Federal Register Vol. 83, No.74,

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0277; Product Identifier 2017-NM-124-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed 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 proposed AD.

We issued AD 2017-15-17, Amendment 39-18977 (82 FR 35644, August 1, 2017) (“AD 2017-15-17”), for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600R series airplanes, Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes, and Model A300 F4-600R series airplanes. AD 2017-15-17 was prompted by the detection of cracking that originated from the fastener holes in the forward fitting lower radius of frame (FR) 40. AD 2017-15-17 requires an inspection of the lower area of a certain frame radius for cracking, and corrective action if necessary. We issued AD 2017-15-17 to detect and correct cracking in the forward fitting lower radius of FR 40. Such cracking could reduce the structural integrity of the fuselage.

Since we issued AD 2017-15-17, we have determined that new repetitive inspections of the lower area of a certain frame radius for cracking, and corrective actions are necessary.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0158, dated August 25, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600R series airplanes, Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes, and Model A300 F4-600R series airplanes. The MCAI states:

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-57-6120, including Appendices 1 through 7, dated April 28, 2017. This service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections of the forward fitting lower radius of FR 40 for cracking, and corrective action. 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 proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 94 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions required by AD 2017-15-17, and retained in this proposed AD, take about 4 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2017-15-17 is $340 per product.

We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $31,960, or $340 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0271; Product Identifier 2017-NM-111-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed 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 proposed AD.

We issued AD 2016-13-06, Amendment 39-18570 (81 FR 41432, June 27, 2016) (“AD 2016-13-06”), for certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes. AD 2016-13-06 was prompted by reports of ruptured horizontal stabilizer de-icing boots. AD 2016-13-06 requires a revision of the applicable AFM, repetitive inspections of the horizontal stabilizer de-icing boots, and applicable corrective actions. We issued AD 2016-13-06 to detect and correct damage of the de-icing boot; such damage could lead to a ruptured boot, severe vibrations, and possible reduced control of the airplane.

Since we issued AD 2016-13-06, the manufacturer has developed an improved de-icing boot, reinforced through double stitch lines.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0144, dated August 9, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0271.

Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics has issued the following service information.

• Service Bulletin 340-30-094, dated March 27, 2015. This service information describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections of the de-icing boots installed on the horizontal stabilizers, and repair and replacement of damaged de-icing boots.

• Service Bulletin 340-30-095, dated April 3, 2017. This service information describes procedures for replacement of single stitched de-icing boots with improved double stitched boots, and re-identification of the modified horizontal stabilizer leading edge.

Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics has also issued the following AFMs, which describe performance limitations and general data. These AFMs are distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different configurations.

• AFM 340A 001, Revision 57, dated March 27, 2015.

• AFM 340B 001, Revision 35, dated March 27, 2015.

• AFM 340B 010, Revision 28, dated March 27, 2015.

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 proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 51 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions required by AD 2016-13-06, and retained in this proposed AD take about 6 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2016-13-06 is $510 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions required by AD 2016-13-06, and retained in this proposed AD take about 6 work-hours and require parts costing $9,500, for a cost of $10,010 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $13,500 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $714,510, or $14,010 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 transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0142; Product Identifier 2018-NE-04-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM 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 NPRM.

We received a report from the manufacturer about a fire seal gap quality escape on GE CF34-8E turbofan engines. Some thrust reverser fire seals, installed on thrust reverser part numbers (P/Ns) 15G0002-013, 15G0002-014, 15G0003-013, and 15G0003-014, were shipped from a supplier with nonconforming seal gaps.

An analysis by the manufacturer has shown that a gap between the 12 o'clock core cowl seal and pylon seal that is greater than the 1 mm design requirement could result in fire outside the fire zone. This unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in an uncontrolled fire, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

We reviewed GE CF34-8E Service Bulletin (SB) 78-0066 R00, dated December 11, 2017. The SB describes procedures for measuring the width of the RTV filled gap between the thrust reverser fire seals at the 12 o'clock core cowl seal and pylon seal installed on thrust reverser P/Ns 15G0002-013, 15G0002-014, 15G0003-013, and 15G0003-014, and replacing with parts eligible for installation, if needed.

