[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 88000]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29239]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC)
meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of the ARAC.

DATES: The meeting will be held on December 15, 2016, starting at 1:00
p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Arrange oral presentations by December 08,
2016.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, 10th
Floor, MacCracken Conference Room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nikeita Johnson, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), we are giving notice of a
meeting of the ARAC taking place on December 15, 2016, at the Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20591.
    The Agenda includes:

1. Recommendation Report
    a. Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group
2. Status Reports From Active Working Groups
    a. ARAC
    i. Air Traffic Controller Training Working Group
    ii. Aircraft Systems Information Security/Protection Working Group
    iii. Rotorcraft Bird Strike Working Group
    iv. Load Master Certification Working Group
    v. Airman Certification Systems Working Group
    b. Transport Airplane and Engine (TAE) Subcommittee
    i. Transport Airplane Metallic and Composite Structures Working
Group--Transport Airplane Damage-Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation
    ii. Flight Test Harmonization Working Group--Phase 2 Tasking
    iii. Transport Airplane Crashworthiness and Ditching Evaluation
Working Group
    iv. Engine Harmonization Working Group-Engine Endurance Testing
Requirements--Revision of Section 33.87
    v. Airworthiness Assurance Working Group
3. Status Report from the FAA

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to the
space available. Please confirm your attendance with the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section no later than December
08, 2016. Please provide the following information: Full legal name,
country of citizenship, and name of your industry association, or
applicable affiliation. If you are attending as a public citizen,
please indicate so.
    For persons participating by telephone, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by email or phone
for the teleconference call-in number and passcode. Callers are
responsible for paying long-distance charges.
    The public must arrange by December 08, 2016 to present oral
statements at the meeting. The public may present written statements to
the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee by providing 25 copies to
the Designated Federal Officer, or by bringing the copies to the
meeting.
    If you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable
accommodation for this meeting, please contact the person listed under
the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Sign and oral
interpretation, as well as a listening device, can be made available if
requested 10 calendar days before the meeting.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 1, 2016.
Dale A. Bouffiou,
Acting Designated Federal Officer, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee.
[FR Doc. 2016-29239 Filed 12-1-16; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 227 (Monday, November 25, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64723-64725]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25474]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0323; Product Identifier 2019-NM-026-AD; Amendment
39-19785; AD 2019-22-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 737-800 series airplanes. This AD was
prompted by reports of inadequate clearance between a certain fuel
quantity indicating system (FQIS) tank unit and a certain reinforcement
angle added as a part of a certain split winglet modification. This AD
requires a detailed inspection to measure the clearance between the
FQIS tank unit and a certain reinforcement angle installed as a part of
the split winglet modification, and repair if necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 30, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publications listed in this AD as of December
30, 2019.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Aviation Partners Boeing, 2811 S 102nd Street, Suite 200,
Seattle, WA 98168; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com. You may view this service information
at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0323.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0323; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Baker, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing
Company Model 737-800 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on May 14, 2019 (84 FR 21279). The NPRM was prompted
by reports of inadequate clearance between a FQIS tank unit at rib 21
and the stringer U-14 reinforcement angle added as a part of a split
winglet modification per supplemental type certificate (STC) ST00830SE.
The NPRM proposed to require a detailed inspection to measure the
clearance between the FQIS tank unit and a certain reinforcement angle
installed as a part of the split winglet modification, and repair if
necessary.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address inadequate clearance between
a certain FQIS tank unit and a certain reinforcement angle upon
accomplishment of a certain split winglet modification, which could
result in a potential source of ignition in a fuel tank and consequent
fire, overpressure, and structural failure of the wing and possible
loss of the airplane.

Comments

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

Support for the NPRM

    United Airlines stated that it concurs with the proposed actions
with no additional comments.

Request To Clarify Paragraph (c) Applicability of the Proposed AD

    Boeing and Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) requested that we revise
paragraph (c) of the proposed AD to include more detail as to which
airplanes are affected. Boeing explained that STC ST00830SE has
multiple configurations, and the proposed AD is applicable to only one
configuration; airplanes in that configuration are identified in
Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-57-020, dated April 5,
2018. APB clarified further that STC ST00830SE includes both blended
and split scimitar winglet configurations, but operators with aircraft
modified to receive the blended winglets do not install the
reinforcement that may interfere with the tank unit, and are not
subject to the unsafe condition and requirements of the proposed AD.
    The FAA agrees with the commenters' request for the reasons
provided. The FAA has revised paragraph (c) of this AD to state that
this AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-800 series airplanes,
certificated in any category, line numbers 4919 through 5063 inclusive,
modified with split winglets per STC ST00830SE and listed in Aviation
Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-57-020, dated April 5, 2018.

Request To Delete ODA Provisions

    Boeing and APB requested that the FAA delete paragraph (h)(3) of
the proposed AD because The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) does not have AMOC authority for the referenced
split scimitar winglet STC ST00830SE.
    The FAA agrees with the request for the reasons provided. The FAA
has removed paragraph (h)(3) of this AD.

Request To Clarify the Cost of Compliance Section of the NPRM

    Boeing requested that the FAA revise the Cost of Compliance section
of the NPRM to clarify that APB is responsible for warranty coverage.
Boeing reasoned that the NPRM's language of ``according to the
manufacturer . . .'' did not specify which manufacturer, Boeing or APB,
would be responsible for warranty coverage.
    The FAA agrees with the request for the reasons provided. The FAA
has revised the Costs of Compliance section of this final rule to
clarify that APB is the manufacturer responsible for warranty coverage.

Request To Revise the Summary of the NPRM

    Boeing requested that the FAA revise the SUMMARY section of the
NPRM to further clarify which airplanes are affected by the proposed
AD. Boeing suggested that the FAA add ``modified with split winglets
and listed in Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-57-020,
dated April 5, 2018,'' as a qualifier for the airplanes affected. In
addition, Boeing requested that the FAA clarify what prompted the AD
and the requirements of the AD by adding language that makes clear the
reinforcement angle was added as a part of the referenced split
scimitar winglet STC ST00830SE.
    The FAA partially agrees with the request. The FAA disagrees with
the request to add the qualifying statement of ``modified with split
winglets and listed in Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-
57-020, dated April 5, 2018,'' because the SUMMARY section serves only
as a brief introduction to the NPRM, and the level of detail requested
by Boeing is reserved for the Regulatory Section of the proposed AD. As
discussed earlier, the FAA has revised paragraph (c) of this AD to
clarify that this AD applies only to The Boeing Company Model 737-800
series airplanes modified with split winglets per STC ST00830SE and
listed in Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-57-020, dated
April 5, 2018. However, the FAA has revised the SUMMARY section of the
final rule to clarify that a certain reinforcement angle was added as a
part of a certain split winglet modification.
    The FAA agrees with Boeing's request to clarify what prompted the
NPRM and the requirements of the NPRM, for the reasons provided. The
SUMMARY section of this AD has been revised accordingly.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously
and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-
57-020, dated April 5, 2018. This service information describes
procedures for a detailed inspection to measure the clearance between
the FQIS tank unit at rib 21 (WSTA 617) and stringer U-14 reinforcement
angle on the left-hand wing, and repair including trimming the stringer
U-14 reinforcement angle to obtain minimum clearance. 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.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 16 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed Inspection................  7 work-hours x $85 per hour              $0            $595          $9,520
                                      = $595.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary repair
that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The FAA
has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this
repair:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair.....................................  4 work-hours x $85 per hour = $340.              $0            $340
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to Aviation Partners Boeing, some or all of the costs of
this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact
on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for
affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs
in the agency's cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order

