Federal Register Vol. 83, No.68,

I. Background and Summary of the Proposed Rule

In July 2017, the agencies invited comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking (proposal or proposed rule) 1 that would amend the agencies' appraisal regulations promulgated pursuant to Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (Title XI).2 Specifically, the proposal would have increased the monetary threshold at or below which financial institutions that are regulated by the agencies (regulated institutions) would not be required to obtain appraisals in connection with commercial real estate transactions (commercial real estate appraisal threshold) from $250,000 to $400,000. The proposal followed the completion in early 2017 of the regulatory review process required by the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act (EGRPRA).3 During the EGRPRA process, the agencies received numerous comments related to the Title XI appraisal regulations, including recommendations to increase the thresholds at or below which transactions are exempt from the Title XI appraisal requirements. Among other proposals developed through the EGRPRA process, the agencies recommended increasing the commercial real estate appraisal threshold to $400,000.4

Title XI directs each federal financial institutions regulatory agency 5 to publish appraisal regulations for federally related transactions within its jurisdiction. The purpose of Title XI is to protect federal financial and public policy interests 6 in real estate-related transactions by requiring that real estate appraisals used in connection with federally related transactions (Title XI appraisals) be performed in accordance with uniform standards, by individuals whose competency has been demonstrated, and whose professional conduct will be subject to effective supervision.7

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD No. 2018-0050-E, dated March 2, 2018 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for XtremeAir GmbH Model XA42 airplanes. The MCAI states:

XtremeAir GmbH has issued XtremeAir Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-XA42-2018-006, Issue A.00, dated March 2, 2018. The service information describes procedures for inspection of the engine mount for cracks and replacement of the engine mount if necessary. 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 of the AD.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the AD

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

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because cracking of the engine mount frame could lead to in-flight detachment of the engine and result in loss of control. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0284; Directorate Identifier 2018-CE-014-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD will affect 13 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about .5 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $552.50, or $42.50 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 24 work-hours and require parts costing $5,000, for a cost of $7,040.00 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES D, E, F, and G airplanes; and certain Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 24, 2017 (82 FR 49151) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of the collapse of the main landing gear on touchdown. The NPRM proposed to require an electrical modification of the landing gear sequence logic. We are issuing this AD to prevent MLG collapse, which could result in damage to the airplane and injury to the occupants.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0130, dated July 26, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES D, E, F, and G airplanes; and certain Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 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-2017-0908.

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 AD 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 correcting 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 F20-676, Revision 1, dated March 4, 1998. This service information describes procedures for an electrical modification of the MLG sequence logic to prevent landing gear collapse on touchdown. 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 308 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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 747-8 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 2, 2018 (83 FR 80). The NPRM was prompted by a report of restricted movement of the right brake pedals after landing rollout. The NPRM proposed to require revising the AFM by adding an autobrake system limitation. The NPRM also proposed to require modifying intercostal webs near a main entry door, which would terminate the AFM limitation revision. We are issuing this AD to prevent restricted motion of the brake pedals, which can affect stopping performance and directional control of the airplane. This restricted motion can lead to high speed runway excursion or lateral runway excursion.

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

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment 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.

We reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-32A2525 RB, dated September 6, 2017. This service information describes procedures for modifying intercostal webs near main entry door 3 by drilling two drain holes in the station-18 intercostal web at door stop 8 and applying sealant at the fore-aft drain path of the upper main sill web at station 16 near door 3R and door 3L. 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 2 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the aviation authority for New Zealand, has issued CAA AD DCA/750XL/26, dated February 28, 2018 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. The MCAI states:

Pacific Aerospace Limited has issued Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/085, Issue 1, dated January 8, 2018. The service information describes procedures for removal of the rudder and elevator drive shaft couplings and replacement with new couplings to ensure proper engagement of the drive ends. 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 of the AD.

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

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because if the rudder and/or elevator trim drive couplings become disconnected and the rudder and elevator trim systems will become inoperable, which increases the workload for the pilot. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0285; Directorate Identifier 2018-CE-010-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD will affect 22 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $400 per product.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $20,020, or $910 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 13, 2017 (82 FR 42953) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a report of a smoke-in-cabin event due to a non-sustaining electrical fire. The NPRM proposed to require installation of protective sleeves on the bonding jumper wires of affected galleys and lavatories. We are issuing this AD to prevent an electrical short of a bonding jumper wire that may result in in-flight smoke or fire events, as well as failure of avionics equipment, due to possible water spray or leakage from a damaged water supply line.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2016-20R1, dated February 3, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) 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-2017-0810.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We considered the comment received. The Air Line Pilots Association, International supported the NPRM.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD 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 correcting the unsafe condition; and

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

Bombardier, Inc., has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-25-101, Revision B, dated January 12, 2017. The service information describes procedures for installation of protective sleeves on the bonding jumper wires of affected galleys and lavatories. 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 544 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 to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

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

Discussion

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0058, dated March 14, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A350-941 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0269.

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A350-27-P021, dated February 13, 2018. The service information describes performing repetitive SPPU calibration tests, and applying the corresponding airplane fault isolation if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

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

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because malfunctions of the SPPU and failures of the internal wiring due to water ingress via certain electrical connectors can induce icing, which under certain conditions, could lead to in-flight detachment of the outer flap surface, and consequent damage to the airplane. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0269; Product Identifier 2018-NM-051-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on those comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (83 FR 5707; February 9, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2016-9559 modifying Class D airspace at Spirit of St. Louis Airport, St. Louis, MO; Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Cape Girardeau Regional Airport, Cape Girardeau, MO, and Spirit of St. Louis Airport; Class E airspace designated as an extension at Cape Girardeau Regional Airport; and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Cape Girardeau Regional Airport, Spirit of St. Louis Airport, and Macon-Fower Memorial Airport, Macon, MO. A typographical error was made in the geographic coordinates for the St. Louis Lambert International Runway 30L Localizer listed in the legal description of Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for St. Louis, MO. This action corrects this error.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the Federal Register of February 9, 2018 (83 FR 5707) FR Doc. 2018-02139, Amendment of Class D and E Airspace for the Following Missouri Towns; Cape Girardeau, MO; St. Louis, MO; and Macon, MO, is corrected as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On September 26, 1979, USTR's predecessor, the Office of the Special Representative for Trade Negotiations, published a rule to establish policies and procedures for the security classification, downgrading, declassification, and safeguarding on national security information. See 44 FR 55328-331. The rule, codified at 15 CFR part 2008, is based on a superseded Executive Order, and has never been updated. USTR recently issued Classification Guidance based on current legal and policy requirements. The Guidance sets out the policies and procedures for classifying, downgrading, and declassifying national security information and provides for the protection of USTR information and its availability to authorized users. USTR will update the guidance as necessary to reflect changes to the governing Executive Order, currently Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009, Classified National Security Information, and implementing rules issued by the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) (32 CFR part 2001). The Guidance is available on the USTR website: https://ustr.gov/about-us/reading-room/declassification-program.

USTR finds good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment, and to make the rule effective immediately, because it removes an obsolete regulation that USTR has replaced with current guidance. Public input is not necessary and delaying codification is not in the public interest. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3). The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) does not apply to this final rule since prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required.

The final rule does not contain any information collection requirement that requires the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

I. Stakeholder Meetings

MSHA will hold six public meetings to inform and educate the mining community on the requirements of the Metal and Nonmetal Examinations of Working Places final rule, which is effective June 2, 2018. At the meetings, MSHA will provide training and compliance assistance materials to attendees. The public meetings will begin at 9 a.m. and end not later than 5 p.m., on the following dates at the locations indicated:

On January 23, 2017, the Mine Safety and Health Administration published a final rule (January 2017 rule) amending the standards then in effect on examinations of working places in metal and nonmetal mines, 30 CFR 56.18002 and 57.18002 (82 FR 7680). The January 2017 final rule, which was scheduled to become effective on May 23, 2017, was stayed until June 2, 2018 (82 FR 46411). On September 12, 2017, MSHA published a proposed rule that would make limited changes to the January 2017 final rule (82 FR 42765). The final rule, which is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, is effective on June 2, 2018.

Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Regulatory History B. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771 Summary II. Regulatory Procedures III. Section-by-Section Analysis IV. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review; and Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs V. Feasibility VI. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act and Executive Order 13272: Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking VII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 VIII. Other Regulatory Considerations Availability of Information

Federal Register Publications: Access rulemaking documents electronically at http://www.msha.gov/regsinfo.htm or http://www.regulations.gov [Docket Number: MSHA-2014-0030]. Obtain a copy of a rulemaking document from the Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, by request to 202-693-9440 (voice) or 202-693-9441 (facsimile). (These are not toll-free numbers.)

Email Notification: MSHA maintains a list that enables subscribers to receive an email notification when the Agency publishes rulemaking documents in the Federal Register. To subscribe, go to http://www.msha.gov/subscriptions/subscribe.aspx.

Under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), mine operators, with the assistance of miners, have the primary responsibility to prevent the existence of unsafe and unhealthful conditions and practices. Operator compliance with safety and health standards and implementation of safe work practices provide a substantial measure of protection against hazards that cause accidents, injuries, and fatalities. Effective working place examinations are a fundamental accident prevention tool used by operators of metal and nonmetal (MNM) mines. They allow operators to identify and correct adverse conditions that may affect the safety and health of miners and violations of safety and health standards before they cause injury or death to miners.

MSHA's final rule makes changes to §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a), § 56.18002(b) and (c), and § 57.18002(b) and (c) as amended by the Agency's final rule on examinations of working places that was published on January 23, 2017 (January 2017 rule) (82 FR 7680 at 7695). MSHA's changes to §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) require that a competent person examine each working place at least once each shift before work begins, or as miners begin work in that place, for conditions that may adversely affect safety or health. This final rule also amends §§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) to require that the working place examination record include a description of each condition found that may adversely affect the safety or health of miners and is not corrected promptly. Lastly, MSHA's final rule makes a conforming change and amends §§ 56.18002(c) and 57.18002(c) to require that when a condition that may adversely affect the safety or health of miners is not corrected promptly, the examination record shall include, or be supplemented to include, the date of the corrective action.

This final rule does not address longstanding concepts, definitions in existing MNM standards, and clarifications related to competent person, working place, promptly, and adverse conditions, as noted in the preamble to the January 2017 rule.

After consideration of comments received on the September 12, 2017 notice of proposed rulemaking, the Agency concludes that the final rule will reduce the regulatory burden and increase flexibility for mine operators without reducing protections for miners and is consistent with the Administration's initiatives to reduce and control regulatory costs.

On January 23, 2017, MSHA published a final rule, Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines, amending the Agency's standards for the examinations of working places in MNM mines, 30 CFR 56.18002 and 57.18002 (82 FR 7680). The January 2017 rule was scheduled to become effective on May 23, 2017. On May 22, 2017, MSHA published a final rule delaying the effective date to October 2, 2017 (82 FR 23139).

On September 12, 2017, MSHA proposed to further delay the effective date of the final rule from October 2, 2017 to March 2, 2018 (82 FR 42765). On October 5, 2017, MSHA published a final rule that stayed the amendment from the January 2017 rule until June 2, 2018 (82 FR 46411). Also, the October 5, 2017 final rule reinstated, as 30 CFR 56.18002T and 57.18002T, the provisions of the working place examination standards that were in effect as of October 1, 2017; these temporary provisions expire June 2, 2018 (82 FR 46411). (Sections 56.18002T and 57.18002T are subsequently referenced in this document as the “standards in effect”.) Also, on September 12, 2017, MSHA proposed a limited reopening of the rulemaking record for the January 2017 rule and proposed amendments to the January 2017 rule. The proposed changes that MSHA published for comment were limited to: (1) When working place examinations must begin; and (2) the adverse conditions and corrective actions that must be included in the working place examinations record (82 FR 42757). Specifically, MSHA proposed amending the introductory text of §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) to require that an examination of a working place be conducted before work begins, or as miners begin work in that place. The Agency also proposed amending §§ 56.18002(b) and (c) and 57.18002(b) and (c) to require that the examination record include descriptions of adverse conditions that are not corrected promptly, and the dates of corrective action. MSHA held four public hearings from October 24, 2017, to November 2, 2017, at various locations, to provide the members of the public an opportunity to present their views on the limited proposed changes. These hearings were held in Arlington, Virginia; Salt Lake City, Utah; Birmingham, Alabama; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The comment period for the proposed limited changes closed on November 13, 2017.

Based on its evaluation of the costs and benefits, MSHA has determined that this final rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy and, therefore, will not be an economically significant regulatory action pursuant to section 3(f) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. MSHA estimates that the total undiscounted costs (using 2016 dollars) of the final rule over a 10-year period will be approximately -$276 million, -$235.4 million at a 3 percent rate, and -$193.8 million at a 7 percent rate. The same annual cost savings occur in each of the 10 years so the cost annualized over 10 years will be approximately -$27.6 million for all discount rates. This final rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Negative cost values are cost savings that result in a positive net benefit. MSHA estimates that this final rule results in annual cost savings of $27.6 million. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.

On October 5, 2017, MSHA published a final rule staying the amendments from the January 2017 rule and temporarily reinstating the working place examinations standards that were in effect as of October 1, 2017, until June 2, 2018 (82 FR 46411). MSHA is confirming that both the stay and temporary provisions expire June 2, 2018.

After further review of the rulemaking record in the September 12, 2017 Federal Register notice of proposed rulemaking, MSHA requested comments and information from the mining community only on the limited changes in the proposed rule—that is the timing of the working place examination and the recording of adverse conditions and corrective action dates in the examination record—and how these proposed changes may affect the safety and health of miners. MSHA also solicited comments on cost and benefit estimates presented in the preamble to the proposed rule and on the data and assumptions the Agency used to develop these estimates. This included the Agency's assumptions on the number of instances adverse conditions are promptly corrected, and time saved by not requiring these corrected conditions to be included in the record.

MSHA received many comments related to issues other than those that were proposed. For example, commenters indicated that amendments to standards in effect are not needed or are not justified. Many stated the working place examination standards in effect which have been in effect since 1979 are sufficient and effective in identifying and correcting conditions that may adversely affect the safety and health of miners and in reducing accidents and injuries in the work place. In some cases, commenters suggested alternatives that included, for example, better mine and miner training, and work place inspection programs and plans.

MSHA has not considered or addressed comments on issues other than those proposed because they are outside the scope of this rulemaking. The Agency's purpose for the limited reopening of the rulemaking record for the January 2017 rule, and for issuing a proposed rule, was to reconsider issues related to the timing of the examination and the recording of adverse conditions and corrective actions in the examination record.

Many commenters generally indicated that the changes in the proposed rule were improvements to the January 2017 rule, but several expressed concerns that the proposal did not go far enough in reducing mine operators' regulatory and cost burdens. Some also maintained that the proposal would not increase miners' protections at MNM mines, but would increase mine operators' administrative and paperwork burdens.

One commenter stated that the proposed changes offer additional flexibility for operators to manage their safety and health programs more efficiently, while reducing burden without compromising miners' safety and health.

MSHA agrees that the proposed changes to the January 2017 rule would reduce mine operators' burdens without compromising the safety and health of miners. Under the final rule, like the proposal, mine operators will have more flexibility on when to conduct their working place examinations. Furthermore, compared to the January 2017 rule, the examination record will be less burdensome for operators since only those adverse conditions that are not corrected promptly, and dates of corrective actions for those conditions, must be included in the record. MSHA concludes that the final rule changes will reduce the regulatory burden and provide operators flexibility, without reducing the safety and health protections afforded miners.

This final rule, consistent with the proposed rule, amends the introductory text of §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) and requires a competent person to examine each working place at least once each shift before work begins or as miners begin work in that place for conditions that may adversely affect safety or health. This final rule amends the January 2017 provisions to allow miners to enter a working place at the same time that the competent person conducts the examination. The January 2017 rule required the examination of each working place to be conducted before miners begin work in that place.

Many commenters, including some who stated the proposed change to the timing of the examination is an improvement, stated that the proposed rule continues to unnecessarily constrain when operators can conduct their examinations. The reasons commenters gave included that shifts vary and that circumstances and conditions often change during the shift. Some commenters expressed concern that operators need flexibility to conduct examinations at any time during the shift as circumstances dictate, particularly to address changing conditions and hazards that can occur at any time throughout the shift. One of these commenters stated that requiring work place exams to be performed before miners begin working implicitly means that exams would take place before conditions start to change. One commenter commented that, generally, it is a good practice to conduct the exam before anybody enters the work area, whether at the start of the shift or later in the day. This same commenter acknowledged that unsafe conditions can occur throughout the shift and that operators are not relieved from their ongoing obligation to provide a safe and healthy work environment under the Mine Act simply because a work place exam was done. Another commenter stated that the industry's existing practice of conducting these examinations during the shift constitutes a best safety practice. According to the commenter, operators know their work processes best, and are in the best position to tailor their examination practices to occur at a time that would provide the maximum safety benefit to miners. The majority of commenters expressed their support for retaining the standards in effect which, as previously noted in this preamble, is not within the scope of this rulemaking.

In response to commenters' concerns, MSHA does not believe this final rule restricts operators' ability to conduct their examinations, or restricts their ability to conduct as many examinations as they need, depending on work place conditions. The final rule provides operators more flexibility in scheduling examinations than the January 2017 rule. Rather than requiring that examinations occur only before work begins in a working place, the final rule provides the option for a competent person to perform the examination at the same time that miners begin working in that place. With this option available, operators will be better able to manage work schedules to comply with examination requirements without incurring additional costs and burden.

In addition, MSHA recognizes that mining operations have dynamic work environments where conditions are always changing. For that reason, mine operators and miners need to be aware of conditions that may occur at any time that could affect the safety and health of miners. The final rule requires that examinations be conducted at least once per shift before work begins or as miners begin work in that place. As a best practice, operators should perform examinations, consistent with what one commenter stated, to identify and correct adverse conditions as they occur throughout the shift. Other commenters indicated that their companies' practices already include work place examinations that continue during the shift.

Furthermore, as stated in the preamble to the January 2017 rule, MSHA acknowledges that for mines with consecutive shifts or those that operate on a 24-hour, 365-day basis, it may be appropriate to conduct the examination for the next shift at the end of the previous shift (82 FR 7683). In these cases, MSHA will continue to permit mine operators to conduct an examination on the previous shift. However, as MSHA stated in the January 2017 rule, because conditions at mines can change, operators should examine at a time sufficiently close to the start of the next shift to minimize miners' potential exposure to conditions that may adversely affect their safety or health.

One commenter noted that the change in the proposed rule to allow workers to enter an area at the same time as the competent person does not consider the geographic differences between surface and underground mines and how surface mine supervision differs between the two. The commenter explained that in many cases, due to the geographic locations of crews starting at a surface mine, a competent person would not be able to examine all areas of the mine where several crews of miners would be starting work at the same time.

As indicated in the preamble to the January 2017 rule, it is not MSHA's intent that the mine operator examine the entire mine, unless work is beginning in the entire mine. An examination is only required in those areas where work will be performed. If miners are not scheduled for work in a particular area or place at the mine, that place does not need to be examined.

MSHA also recognizes that there are mines where several crews start work at the same time in different areas of the mine. The competent person designation is not restricted to supervisors and foremen. If designated by the operator as having the required experience and ability, a non-supervisory miner on the crew starting work also may be “competent” to conduct the examination. MSHA believes that existing requirements for competent persons provide flexibility for operators while requiring the level of competency necessary to conduct adequate examinations.

Some commenters did not support the proposed changes stating that allowing examinations as miners begin work in a potentially hazardous area would be less protective than the January 2017 amendments; one commenter stated the proposed revision is contrary to Section 101(a)(9) of the Mine Act. The commenters supported implementing the January 2017 requirement that the examination must occur before miners begin work in a working place. One commenter further questioned how sending miners into their work place before an examination has been conducted can be safer than identifying those hazards beforehand, correcting them, and informing the miners of such hazards before they begin their work. This commenter stated that examinations are particularly effective in the discovery and correction of hazardous conditions and practices before they lead to injuries or fatalities, that is, if they are conducted before miners are exposed. The commenter further stated the standard should not be changed to allow examinations after miners are already exposed. Another commenter did not support the changes, describing them as cutbacks in safety regulations, stating that lives will be lost and that the money saved is insignificant.

While this final rule allows miners to enter a working place at the same time a competent person examines for adverse conditions, as stated in the preamble to the January 2017 rule, MSHA intends for adverse conditions to be identified and miner notification provided before miners are potentially exposed to the conditions. Under this final rule, a competent person will identify adverse conditions that can be corrected promptly and the operator will be responsible for correcting them. Miners will be promptly notified of adverse conditions found that cannot be corrected promptly, and operators will be required to include them in the examination record. This final rule, like the January 2017 rule, will promote early identification and improve communication of adverse conditions. MSHA believes that prudent operators will correct many adverse conditions as competent persons perform examinations, or as soon as possible after the completion of examinations. For these reasons, MSHA concludes that the requirements in this final rule are as protective as those in the January 2017 rule. Under this final rule, adverse conditions will be identified and miners will be notified of those adverse conditions that are not promptly corrected, before they are potentially exposed.

Also, this final rule, like the January 2017 rule, does not require a specific time frame for the examination to be conducted. However, whether conducted before work begins in a working place or as work begins in that place, the examination should be conducted within a time frame sufficient to assure any adverse conditions would be identified before miners are potentially exposed.

Some commenters supported the option to allow examinations to be performed as miners begin work in a working place. One commenter noted that it is best to train miners to perform examinations of their own working areas, and thus appropriate to allow examinations as they begin work. Another commenter stated that the change would maintain safe working conditions and provide sufficient flexibility for operators to conduct an examination while not interrupting the transition of shifts. This commenter pointed out that if only a pre-shift exam were required, as in the January 2017 rule, the start of the shift would be delayed to provide time for completion of the exam and communication of adverse conditions, or require personnel to arrive before the shift, resulting in overtime pay and/or delay of work.

The final rule allows mine operators to perform examinations at the same time miners begin work. This provides operators with additional flexibility in scheduling working place examinations.

Sections 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b), like the proposal, require mine operators to make a record of the working place examination and to include, among other information, a description of each condition found that may adversely affect the safety or health of miners that is not corrected promptly. The January 2017 rule required that each adverse condition be listed in the examination record. This final rule reduces the mine operator's recordkeeping burden by requiring that the examination record include only a description of each adverse condition that is not corrected promptly. A similar conforming change to §§ 56.18002(c) and 57.18002(c) requires that the examination record include the dates of corrective actions for only those adverse conditions that are not corrected promptly. In response to comments, the Agency concludes that providing a mine operator an exception to the recordkeeping requirement for conditions that are corrected promptly provides increased incentive to correct conditions promptly, without reducing protections for miners' safety and health. The Agency also believes that this action will likely result in operators' correcting adverse conditions more quickly, and thereby improving protections for miners.

Consistent with the explanation in the preamble to the January 2017 rule regarding miner notification requirements in §§ 56.18002(a)(1) and 57.18002(a)(1), MSHA interprets promptly to mean before miners are potentially exposed to adverse conditions. In the preamble, MSHA stated that if adverse conditions in the work area are corrected before miners are potentially exposed, notification is not necessary because no miners are exposed to the adverse conditions. Similarly, an adverse condition that is corrected promptly no longer presents a danger to miners, and a description of the adverse condition would not be required as part of the examination record. Similarly, if an adverse condition is not promptly corrected, the mine operator must notify miners and record it in the examination record.

In addition, the purpose of the working place examinations rulemaking is to ensure that adverse conditions will be timely identified, communicated to miners, and corrected, thereby improving miners' safety and health. This final rule reduces the mine operator's recordkeeping burden but does not reduce the protections afforded miners under the January 2017 rule. Consistent with industry best practices, and with comments, MSHA recognizes that prudent mine operators routinely correct many adverse conditions during the examination, or as soon as possible after the completion of the working place examination, and that the corrective action may be taken by the competent person or someone else. For these reasons, the final rule requires the mine operator to record only those conditions that are not promptly corrected and that may expose miners to adverse conditions affecting their safety and health.

In the preamble to the January 2017 rule, MSHA explained that recording all adverse conditions, even those that are corrected promptly, would be useful in identifying trends and areas that could benefit from an increased safety emphasis. While this may be true, MSHA also believes that a recording exception for adverse conditions that are corrected promptly will yield as much or more in safety benefits, because it encourages prompt correction of adverse conditions.

Some commenters opposed the proposed changes to the examination record provisions and expressed their support for implementing requirements of the January 2017 rule. These commenters suggested that all adverse conditions identified during a working place examination must be recorded to encourage mine operators to explore the possible causes of those conditions and to take appropriate corrective actions.

Consistent with the purpose of the January 2017 rule, amending §§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) reduces the mine operator's burden in recording each adverse condition and encourages prompt correction by requiring that the record include only those conditions that are not corrected promptly and may affect the safety and health of miners.

Most commenters, however, were generally receptive to the proposed changes to the examination record requirements. They expressed that the changes were an improvement over the January 2017 rule and provided more flexibility for operators. Some noted that many adverse conditions are found and corrected during the examination. Others pointed out that requiring all adverse conditions be recorded in the examination record would overwhelm the record with minor housekeeping issues, and the proposed change would reduce the regulatory burden on the operator. Another commenter stated that removing the requirement to record all adverse conditions will provide an incentive for operators to take corrective actions immediately.

MSHA agrees with these commenters and concludes that requiring mine operators to record only those adverse conditions that are not corrected promptly is as protective as the January 2017 rule. When a mine operator is not required to record an adverse condition which is corrected promptly in the examination record, the mine operator is incentivized to correct these conditions.

Many commenters suggested that MSHA revise the examination record requirement to include only those adverse conditions not corrected during the shift, instead of the proposed requirement to include those not corrected promptly. They articulated that the reason for the record is to document adverse conditions that were not corrected timely and still need to be corrected. Some indicated that their recommended exception is consistent with the requirement that the mine operator make the record before the end of the shift.

Recording adverse conditions that are not corrected promptly, rather than those corrected anytime during the shift as suggested by commenters, provides increased incentive for the mine operator to correct the adverse conditions sooner and reduces the risk of accidents, injuries, or illnesses.

MSHA's change to the examination record requirements will reduce the operators' regulatory burden, while continuing to provide equivalent protection to miners' safety and health.

Executive Orders (E.O.) 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. E.O. 13771 directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs by eliminating at least two existing regulations for each new regulation, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process. This final rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. MSHA believes that this rule reflects industry best practices and the estimated cost savings will likely be realized. As discussed in this section, MSHA estimates that this final rule results in annual cost savings of $27.6 million.1

Under E.O. 12866, MSHA must determine whether a regulatory action is “significant” and subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.

Based on its evaluation of the costs and benefits, MSHA has determined that this final rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy and, therefore, will not be an economically significant regulatory action pursuant to section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

The final rule applies to all MNM mines in the United States. In 2016, there were approximately 11,624 MNM mines employing 140,631 miners, excluding office workers, and 69,004 contractors working at MNM mines. Table 1 presents the number of MNM mines and employment by mine size.

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) estimated the value of the U.S. mining industry's MNM output in 2016 to be $74.6 billion.2 Table 2 presents the hours worked and revenue produced at MNM mines by mine size.

MSHA estimated that the January 2017 rule would have resulted in $34.5 million in annual costs for the MNM industry. The Agency estimated that the total undiscounted cost over 10 years would have been $345.1 million; at a 3 percent discount rate, $294.4 million; and at a 7 percent discount rate, $242.4 million.

For the January 2017 rule, MSHA estimated costs associated with conducting an examination before miners begin work, the additional time to make a record, and providing miners' representatives a copy of the record. In the preamble to the January 2017 rule, MSHA concluded that MNM mine operators will use a variety of scheduling methods to conduct an examination of a working place before miners begin work (82 FR 7690). In addition, MSHA considered the following variables: (1) Percent of mine operators currently conducting workplace examinations before miners begin work; (2) number of shifts by mine size; (3) average time to conduct a workplace examination by mine size; (4) hourly wage rate; and (5) number of days a mine operates, on average, by mine size. The hourly wage rate used in MSHA's analysis assumes an average rate for all MNM mines. Like the January 2017 rule, wage rates for this final rule are from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Occupation Employment Statistics (OES). For this final rule, MSHA applied 2016 wage and employment data to the January 2017 rule cost estimate to calculate a baseline. In the January 2017 rule, MSHA estimated that a mine operator would pay overtime for a competent person to arrive before the shift begins to conduct the working place examination. MSHA also estimated the cost for overtime as time and a half (52.92/hr = $35.28 × 1.5). MSHA retained the calculations and assumptions used in the January 2017 rule to conduct the examination before miners begin work. The revised annual cost base is $27.6 million, or an approximate $0.7 million increase. The updated annual cost consists of:

• $5.13 million = 10,428 mines with 1-19 employees × 15 percent × 20 minutes × 1 hr/60 min × $52.92 wage × 1.1 shifts per day × 1 exam × 169 workdays per year;

• $20.72 million = 1,174 mines with 20-500 employees × 65 percent × 1 hour × $52.92 wage × 1.8 shifts per day × 1 exam × 285 workdays per year; and

• $1.75 million = 22 mines with 501+ employees × 85 percent × 2.5 hours × $52.92 wage × 2.2 shifts per day × 1 exam × 322 workdays per year.

In the January 2017 rule, MSHA estimated the cost of making a record of each examination before the end of the shift for which the examination was conducted. MSHA retained the calculations and assumptions used for this cost estimate (82 FR 7691). The revised annual cost base, which was updated for wage inflation and final 2016 data on the number of mines in operation, is $7.516 million, an approximate $216,000 increase. The updated annual cost consists of:

• $5.70 million = 10,428 mines with 1-19 employees × 1.1 shift per day × 1 exam record × 169 workdays per year × 5 additional minutes × 1 hr/60 min × $35.28 per hour;

• $1.77 million = 1,174 mines with 20-500 employees × 1.8 shifts per day × 1 exam record × 285 workdays per year × 5 additional minutes × 1 hr/60 min × $35.28 per hour; and

• $45,816 = 22 mines with 501+ employees × 2.2 shifts per day × 1 exam record × 322 workdays per year × 5 additional minutes × 1 hr/60 min × $35.28 per hour.

MSHA also retained the calculations and assumptions used to estimate the costs of making a copy of the examination record and providing it to miners' representatives. The annual costs, which were also updated for wage inflation and the number of mines in operations, consist of:

The revised annual cost base is $.361 million, an approximate $15,000 increase.

Net benefits are the result of subtracting costs from benefits. As detailed in the Benefits and Compliance Cost sections below, no monetized benefits minus the cost savings of −$27.6 million results in a net benefit of $27.6 million annually undiscounted as well as the same value at discount rates of 7 and 3 percent.

As previously stated, this final rule modifies §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) that required the examination be conducted before miners begin work in that place to also allow an examination to be as miners begin work in that place. In addition the final rule modifies §§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) to require a description of each adverse condition found that is not corrected promptly. MSHA's final rule also modifies §§ 56.18002(c) and 57.18002(c) to require that the examination record include, or be supplemented to include, the date of the corrective action for conditions that are not corrected promptly.

MSHA does not believe the changes to the January 2017 rule reduce the protections afforded miners. As MSHA stated in the preamble to the January 2017 rule, the Agency was unable to separate quantifiable benefits from the January 2017 rule from those benefits attributable to conducting a workplace examination under the standards in effect. MSHA continues to anticipate, however, that there will be benefits from more effective and consistent working place examinations that help to ensure that adverse conditions will be timely identified, communicated to miners, and corrected. MSHA anticipates that the record requirements will improve accident prevention by helping mine operators identify any patterns or trends of adverse conditions and preventing these conditions from recurring. Since MSHA was unable to quantify benefits for this rulemaking, MSHA is not claiming a monetized benefit for this final rule.

The costs of this final rule are associated with conducting examinations of a working place as miners begin work in that place. For the January 2017 rule estimate, MSHA assumed that operators could have incurred overtime costs, hiring costs, or experience rescheduling costs to comply with the requirement that an examination occur before miners began work. Under this rulemaking, MSHA estimated that mine operators would not incur these costs. MSHA solicited comments, but did not receive specific data or information on the Agency's assumptions or costs saving estimate.

MSHA did not change the longstanding definition related to “competent person.” Many commenters recognized that MSHA did not propose changing this definition and, that in many mines, miners are trained and perform as competent persons. However, other commenters considered the requirement that a competent person perform the examination to be a new cost. In addition, the standards in effect require a competent person designated by a mine operator to examine each working place at least once per shift. Therefore, requiring a competent person to perform the examination is not a new cost.

Some commenters suggested that mine operators would incur other costs related to the January 2017 rule due to differences in physical mine sizes, or differences between underground and surface mining operations, and these amendments did not eliminate all of the timing costs attributable to the 2017 rule. However, these commenters did not provide MSHA sufficient data or information for the Agency to quantify the costs associated with the differences in mine size or mining operations. Further, MSHA's estimates represent averages; individual mines have costs above and below the average.

The January 2017 rule also specified the contents of the examination record, which included a requirement that the record include a description of all adverse conditions found. Under this final rule, MSHA reduces the mine operators' burden by modifying the required contents of the examination record. The final rule requires that the examination record include a description of each adverse condition that is not corrected promptly, and no longer requires a record of adverse conditions that are corrected promptly. MSHA solicited information and data on the number of instances adverse conditions are promptly corrected and, on average, how much time would be saved by not requiring corrected conditions to be included in the record. MSHA did not receive data or information in response to this request; therefore, the Agency has estimated no change in costs related to the change to the recordkeeping requirements. The following table reports the published January 2017 rule costs, updates to the baseline, and the final rule's cost savings (cost reductions have a negative sign and are a cost savings). As the table reports, only the timing of the examination has a cost impact for this rulemaking.

MSHA did not include an overhead labor cost in the economic analysis for this final rule. It is also important to note that there is not one broadly accepted overhead rate, and the use of overhead rate to estimate the marginal costs of labor raises a number of issues that should be addressed before applying overhead costs to analyze costs of any regulation. There are several approaches to look at the cost elements that fit the definition of overhead and there are a range of overhead estimates currently used within the federal government—for example, the Environmental Protection Agency has used 17 percent,3 and the Employee Benefits Security Administration has used 132 percent on average.4 Some overhead costs, such as advertising and marketing, may be more closely correlated with output rather than with labor. Other overhead costs vary with the number of new employees. For example, rent or payroll processing costs may change little with the addition of 1 employee in a 500-employee firm, but those costs may change substantially with the addition of 100 employees. If an employer is able to rearrange current employees' duties to implement a rule, then the marginal share of overhead costs such as rent, insurance, and major office equipment (e.g., computers, printers, copiers) would be very difficult to measure with accuracy (e.g., computer use costs associated with 2 hours for rule familiarization by an existing employee). Guidance on implementing Executive Order 137715 also provides general guidance that applies in this situation:

The cost estimate for the January 2017 rule did not include overhead. If, for this rule, MSHA had included an overhead rate when estimating the marginal cost of labor and adopted for these purposes an overhead rate of 17 percent on base wages, the overhead costs would increase cost savings from $27.6 million to $32.3 million at all discount rates, 17 percent more than costs previously projected. This increase in savings of $4.7 million is the same as the 17 percent overhead rate because all rule costs are labor costs and therefore total costs change in direct proportion to the overhead rates selected. MSHA will continue to study overhead costs to ensure regulatory costs are appropriately attributed without double counting or showing savings for concepts not previously considered as costs.

Discounting is a technique used to apply the economic concept that the preference for the value of money decreases over time. In this analysis, MSHA provides cost totals at zero, 3, and 7 percent discount rates. The zero percent discount rate is referred to as the undiscounted rate. MSHA used the Excel® Net Present Value (NPV) function to determine the present value of costs and computed an annualized cost from the present value using the Excel PMT function.6 The negative value of the PMT function provides the annualized cost over 10 years at 3 and 7 percent discount rates using the function's end of period option.

MSHA estimates that the total undiscounted costs of the final rule over a 10-year period will be approximately −$276 million, −$235.4 million at a 3 percent rate, and −$193.8 million at a 7 percent rate. Negative cost values are cost savings. The same annual cost savings occurs in each of the 10 years so the cost annualized over 10 years will be approximately −$27.6 million.

The final rule contains examination timing and recordkeeping requirements and is not technology-forcing. MSHA concludes that the final rule will be technologically feasible.

MSHA established the economic feasibility of the January 2017 rule using its traditional revenue screening test—whether the yearly impacts of a regulation are less than one percent of revenues—to establish presumptively that the January 2017 rule was economically feasible for the mining community. This final rule creates a cost savings of −$27.6 million annually compared to the January 2017 rule. Although the associated revenues decreased slightly from the January 2017 rule estimate of $77.6 billion in 2015 to approximately $74.6 billion for 2016, the costs retained from the January 2017 rule of approximately $7.9 million per year remain well less than one percent of revenues and the net decrease in costs (−$27.6 million annually) is even more supportive of the Agency's conclusion. MSHA concludes that the final rule will be economically feasible for the MNM mining industry.

In the proposed rule, Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines, MSHA requested comments on its proposed certification. MSHA has reviewed comments pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). For the RFA considerations and certification, MSHA has included the impact of the final rule on small entities only as defined by the Small Business Administration. Based on that analysis, MSHA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Agency, therefore, is not required to develop a final regulatory flexibility analysis. MSHA presents the factual basis for this certification below.

Under the RFA, in analyzing the impact of a rule on small entities, MSHA must use the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) definition for a small entity, or after consultation with the SBA Office of Advocacy, establish an alternative definition for the mining industry by publishing that definition in the Federal Register for notice and comment. Although the description of the base costs in the Baseline section includes various mine sizes, MSHA has not established an alternative definition and, therefore, must use SBA's definition. MSHA's traditional definition of a small mine (1-19 employees) is used to assist the mining community understand MSHA's compliance cost estimates and not intended to determine the impact of the final rule on small entities, as required.

On February 26, 2016, SBA's revised size standards became effective. SBA updated the small business thresholds for mining by establishing a number of different levels. MSHA used the SBA standards, definitions, and the 2017 NAICS updates for the screening analysis of the final rule. To align MSHA's data with the SBA definitions, the Agency used the largest value of total mine employment identified by total employment reported to MSHA by the mine operators, total controller employment, or total employment identified from MSHA's research.

MSHA initially evaluates the impacts on small entities by comparing the estimated compliance costs of a rule for small entities in the sector affected by the rule to the estimated revenues for the affected sector. When this threshold analysis shows estimated compliance costs have been less than one percent of the estimated revenues, the Agency has concluded that it is generally appropriate to conclude that there is no significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Additionally, there is the possibility that a rule might have a positive economic impact. To properly apply MSHA's traditional criteria and consider the positive impact case, MSHA adjusted its traditional threshold analysis criteria to consider the absolute value of one percent rather than only the adverse case. This slight change means when the absolute value of the estimated compliance costs exceeds one percent of revenues, MSHA investigates whether further analysis is required. For small entities impacted by this final rule, MSHA used the average per mine cost savings and average revenues per mine (See Table 2) to estimate the revenue at $40.4 billion and costs savings at $17.2 million (subtracting negative costs results in a positive).

As a percentage, the absolute value of the impact is approximately 0.04 percent ($17.2 million/$40.4 billion); therefore, using the threshold analysis, MSHA concludes no further analysis is required and concludes the final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Table 4 shows the estimate of impact by NAICS code.

It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it seeks to remove DoD policy from the CFR that has already been rescinded.

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) (B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard just recently received the final details of this rowing event, Wy-Hi Rowing Regatta, which does not provide sufficient time to publish an NPRM prior to the event. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be contrary to public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect participants, mariners and vessels from the hazards associated with this event. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because the special regulation must be effective on May 5, 2018.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that the likely combination of recreation vessels, commercial vessels, and an unknown number of spectators in close proximity to a youth rowing regatta along the water pose extra and unusual hazards to public safety and property. Therefore, the COTP is establishing a special local regulation around the event location to help minimize risks to safety of life and property during this event.

This rule establishes a temporary special local regulation from 7:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on May 05, 2018. In light of the aforementioned hazards, the COTP has determined that a special local regulation is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and participants. The special local regulation will encompass the following waterway: All waters of the Detroit River, Trenton Channel between the following two lines going from bank-to-bank: The first line is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°11.0′ N, 083°09.4′ W (NAD 83); the second line, to the north, is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°11.7′ N, 083°08.9′ W (NAD 83).

An on-scene representative of the COTP may permit vessels to transit the area when no race activity is occurring. The on-scene representative may be present on any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement vessel assigned to patrol the event. Vessel operators desiring to transit through the regulated area must contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to obtain permission to do so. The COTP or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 313-568-9560.

The COTP or his designated on-scene representative will notify the public of the enforcement of this rule by all appropriate means, including a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the special local regulation. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this special local regulation zone which will impact a small designated area of the Detroit River from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. May 05, 2018. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the special local regulation and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation lasting ten hours that will prohibit entry into a designated area. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[61] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

The owner of the bridge, the New Jersey Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation in order to complete the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the adjacent Pulaski Skyway Bridge. The Route 1 & 9 Bridge across the Hackensack River, mile 1.8, at Jersey City, New Jersey is a vertical lift bridge with a vertical clearance of 35 feet at mean high water and 40 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.5.

This temporary deviation will allow the Route 1 & 9 Bridge to open on signal from April 2, 2018 to July 31, 2018, except that the draw will not open to vessel traffic, Monday through Friday, between 6 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. and between 2:30 p.m. and 6 p.m., except holidays. On Federal holidays, the Route 1 & 9 Bridge will open on signal. Tide dependent deep draft vessels may request bridge openings during the rush hour closure periods, provided that at least a six hour advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.

The waterway is transited by recreational vessels and commercial vessels. Coordination with waterway users has indicated no objections to the proposed closure of the draw. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. There is no alternate route for vessels to pass, but the bridge will be able to open for emergencies. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so vessel operators may arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

VA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 80 FR 10637 on February 27, 2015, to amend 38 CFR 4.116, the portion of the VASRD dealing with gynecological conditions and disorders of the breast. VA provided a 60-day public comment period and interested persons were invited to submit written comments on or before April 28, 2015. VA received 13 comments.

Several commenters expressed their support for the proposed rule and thanked VA for promoting gender equality in the rating schedule.

One commenter demanded compensation for his multiple debilitating health issues, which he attributed to exposure to toxic substances at Fort McClellan. He also urged VA to pass the Fort McClellan Health Registry Act, H.R. 411, 113th Cong. (2013). Several commenters stated their belief that their multiple medical conditions are due to exposure to toxic substances at Fort McClellan and asked to be considered for service connection. Another commenter provided information about his medical conditions, which he stated he developed after his reservist's training at Fort McClellan that involved chemical agent training. These comments focus on issues of service connection, rather than the appropriate rating for already service-connected disabilities, and individual claims for VA benefits, which are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Regarding the commenter's request that VA “pass” the Fort McClellan Health Registry Act, VA notes that this act is a Congressional act and not before VA. This comment is also beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, VA makes no changes to the proposed rule based on these comments.

One commenter had a question about the proposed note to diagnostic code 7615 “Ovary, disease, injury, or adhesions of” asking if the note would create a narrow category for disability evaluation by identifying dysmenorrhea and secondary amenorrhea. The commenter's concern is not entirely clear. To the extent the commenter is asking whether VA considers dysmenorrhea and secondary amenorrhea disabilities for rating purposes, the note to diagnostic code 7615 provides that dysmenorrhea and secondary amenorrhea shall be rated under that diagnostic code. To the extent the commenter is asking whether identification of dysmenorrhea and secondary amenorrhea in the note limits the application of diagnostic code 7615 to those diseases, it does not. Dysmenorrhea and secondary amenorrhea are only examples of diseases that would be rated under diagnostic code 7615. Other impairments associated with disease, injury, or adhesions of the ovaries will continue to be rated under diagnostic code 7615. Therefore, VA makes no changes based on this comment.

One commenter wanted to include premature hysterectomy secondary to menorrhagia as an additional gynecological disability in the rating schedule. VA evaluates service-connected hysterectomy under diagnostic codes 7617 and 7618. The cause of the hysterectomy may be a factor in determining service connection, but is not important in evaluating the condition. Therefore, VA makes no changes based on this comment.

One commenter suggested adding a new diagnostic code or adjusting an existing code for infertility due to the loss or loss of use of other organs besides the uterus and ovaries, specifically fallopian tubes. The commenter asserted that, with respect to the uterus and ovaries, the minimum rating for a condition that causes infertility is 20 percent and that this rating does not take into account symptoms, only whether the organs are able to function reproductively. Therefore, the commenter asserts that any damage to any part of the female reproductive system that causes infertility should result in at least a 20 percent evaluation.

While tubal damage may be associated with infertility, infertility is not in itself a disability for VA rating purposes. It does not result in the loss of average earning capacity. See 38 CFR 4.1 (stating that the purpose of the rating schedule is to represent the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries in civil occupations). Diagnostic code 7614, Fallopian tube, disease, injury, or adhesions of, provides disability ratings for functional impairment due to symptoms associated with fallopian tube damage. If loss or loss of use of a creative organ due to service-connected fallopian tube damage is present, VA will consider special monthly compensation under the provisions of 38 CFR 3.350(a). VA makes no changes based on this comment.

The same commenter proposes to add the diagnosis of repeated miscarriages to the list of presumptive conditions for female veterans who have been exposed to radiation, herbicides, or other environmental factors that could negatively impact the ability of a fetus to properly develop and carry to full term. The commenter also suggested VA provide for an award of special monthly compensation under the provisions of § 3.350(a) for repeated miscarriages of an unknown etiology while on active duty. Miscarriages themselves are not disabilities for VA rating purposes, as they do not result in impairment of earning capacity. See 38 CFR 4.1. The proposed rating criteria provide for adequate ratings based on impairment in earning capacity due to service-connected damage to reproductive organs, which may include chronic residuals of medical or surgical complications of pregnancy incurred during service. Additionally, special monthly compensation may be warranted for loss or loss of use of a creative organ due to service-connected disability. See 38 CFR 3.350(a)(1). Updating the list of presumptive conditions for veterans who have been exposed to radiation, herbicides, or other environmental factors is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, which is about the rating of conditions which have been service connected, not about which diseases should be subject to presumptive service connection. Therefore, VA makes no changes based on these comments.

The same commenter asked how powerful a diagnosis of female sexual arousal disorder would be as supporting evidence for military sexual trauma (MST). This rulemaking concerns the rating schedule in part 4, specifically 38 CFR 4.116, and the evaluations that VA assigns for physiological impairment due to disorders of the gynecological system and disorders of the breasts. The evidentiary criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder are listed in 38 CFR 3.304(f). Further, mental disabilities due to MST are evaluated under the rating schedule for mental disorders in § 4.130. This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, VA makes no changes based on this comment.

One commenter was supportive of the overall changes and additions to this section of the rating schedule. However, the commenter expressed concern that the proposed rating criteria for diagnostic code 7621 do not adequately measure disability affecting multiple body systems. Specifically, the commenter stated that the proposed rule was unclear as to whether a veteran would obtain evaluations under other body systems for the complications of pelvic organ prolapse, or whether the mild, moderate, or severe rating under proposed amended diagnostic code 7621 is meant to encompass all symptoms due to one or multiple pelvic organ prolapses. The commenter stated that, if these manifestations in different body systems are meant to be compensated under diagnostic code 7621, there is great potential for undercompensating the veteran, as separate ratings under the genitourinary and digestive system may afford a higher combined evaluation. The commenter further questioned whether rating the manifestations separately would constitute “pyramiding” under 38 CFR 4.14.

The same commenter also indicated that the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) scoring system upon which proposed diagnostic code 7621 was based does not correlate with the severity of symptoms affecting multiple body systems. In addition, the same commenter suggested that VA add a note to diagnostic code 7621 to clarify that functional impairment of other body systems, including the urinary and the digestive systems, as a result of pelvic organ prolapse, shall be evaluated under the appropriate diagnostic codes.

Evaluations under proposed diagnostic code 7621 were intended to represent the average severity of symptoms, including gynecological, urinary, and digestive symptoms, and level of impairment as contemplated by the POP-Q system. Therefore, assigning separate ratings under proposed diagnostic code 7621 and the genitourinary or digestive systems would have violated pyramiding principles under 38 CFR 4.14 by allowing evaluations for urinary and/or digestive symptoms twice. See Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 261-262 (1994). VA acknowledges, however, that the average may not apply to all women and that two women with the same degree of prolapse (as measured by POP-Q) may experience different disabling effects based on their anatomical size. Therefore, in order to more accurately evaluate functional impairment and to ensure that the severity of the symptoms affecting multiple body systems are fully captured, VA amends the proposed rating criteria and the note under diagnostic code 7621 to include guidance on how to rate the residuals and complications of pelvic organ prolapse.

First, VA amends diagnostic code 7621 to provide a 10 percent disability rating in all cases of complete or incomplete pelvic organ prolapse due to injury, disease, or surgical complications of pregnancy. This minimum level of compensation recognizes the disabling effects of the alteration to a woman's normal anatomy, such as a feeling of vaginal fullness or heaviness or pressure in the pelvis, that are not generally included in the compensable levels of disability in other body systems. The higher disability ratings in originally proposed diagnostic code 7621 took into consideration genitourinary, digestive, and skin symptoms, which will now be evaluated separately as described in the revised note to diagnostic code 7621.

Second, VA agrees with the commenter that information should be added to the proposed note under diagnostic code 7621 to clarify how rating personnel should evaluate urinary and digestive symptoms associated with pelvic organ prolapse. Specifically, VA is adding information to the note under diagnostic code 7621 to clarify that rating personnel should separately evaluate any genitourinary, digestive, or skin symptoms under the appropriate diagnostic code(s) and combine all evaluations with the 10 percent evaluation under diagnostic code 7621. With this clarification, VA ensures that women with pelvic organ prolapse will receive adequate levels of compensation based on the functional impairment associated with their prolapse, regardless of any anatomical differences. The discussion by the commenter identified another potential approach of considering the greater evaluation under either proposed diagnostic code 7621 or the appropriate system. Under that approach, however, a veteran whose evaluation was based on a diagnostic code under a different body system would not be compensated for the disabling effects of prolapse specific to the gynecological system. The revised rule ensures that the disabling effects associated with multiple body systems are fully captured.

The same commenter also suggested VA amend VA Form 21-0960K-2, Gynecological Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) to add questions regarding the effects of any diagnosed gynecological condition on the digestive system and consideration of whether the veteran has loss of use of a creative organ. The commenter noted that the DBQ already asks the examiner to comment on whether the gynecological conditions impact the genitourinary system. Currently, VA Form 21-0960K-2 asks an examiner to report any complications resulting from obstetrical or gynecological conditions or procedures. Additionally, VA Form 21-0960K-2 asks the examiner if the veteran has any other pertinent findings, complications, conditions, signs and/or symptoms related to any conditions listed in the diagnosis section of the form. Therefore, VA has an adequate mechanism to capture each and every condition related to the effects of any diagnosed gynecological condition, including the digestive system and loss of use of a creative organ. VA also notes that all affected DBQs will be updated upon issuance of this final rule and will adhere to the same principles of recording pertinent findings. Therefore, VA makes no changes based on these comments.

Lastly, the same commenter suggested VA add a separate diagnostic code in § 4.116 for loss of coital function due to removal of the vagina by colpectomy and a note to consider special monthly compensation under 38 CFR 3.350(a) to increase rating consistency. VA appreciates this comment, but notes that the VASRD, in accordance with 38 CFR 4.1, is “a guide in the evaluation of disability” in terms of occupational impairment and is not an exhaustive list of all potential diseases or conditions. This is further reinforced by 38 CFR 4.20, which specifically provides for analogous evaluations for unlisted conditions according to closely related diseases or injuries based on function affected, anatomical location, and symptomatology.

Colpectomy, also known as vaginectomy, is a surgical procedure that obliterates the vaginal canal in order to alleviate the symptoms of advanced pelvic organ prolapse or to treat gynecological malignancies. Such obliterative procedure is reserved for women who are not candidates for more extensive surgery or do not plan future vaginal intercourse. Colpectomy is generally deemed appropriate for elderly patients with medical comorbidities or for patients with previous failed prolapse surgery or pessary trials who are not sexually active. Evans, J., Karram, M., “Step by step: Obliterating the vaginal canal to correct pelvic organ prolapse,” OBG Manag. 2012 February;24(2):30-41 https://www.mdedge.com/sites/default/files/Document/September-2017/0212_OBGM_Karram.pdf. Colpectomy in younger patients is performed to treat advanced vaginal and/or uterine cancer. In cases of uterine cancer, colpectomy is used exclusively in conjunction with total abdominal hysterectomy. In cases of vaginal cancer, vaginectomy may be partial, subtotal, or total, depending on the extent of the disease. Vaginal reconstruction is offered in order to preserve coital function. Bardavil, T. et al., “Vaginal Cancer” (updated Jan. 11, 2015), Medscape, https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/269188-overview#a23 (last accessed March 8, 2018). Partial vaginectomy is not associated with the loss of coital function.

Accordingly, the vast majority of colpectomy procedures involve associated partial or complete hysterectomy, currently addressed in diagnostic code 7618 and a new, separate diagnostic code for colpectomy is unnecessary; functional impairment due to the colpectomy/total vaginectomy is adequately addressed under diagnostic code 7618 for partial and/or total hysterectomy. In rare cases, colpectomy is performed without any form of hysterectomy; VA will evaluate these circumstances analogously to diagnostic code 7618, and, in the absence of functional impairment or other findings, apply the provisions of 38 CFR 4.31 to establish service connection at a noncompensable rate. This approach provides VA with adequate criteria to evaluate functional impairment associated with colpectomy, with or without hysterectomy, and to establish service connection for a disability for purposes of an award of special monthly compensation under 38 CFR 3.350(a). We note that while vaginal damage due to colpectomy may be associated with loss of coital function, coital function is not in itself a disability for VA rating purposes. It does not result in the loss of earning capacity. See 38 CFR 4.1.

Entitlement to special monthly compensation for anatomical loss or loss of use of a creative organ may not be awarded more than once per creative organ. In the case of colpectomy with loss of coital function, the presence or absence of partial/total hysterectomy does not entitle a female veteran to additional awards of special monthly compensation based on further anatomical loss of a creative organ; in either scenario the veteran has met the statutory criteria for anatomical loss or loss of use of the female creative organ with varying degrees of functional disability associated with the loss/loss of use. Accordingly, establishing a separate diagnostic code for colpectomy would not create entitlement to additional special monthly compensation under 38 CFR 3.350. For these reasons, VA makes no changes based on these comments at this time.

One commenter was supportive of the proposed addition of the new diagnostic code 7632, Female sexual arousal disorder (FSAD). The commenter noted that the title used, “Female sexual arousal disorder,” is not the current medical term used in The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). In DSM-5, gender-specific sexual dysfunctions have been added, and, for females, sexual desire and arousal disorders have been combined into one disorder: Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder.

VA's proposed diagnostic code 7632 differs from the DSM-5 diagnosis because it only addresses the physiologic form of FSAD, which is caused in part by decreased blood flow to the genital area and peripheral nerve damage due to micro trauma or disease process. This form of FSAD does not include the psychological features of Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder outlined in DSM-5 such as lack of, or significantly reduced, sexual interest or desire. If an individual is diagnosed with Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder as outlined in DSM-5 that is service connected, she will be rated under the appropriate diagnostic code under 38 CFR 4.130, which pertains to mental disorders. Furthermore, if her disability picture includes FSAD, defined as the continual or recurrent inability to accomplish or maintain an ample lubrication-swelling reaction during sexual intercourse, then separate compensation under diagnostic code 7632 would be appropriate. Therefore, VA makes no changes based on this comment.

VA appreciates the comments submitted in response to the proposed rule. Based on the rationale stated in the proposed rule and in this document, the proposed rule is adopted as a final rule with the changes noted above. Additionally, VA notes that it is making a technical correction to its proposed changes to Appendix B to Part 4—Numerical Index of Disabilities. Specifically, VA inadvertently left out instructions to delete references to diagnostic codes 7622 and 7623 which, as discussed in the proposed rule, are being removed.

Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) personnel utilize the Veterans Benefit Management System for Rating (VBMS-R) to process disability compensation claims that involve disability evaluations made under the VASRD. In order to ensure that there is no delay in processing veterans' claims, VA must coordinate the effective date of this final rule with corresponding VBMS-R system updates. As such, this final rule will apply effective May 13, 2018, the date VBMS-R system updates related to this final rule will be complete.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” which requires review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”

The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's website at http://www.va.gov/orpm by following the link for VA Regulations Published from FY 2004 through FYTD. This rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This final rule will not affect any small entities. Only certain VA beneficiaries could be directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

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

This final rule contains provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). Specifically, this final rule is associated with information collections related to the filing of disability benefits claims (VA Form 21-526EZ) as well as Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs) which enable a claimant to gather the necessary information from his or her treating physician as to the current symptoms and severity of a disability (VA Forms 21-0960K-1, Breast Conditions and Disorders DBQ, and 21-0960K-2, Gynecological Conditions DBQ). Both information collections are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been assigned OMB control numbers 2900-0747 and 2900-0778, respectively. VA has reviewed the impact of this final rule on these information collections and determined that the information collection burden is de minimis.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and titles for this rule are 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.104, Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for Veterans; 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability; and 64.110, Veterans Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for Service-Connected Death.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jacquelyn Hayes-Byrd, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on April 3, 2018, for publication.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 4 as follows:

The August 6, 2015 (80 FR 46804), Federal Register final rule and notice of administrative change inadvertently and erroneously approved and codified previously removed Missouri regulations; omitted the addition of a previously approved regulation; and erroneously published incorrect state effective dates and citation information for previously approved entries.

On October 21, 2014 (79 FR 62844), in a direct final rule, EPA approved a revision to “10-6.400”. The state effective date is 6/27/13.

On March 3, 2015 (80 FR 11323), in a final rule, EPA approved a revision to remove the chapter titled “Missouri Department of Public Safety, Division 50-State Highway Patrol, Chapter 2—Motor Vehicle Inspection” and its entries for “50-2.010 through 50-2.420”. This final rule also approved the addition of “10-5.381”.

On March 4, 2015 (80 FR 11577), EPA approved in a direct final rule a revision to remove the entry for “10-5.240” and approved revisions to Missouri regulations “10-6.010”, “10-6.020” and “10-6.040”. The state effective date of “10-6.010” is 7/30/14; the state effective date of “10-6.020” is 3/30/14; and the state effective date of “10-6.040” is 11/30/14.

Therefore, we are correcting the EPA's regulations to remove “10-5.240”; add “10-5.381”; remove the chapter titled “Missouri Department of Public Safety, Division 50-State Highway Patrol, Chapter 2—Motor Vehicle Inspection” and its entries for “50-2.010 through 50-2.420”; and revise “10-6.010”, “10-6.020” and “10-6.040” to reflect the most currently approved dates and citations.

Accordingly, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

In this decision, the Board is revising, correcting, and updating its regulations in 49 CFR ch. X. Some of these revisions are necessitated by changes made by the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2015, Public Law 114-110, 129 Stat. 2228 (2015) (STB Reauthorization Act).

This decision makes the following changes to the Board's regulations:

• Eliminates or changes obsolete agency and/or office titles (e.g., 49 CFR 1105.7(b), 1152.50(d)(1)(ii));

• corrects obsolete contact information (e.g., 49 CFR 1180.4(c)(5)(ii), 1182.3);

• corrects references to United States Code or Code of Federal Regulations sections that have been moved 1 or are otherwise incorrect (e.g., 49 CFR 1244.9(d)(2), 1103.3(c)(2));

• revises URL references to reflect the Board's new website 2 (e.g., 49 CFR 1001.1(d));

• revises the Board's regulations to reflect that the STB Reauthorization Act sec. 4 expanded the Board from three members to five members (49 CFR 1011.3); and

• corrects an omitted subheading (49 CFR pt. 1248).

Because these revisions are not substantive and/or relate to rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice, the Board finds good cause that notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) are unnecessary. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A) & (B).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, generally requires an agency to prepare 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. Because the Board has determined that notice and comment are not required under the APA for this rulemaking, the requirements of the RFA do not apply.

These final rules do not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.

It is ordered:

1. The rule modifications set forth below are adopted as final rules.

2. This decision is effective May 2, 2018.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 1321, title 49, chapter X, parts 1001, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1007, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1016, 1018, 1019, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1037, 1090, 1100, 1101, 1103, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1108, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1117, 1119, 1120, 1132, 1133, 1135, 1141, 1144, 1146, 1147, 1150, 1152, 1155, 1177, 1180, 1182, 1184, 1185, 1200, 1220, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1248, 1253, 1305, 1310, 1312, 1313, 1319, 1331, and 1333 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows: