lead to a foreclosure. FHA would bear the cost of the claim directly, and if systemic these costs could be passed on to program participants through higher premiums. Advances in detecting the causes of structural failure reduce both the probability and cost of any structural failure. To ensure that there are no observable construction defects in newly built homes bought by FHA-insured borrowers, HUD is retaining the requirement that the Warranty of Completion of Construction (form HUD-92544) be executed by the builder and the buyer of the home, as a condition for FHA mortgage insurance. In addition, the rule requires that inspections be performed by qualified individuals, to further mitigate risk. If all these safeguards fail, then HUD estimates that the average aggregate loss to FHA (a transfer of risk) is $1.3 million, which is far below the consumer benefits generated by the rule.

The information collection requirements contained in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB Control Numbers 2502-0059 (Warranty of Completion of Construction (form HUD-92544)). In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As noted above in this preamble, this rule is a deregulatory action taken by HUD that will alleviate the economic costs borne by participants in the FHA single family mortgage insurance programs. As discussed in this preamble, removal of the requirement for a 10-year protection plan would ease burdens on lenders and homebuilders and does not preclude borrowers from purchasing such plans. HUD is removing this requirement because it has deemed they are no longer necessary. Therefore, the undersigned certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. In addition, part of this rule changes a statutorily required and/or discretionary establishment and review of loan limits. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1) and (c)(6), this rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).

Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or is not required by statute, or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule will not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive Order.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and on the private sector. This rule does not impose any federal mandates on any State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, within the meaning of UMRA.

The Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Number for the principal FHA single-family mortgage insurance program is 14.117.

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, HUD amends 24 CFR part 203 to read as follows:

Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority

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

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

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

Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Petitioners may use the same process to request changes involving established AVAs. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for petitions for modifying established AVAs. Petitions to expand an established AVA must include the following:

• Evidence that the area within the proposed expansion area boundary is nationally or locally known by the name of the established AVA;

• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed expansion area;

• A narrative description of the features of the proposed expansion area that affect viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed expansion area similar to the established AVA and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the established AVA boundary;

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

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

TTB received a petition from George Cushnie, co-owner of Thistle Gate Vineyard, submitted on behalf of himself and a second vineyard owner, proposing to expand the established Monticello AVA. The Monticello AVA (27 CFR 9.48) was established by T.D. ATF-164, which was published in the Federal Register on January 23, 1984 (49 FR 2758). The Monticello AVA covers approximately 1,320 square miles in Albemarle, Greene, Nelson, and Orange Counties in Virginia. The Monticello AVA and the proposed expansion area do not overlap any other established or proposed AVAs.

The proposed expansion area extends beyond the Albemarle County line, which currently serves as the southeastern border of the established AVA, to encompass approximately 166 square miles of Fluvanna County, between the James and Rivanna Rivers. The petition included a letter from the President of the Jeffersonian Wine Grape Growers Society, an association of over 30 wineries within the existing Monticello AVA, supporting the proposed expansion.

When the petition was filed, there were two commercially-producing vineyards covering a total of approximately 15 acres within the proposed expansion area. Since the petition was filed, an additional vineyard has been established in the proposed expansion area, covering approximately 6.5 acres.

According to the petition, the soils and climate of the proposed expansion area are similar to those of the established Monticello AVA. The soils in Fluvanna County consist of the Nason, Manteo, Tatum, and Louisburg types, which are also the main soil types found in Albemarle County, which forms the heart of the existing AVA, and Orange County, which forms the northeast portion of the existing AVA. The petition further notes that the Nelson and Manteo soils are Virginia soils particularly well-suited to viticulture, given that they are silty loams, characterized by moderate levels of nutritious organic content and good drainage conditions.

The climate of the proposed expansion is similar to the climate of the existing AVA. Gaps in the Blue Ridge Mountains to the east cause “rivers of cold air” to flow through corridors that converge east of the Monticello AVA and the new expansion area. As a result, temperatures in the Monticello AVA and the proposed expansion area are 4-5 °F warmer than the climate in the surrounding areas outside the Monticello AVA. This warmer weather allows for a longer growing season and protection from frosts, which can be fatal to ripening grapes. This warmer weather was an important factor in establishing the Monticello AVA in 1982, and is a point of similarity that the proposed expansion area shares with the existing AVA, in contrast to surrounding areas. The growing season of the proposed expansion area is typically a minimum of 190 or even 200 days, which is similar to the 190-200 day average of the Orange County portion of the Monticello AVA. By contrast, the lands further east and south of the proposed expansion area average 150 days and less.

TTB published Notice No. 173 in the Federal Register on April 6, 2018 (83 FR 14787), proposing to expand the Monticello AVA. In the notice, TTB summarized the evidence from the petition regarding the name, boundary, and distinguishing features for the proposed expansion area. For a detailed description of the evidence relating to the name, boundary, and distinguishing features of the proposed expansion area, and for a comparison of the distinguishing features of the proposed expansion area to the surrounding areas and to the established Monticello AVA, see Notice No. 173.

In Notice No. 173, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the name, boundary, climatic, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. The comment period closed on June 5, 2018.

In response to Notice No. 173, TTB received one comment from Will and Leah Wentz, who have established a vineyard in the proposed expansion area, and who supported the proposed expansion of the Monticello AVA. They claim that they selected their vineyard site in Fluvanna County based on the various viticultural attributes of the area, especially including its climate and soils, which they said were accurately described in the initial petition. TTB did not receive any comments objecting to the proposed AVA expansion.

After careful review of the petition, TTB finds that the evidence provided by the petitioner sufficiently demonstrates that the proposed expansion area shares the characteristics of the established Monticello AVA and should also be recognized as part of that AVA. Accordingly, under the authority of the FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and parts 4 and 9 of the TTB regulations, TTB expands the 1,320 square mile “Monticello” AVA to include the approximately 166 square mile expansion area as described in Notice No. 173, effective 30 days from the publication date of this document.

See the narrative description of the boundary of the AVA expansion in the regulatory text published at the end of this final rule.

The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are codified in the regulatory text.

Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in § 4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance, and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See § 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details.

The expansion of the Monticello AVA will not affect any other existing AVA, and bottlers using “Monticello” as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes within the “Monticello” AVA will not be affected by this expansion of the Monticello AVA. The expansion of the Monticello AVA will allow vintners to use “Monticello” as an appellation of origin for wines made primarily from grapes grown within the expansion area if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.

TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

It has been determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.

Trevar D. Kolodny of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this final rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

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

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

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

Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Petitioners may use the same process to request changes involving established AVAs. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for petitions for modifying established AVAs. Petitions to expand an established AVA must include the following:

• Evidence that the area within the proposed expansion area boundary is nationally or locally known by the name of the established AVA;

• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed expansion area;

• A narrative description of the features of the proposed expansion area that affect viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed expansion area similar to the established AVA and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the established AVA boundary;

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

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

TTB received a petition from Ann Hougham, owner of the Mesa del Sol Vineyards, proposing to expand the established “Arroyo Seco” AVA. The Arroyo Seco AVA (27 CFR 9.59) was established by T.D. ATF-131, which was published in the Federal Register on April 15, 1983 (48 FR 16245). The Arroyo Seco AVA covers approximately 18,240 acres in Monterey County, California. The proposed expansion area and the established AVA are both located within the Monterey AVA (27 CFR 9.98) and the larger, multi-county Central Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.75).

The proposed expansion area contains approximately 90 acres and is adjacent to the far southwestern corner of the established Arroyo Seco AVA. The proposed expansion area is located on an upland terrace on the northern bank of a creek known as the Arroyo Seco, which is Spanish for “dry creek.” There is one vineyard covering approximately 14 acres within the proposed expansion area. The petition included a copy of an email from the Arroyo Seco Winegrowers, stating that the proposed expansion was shared with its members and received no objections. Unless otherwise noted, all information and data pertaining to the proposed expansion area contained in this document come from the petition and its supporting exhibits.

According to the petition, the soils and topography of the proposed expansion area are similar to those of the established Arroyo Seco AVA. The soils of the proposed expansion area and the established AVA are gravelly and fine sandy loams with low lime and salt content and pH levels between 5.1 and 8.4. The proposed expansion area contains soils primarily from the Lockwood, Elder, and Mocho series, which are all principal soil series within the established Arroyo Seco AVA. Finally, the proposed expansion area and the established AVA are both regions of terraces and alluvial fans with elevations from approximately 600 to 700 feet, and slope angles between 0 and 9 percent.

Although the proposed expansion area is more similar to the Arroyo Seco AVA than the surrounding regions, the proposed expansion area still shares some of the features of the surrounding Monterey and Central Coast AVAs. For example, the proposed Arroyo Seco AVA expansion area has moderate elevations and soils with lime, salt, and pH levels similar to the Monterey AVA and shares the marine climate influence of the larger Central Coast AVA due to its proximity to the Pacific Ocean. However, the soils of the proposed expansion area have medium-to-high levels of organic matter, compared to the very low levels of organic matter that characterize the Monterey AVA. Additionally, due to its location east of the Santa Lucas Mountains, the proposed expansion area is not as exposed to the marine air and fog as the more western regions of the Central Coast AVA that are closer to the ocean. Finally, because of its much smaller size, the topographical features of the proposed expansion area are more uniform than the diverse features of the large multicounty Central Coast AVA, and are more similar to the topographical features of the Arroyo Seco AVA, which is located on the same sloping bench lands and terraces along the Arroyo Seco as the proposed expansion area.

TTB published Notice No. 172 in the Federal Register on Friday, April 6, 2018 (83 FR 14791), proposing to expand the Arroyo Seco AVA. In the notice, TTB summarized the evidence from the petition regarding the name, boundary, and distinguishing features for the proposed expansion area. For a detailed description of the evidence relating to the name, boundary, and distinguishing features of the proposed expansion area, and for a comparison of the distinguishing features of the proposed expansion area to the surrounding areas and to the established Arroyo Seco AVA, see Notice No. 172.

In Notice No. 172, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the name, boundary, climatic, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. The comment period closed on June 5, 2018.

TTB received no comments in response to Notice No. 172.

After careful review of the petition, TTB finds that the evidence provided by the petitioner sufficiently demonstrates that although the proposed expansion area shares some of the broader characteristics of the larger Monterey and Central Coast AVAs, it is also similar to the established Arroyo Seco AVA and should also be recognized as part of that AVA. Accordingly, under the authority of the FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and part 4 of the TTB regulations, TTB expands the 18,240 acre “Arroyo Seco” AVA to include the approximately 90-acre expansion area as described in Notice No. 172, effective 30 days from the publication date of this document.

See the narrative description of the boundary of the AVA expansion in the regulatory text published at the end of this final rule.

The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed in the regulatory text of 27 CFR 9.59.

Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in § 4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance, and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See § 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details.

The expansion of the Arroyo Seco AVA will not affect any other existing AVA, and bottlers using “Arroyo Seco,” “Monterey,” or “Central Coast” as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes within the “Arroyo Seco,” “Monterey,” or “Central Coast” AVAs will not be affected by this expansion of the Arroyo Seco AVA. The expansion of the Arroyo Seco AVA will allow vintners to use “Arroyo Seco,” “Monterey,” or “Central Coast” as an appellation of origin for wines made primarily from grapes grown within the expansion area if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.

TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

It has been determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.

Christopher Forster-Smith of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this final rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TTB received a petition from Mr. Jeff Havlin, the owner of Havlin Vineyard and chair of the Van Duzer Corridor AVA Committee, on behalf of himself and other local grape growers and vintners proposing the establishment of the “Van Duzer Corridor” AVA in portions of Yamhill and Polk Counties.

The proposed Van Duzer Corridor AVA is located in Oregon and lies entirely within the established Willamette Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.90) and covers approximately 59,871 acres. There are 17 commercially-producing vineyards covering a total of approximately 1,000 acres, as well as 6 wineries, within the proposed AVA.

According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Van Duzer Corridor AVA are its topography, climate, and soils. The topography of the proposed Van Duzer Corridor is characterized by low elevations and gently rolling hills. The low elevations allow cool breezes to flow relatively unimpeded from the Pacific Ocean, through the Coastal Ranges, forming a wind corridor gap known as the “Van Duzer Corridor.” The western end of the Van Duzer Corridor wind gap is narrow and squeezed by high elevations to the north and south, leaving little room for viticulture. However, the eastern end of the Van Duzer Corridor wind gap, where the proposed Van Duzer Corridor AVA is located, features the same low elevations, and rolling hills as the western portion, with the distinction of having a wider area suitable for vineyards. Within the Van Duzer Corridor AVA, the elevation does not impede the eastward-flowing marine air, allowing higher wind speeds to flow through. In contrast, the surrounding regions all have higher elevations.

Additionally, the climate of the proposed Van Duzer Corridor AVA is characterized by consistent high wind speeds and low cumulative growing degree day (GDD) accumulations.1 The consistently high winds in the proposed AVA contribute to thicker grape skins, and raise the levels of phenolic compounds in the fruit. In contrast, the wind speeds to the north and south-southeast of the proposed AVA are slower. The proposed Van Duzer Corridor has lower GDD accumulations than the surrounding regions to the north and southeast, indicating that its temperatures are generally cooler. The cooler temperatures ripen the fruit slowly, creating a longer hang time than for the same grape varietal grown in a region with higher GDD accumulations. The longer hang time contributes to a reduced acidity level. TTB notes that the petition did not include wind speed data and GDD accumulations for the regions to the west and south-southwest of the proposed AVA.

Lastly, the soils of the proposed Van Duzer Corridor AVA are primarily uplifted marine sedimentary loams and silts with alluvial overlay, as well as some uplifted basalt. The soils are typically shallow, well-drained, and have a bedrock of siltstone. The high silt and clay levels in the soils balance the overall pH level of the soil by buffering against a sudden increase or decrease in soil pH. The buffering effect is beneficial to vineyards because it boosts the ability of the soils to maintain a stable pH level. In contrast, the soils immediately outside the northern and western boundaries contain soils from different soil series. Farther north and west, the soils contain higher concentrations of basalt and other volcanic materials. In contrast, east of the proposed Van Duzer Corridor AVA, within the Eola-Amity Hills AVA (27 CFR 9.202), the soils contain larger amounts of volcanic material than the proposed AVA. Additionally, south of the proposed AVA, the soils contain large concentrations of Ice Age loess, which is not found in the proposed Van Duzer Corridor AVA.

TTB published Notice No. 175 in the Federal Register on April 6, 2018 (83 FR 14795), proposing to establish the Van Duzer Corridor AVA. In the notice, TTB summarized the evidence from the petition regarding the name, boundary, and distinguishing features for the proposed AVA. The notice also compared the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA to the surrounding areas. For a detailed description of the evidence relating to the name, boundary, and distinguishing features of the proposed AVA, and for a detailed comparison of the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA to the surrounding areas, see Notice No. 175.

In Notice No. 175, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the name, boundary, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. In addition, given the proposed Van Duzer Corridor AVA's location within the Willamette Valley AVA, TTB solicited comments on whether the evidence submitted in the petition regarding the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA sufficiently differentiates it from the Willamette Valley AVA. Finally, TTB requested comments on whether the geographic features of the proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the Willamette Valley AVA that the proposed Van Duzer Corridor AVA should no longer be part of the established AVA. The comment period closed June 5, 2018.

In response to Notice No. 175, TTB received a total of 18 comments. Commenters included local residents, members of the wine industry, several vineyard employees, wine consultants, and consumers. All of the comments generally supported the establishment of the proposed Van Duzer Corridor AVA, with six of the commenters noting the effects of the proposed AVA's higher wind speeds on the grape skins. Four of the commenters also supported the establishment of the proposed Van Duzer Corridor AVA due to the marine sedimentary soils and the unique topography. None of the comments opposed the establishment of the proposed AVA.

TTB received one comment that supported the establishment of the proposed AVA, but the commenter also suggested “Salt Creek” as an “equally suitable” and “much more pleasant” name. However, TTB regulations require a proposed AVA name to be supported by evidence that demonstrates the name is currently used to refer to the proposed AVA. See § 9.12(a)(1). The commenter did not submit evidence of the current use of the name “Salt Creek” to refer to the region of the proposed AVA, nor did she provide any documentation refuting the evidence provided in the petition in support of the name “Van Duzer Corridor.” Therefore, TTB cannot determine that “Salt Creek” is a more appropriate name for the proposed AVA than “Van Duzer Corridor.”

Another comment asked if the word “corridor” could be omitted from the AVA name when used as an appellation of origin on wine labels. Section 9.12(a)(1) requires an AVA name to be supported by evidence of current use of the name to refer to the region. Because neither the commenter nor the petitioner provided name evidence that the area is simply known as “Van Duzer,” TTB cannot determine if “Van Duzer,” standing alone, would be an appropriate alternative name for the proposed AVA. As a result, TTB would only allow the full AVA name “Van Duzer Corridor” to be used as an appellation of origin on a wine label once the proposed AVA is established. However, TTB did not propose to designate the phrase “Van Duzer” as a term of viticultural significance with respect to this proposed AVA, since doing so could have an adverse effect on current labels that use “Van Duzer” as part of a brand name. Therefore, if the proposed AVA is established, the phrase “Van Duzer” (without the word “corridor”) may be used as a brand name or as part of a brand name on wine labels without having to meet the appellation of origin eligibility requirements for the Van Duzer Corridor viticultural area.

Because one of the established Eola-Amity Hills AVA boundaries is concurrent with the boundary of the proposed Van Duzer Corridor AVA, TTB also proposed in Notice No. 175 to clarify the description of portions of the Eola-Amity Hills AVA boundary. The clarifications were proposed to correct errors in the current description of the boundary. TTB received no comments on the proposed boundary clarifications during the public comment period for Notice No. 175. Therefore, TTB is proceeding with clarifying the description of the Eola-Amity Hills AVA boundary in this document.

The first boundary clarification concerns the description of the beginning point of the AVA boundary. The Eola-Amity Hills AVA boundary description shall now begin at the intersection of State Highway 22 and Rickreall Road instead of the intersection of State Highway 22 and 223, which is located west of the town of Rickreall, Oregon. TTB believes the erroneous description of the Eola-Amity Hills boundary beginning point resulted from a misreading of the markings for State Highway 223 on the Rickreall, Oregon map. TTB also believes that Oregon wine industry members always have understood the Eola-Amity Hills AVA boundary to begin at the intersection of State Highway 22 rather than at the currently-described beginning point. TTB notes that commercially-produced maps of the Eola-Amity Hills AVA show its boundary located at the intersection of State Highway 22 and Rickreall Road. For example, see the Eola-Amity Hills AVA maps posted at http://eolaamityhills.com/explore-our-region/regional-map/ and http://www.everyvine.com/wine-regions/region/Eola_-_Amity_Hills/.

Additionally, TTB is further amending the Eola-Amity Hills boundary descriptions for clarity. TTB is removing the word “township” from “township of Bethel” to add a more precise description of the point where the AVA's boundary intersects the 200-foot contour line, and to minimize confusion since Bethel appears on the Amity, Oregon Map as the name of a crossroads, not as the name of a political or geographic township. TTB is also clarifying the direction in which the Eola-Amity Hills AVA boundary proceeds along the 200-foot contour line from Oak Grove Road, to clarify the point at which that contour line intersects Zena Road, and to clarify that the boundary follows Zena Road for a short distance to its intersection with Oak Grove Road south of Bethel. TTB is also clarifying that the AVA boundary follows Frizzell Road to the road's first intersection with the 200-foot contour line. Lastly, TTB is clarifying that, in returning to the AVA's boundary's beginning point, the boundary crosses from the Amity, Oregon map onto the Rickreall, Oregon map. TTB believes the correction and clarifications will not affect the ability of any bottler to use the Eola-Amity Hills AVA name on a wine label.

After careful review of the petition and the comments received in response to Notice No. 175. TTB finds that the evidence provided by the petitioner supports the establishment of the Van Duzer Corridor AVA. Accordingly, under the authority of the FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and part 4 of the TTB regulations, TTB establishes the “Van Duzer Corridor” AVA in portions of Yamhill and Polk Counties, Oregon, effective 30 days from the publication date of this document.

TTB has also determined that the Van Duzer Corridor AVA will remain part of the established Willamette Valley AVA. As discussed in Notice No. 175, the proposed Van Duzer Corridor shares some broad characteristics with the established AVA. For example, elevations within the proposed AVA are below 1,000 feet, and the soils are primarily silty loams and clay loams. However, the proposed Van Duzer Corridor AVA's location at the eastern end of the only wind gap in the portion of the Coastal Ranges that borders the Willamette Valley AVA creates a unique microclimate with persistently high wind speeds and lower growing degree day accumulations. The grapes grown in the proposed AVA have different physical characteristics, such as thicker grape skins, and maturation rates than the same varietals grown in other parts of the Willamette Valley AVA.

See the narrative description of the boundary of the Van Duzer Corridor AVA in the regulatory text published at the end of this final rule.

The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the regulatory text.

Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.

With the establishment of this AVA, its name, “Van Duzer Corridor” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name “Van Duzer Corridor” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, will have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin. TTB is not designating the phrase “Van Duzer” as a term of viticultural significance, in order to avoid a potential negative effect on current labels that use “Van Duzer” as part of a brand name on wine labels. Therefore, if the proposed AVA is established, the phrase “Van Duzer” (without the word “corridor”) may be used as a brand name or as part of a brand name on wine labels without having to meet the appellation of origin eligibility requirements for the Van Duzer Corridor viticultural area.

The establishment of the Van Duzer Corridor AVA will not affect any existing AVA, and any bottlers using “Willamette Valley” as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes grown within the Willamette Valley AVA will not be affected by the establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the Van Duzer Corridor AVA will allow vintners to use “Van Duzer Corridor” and “Willamette Valley” as appellations of origin for wines made primarily from grapes grown within the Van Duzer Corridor AVA if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.

TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

It has been determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.

Kaori Flores of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this final rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PBGC's regulations on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) and Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribe actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for valuing and paying plan benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The interest assumptions in the regulations are also published on PBGC's website (http://www.pbgc.gov).

The interest assumptions in appendix B to part 4044 are used to value benefits for allocation purposes under ERISA section 4044. PBGC uses the interest assumptions in appendix B to part 4022 to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Appendix C to part 4022 contains interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using PBGC's historical methodology. Currently, the rates in appendices B and C of the benefit payment regulation are the same.

The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Assumptions under the asset allocation regulation are updated quarterly; assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for January 2019 and updates the asset allocation interest assumptions for the first quarter (January through March) of 2019.

The first quarter 2019 interest assumptions under the allocation regulation will be 3.09 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and 2.84 percent thereafter. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for the fourth quarter of 2018, these interest assumptions represent no change in the select period (the period during which the select rate (the initial rate) applies), an increase of 0.25 percent in the select rate, and an increase of 0.08 percent in the ultimate rate (the final rate).

The January 2019 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 1.50 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for December 2018, these interest assumptions represent no change in the immediate rate and no changes in i1, i2, or i3.

PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible.

Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation and payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during January 2019, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.

PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.

Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR parts 4022 and 4044 are amended as follows:

On August 23, 2018 (83 FR 42624), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Maryland. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of a revision to Maryland's SIP to clarify visible emissions (VE) and continuous opacity monitor (COM) requirements for MWCs and Portland cement plants. The formal SIP revision (SIP Revision 16-04) was submitted by Maryland on May 10, 2016. On February 28, 2018, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) Secretary Ben Grumbles submitted a clarification letter to EPA Regional Administrator Cosmo Servidio, withdrawing definitions for continuous burning and operating time, COMAR 26.11.01.01B(8-1) and (27-1), respectively, from SIP Revision 16-04. These definitions are no longer part of SIP Revision 16-04 and are not pending before EPA.

The SIP revision consisted of revisions to COMAR 26.11.01.10, Continuous Opacity Monitoring Requirements. Under COMAR 26.11.01.10A, Applicability and Exceptions, MDE added a new section, COMAR 26.11.01.10A(6), regarding requirements for alternative visible emissions limits. Under COMAR 26.11.01.10B, General Requirements for COMs, MDE amended COMAR 26.11.01.10B(3) to clarify that a COM must comply with the applicable requirements in 40 CFR part 51, appendix P in its entirety. Also under COMAR 26.11.01.10B, MDE added new sections COMAR 26.11.01.10B(5) and 26.11.01.10B(6) to clarify COM requirements for the owners and operators of cement kilns and clinker coolers that are operating COMs and the owners and operators of MWCs that are required to install and operate COMs, respectively. MDE repealed 26.11.01.10F, regarding redundant COMs requirements for fuel burning equipment, and is requesting its removal from the SIP. Finally, MDE amended COMAR 26.11.08, Control of Incinerators, to add a new section D to regulation .04, Visible Emissions.

EPA evaluated these amendments and found that they help to clarify requirements for COMs. Therefore, they are approvable. Other specific requirements of Maryland's SIP Revision 16-04 and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.

On September 1, 2018, EPA received adverse comments from one anonymous commenter.

Comment: The commenter observed that in the docket for this rulemaking, Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0490, at http://www.regulations.gov, Maryland's February 28, 2018 withdrawal letter looked incomplete.

EPA Response: Upon receipt of the comment, EPA checked and confirmed that the second page of the letter was inadvertently excluded from the docket. EPA notes that the substance of the letter was contained in the first page of the letter, which was included in the docket. The first page explained that Maryland was withdrawing the definitions of continuous burning and operating time from EPA's consideration as SIP revisions.

Although all the relevant substantive information was contained in the first page of the letter, which was include in the docket, EPA rectified the omission as quickly as possible. EPA posted Maryland's complete two-page letter, dated February 28, 2018, to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0490, at http://www.regulations.gov, on September 4, 2018. The public comment period ran from August 23, 2018 until September 24, 2018.