13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2019-22-06 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19785; Docket No. FAA-
2019-0323; Product Identifier 2019-NM-026-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 30, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-800 series
airplanes, certificated in any category, line numbers 4919 through
5063 inclusive, modified with split winglets per supplemental type
certificate (STC) ST00830SE and listed in Aviation Partners Boeing
Service Bulletin AP737-57-020, dated April 5, 2018.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of inadequate clearance between
a certain fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS) tank unit and a
certain reinforcement angle added as a part of a certain split
winglet modification. The FAA is issuing this AD to address this
condition, which could result in a potential source of ignition in a
fuel tank and consequent fire, overpressure, and structural failure
of the wing and possible loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Inspection and Repair

    Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD: Perform a
detailed inspection to determine the clearance between the FQIS tank
unit at rib 21 (WSTA 617) and stringer U-14 reinforcement angle in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners
Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-57-020, dated April 5, 2018. If the
measured clearance is less than 0.10 inch: Before further flight,
perform the repair action in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-57-
020, dated April 5, 2018.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (i) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Christopher Baker,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-
3552; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-57-020,
dated April 5, 2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Aviation Partners Boeing, 2811 S 102nd Street, Suite 200, Seattle,
WA 98168; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on November 7, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-25474 Filed 11-22-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 11, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67665-67671]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26597]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No.: FAA-2007-27602; Amdt. No. 91-339B]
RIN 2120-AL46

Extension of the Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the
Territory and Airspace of Somalia

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action extends the prohibition against certain flight
operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below
Flight Level (FL) 260 by all: U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial
operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate
issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-
registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-
registered civil aircraft, except when the operator of such aircraft is
a foreign air carrier. The FAA is taking this action because it has
determined there continues to be an unacceptable risk to U.S. civil
aviation operating in the territory and airspace of Somalia at
altitudes below FL260 from terrorist and militant activity. The FAA
also republishes, with minor revisions, the approval process and
exemption information for this flight prohibition Special Federal
Aviation Regulation (SFAR) and makes minor editorial changes to this
SFAR to clarify prohibited and permitted operations, consistent with
other recently published flight prohibition SFARs.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 11, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale E. Roberts, Air Transportation
Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington,

DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

    This action extends the expiration date of SFAR No. 107, title 14
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 91.1613, from January 7, 2020 until
January 7, 2023. SFAR No. 107 prohibits certain flight operations in
the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 by all:
U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the
privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such
persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air
carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when
the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier. Consistent with
other recently published flight prohibition SFARS, this action also
republishes, with minor revisions, the approval process and exemption
information for this SFAR and makes minor editorial changes to clarify
prohibited and permitted operations.

II. Legal Authority and Good Cause

A. Legal Authority

    The FAA is responsible for the safety of flight in the U.S. and for
the safety of U.S. civil operators, U.S.-registered civil aircraft, and
U.S.-certificated airmen throughout the world. The FAA Administrator's
authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 49 U.S.C.
106(f) and (g). Subtitle VII of title 49, Aviation Programs, describes
in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. Section 40101(d)(1)
provides that the Administrator shall consider in the public interest,
among other matters, assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and
security as the highest priorities in air commerce. Section
40105(b)(1)(A) requires the Administrator to exercise this authority
consistently with the obligations of the U.S. Government under
international agreements.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49
U.S.C. 44701, General requirements. Under that section, the FAA is
charged broadly with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air
commerce by prescribing, among other things, regulations and minimum
standards for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.
    This regulation is within the scope of FAA's authority because it
continues to prohibit the persons described in paragraph (a) of SFAR
No. 107, Sec.  91.1613, from conducting flight operations in the
territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 due to the
continuing hazards to the safety of U.S. civil flight operations at
those altitudes, as described in the preamble to this final rule.

B. Good Cause for Immediate Adoption

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of title 5, U.S. Code, authorizes agencies to
dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency
for ``good cause'' finds those procedures are ``impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' Section 553(d) also
authorizes agencies to forgo the delay in the effective date of the
final rule for good cause found and published with the rule. In this
instance, the FAA finds good cause exists to forgo notice and comment
because notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the
public interest. In addition, it is contrary to the public interest to
delay the effective date of this flight prohibition SFAR.
    The risk environment for U.S. civil aviation in airspace managed by
other countries with respect to safety of flight risks posed by weapons
capable of targeting, or otherwise negatively affecting, U.S. civil
aviation, as well as other hazards to U.S. civil aviation associated
with fighting, extremist/militant activity, or heightened tensions, is
fluid. This fluidity and the need for the FAA to rely upon classified
information in assessing these risks make seeking notice and comment
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. With respect to the
impracticability of notice and comment procedures, the potential for
rapid changes in the risks to U.S. civil aviation significantly limits
how far in advance of a new or amended flight prohibition the FAA can
usefully assess the risk environment. Furthermore, to the extent these
rules and any amendments to them are based upon classified information,
the FAA is not legally permitted to share such information with the
general public, who cannot meaningfully comment on information to which
they are not legally allowed access.
    Under these conditions, public interest considerations also favor
not seeking notice and comment for these rules and any amendments to
them. While there is a public interest in having an opportunity for the
public to comment on agency action, there is a greater public interest
in having the FAA's flight prohibitions, and any amendments thereto,
reflect the agency's most current understanding of the risk environment
for U.S. civil aviation. This allows the FAA to appropriately protect
the safety of U.S. operators' aircraft and the lives of their
passengers and crews without over-restricting U.S. operators' routing
options. The FAA has identified an ongoing need to maintain the flight
prohibition for U.S. civil aviation operations in the territory and
airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 due to continued safety-
of-flight hazards associated with terrorist and militant activity.
These hazards, which are further described in the preamble to this
final rule, require that the FAA's flight prohibition for U.S. civil
aviation operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia at
altitudes below FL260 continue without interruption.
    Because the final rule makes no changes to the boundaries of an
existing FAA flight prohibition for U.S. civil aviation operations, it
is also contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of
the rule. Delaying the effective date would not change the compliance
obligations of U.S. operators and airmen up to January 7, 2020, and,
depending upon the date on which the final rule is published in the
Federal Register, could result in a gap in the regulation's
effectiveness of as many as 30 days between January 7, 2020 and the new
effective date. Such an outcome would be contrary to the interests of
U.S. civil aviation safety due to the hazards to U.S. civil flight
operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below
FL260.
    For these reasons, the FAA finds good cause exists to forgo notice
and comment and any delay in the effective date for this rule.

III. Background

    The FAA first issued SFAR No. 107 in 2007, based on aviation safety
and national security concerns regarding U.S. civil flight operations
in Somalia, as well as overflights of Somalia below FL200.\1\ The
terrorist group Al-Shabaab had conducted multiple attacks against civil
aviation, including attacks on two IL-76 aircraft near Aden Adde
International Airport (then known as Mogadishu International Airport)
(HCMM) in March 2007 that likely used man-portable air defense systems
(MANPADS). These incidents occurred days after unknown individuals
attacked the airport with mortars, causing minimal damage.
Consequently, the FAA determined it was neither safe nor in the
national security interests of the United States for persons subject to

SFAR No. 107 to overfly Somali territory at altitudes below FL200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Prohibition Against Certain Flights Within the Territory and
Airspace of Somalia final rule, 72 FR 16710 (Apr. 5, 2007). The
final rule was effective March 30, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 7, 2016, the FAA expanded its existing prohibition of
U.S. civil aviation operations in the territory and airspace of
Somalia, after determining the risk from terrorist and militant
activity made it unsafe for U.S. civil flights to operate in the
territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260.\2\ The FAA
determined international civil air routes transiting Somali airspace
and aircraft operating to and from Somali airports remained at risk due
to terrorist and militant groups potentially employing anti-aircraft-
capable weapons, including MANPADS, small-arms fire and indirect fire
from mortars and rockets targeting airports. Some of the weapons about
which the FAA was concerned have the capability to target aircraft upon
approach and departure and aircraft at higher altitudes. Al-Shabaab had
remained active in Somalia and had demonstrated the capability and
intent to target U.S. and Western interests, including civil aviation.
Al-Shabaab had also conducted ground assaults against Aden Adde
International Airport (HCMM), including an attack in December 2014. As
stated in the January 2016 final rule, in the FAA's view, attacks
against aircraft in-flight or Somali airports could occur with little
or no warning. The FAA extended the expiration date of SFAR No. 107,
Sec.  91.1613, until January 7, 2018.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the Territory and
Airspace of Somalia final rule, 81 FR 721.
    \3\ The January 7, 2016, final rule placed SFAR No. 107 in
subpart M of part 91, at 14 CFR 91.1613.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In December 2017, the FAA, again, extended the expiration date of
SFAR No. 107, Sec.  91.1613, until January 7, 2020, due to continuing
hazards to U.S. civil flight operation in the territory and airspace of
Somalia at altitudes below FL260. In the December 2017 final rule,\4\
the FAA found that al-Shabaab had continued to directly target civil
aviation using additional tactics, including the use of concealed
improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in an effort to bypass airport
security screening at Aden Adde International Airport (HCMM) to
detonate the device onboard an aircraft. This had been demonstrated
when al-Shabaab claimed responsibility for the onboard detonation of a
concealed IED on Daallo Airlines Flight 159, which originated from Aden
Adde International Airport (HCMM) in February 2016. Al-Shabaab had also
conducted frequent terror attacks in close proximity to the airport and
had conducted indirect fire attacks targeting facilities within the
perimeter of the airport. Al-Shabaab had also conducted ground assaults
against Aden Adde International Airport (HCMM), including the use of a
vehicle-borne IED in January 2017. Other extremists, including elements
of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash Sham (ISIS), also operated in
Somalia and were capable of threatening civil aviation. Therefore, the
FAA extended the SFAR's expiration date from January 7, 2018, until
January 7, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Extension of the Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the
Territory and Airspace of Somalia final rule, 82 FR 58546 (Dec. 13,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The FAA continues to assess the situation in the territory and
airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 as being hazardous for
U.S. civil aviation operations due to the poor security environment and
fragile governance structure in Somalia, as well as the threat posed by
al-Shabaab, an al-Qa'ida-aligned extremist group, and other extremists/
militants. Al-Shabaab has demonstrated an intent and capabilities to
target civil aviation operations in the territory and airspace of
Somalia through a variety of means, including the use of an insider to
smuggle a concealed IED onto a civil aircraft, use of anti-aircraft-
capable weapons, and direct and indirect attacks on Somali airports.
Al-Shabaab has frequently targeted Aden Adde International Airport
(HCMM) with attacks using indirect fire, small arms fire and vehicle-
borne IEDs. Al-Shabaab has conducted multiple mortar attacks targeting
the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) at Aden Adde
International Airport (HCMM), and has done so as recently as January 1,
2019. Al-Shabaab frequently conducts vehicle-borne IED attacks
targeting Western interests and public venues in Mogadishu, including
detonating vehicle-borne IEDs near malls (February 2019), hotels
(November 2018) and near a security check point close to Aden Adde
International Airport (HCMM) (June 2019). In addition, al-Shabaab is
assessed to have access to anti-aircraft-capable weapons presenting a
risk to U.S. civil aviation operations at altitudes below FL260.
Furthermore, ISIS has a cell trying to gain influence in Somalia, which
presents another extremist threat to Western interests, including civil
aviation. ISIS elements in Somalia may have access to anti-aircraft-
capable weapons.
    In February 2019, AMISOM began to draw down its forces, as its
mandate expires in 2020, and began transferring security
responsibilities back to Somalia. During the AMISOM drawdown, al-
Shabaab may attempt to exploit vulnerabilities in Somali security and
increase attacks on remaining AMISOM bases and Western interests. For
these reasons, the FAA is concerned the risk to U.S. civil aviation
operations may increase as AMISOM continues its scheduled drawdown.
    Therefore, as a result of the significant continuing risks to the
safety of U.S. civil aviation in the territory and airspace of Somalia
at altitudes below FL260, the FAA extends the expiration date of SFAR
No. 107, Sec.  91.1613, from January 7, 2020 until January 7, 2023. By
this action, the FAA prohibits flight operations in the territory and
airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 by all: U.S. air carriers;
U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an
airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are
operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and
operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when the operator
of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier. While the FAA's flight
prohibition does not apply to foreign air carriers, DOT codeshare
authorizations prohibit foreign air carriers from carrying a U.S.
codeshare partner's code on a flight segment that operates in airspace
for which the FAA has issued a flight prohibition.
    The FAA will continue to actively monitor the situation and
evaluate the extent to which U.S. civil operators and airmen may be
able to operate safely in the territory and airspace of Somalia at
altitudes below FL260. Amendments to SFAR No. 107, Sec.  91.1613, may
be appropriate if the risk to aviation safety and security changes. The
FAA may amend or rescind SFAR No. 107, Sec.  91.1613, as necessary,
prior to its expiration date.
    By this action, the FAA also makes minor editorial changes to
clarify the operations that are prohibited and those that are permitted
and clarify the procedure for considering approval and exemption
requests. These changes are consistent with other recently published
flight prohibition SFARs. The FAA also republishes the approval and
exemption processes in Sections V and VI of this preamble, so
interested persons will be able to refer to this final rule for
comprehensive information about requesting relief from the FAA from the
provisions of SFAR No. 107, Sec.  91.1613.

V. Approval Process Based on a Request From a Department, Agency, or
Instrumentality of the United States Government

A. Approval Process Based on an Authorization Request From a
Department, Agency, or Instrumentality of the United States Government

    In some instances, U.S. Government departments, agencies, or
instrumentalities may need to engage U.S. civil aviation to support
their activities in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes
below FL260. The FAA is clarifying the approval process for SFAR No.
107, Sec.  91.1613, consistent with other recently published flight
prohibition SFARs, as previously indicated. If a department, agency, or
instrumentality of the U.S. Government determines it has a critical
need to engage any person described in SFAR No. 107, Sec.  91.1613,
including a U.S. air carrier or commercial operator, to conduct a
charter to transport civilian or military passengers or cargo, or other
operations, in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below
FL260, that department, agency, or instrumentality may request the FAA
to approve persons described in SFAR No. 107, Sec.  91.1613, to conduct
such operations.
    An approval request must be made directly by the requesting
department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government to the
FAA's Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety in a letter signed by
an appropriate senior official of the requesting department, agency, or
instrumentality. The FAA will not accept or consider requests for
approval from anyone other than the requesting department, agency, or
instrumentality. In addition, the senior official signing the letter
requesting FAA approval on behalf of the requesting department, agency,
or instrumentality must be sufficiently positioned within the
organization to demonstrate the senior leadership of the requesting
department, agency, or instrumentality supports the request for
approval and is committed to taking all necessary steps to minimize
operational risks to the proposed flights. The senior official must
also be in a position to: (1) Attest to the accuracy of all
representations made to the FAA in the request for approval and (2)
ensure any support from the requesting U.S. Government department,
agency, or instrumentality described in the request for approval is in
fact brought to bear and is maintained over time. Unless justified by
exigent circumstances, requests for approval must be submitted to the
FAA no less than 30 calendar days before the date on which the
requesting department, agency, or instrumentality wishes the proposed
operations to commence.
    The letter must be sent to the Associate Administrator for Aviation
Safety, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20591. Electronic submissions are acceptable, and the
requesting entity may request the FAA notify it electronically as to
whether the approval request is granted. If a requestor wishes to make
an electronic submission to the FAA, the requestor should contact the
Air Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, at (202) 267-
8166, to obtain the appropriate email address. A single letter may
request approval from the FAA for multiple persons described in SFAR
No. 107, Sec.  91.1613, or for multiple flight operations. To the
extent known, the letter must identify the person(s) expected to be
covered under the SFAR on whose behalf the U.S. Government department,
agency, or instrumentality is seeking FAA approval, and it must
describe--
     The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the
mission being supported;
     The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by the
SFAR;
     To the extent known, the specific locations in the
territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 where the
proposed operation(s) will be conducted, including, but not limited to,
the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while it is operating in
the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 and the
airports, airfields or landing zones at which the aircraft will take
off and land; and
     The method by which the department, agency, or
instrumentality will provide, or how the operator will otherwise
obtain, current threat information and an explanation of how the
operator will integrate this information into all phases of the
proposed operations (i.e., the pre-mission planning and briefing, in-
flight, and post-flight phases).
    The request for approval must also include a list of operators with
whom the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality
requesting FAA approval has a current contract(s), grant(s), or
cooperative agreement(s) (or its prime contractor has a subcontract(s))
for specific flight operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia
at altitudes below FL260. The requestor may identify additional
operators to the FAA at any time after the FAA approval is issued.
However, all additional operators must be identified to, and obtain an
Operations Specification (OpSpec) or Letter of Authorization (LOA)
from, the FAA, as appropriate, for operations in the territory and
airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260, before such operators
commence such operations. The approval conditions discussed below apply
to any such additional operators. Updated lists should be sent to the
email address to be obtained from the Air Transportation Division by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    If an approval request includes classified information, requestors
may contact Aviation Safety Inspector Dale E. Roberts for instructions
on submitting it to the FAA. His contact information is listed in the
For Further Information Contact section of this final rule.
    FAA approval of an operation under SFAR No. 107, Sec.  91.1613,
does not relieve persons subject to this SFAR of their responsibility
to comply with all other applicable FAA rules and regulations.
Operators of civil aircraft must comply with the conditions of their
certificate, OpSpecs, and LOAs, as applicable. Operators must also
comply with all rules and regulations of other U.S. Government
departments or agencies that may apply to the proposed operation(s),
including, but not limited to, regulations issued by the Transportation
Security Administration.

B. Approval Conditions

    If the FAA approves the request, the FAA's Aviation Safety
Organization will send an approval letter to the requesting department,
agency, or instrumentality, informing it that the FAA's approval is
subject to all of the following conditions:
    (1) The approval will stipulate those procedures and conditions
that limit, to the greatest degree possible, the risk to the operator,
while still allowing the operator to achieve its operational
objectives.
    (2) Before any approval takes effect, the operator must submit to
the FAA:
    (a) A written release of the U.S. Government from all damages,
claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and
expenses, relating to any event arising out of or related to the
approved operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia at
altitudes below FL260; and
    (b) The operator's written agreement to indemnify the U.S.
Government with respect to any and all third-party damages, claims, and
liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses,
relating to any event arising from or related to the approved
operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below
FL260.

    (3) Other conditions the FAA may specify, including those that may
be imposed in OpSpecs or LOAs, as applicable.
    The release and agreement to indemnify do not preclude an operator
from raising a claim under an applicable non-premium war risk insurance
policy issued by the FAA under chapter 443 of title 49, U.S. Code.
    If the FAA approves the proposed operation(s), the FAA will issue
an OpSpec or LOA, as applicable, to the operator(s) identified in the
original request authorizing them to conduct the approved operation(s),
and will notify the department, agency, or instrumentality that
requested the FAA's approval of any additional conditions beyond those
contained in the approval letter.

VI. Information Regarding Petitions for Exemption

    Any operations not conducted under an approval the FAA issues
through the approval process set forth previously must be conducted
under an exemption from SFAR No. 107, Sec.  91.1613. A petition for
exemption must comply with 14 CFR part 11. The FAA will consider
whether exceptional circumstances exist beyond those contemplated by
the approval process described in the previous section. In addition to
the information required by 14 CFR 11.81, at a minimum, the requestor
must describe in its submission to the FAA--
     The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the
operation;
     The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by the
SFAR;
     The specific locations in the territory and airspace of
Somalia at altitudes below FL260 where the proposed operation(s) will
be conducted, including, but not limited to, the flight path and
altitude of the aircraft while it is operating in the territory and
airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 and the airports,
airfields or landing zones at which the aircraft will take off and
land;
     The method by which the operator will obtain current
threat information, and an explanation of how the operator will
integrate this information into all phases of its proposed operations
(i.e., the pre-mission planning and briefing, in-flight, and post-
flight phases); and
     The plans and procedures the operator will use to minimize
the risks, identified in this preamble, to the proposed operations, to
establish that granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety
or would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by
this SFAR. The FAA has found comprehensive, organized plans and
procedures of this nature to be helpful in facilitating the agency's
safety evaluation of petitions for exemption from flight prohibition
SFARs.
    Additionally, the release and agreement to indemnify, as referred
to previously, are required as a condition of any exemption that may be
issued under SFAR No. 107, Sec.  91.1613.
    The FAA recognizes that the operations that SFAR No. 107, Sec.
91.1613, might affect could include operations planned for the
governments of other countries with the support of the U.S. Government.
While the FAA will not permit these operations through the approval
process, the FAA will consider exemption requests for such operations
on an expedited basis and prior to any private exemption requests.
    If a petition for exemption includes security-sensitive or
proprietary information, requestors may contact Aviation Safety
Inspector Dale E. Roberts for instructions on submitting it to the FAA.
His contact information is listed in the For Further Information
Contact section of this final rule.

VII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354),
as codified in 5 U.S.C. 603 et seq., requires agencies to analyze the
economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the
Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as codified in 19 U.S.C.
chapter 13, prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Agreements Act requires agencies
to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they
be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), as codified in 2 U.S.C. chapter 25,
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this final rule.
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this
final rule has benefits that justify its costs. This rule is a
significant regulatory action, as defined in section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866, as it raises novel policy issues contemplated under that
Executive Order. As notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 are not
required for this final rule, the regulatory flexibility analyses
described in 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 regarding impacts on small entities
are not required. This rule will not create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. This rule will not impose an
unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the
private sector, by exceeding the threshold identified previously.

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Due to the significant hazards to U.S. civil aviation described in
the preamble of this rule, this rule continues to prohibit U.S. civil
flights in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below
FL260. The FAA believes there are very few U.S. operators who wish to
overfly Somalia at altitudes below FL260 or operate to, from, or within
Somalia due to the hazards to U.S. civil aviation described in the
preamble to this final rule. The FAA receives few requests for approval
or petitions for exemption to conduct flight operations in airspace
managed by other countries in which the FAA has prohibited U.S. civil
aviation from flying and expects that this pattern will hold true for
this rule.
    Consequently, the FAA estimates the costs of this rule to be
minimal. These minimal costs are exceeded by the benefits of avoided
deaths, injuries, and property damage that could result from a U.S.
operator's aircraft being shot down (or otherwise damaged) while
operating in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below
FL260.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), in 5 U.S.C. 603, requires an
agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing
impacts on small entities whenever an agency is required by 5 U.S.C.
553, or any other law, to publish a general notice of proposed
rulemaking for any proposed rule. Similarly, 5 U.S.C. 604 requires an
agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis when an
agency issues a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, after being required by
that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed
rulemaking. The FAA found good cause to forgo notice

and comment and any delay in the effective date for this rule. As
notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 are not required in this
situation, the regulatory flexibility analyses described in 5 U.S.C.
603 and 604 are similarly not required.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to this Act, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and
determined that its purpose is to protect the safety of U.S. civil
aviation from hazards to their operations in the territory and airspace
of Somalia at altitudes below FL 260, a location outside the U.S.
Therefore, the rule is in compliance with the Trade Agreements Act of
1979.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100
million.
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA's policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to this regulation. The FAA finds that this action is
fully consistent with the obligations under 49 U.S.C. 40105(b)(1)(A) to
ensure that the FAA exercises its duties consistently with the
obligations of the United States under international agreements.
    While the FAA's flight prohibition does not apply to foreign air
carriers, DOT codeshare authorizations prohibit foreign air carriers
from carrying a U.S. codeshare partner's code on a flight segment that
operates in airspace for which the FAA has issued a flight prohibition.
In addition, foreign air carriers and other foreign operators may
choose to avoid, or be advised or directed by their civil aviation
authorities to avoid, airspace for which the FAA has issued a flight
prohibition.

G. Environmental Analysis

    The FAA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 12114,
Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions (44 FR 1957,
January 4, 1979), and DOT Order 5610.1C, Paragraph 16. Executive Order
12114 requires the FAA to be informed of environmental considerations
and take those considerations into account when making decisions on
major Federal actions that could have environmental impacts anywhere
beyond the borders of the United States. The FAA has determined that
this action is exempt pursuant to Section 2-5(a)(i) of Executive Order
12114 because it does not have the potential for a significant effect
on the environment outside the United States.
    In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts:
Policies and Procedures,'' paragraph 8-6(c), FAA has prepared a
memorandum for the record stating the reason(s) for this determination;
this memorandum has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.

VIII. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

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

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation

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

D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

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

IX. Additional Information

A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained from
the internet by--
     Searching the docket for this rulemaking at https://www.regulations.gov;
     Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or
     Accessing the Government Publishing Office's website at
https://www.govinfo.gov.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by
amendment or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Except for classified material, all documents the FAA considered in
developing this rule, including economic analyses and technical
reports, may be accessed from the internet through the docket for this
rulemaking.

B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91

    Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety,
Freight, Somalia.

The Amendment

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

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

0
1. The authority citation for part 91 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113,
40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715,
44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122,
47508, 47528-47531, 47534, Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C.
44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International
Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).

0
2. In Sec.  91.1613, revise paragraphs (a)(3), (b), (c), and (e) to
read as follows:

Sec.  91.1613   Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 107--
Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the Territory and Airspace of
Somalia.

    (a) * * *
    (3) All operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when
the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier.
    (b) Flight prohibition. Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and
(d) of this section, no person described in paragraph (a) of this
section may conduct flight operations in the territory and airspace of
Somalia at altitudes below Flight Level (FL) 260.
    (c) Permitted operations. This section does not prohibit persons
described in paragraph (a) of this section from conducting flight
operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia under the following
circumstances:
    (1) Overflights of Somalia may be conducted at or above FL260
subject to the approval of, and in accordance with the conditions
established by, the appropriate authorities of Somalia.
    (2) Flight operations may be conducted in the territory and
airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 if such flight operations
are conducted under a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement with a
department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government (or under
a subcontract between the prime contractor of the U.S. Government
department, agency, or instrumentality and the person described in
paragraph (a) of this section) with the approval of the FAA or under an
exemption issued by the FAA. The FAA will consider requests for
approval or exemption in a timely manner, with the order of preference
being: First, for those operations in support of U.S. Government-
sponsored activities; second, for those operations in support of
government-sponsored activities of a foreign country with the support
of a U.S. government department, agency, or instrumentality; and third,
for all other operations.
* * * * *
    (e) Expiration. This SFAR will remain in effect until January 7,
2023. The FAA may amend, rescind, or extend this SFAR as necessary.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority of 49 U.S.C.
106(f) and (g), 40101(d)(1), 40105(b)(1)(A), and 44701(a)(5), on
December 4, 2019.
Steve Dickson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-26597 Filed 12-10-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 29, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60911-60913]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21614]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0606]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; I-5 Bridge Construction Project, Columbia River,
Vancouver, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain waters of the Columbia River. This action is necessary to
provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters around the
Northbound I-5 Interstate Bridge at Columbia River Mile 106.5. Entry of
vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port Columbia River.

DATES: This rule is effective with actual notice from 12:01 a.m. on
September 27, 2020, through September 29, 2020. It is effective without
actual notice from September 29, 2020 through 11:59 p.m. on October 12,
2020.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2020-0247 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' To view the Click
on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Commander Dixon Whitley, Waterways Management
Division, Marine Safety Unit Portland, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 503-
240-9319, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Oregon Department of Transportation notified the Coast Guard
that they will be replacing bridge components at the south end of the
Northbound I-5 Interstate Bridge over the Columbia River at River Mile
106.5 beginning September 6, 2020, through September 26, 2020. In
response, on June 22, 2020, the Coast Guard published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone; I-5 Bridge Construction
Project, Columbia River, Vancouver, WA (85 FR 37397). There we stated
why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory
action related to this construction project. During the comment period
that ended July 22, 2020, we did not receive any relevant comments. On
September 24, 2020, the Oregon Department of Transportation notified
the Coast Guard that the work was not finished, and will not be
completed until October 12, 2020. In response, the Coast Guard is
publishing this Temporary final rule to further establish the temporary
safety zone until all work is complete.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the Oregon Department of
Transportation did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient
time to publish an NPRM before the previous safety zone expires and the
public is exposed to the dangers associated with this bridge
construction work. Delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for
a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the
public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect
mariners and vessels from the hazards associated with this bridge
construction work.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30-day notice period to run
would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of Port Sector Columbia
River has determined that the potential hazards associated with the
construction project would be a safety concern for anyone within the
designated area of the I-5 bridge

construction project. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the
safety of vessels and the navigable waters within the designated area
of the I-5 bridge construction project.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no relevant comments on our NPRM
published June 22, 2020. This TFR is substantially the same to the one
published in conjunction with that TFR (Docket No. USCG-2020-0247,)
just with different effective dates.
    This rule establishes a safety zone from 12:01 a.m. on September
27, 2020, through 11:59 p.m. on October 12, 2020. The safety zone will
cover all navigable waters of the Columbia River, directly below the
lifting span of the I-5 bridge from the Washington shoreline to the
edge of the lifting span (approx. 800 ft.), and approximately 400 ft.
both east and west of the bridge. The duration of the zone is intended
to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters while the
bridge construction is underway. No vessel or person would be permitted
to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or
a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
would be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which would
only impact a small designated area of the Columbia River, during the
bridge construction project. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue
Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the
safety zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to
enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    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 received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule's predecessor under Department of
Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. That rule involved enforcing a safety zone for 20 days
that prohibits vessel traffic from transiting underneath the lift span
of the I-5 Bridge during bridge repair and construction operations. It
was, and by extension this TFR is, categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of

Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email 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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
amending 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T13-0247 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-0247  Safety Zone[s]; Safety Zone; I-5 Bridge
Construction Project, Columbia River, Vancouver, WA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Columbia River, surface to bottom, encompassed by a line
connecting the following points beginning at the shoreline at
45[deg]37'17.7'' N/122[deg]40'31.4'' W, southwest to 45[deg]37'12.1''
N/122[deg]40'35.0'' W, southeast to 45[deg]37'08.8'' N
122[deg]40'22.1'' W, thence northeast to 45[deg]37'15.0'' N/
122[deg]40'18.3'' W, and along the shoreline back to the beginning
point.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means any Coast commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been
authorized by the Captain of the Port Columbia River (COTP) to act on
his behalf, or a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or
assisting the Captain of the Port Columbia River in the enforcement of
the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone may contact the COTP's on-scene designated representative by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER> or the Sector Columbia River Command Center on
Channel 16 VHF-FM. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful
orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section is in effect from 12:01 a.m.
on September 27, 2020, through 11:59 p.m. on October 12, 2020. It will
be subject to enforcement this entire period unless the Captain of the
Port, Columbia River determines it is no longer needed. The Coast Guard
will inform mariners of any change to this period of enforcement via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    Dated: September 24, 2020.
J.C. Smith,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Columbia River.
[FR Doc. 2020-21614 Filed 9-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 68 (Monday, April 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15233-15236]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07188]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0124; Notice 3]

General Motors LLC, Receipt of Third Petition for
Inconsequentiality and Notice of Consolidation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition and decision denying request for
deferral of determination.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On January 2, 2018, TK Holdings Inc. (Takata) filed a defect
information report (DIR), in which it determined that a defect existed
in certain passenger-side air bag inflators that it manufactured,
including passenger inflators that it supplied to General Motors, LLC
(GM) for use in certain GMT900 vehicles. GM has petitioned the Agency
for a decision that, because of differences in inflator design and
vehicle integration, the equipment defect determined to exist by Takata
is inconsequential as it relates to

motor vehicle safety in the GMT900 vehicles, and that GM should
therefore be relieved of its notification and remedy obligations. This
notice serves to make the public aware of GM's pending request to the
agency and the period for public comment. It does not address GM's
substantive claims, nor legal arguments or interpretations asserted by
GM.

DATES: The closing date for comments is May 9, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments regarding this petition for inconsequentiality.
Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited in the title
of this notice and be submitted by one of the following methods:
     Internet: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Thus, submitting such information makes it public. You may
wish to read the Privacy Act notice, which can be viewed by clicking on
the ``Privacy and Security Notice'' link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov. DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available
for review in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will
be filed in the docket and will be considered. Comments and supporting
materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will
be considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will also be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated at the end of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For legal issues: Stephen Hench,
Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-100, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590
(telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    For general information regarding NHTSA's investigation into Takata
air bag inflator ruptures and the related recalls: http://www.safercar.gov/rs/takata/index.html.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On May 4, 2016, NHTSA issued, and Takata agreed to, an Amendment to
the November 3, 2015 Consent Order (the ``Amendment''), under which
Takata is bound to declare a defect in all frontal driver and passenger
air bag inflators that contain a phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate
(PSAN)-based propellant and do not contain a moisture-absorbing
desiccant. Such defect declarations are being made on a rolling basis,
with the first declaration due May 16, 2016, the second declaration due
December 31, 2016, and the third declaration due December 31, 2017. See
Amendment at ] 14.

GM's May 2016 & January 2017 DIRs

    Takata timely submitted the first scheduled equipment DIRs on May
16, 2016. See Recall Nos. 16E-042, 16E-043, and 16E-044. Those DIRs
included non-desiccated passenger inflators, designated as types SPI YP
and PSPI-L YD, that were installed as original equipment on certain
motor vehicles manufactured by GM (the ``covered passenger
inflators''), as well as other non-desiccated passenger inflators
installed as original equipment on motor vehicles manufactured by a
number of other automakers, which are not at issue here.
    The Takata filing triggered GM's obligation to file a DIR for the
affected GM vehicles. See 49 CFR part 573; Amendment at ] 16; November
3, 2015 Coordinated Remedy Order at ] 46. GM ultimately submitted two
DIRs on May 27, 2016. See Recall Nos. 16V-381 (for vehicles in Zone A)
and 16V-383 (for vehicles in Zone B). On November 15, 2016, GM
petitioned the Agency, under 49 U.S.C. 30118(d), 30120(h) and 49 CFR
part 556, for a decision that the equipment defect determined to exist
by Takata is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety in
the GMT900 vehicles. See GM's Petition for Inconsequentiality and
Request for Deferral of Determination Regarding Certain GMT900 Vehicles
Equipped with Takata ``SPI YP'' and ``PSPI-L YD'' Passenger Inflators
(the ``First Petition for Inconsequentiality'' or ``First Petition'').
In a Notice published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2016, the
Agency published notice of the First Petition and granted two
administrative requests, accepting the petition out of time and
granting GM additional time to provide data in support of the petition.
See 81 FR 85681.
    On January 3, 2017, Takata timely submitted the second scheduled
equipment DIRs for additional covered passenger inflators. See Recall
Nos. 17E-001, 17E-002, and 17E-003. Again, the Takata filing triggered
GM's obligation to file a DIR for the affected GM vehicles. See 49 CFR
part 573; Amendment at ] 16; Third Amendment to Coordinated Remedy
Order at ] 32. GM ultimately submitted its DIRs on January 10, 2017,
and notified NTHSA of its intention to file an inconsequentiality
petition. See Recall Nos. 17V-010, 17V-019, and 17V-021.\1\
Contemporaneous with its DIRs, GM submitted to the Agency a Petition
for Inconsequentiality and Request for Deferral of Determination
Regarding Certain GMT900 Vehicles Equipped with Takata ``SPI YP'' and
``PSPI-L YD'' Passenger Inflators Subject to January 2017 Takata
Equipment DIR Filings (the ``Second Petition for Inconsequentiality''
or ``Second Petition'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ When a manufacturer files a petition for inconsequentiality,
the affected DIR will not be made public unless and until the Agency
denies the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 11, 2017, the Agency published a notice of receipt of
the Second Petition and, as GM's Second Petition was virtually
identical to its First Petition (both involved the same covered
passenger inflators and same vehicle platform, relied upon the same
purported evidence, and would rely upon the same forthcoming report),
consolidated the Second Petition with the First Petition under Docket
No. NHTSA-2016-0124. See 82 FR 42718.

GM's January 9, 2018 DIRs

    Takata timely submitted \2\ the third scheduled equipment DIRs on
January 2, 2018. Those DIRs included additional covered passenger
inflators. Once more, the Takata filing triggered GM's obligation to
file a DIR for the affected GM vehicles. See 49 CFR part 573; Amendment
at ] 16; Third Amendment to Coordinated Remedy Order at ] 32. GM
submitted its DIRs on January 9, 2018.\3\ Therein, in accordance with
49 CFR 573.6(c)(8)(iii), GM notified

NHTSA of its intention to file a petition for inconsequentiality and
contemporaneously submitted to the Agency a Petition for
Inconsequentiality Regarding Certain GMT900 Vehicles Equipped with
Takata ``SPI YP'' and ``PSPI-L YD'' Passenger Inflators Subject to
January 2018 Takata Equipment DIR Filings (the ``Third Petition for
Inconsequentiality'' or ``Third Petition''). GM's Third Petition
requested that NHTSA grant GM's First, Second and Third Petitions or,
in the alternative, that NHTSA defer its decision on the First, Second,
and Third Petitions until March 31, 2018, which would allow GM time to
complete further study and analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ December 31, 2017 was a Sunday, and Monday, January 1, 2018
was a federal holiday.
    \3\ When a manufacturer files a petition for inconsequentiality,
the corresponding DIR will not be made public unless and until the
Agency denies the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Class of Motor Vehicles Involved

    GM's Third Petition involves certain ``GMT900'' vehicles that
contain the covered passenger inflators (designated as inflator types
``SPI YP'' and ``PSPI-L YD''). GMT900 is a GM-specific vehicle platform
that forms the structural foundation for a variety of GM trucks and
sport utility vehicles, including: Chevrolet Silverado 1500, GMC Sierra
1500, Chevrolet Silverado 2500/3500, GMC Sierra 2500/3500, Chevrolet
Tahoe, Chevrolet Suburban, Chevrolet Avalanche, GMC Yukon, GMC Yukon
XL, Cadillac Escalade, Cadillac Escalade ESV, and Cadillac Escalade
EXT. The Third Petition involves the following GMT900 vehicles:
     In Zone A, affected model year 2013 GMT900 vehicles. Zone
A comprises the following states and U.S. territories: Alabama,
California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, South
Carolina, Texas, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern
Mariana Islands (Saipan), and the U.S. Virgin Islands. See Amendment at
] 7.a.
     In Zone B, affected model year 2010 GMT900 vehicles. Zone
B comprises the following states: Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, District
of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. See
Amendment at ] 7.b.
     In Zone C, affected model year 2009 GMT900 vehicles. Zone
C comprises the following states: Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho,
Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New
Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota,
Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. See Amendment at ]
7.c.

III. Summary of GM's Third Petition for Inconsequentiality

    GM's Third Petition relies on arguments, data, and analysis in its
First and Second Petitions (and supplemental brief thereto),
information submitted to the Agency during briefings with NHTSA, and
additional arguments and engineering analysis as presented in the Third
Petition. See Third Petition at 1, 3. According to the Third Petition,
GM's originally planned Orbital ATK (``OATK'') inflator study is now
complete,\4\ which GM argues demonstrates the covered passenger
inflators in subject GMT900 vehicles ``will continue to operate safely
for decades, even in the highest temperature and humidity regions''--
i.e., that the covered passenger inflators, as integrated into the
GMT900 vehicles, do not present an unreasonable risk to safety. See id.
at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ To supplement its internal analysis, GM retained a third-
party expert, OATK, to conduct a long-term aging study to estimate
the service life expectancy of the covered passenger inflators in
the GMT900 vehicles. See First Petition at 12. When NHTSA previously
deferred a decision on GM's First Petition, one of the conditions of
that deferral was that GM provide NHTSA with monthly updates on this
study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Third Petition, GM's position is based upon the
following: field data, including GM's estimated 63,000 Takata passenger
air bag inflator deployments in GMT900 vehicles without a reported
rupture and ballistic tests of 4,205 covered passenger inflators
without a rupture or sign of abnormal deployment, and results of the
OATK study of inflators artificially exposed to additional humidity and
temperature cycling without a rupture or abnormal deployment, and
accompanying statistical interpretation of those results. Id. at 12-15.
    GM further states that the covered passenger inflators are not used
by any other original equipment manufacturer and, further, that the
covered inflators have a number of unique design features that
influence burn rates and internal ballistic dynamics, including greater
vent-area-to-propellant-mass ratios, steel end caps, and thinner
propellant wafers. See id. at 6. In addition, GM states that the
physical environment of the GMT900 vehicles better protects the covered
passenger inflators from temperature cycling that can lead to
propellant degradation and, ultimately, inflator rupture. See id. at 7.
    This notice serves to make the public aware of GM's pending request
to the agency and the period for public comment. Accordingly, it does
not address the substantive claims, or legal arguments or
interpretations, asserted by GM.

IV. Consolidation

    GM's Third Petition for Inconsequentiality involves newer model
years of the same covered passenger inflators (i.e., frontal passenger
inflator types ``SPI YP'' and ``PSPI-L YD''), the same vehicle platform
(i.e., the GMT900), and similar purported evidence to support the
safety of the inflators (e.g., estimated field deployments, ballistic
testing), and relies upon the same OATK study as GM's First and Second
Petitions. Accordingly, it is appropriate to evaluate the First,
Second, and Third Petitions together. In the interest of clarity,
consistency, and efficiency, the Agency is consolidating the Third
Petition with the First and Second Petitions (the ``Consolidated
Petitions'') under Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0124.

V. Request To Defer Decision on Petition

    GM states it believes the evidence it has thus far presented
``fully supports'' the relief it requests in the Consolidated
Petitions. Id. at 17. Alternatively, GM requests that NHTSA defer its
decision until March 31, 2018 Id. According to GM, this would allow it
to conduct further studies and analysis that can develop an estimate of
the covered inflators' likely service life beyond 30 years, as well as
a predictive model of service-life estimates to account for inflator
design and vehicle integration. See id.
    NHTSA's grant of GM's request to defer a decision on the First
Petition until August 31, 2017 so that GM could provide additional
evidence, including concluding the OATK study, was unprecedented. As
NHTSA noted in granting that request, ``[o]rdinarily, under 49 CFR
556.4(b)(5), an inconsequentiality petition must set forth all data,
views, and arguments supporting that petition'' \5\ at the time of the
filing. Decision deferrals for inconsequentiality petitions are not
permitted, and permitting that practice would provide manufacturers
with an opportunity to endlessly delay remedy of vehicles in need of
repair. Here, one important factor in NHTSA's decision to grant the
deferral was GM's assertion that remedy parts would quickly be
available to the public in the event the petition was denied. NHTSA's
extraordinary grant of additional time to present information allowed
GM until

August 31, 2017 to provide data, and that date has passed. However,
following notice and an opportunity for comment, any decision on an
inconsequentiality petition can be reversed based on the presentation
of new evidence. 49 CFR 556.8. Accordingly, GM's request that NHTSA
defer decision on the Third Petition until March 31, 3017 is herein
denied. However, until NHTSA renders a decision on GM's Petitions, the
Agency will continue to accept and, to the extent feasible, consider
documents submitted relevant to the Petitions, which NHTSA will make
available for public comment in Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0124.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ General Motors LLC, Receipt of Petition for
Inconsequentiality and Decision Granting Request To File Out of Time
and Request for Deferral of Determination, 81 FR 85681, 85683-84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, NHTSA hereby gives notice of its receipt of General
Motors LLC's Petition for Inconsequentiality Regarding Certain GMT900
Vehicles Equipped with Takata ``SPI YP'' and ``PSPI-L YD'' Passenger
Inflators Subject to January 2018 Takata Equipment DIR Filings. And it
is hereby ordered that:
    1. The period for public comment on GM's Third Petition shall run
from the publication date of this notice through May 9, 2018;
    2. GM's Third Petition is consolidated with the First and Second
Petitions; and
    3. GM's request for a deferral of NHTSA's decision on its First,
Second, and Third Petitions to March 31, 2018, is denied.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., 30118, 30120(h), 30162,
30166(b)(1), 30166(g)(1); delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95(a);
49 CFR parts 556, 573, 577.

    Issued: April 3, 2018.
Jonathan C. Morrison,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2018-07188 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P