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

This proposed AD would require a one-time inspection of the gap between the core cowl seal and the pylon seal of the thrust reverser for correct gap width, and replacement of the thrust reverser fire seals, if needed.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 936 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

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

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 engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

(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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0276; Product Identifier 2017-NM-079-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM 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 proposed AD.

We have received reports indicating that additional areas of BMS 8-39 flexible urethane foam were found during the accomplishment of AD 2013-11-04, Amendment 39-17464 (78 FR 33193, June 4, 2013) (“AD 2013-11-04”). AD 2013-11-04 was prompted by in-service reports of burned BMS 8-39 flexible urethane foam, and a report from the airplane manufacturer indicating that airplanes were assembled, throughout various areas of the airplane (including flight deck and cargo compartments), with seals made of BMS 8-39 flexible urethane foam, a material with fire-retardant properties that deteriorate with age. AD 2013-11-04 requires replacing certain seals made of BMS 8-39 flexible urethane foam.

BMS 8-39 flexible urethane foam fire retardants are mixed into, but are not chemically connected with, the remaining components of the foam. Over time, this condition will cause the fire-retardant properties to have decreased effectiveness. The concern is hidden areas where fire cannot easily be detected and suppressed. Aged BMS 8-39 flexible urethane foam exposed to an ignition source provides an unacceptable fuel source for fire propagation. The degradation of the foam increases the potential for an uncontrolled fire below the passenger compartment floor and other locations outside the areas covered by smoke detection and fire protection systems. This condition, if not corrected, could cause an uncontrolled fire leading to loss of control of the airplane.

We reviewed the following Boeing service information.

• Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2877, dated August 5, 2014, which describes procedures for performing a general visual inspection for BMS 8-39 flexible urethane foam insulation in the floor panel assemblies and the PDU cover assemblies, and applicable on-condition actions.

• Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3646, Revision 1, dated August 2, 2017, which describes procedures for replacing BMS 8-39 foam strips with BMS 8-371 foam strips on certain dripshields.

• Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3692, dated June 22, 2016, which describes procedures for modifying and replacing BMS 8-39 foam strips with BMS 8-371 foam strips on certain dripshields.

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

This proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information,” and except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0276.

Although Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3646, Revision 1, dated August 2, 2017, and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3692, dated June 22, 2016, specify a compliance time of 60 months, this AD specifies a compliance time of 72 months for the actions specified in this service information. The 72-month compliance time is in-line with other ADs addressing the same unsafe condition due to the use of BMS 8-39 flexible urethane foam. We have reviewed the safety impact of the 72-month compliance time and found it acceptable. This compliance time has been coordinated with Boeing.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 87 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

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

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

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

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

This proposed 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

(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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0297; Product Identifier 2017-NM-181-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM 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 NPRM.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0119, dated July 11, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

Paragraph (1) of the MCAI is addressed in paragraphs (e) and (f) of FAA AD 2001-15-10; Paragraph (2) of the MCAI is addressed in paragraph (g) of FAA AD 2016-06-13.

This NPRM would not supersede AD 2001-15-10 and AD 2016-06-13. Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This NPRM would require identifying the BDDV part number installed on the airplane, and modifying or replacing BDDVs having certain part numbers.

Doing the proposed actions would terminate the requirements in paragraphs (e) and (f) of AD 2001-15-10, and would terminate all of the requirements of AD 2016-06-13.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0297.

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-32-1203, Revision 02, dated February 9, 2001. This service information describes procedures for identifying the BDDV part number installed on the airplane, and modifying or replacing BDDVs having certain part numbers.

Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A320-32-1415, Revision 02, dated December 10, 2015. This service information describes procedures for modifying and re-identifying the BDDV. The modification includes modifying the drain hose of the BDDV, and doing all related investigative and corrective actions if applicable. The related investigative actions include an inspection for corrosion. Corrective actions include replacing the BDDV.

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 proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,136 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Capital Region International Airport, Lansing, MI, to support instrument flight rule operations.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-0101; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-4.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

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

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.8-mile radius (increased from a 6.7-mile radius) at Capital Region International Airport (formerly Capital City Airport), Lansing, MI; removing the extension to the east of the airport associated with the ARTDA LOM; adding an extension within 2 miles each side of the 091° bearing from the airport from the 6.8-mile radius to 10.4 mile east of the airport; and adding an extension within 4 miles each side of the 233° from the airport from the 6.8-mile radius to 10.5 miles southwest of the airport.

The name of the airport would also be updated from Capital City Airport to Capital Region International Airport, and the geographic coordinates of the airport would be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. Additionally, an editorial change would be made removing the name of the city associated with the airport in the legal designation to comply with a recent change to FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

This action is necessary as the result of airspace review do to the decommissioning of the Lansing VOR as part of the VOR MON Program.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0280; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-27) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0280; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-27.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76177.

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

The FAA is planning decommissioning activities for the Fairmont, MN (FRM), VOR in 2019 as one of the candidate VORs identified for discontinuance by the FAA's VOR MON program and listed in the final policy statement notice, “Provision of Navigation Services for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Transition to Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing a VOR Minimum Operational Network),” published in the Federal Register of July 26, 2016 (81 FR 48694), Docket No. FAA-2011-1082. Although the VOR portion of the Fairmont, MN, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) NAVAID is planned for decommissioning, the DME portion is being retained. The ATS routes effected by the Fairmont VOR are VOR Federal airways V-170 and V-219.

With the planned decommissioning of the Fairmont VOR, the remaining ground-based NAVAID coverage in the area is insufficient to enable the continuity of the affected airways. As such, proposed modifications to V-170 and V-219 would result in gaps in the route structures. To overcome the gaps, instrument flight rules (IFR) traffic could use adjacent VOR Federal airways V-24, V-250, and V-398 between the Worthington, MN, VOR/DME and Rochester, MN, VOR/DME or Federal airways V-100, V-175, V-250, and V-456 between the Sioux City, IA, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and Mankato, MN, VOR/DME to circumnavigate the affected area. Additionally, IFR traffic could file point to point through the affected area using fixes that will remain in place, or receive air traffic control (ATC) radar vectors through the area. Visual flight rules pilots who elect to navigate via the airways through the affected area could also take advantage of the adjacent VOR Federal airways or ATC services listed previously.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify VOR Federal airways V-170 and V-219. The planned decommissioning of the Fairmont, MN, VOR has made these actions necessary. The proposed VOR Federal airway changes are outlined below.

V-170: V-170 currently extends between the Devils Lake, ND, VOR/DME and the Salem, MI VORTAC; and between the Erie, PA, VORTAC and the intersection of the Andrews 060° and Baltimore, MD, 165° radials (POLLA fix); excluding the airspace within R-5802 when active. In a separate rulemaking action, the FAA is removing the airway segment between the Erie, PA, VORTAC and the Bradford, PA, VOR/DME effective May 24, 2018 (83 FR 13404, March 29, 2018). The FAA now proposes to remove the airway segment between the Worthington, MN, VOR/DME and the Rochester, MN, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain as charted.

V-219: V-219 currently extends between the Hayes Center, NE, VORTAC and the Mankato, MN, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Sioux City, IA, VORTAC and the Mankato, MN, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain as charted.

All radials in the route descriptions below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.

VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed 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 Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

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

The purpose of the BIE Committee is to serve as an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA). Pursuant to the Federal Register notice of intent (82 FR 43199), the Secretary has selected 13 Tribal representatives and 5 Federal representatives for the Committee, for a proposed total of 18 members.

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) reauthorizes and amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). ESEA Section 8204, as amended by ESSA directs the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, if so requested, to use a negotiated rulemaking process to develop regulations for implementation of the Secretary of the Interior's responsibility to define standards, assessments, and an accountability system for Bureau-funded schools. The Committee will recommend regulations that will replace the existing regulations at 25 CFR part 30 and implement the Secretary's new statutory responsibility to define standards, assessments, and an accountability system for Bureau-funded schools consistent with ESEA section 1111, as amended, on a national, regional, or Tribal basis, as appropriate, taking into account the unique circumstances and needs of such schools and the students served by such schools.

ESEA section 8204 also provides that if a Tribal governing body or school board of a Bureau-funded school determines the requirements established by the Secretary of the Interior are inappropriate, they may waive, in part or in whole, such requirements. Where such requirements are waived, the Tribal governing body or school board must, within 60 days, submit to the Secretary of the Interior a proposal for alternative standards, assessments, and an accountability system, if applicable, consistent with ESEA section 1111. The proposal will be approved by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Education, unless the proposed standards, assessments, and accountability system do not meet the requirements of ESEA section 1111, taking into account the unique circumstances and needs of such school or schools and the students served. Additionally, a Tribal governing body or school board of a Bureau-funded school seeking a waiver may request, technical assistance from the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Education.

The objectives of the Committee are to represent the interests that will be significantly affected by the final regulations, negotiate in good faith, and reach consensus, where possible, on recommendations to the Secretary for the proposed regulations.

The Committee will be charged, consistent with ESEA section 8204, with developing draft regulations to implement the Secretary's responsibility to define the standards, assessments, and an accountability system, consistent with ESEA Section 1111, for Bureau-funded schools. The draft regulations will be considered by the Secretary and subject to government-to-government consultation. As a part of its deliberations, the Committee will consider the appropriate scope of the draft regulations, e.g., national, regional, or Tribal basis, as appropriate, taking into account the unique circumstances and needs of such schools and the students served by such schools, and how BIE will implement such regulations.

The BIE encourages Tribal self-determination in Native education, by encouraging governing Tribes or school boards to develop alternative standards, assessments, and an accountability system, and by providing technical assistance. Therefore, the Committee will also be asked to provide recommendations on how the BIE could best provide technical assistance under ESEA section 8204 to Tribes who opt to exercise their authority to waive in part or in whole the Secretary's definition of standards, assessments, and accountability system.

Since the contemplated regulations must be in place as soon as possible, the Committee will be expected to meet frequently within a short time frame. The BIE currently anticipates up to four meetings, with each meeting lasting two to three days in length. The BIE has dedicated resources required to: Ensure the Committee is able to conduct meetings, provide technical assistance, and provide any additional support required to fulfill the Committee's responsibilities.

On September 14, 2017, the BIE published a Federal Register notice of intent (82 FR 43199) requesting comments and nominations for Tribal representatives for the Committee. The comment period for that notice of intent closed October 16, 2017.

Within the notice, the BIE solicited comments on the proposal to establish the Committee, including comments on any additional interests not identified. The BIE solicited nominations from Tribes whose students attend Bureau-funded schools operated by either BIE or by the Tribe through a contract or grant who would be affected by the final rule to nominate a representative and alternate to serve when the representative is unavailable for membership on the Committee. The BIE also invited nominations for Committee members who will adequately represent the interests that are likely to be significantly affected by the proposed rule such as: Students enrolled, or parents of students enrolled at the 174 Bureau-funded schools, school teachers, and administrators, Tribes, and Indian communities served by these schools.

The proposed Committee was selected based upon nominations submitted through the process identified in the Federal Register (82 FR 43199) dated September 14, 2017, under the “Nominations” section. The Secretary did not consider nominations that were received in any other manner or were received after the close of the comment period.

The Secretary proposes the following Tribal representatives for the Committee:

The Secretary proposes the following alternate Tribal representatives for the Committee:

The Designated Federal Officer for the Committee will be Ms. Sue Bement, Bureau of Indian Education. The Secretary proposes the following Federal representatives for the Committee:

Heinz Field notified the Coast Guard that it would be holding a concert from 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. on June 30, 2018. Heinz Field is located in close proximity to the banks of the Ohio and Allegheny Rivers, which is a high vessel traffic area used by both commercial and recreational vessels. Due to the proximity of Heinz Field to these waterways, it will be a destination for many recreational vessels to anchor and loiter throughout the concert weekend of June 29, 2018 to July 1, 2018. The Coast Guard is concerned about possible collisions that could occur in this area and the impact of vessel congestion on maritime commerce due to transit delays. The Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) has determined that this special local regulation is necessary to maintain an open navigation channel and ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters during the concert weekend.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters adjacent to Heinz Field on the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers before, during, and after the Luke Bryan concert weekend. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233.

The Coast Guard is issuing this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with a 15-day prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to section (b)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553). This provision authorizes an agency to publish a rule in less than 30 days before its effective date for “good cause found and published with the rule.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for publishing this NPRM with a 15-day comment period because it is impractical to provide a 30-day comment period. This proposed special local regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and persons during the concert weekend. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM with a 30-day comment period because we must establish this special local regulation by June 29, 2018. A 15-day comment period would allow the Coast Guard to provide for public notice and comment, but also publish a rule, if adopted, soon enough that the length of the notice and comment period does not compromise public safety.

The COTP proposes to establish a special local regulation for all navigable waters of the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers between the Ninth Street Highway Bridge at mile marker (MM) 0.8, Allegheny River, Fort Pitt Highway Bridge at MM 0.22, Monongahela River, and West End-North Side Highway Bridge at MM 0.8, Ohio River. The duration of the special local regulation is intended to ensure the safety of vessels on these navigable waters before, during, and after the concert weekend. This proposed rule would apply to any vessel operating within the area, including a naval or public vessel, except a vessel engaged in law enforcement, servicing aids to navigation, or surveying, maintaining, or improving waters within the regulated area. No vessel would be permitted to loiter, anchor, stop, moor, remain or drift in any manner that impedes safe passage of another vessel to any launching ramp, marina, or fleeting area unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. In addition, no vessel or person would be permitted to loiter, anchor, stop, remain, or drift more than 100 feet from any riverbank unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16. Persons and vessels permitted to enter this regulated area must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

We developed this proposed 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 NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM 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 and location of the special local regulation. The special local regulation will impact a small section of the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers, less than three total miles. Moreover, the special local regulation will not stop vessels from transiting the area, it will only establish certain areas where vessels are prohibited from loitering, anchoring, stopping, remaining, or drifting because it impedes navigation near launching ramps, marinas, and fleeting areas, or commercial traffic in the rivers. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNMs) via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulated area and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the regulated 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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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 proposed 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a special local regulation that prohibits vessels from loitering, anchoring, stopping, remaining or drifting more than 100 feet from any bank. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, Department of Homeland Security Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) proposes to amend 33 CFR 165.801 to update the table of annual fireworks displays and other marine-related events in Coast Guard Sector Upper Mississippi River. The current list of annual and recurring safety zones in Sector Upper Mississippi River is published in Table 2 of 33 CFR 165.801. That most recent table was created through the final rule published on June 21, 2017 (82 FR 28235). The current table in 33 CFR 165.801 needs to be amended to include new safety zones expected to recur annually or biannually, remove safety zones no longer recurring, and provide new information on existing safety zones.

The proposed annually recurring safety zones are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the events. Based on the nature of these marine events, large numbers of participants and spectators, and event locations, the COTP has determined that the events listed in this proposed rule could pose a risk to participants or waterways users if the normal vessel traffic were to interfere with the events. Possible hazards include risks of injury or death from near or actual contact among participant vessels and spectators or mariners traversing through the safety zone. In order to protect the safety of all waterway users, including event participants and spectators, this proposed rule would establish safety zones for the time and location of each marine event.

This purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels on the navigable waters in the safety zones during the scheduled events. Vessels would not be permitted to enter the safety zone unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

The COTP proposes to amend its safety zone regulations for annual events in Coast Guard Sector Upper Mississippi River listed in Table 2 of 33 CFR 165.801. This section requires amendment from time to time to properly reflect the recurring safety zone regulations in Sector Upper Mississippi River. This rule would add one new recurring safety zone, remove four no longer recurring safety zones, and amend the sponsor/name, date, and/or safety zones for three recurring safety zones already listed in the current table. Other than this one new safety zone, four removed safety zones, and 3 changes to the sponsor/name, date, and/or safety zones of certain events, the regulations of 33 CFR 165.801 and the other provisions in Table 2 of § 165.801 would remain unchanged.

The Coast Guard proposes to revise regulations at 33 CFR 165.801 Table 2 by adding one new safety zone. The safety zone being added to Table 2 is below:

The Coast Guard also proposes to revise regulations at 33 CFR 165.801 Table 2 by removing the following four existing safety zones that are no longer recurring, with reference by line number to the current Table 2 of 33 CFR 165.801. The four existing safety zones being removed are below:

The Coast Guard also proposes to revise regulations at 33 CFR 165.801 Table 2 by amending three existing safety zones listed in the current table. The amendments involve changes to marine event sponsor/name and/or safety zones, with reference by line number to the current Table 2 of 33 CFR 165.801. The three safety zones being amended are below:

This proposed rule modifies the following three safety zones from the existing Table 2 in § 165.801 as follows:

The amendments to this rule are necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and people during annual events taking place on or near navigable waters in Sector Upper Mississippi River. Although this proposed rule would be in effect year-round, the specific safety zones listed in Table 2 of 33 CFR 165.801 would only be enforced during a specified period of time coinciding with the happening of the annual events listed. In accordance with the regulations listed in 33 CFR 165.801(a)-(d), entry into these safety zones is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text of the updated Table 2 of § 165.801 we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

We developed this proposed 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 NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM 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, and duration of the safety zones. These safety zones are limited in size and duration, and are usually positioned away from high vessel traffic zones. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zones, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zones.

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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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 proposed 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves establishing safety zones limiting access to certain areas under 33 CFR 165 within the COTP Zone. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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

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

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the U.S. Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

On April 4, 2018, Geaux Pyro notified the Coast Guard that it would conduct a fireworks display from 7 p.m. through 7:20 p.m. on July 4, 2018, for a wedding celebration. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge on the Tchefuncte River, at approximate position 30°24′11.63″ N 090°09′17.39″ W, in front of the Madisonville Town Hall. Hazards from firework displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone within 100 yards of the launch barge.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within a 100-yard radius of the launch barge before, during, and after the fireworks display. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 6:45 p.m. through 7:45 p.m. on July 4, 2018. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters of the Tchefuncte River within 100-yards of a barge at approximate position 30°24′11.63″ N 090°09′17.39″ W, in front of the Madisonville Town Hall in Madisonville, LA. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 7 p.m. to 7:20 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector New Orleans.

Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67 or by telephone at (504) 365-2200. Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

We developed this proposed 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 NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM 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 and duration of the safety zone. This proposed safety zone would only encompass a 100-yard radius of the Tchefuncte River for one hour on one evening. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the proposed rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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

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

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rulemaking would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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 proposed rule. If the rulemaking 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour that would prohibit entry within a 100-yard radius of a barge at approximate position of 30°24′11.63″ N 090°09′17.39″ W on the Tchefuncte River. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register MM Mile marker NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking §  Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

On April 4, 2018, AFX Pro, LLC, notified the Coast Guard that it would be conducting a fireworks display from 10 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on June 30, 2018, for a wedding celebration. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge in the Mississippi River at approximate mile marker (MM) 95.5 above Head of Passes near Algiers Point, New Orleans, LA. Hazards from firework displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone within a one-mile stretch of the river.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels on the navigable waters within a one-mile stretch of the river before, during, and after the fireworks display. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 9:45 p.m. through 11 p.m. on June 30, 2018. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters of the Mississippi River above Head of Passes between mile markers (MM) 94 and 95. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector New Orleans.

Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67 or by telephone at (504) 365-2200. Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

We developed this proposed 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 NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM 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 and duration of the safety zone. This safety zone is for only one hour on a one-mile section of the waterway. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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

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

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rulemaking would economically affect it.

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 proposed rule. If the rulemaking 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour that would prohibit entry between mile marker 95 and mile marker 94 on the Lower Mississippi River above Head of Passes. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to add a species to the Lists (i.e., “list”), remove a species from the Lists (i.e., “delist”), or to change a listed species' status from endangered to threatened, or from threatened to endangered (i.e., “reclassify”) presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish the finding promptly in the Federal Register.

Our regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) establish that substantial scientific or commercial information with regard to a 90-day petition finding refers to “credible scientific or commercial information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)).

A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species because of one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.). The five factors are:

(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A);

(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B);

(c) Disease or predation (Factor C);

(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); or

(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E).

We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively affect individuals of a species. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition or the action or condition itself. However, the mere identification of any threat(s) may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the information in the petition is substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. The information presented in the petition must include evidence sufficient to suggest that these threats may be affecting the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of an “endangered” species or “threatened” species under the Act.

If we find that a petition presents such information, our subsequent status review will evaluate all identified threats by considering the individual, population, and species-level effects, and the expected response by the species. We will evaluate individual threats and their expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species—such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts that may ameliorate threats. It is only after conducting this cumulative analysis of threats and the actions that may ameliorate them, and the expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable future, that we can determine whether the species meets the definition of an “endangered species” or “threatened species.”

If we find that a petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information, the Act requires us to promptly commence a review of the status of the species, and we will subsequently complete a status review in accordance with our prioritization methodology for 12-month findings (81 FR 49248; July 27, 2016).

The petition findings contained in this document are listed in the tables below and the bases for the findings, along with supporting information, are available on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number.

Cape mountain zebra (Equus zebra zebra): South Africa (Eastern and Western Cape provinces).

On May 10, 2017, we received a petition dated May 10, 2017, from Conservation Force and the Professional Hunters Association of South Africa requesting that we delist the Cape mountain zebra (Equus zebra zebra) or reclassify the subspecies from an endangered species to a threatened species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding addresses the petition.

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Cape mountain zebra due to the reduction or elimination of threats related to the following: Habitat availability (Factor A); commercial and recreational use (Factor B); disease and predation (Factor C); hybridization and inbreeding (Factor E); and the inadequacy of existing regulations with regards to a number of these threats (Factor D) (for information about these factors, see Background, above). However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the subspecies, including the extent to which any protections or other conservation efforts have reduced those threats. Thus, for this subspecies, the Service requests any information relevant to whether the subspecies falls within the definition of either “endangered species” under section 3(6) of the Act or “threatened species” under section 3(20) of the Act, including information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, below).

The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2017-0100 under Supporting Documents.

Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei): Colorado and Wyoming.

On March 30, 2017, we received a petition dated March 29, 2017, from Pacific Legal Foundation (on behalf of Dr. Rob Roy Ramey II; Center for Environmental Science, Accuracy and Reliability; Wyoming Stock Growers Association; Colorado Cattlemen's Association; Colorado Association of Home Builders; and Housing and Building Association of Colorado Springs), requesting that the Preble's meadow jumping mouse be delisted under the Act due to an error in taxonomic information. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioners, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding addresses the petition.

Based on our review of the petition and the source cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents no additional or new information that would support a taxonomic revision for the Preble's mouse or that would indicate that the subspecies is not a valid entity under the Act. Therefore, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that delisting the Preble's meadow jumping mouse may be warranted. Because the petition does not present substantial information indicating that delisting the Preble's meadow jumping mouse may be warranted, we are not initiating a status review of this species in response to this petition. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, this species or its habitat at any time (see Not-substantial petition finding under ADDRESSES, above).

The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of this petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2017-0102 under Supporting Documents.

When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information indicating that listing, reclassification, or delisting of a species may be warranted, we are required to review the status of the species (a status review). For the status review to be complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on the species from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. We seek information on:

(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:

(a) Habitat requirements;

(b) Genetics and taxonomy;

(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns; and

(d) Historical and current population levels and current and projected trends.

(2) The five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (see Background, above) that are the basis for making a listing, reclassification, or delisting determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act, including past and ongoing conservation measures that could decrease the extent to which one or more of the factors affect the species, its habitat, or both.

(3) The potential effects of climate change on the species and its habitat, and the extent to which it affects the habitat or range of the species.

Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the actions under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

You may submit your information concerning the status review by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the website. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this personal identifying information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

It is important to note that the standard for a 90-day finding differs from the Act's standard that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned action is warranted. In making a 90-day finding, we consider information in the petition and sources cited in the petition, as well as information that is readily available, and we evaluate merely whether that information constitutes “substantial information” indicating that the petitioned action “may be warranted.” In a 12-month finding, we must complete a thorough status review of the species and evaluate the “best scientific and commercial data available” to determine whether a petitioned action “is warranted.” Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, a substantial 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a “warranted” finding.

On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented in the petitions under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have determined that the petition summarized above for the Cape mountain zebra presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are, therefore, initiating a status review to determine whether the action is warranted under the Act. At the conclusion of the status review, we will issue a finding, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to whether the petitioned action is not warranted, warranted, or warranted but precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species.

In addition, we have determined that the petition summarized above for the Preble's meadow jumping mouse does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested actions may be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating a status review for this species.

The primary authors of this document are staff members of the Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The authority for these actions is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).