Comment: The commenter also stated that EPA's NPRM was hard to understand, writing, “I can't follow which COMAR applies to what COMAR because of what redundancies, changes, or what have you.”

EPA Response: There were numerous changes discussed in EPA's August 23, 2018 NPRM, which readers may find hard to follow. However, in section II of the NPRM, Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis, EPA set out a section by section accounting of the proposed changes to Maryland's SIP. In addition, in Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0490, at http://www.regulations.gov, there are numerous documents that are part of Maryland's SIP Revision submittal, which help to clarify the exact COMAR changes. These documents include the following attachments to document number EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0490-0002, which is Maryland's SIP revision submittal letter.

These regulatory changes are also described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth in this final rulemaking action.

EPA is approving Maryland's May 10, 2016 SIP Revision 16-04, except for the definitions of continuous burning and operating time that MDE withdrew from SIP Revision 16-04 on February 28, 2018, as a revision to the Maryland SIP. These revisions consist of amendments to Regulation .10 under COMAR 26.11.01, General and Administrative Provisions, and Regulation .04 under COMAR 26.11.08, Control of Incinerators, in Maryland's SIP Revision 16-04, related to COMs and VE requirements for cement plants and MWCs.

In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of MDE's amendments to Regulation .10 under COMAR 26.11.01, General and Administrative Provisions, and Regulation .04 under COMAR 26.11.08, Control of Incinerators, contained in SIP Revision 16-04. As described previously, the amendments to COMAR 26.11.01.10, Continuous Opacity Monitoring Requirements, are as follows: (1) Add a new section 6 to COMAR 26.11.01.10A, Applicability and Exceptions; (2) amend section 3 under COMAR 26.11.01.10B, General Requirements for COMs; (3) add new sections 5 and 6 under COMAR 26.11.01.10B; and (4) remove COMAR 26.11.01.10F, which has been repealed by the State. The amendment to COMAR 26.11.08, Control of Incinerators, consists of an addition of a new section D to Regulation .04, Visible Emissions. These regulatory changes are described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth in this final rulemaking action. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully Federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.1

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

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

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 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).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 12, 2019. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving Maryland SIP Revision 16-04, COMs requirements for MWCs and Cement Plants, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on August 10, 2018 (83 FR 39638), EPA proposed to approve the portions of Alabama's May 19, 2017, Georgia's November 29, 2017, and South Carolina's September 5, 2017, SIP revisions and the Title V program revisions addressing the public notice requirements for CAA permitting. The details of Alabama's, Georgia's, and South Carolina's submittals and the rationale for EPA's actions are explained in the NPRM and briefly summarized below. The comment period for the proposed rule closed on September 10, 2018, and EPA did not receive any adverse comments.

On October 5, 2016, EPA finalized revised public notice rule provisions for the NSR, Title V, and Outer Continental Shelf permitting programs of the CAA. See 81 FR 71613 (October 18, 2016). These rule revisions remove the mandatory requirement to provide public notice of a draft air permit through publication in a newspaper and allow for internet e-notice as an option for permitting authorities implementing their own EPA-approved SIP rules and Title V rules, such as the Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina EPA-approved programs. Permitting authorities are not required to adopt e-notice. Nothing in the final rules prevents a permitting authority of an EPA-approved permitting program from continuing to use newspaper notification and/or from supplementing e-notice with newspaper notification and/or additional means of notification. When e-notice is provided, EPA's rule requires electronic access (e-access) to the draft permit. Generally, state and local agencies intend to post the draft permits and public notices in a designated location on their agency websites. For the noticing of draft permits issued by permitting authorities with EPA-approved programs, the rule requires the permitting authority to use “a consistent noticing method” for all permit notices under the specific permitting program.

Alabama revised Chapter 335-3-14, Air Permits and Chapter 335-3-15, Synthetic Minor Operating Permits, and Chapter 335-3-16, Major Source Operating Permits, to incorporate EPA's amendments to the federal public notice regulations discussed above.

Georgia revised Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)1, Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, and Rule 391-3-1-.03(10), Title V Operating Permits, of Georgia's Rules for Air Quality Control, Chapter 391-3-1, to incorporate EPA's amendments to the federal public notice regulations, as discussed above.

South Carolina revised Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, and Regulation 61-62.70, Title V Operating Permit Program of the South Carolina Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards, to incorporate EPA's amendments to the federal public notice regulations discussed above.

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Alabama's Chapter 335-3-14, “Air Permits” at 335-3-14-.01, .04, and .05 and Chapter 335-3-15 “Synthetic Minor Operating Permits” at 335-3-15-.05, which address the public notice rule provisions for the NSR program, state effective December June 9, 2017; Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(7), Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, which addresses the public notice rule provisions for the NSR program, state effective July 20, 2017; and South Carolina Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration,” which address the public notice rule provisions for the NSR program, state effective August 25, 2017.1 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.2

EPA is approving the portions of Alabama's May 19, 2017, Georgia's November 29, 2017, and South Carolina's September 5, 2017, SIP revisions and the Title V program revisions addressing the public notice requirements for CAA permitting. EPA has concluded that the States' submissions meet the plan revisions requirements of CAA section 110 and the SIP requirements of 40 CFR 51.161, 51.165, and 51.166, as well as the public notice and revisions requirements of 40 CFR 70.4 and 70.7.

In reviewing SIP and Title V submissions, EPA's role is to approve such submissions, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations. These actions merely approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these actions:

• Are not significant regulatory actions 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);

• Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory actions because the actions are not significant under Executive Order 12866;

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

• Are 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.);

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

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

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

• Are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Are 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

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

The SIPs subject to these actions, with the exception of the South Carolina SIP, are not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rules regarding SIPs do not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will they impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. With respect to the South Carolina SIP, EPA notes that the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the boundary of York County, South Carolina, and pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, “all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.” Thus, the South Carolina SIP applies to the Catawba Reservation; however, because the action related to South Carolina is merely modifying public notice provisions for certain types of air permits issued by SC DHEC, EPA has determined that there are no substantial direct effects on the Catawba Indian Nation. EPA has also determined that the action related to South Carolina's SIP will not impose any substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

Furthermore, the rules regarding Title V Operating Permit programs do not have tribal implications because they are not approved to apply to any source of air pollution over which an Indian Tribe has jurisdiction, nor will these rules impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 12, 2019. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

The information in this section is organized as follows:

A delisting petition is a request from a generator to exclude waste from the list of hazardous wastes under RCRA regulations. In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that waste generated at a particular facility does not meet any of the criteria for which EPA listed the waste as set forth in 40 CFR 261.11 and the background document for the waste. In addition, a petitioner must demonstrate that the waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (that is, ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and must present sufficient information for us to decide whether factors other than those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a hazardous waste. See 40 CFR 260.22, Section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f) and the background documents for a listed waste.

A generator of a waste excluded from the hazardous waste lists of 40 CFR part 261 subpart D remains obligated under RCRA to confirm that its waste remains nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics in order to continue to manage the waste as non-hazardous. See 40 CFR 260.22(c)(4).

Under 40 CFR 260.20, 260.22, and 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), facilities may petition the EPA to remove their wastes from hazardous waste storage and treatment requirements by excluding them from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, 40 CFR 260.20 allows any person to petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of 40 CFR parts 260 through 266, 268, and 27340 CFR 260.22 provides a generator the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste from the lists of hazardous wastes on a “generator specific” basis.

On April 27, 2018, Sandvik petitioned the EPA to exclude an annual volume of up to 1,500 cubic yards of F006 wastewater treatment sludges generated at its facility located in Kennewick, Washington from the list of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31. F006 is defined in 40 CFR 261.31 as “Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations . . .” Sandvik claims that the petitioned waste does not meet the criteria for which F006 was listed (i.e., cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel and complexed cyanide) and that there are no other factors which would cause the waste to be a hazardous waste.

Sandvik conducted a detailed chemical analysis of their WWTF sludge according to a written sampling and analysis plan (SAP), provided as Attachment 2 to the delisting petition. Sandvik also asserted in its analysis that its waste does not meet the criteria for which F006 waste was listed and there are no other factors that might cause the waste to be a hazardous waste.

To support its assertion that the waste should be excluded, Sandvik collected numerous samples of the waste for analysis as documented in the preamble to the EPA's proposed delisting rulemaking. The EPA assessed Sandvik's data presented in the petition with respect to its intended use, and found the data were of sufficient quality and quantity to satisfy delisting decision criteria.

Today the EPA is finalizing an exclusion for up to 1,500 cubic yards of wastewater treatment sludge generated annually at the Sandvik facility in Kennewick, Washington. Sandvik petitioned EPA to exclude, or delist, the wastewater treatment sludge because Sandvik believed that the petitioned waste does not meet the criteria for which it was listed and that there are no additional constituents or factors which could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste. Review of this petition included consideration of the original listing criteria, as well as the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2) through (4).

The EPA proposed on September 12, 2018 (83 FR 46126) to exclude or delist the wastewater treatment sludge generated at Sandvik's facility from the list of hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.31 and accepted public comment on the proposed rulemaking. The EPA considered all comments received, and for reasons stated in both the proposal and this document, has determined that the wastewater treatment sludge from Sandvik's facility should be excluded from hazardous waste control.

The EPA received six public comments on the proposed rulemaking. Three of these comments supported the EPA's proposed exclusion (comments 0020, 0021 and 0023). Comment 0020 did raise a concern regarding the effect of the proposed delisting on residents of Kennewick. The EPA appreciates this concern, noting that the analysis supporting the proposed exclusion clearly documents that management of Sandvik's waste under the exclusion will be fully protective of residents both Kennewick, Washington and any solid waste landfill that may receive Sandvik's delisted waste. Comment 21 suggested that annual verification sampling and analysis could be done more frequently. Based on documentation provided by Sandvik regarding the highly-regulated nature of Sandvik's production process that is expected to result in the petitioned waste to remain largely consistent over time, the EPA does not believe that a requirement to perform verification sampling and analysis more frequently than annually is warranted.

One commenter (comment 0022) raised questions concerning glass recycling not relevant to the proposed exclusion.

Two comments recommended that the EPA perform additional analysis before finalizing the proposed exclusion. Comment 0019 stated that more research is needed regarding the effects of arsenic groundwater contamination, and on the direction of groundwater from the receiving landfill. This commenter also requested that the sludge be tested for the characteristics of ignitability, reactivity and corrosivity. Sandvik used the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) model to develop and document compliance with delisting criteria on a constituent-specific basis, including arsenic. The DRAS model reflects established science and policy regarding multipath analysis including groundwater. The results of this modeling indicate to the EPA that no additional research is needed prior to finalization of the requested exclusion. Regarding the commenter's question regarding the direction of groundwater flow from the receiving landfill, EPA does not exercise direct control over a receiving landfill through the delisting process. Rather, the EPA specifies as a condition of this delisting that the receiving landfill be licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized by a state as a municipal solid waste landfill subject to 40 CFR part 258, or non-municipal, non-hazardous industrial waste landfill subject to 40 CFR 257.5 through 257.30. The EPA has added clarifying language to this effect in Condition 2 of this exclusion. This ensures that questions such as the direction of groundwater flow and appropriate groundwater monitoring of the receiving landfill are appropriately considered through state approval of the receiving landfill. The EPA has determined that this approach is fully protective of human health and the environment with respect to the receiving landfill's acceptance of wastes excluded under today's action. Finally, Federal delisting regulations clearly state that candidate wastes cannot exhibit a hazardous characteristic. Sandvik's petition documents compliance with this requirement based on data characterizing the waste as of the date of Sandvik's petition, and conditions of the final exclusion ensure future compliance with this requirement.

Comment 24 stated that the proposed rule should not go into effect without an independent evaluation of the waste water sought to be excluded, and that it is inappropriate to rely on the evaluation of the petitioner alone. The EPA has performed an extensive and detailed review of Sandvik's petition, providing exactly the independent analysis requested by the commenter. The EPA does not believe further independent analysis of Sandvik's petition is necessary or warranted.

The EPA also received comments from the Washington State Department of Ecology. In addition to editorial and clarification suggestions, Ecology requested more specific language regarding the scope of solid waste landfills eligible to receive wastes managed under this exclusion, and requested a condition be added requiring Sandvik to provide Ecology with a copy of verification data generated pursuant to this exclusion. The EPA has included revised language that better defines those solid waste landfills eligible to receive wastes managed under this exclusion, and that requires Sandvik to provide Ecology with a copy of verification data.

Sandvik must dispose of this waste in a subtitle D landfill licensed, permitted or otherwise authorized by a state, and will remain obligated to verify that the waste meets the allowable concentrations set forth here. Sandvik must also continue to determine that the waste does not exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous waste in 40 CFR part 261 subpart C. This exclusion applies only to a maximum annual volume of 1,500 cubic yards per calendar year and is effective only if all conditions contained in this rule are satisfied. Should Sandvik generate candidate wastes in excess of this quantity, they must be managed as hazardous waste. Sandvik may not apply such excess amount to the 1500 cubic yard limit of the following year.

This rule is effective December 14, 2018. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6930(b)(1), to allow rules to become effective in less than six months when the regulated community does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. This rule reduces rather than increases the existing requirements and, therefore, is effective immediately upon publication under the Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

Today's exclusion is being issued under the Federal RCRA delisting program. Therefore, only states subject to Federal RCRA delisting provisions would be affected. This exclusion is not effective in states that have received authorization to make their own delisting decisions. Also, the exclusion may not be effective in states having a dual system that includes Federal RCRA requirements and their own requirements. The EPA allows states to impose their own regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under Section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a provision that prohibits a federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the state. As noted in the proposed rule preamble, the Washington State Department of Ecology is expected to make a parallel decision under their separate state authority. The EPA also notes that if Sandvik transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any state with delisting authorization or their own state-only delisting requirements, it must obtain a delisting from that state before it can manage the waste as nonhazardous in that state. The EPA urges the petitioner to contact the state regulatory authority in each state to or through which it may wish to ship its waste to establish the status of its wastes under the state's laws.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget because it is a rule of particular applicability, not general applicability. The action approves a delisting petition under RCRA for the petitioned waste at a particular facility.

This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. This final rule provides meaningful burden reduction by allowing the petitioner to manage an estimated annual quantity of 1,500 cubic yards of residual solids a year under RCRA Subtitle D management standards rather than the more stringent RCRA Subtitle C standards. This action will significantly reduce the costs associated with the on-site management, transportation and disposal of this waste stream by shifting its management from RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste management to RCRA Subtitle D nonhazardous waste management.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it only applies to a particular facility.

Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provision of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no new enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

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

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action applies only to a particular facility on non-tribal land. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The health and safety risks of the petitioned waste were evaluated using the EPA's Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS), which considers health and safety risks to children. Use of the DRAS is described in section III.E of the proposed delisting. The technical support document and the user's guide for DRAS are available at https://www.epa.gov/hw/hazardous-waste-delisting-risk-assessment-software-dras.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not involve technical standards as described by the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The EPA has determined that this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The EPA's risk assessment, as described in section III.E in the proposed delisting, did not identify unacceptable risks from management of this material in an authorized or permitted RCRA Subtitle D solid waste landfill (e.g. municipal solid waste landfill or commercial/industrial solid waste landfill). Therefore, the EPA believes that any populations in proximity of the landfills used by this facility should not be adversely affected by common waste management practices for this delisted waste.

This action is exempt from the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) because it is a rule of particular applicability.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended as follows: