Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 215 / Monday, November 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 78029 

8 81 FR 40152, 40156 (June 21, 2016). 

9Public Law 114–74, 129 Stat. 600 (Nov. 2, 2015), 

codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. 

10 81 FR 40152, 40156 (June 21, 2016). 

11See, e.g., Dep’t of Justice, Civil Monetary 

Penalties Inflation Adjustment, 81 FR 42491, 42499 

June 30, 2106). 

12See, e.g., Dep’t of Defense, Civil Monetary 

Penalty Inflation Adjustment, 81 FR 33389, 33390 

(May 26, 2016). 

13 81 FR 40152, 40156 (June 21, 2016). 

procedures and calculations prescribed 

by the 2015 amendments and OMB’s 

guidance, the Board adjusted the 

maximum level of each of the CMPs that 

NCUA has authority to assess. NCUA is 

not, however, required to assess at the 

new maximum levels and retains 

discretion to assess at lower levels, as it 

has done historically.8

The interim final rule became 

effective on July 21, 2016. The Board 

received no comments on the rule. 

B. Prospective Effect of Adjustments 

Although the Board received no 

comments on the interim final rule, it 

wishes to clarify its intended use of 

adjusted maximums for violations that 

occurred prior to the adjustment. As 

described in the interim final rule, the 

2015 amendments provide that 

increased maximum CMP amounts 

apply to penalties assessed after the 

adjustments take effect, including those 

for which the associated violation 

occurred before the adjustment became 

effective.9 The Board adopted this 

provision in the interim final rule 

consistent with the statute.10

The Board has observed that agencies 

have appeared to vary in their adoption 

of this provision. Some agencies’ 

interim final rules provide that the 

adjusted maximums apply only to 

violations occurring after November 2, 

2015, when the 2015 amendments 

became law.11 Other agencies’ rules, like 

the NCUA’s interim final rule, do not 

specify whether the adjusted maximums 

would apply to violations that occurred 

before the 2015 amendments were 

enacted.12 To avoid confusion, the 

Board clarifies that it interprets the 2015 

amendments as applying only 

prospectively. If NCUA assesses CMPs 

at the maximum level, it would not 

apply the new maximums to violations 

that occurred before the statute was 

amended on November 2, 2015. As 

noted above, nothing in the 2015 

amendments or the final rule requires 

application of maximum-level CMPs. 

Further, as explained in the interim 

final rule, NCUA generally must 

consider mitigating factors, including 

financial resources, in assessing a 

CMP.13

Apart from this clarification, the 

Board adopts the interim final rule as 

final without changes. 

II. Regulatory Procedures 

Section III of the Supplementary 

Information in the June 2016 interim 

final rule sets forth the Board’s analyses 

under the Administrative Procedure 

Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

Small Business Enforcement Fairness 

Act, Executive Order 13132, and the 

Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act. See 81 FR 40156– 

40157. Because the final rule confirms 

the interim final rule and does not alter 

the substance of the analyses and 

determinations accompanying the 

interim final rule, the Board continues 

to rely on those analyses and 

determinations for purposes of this 

rulemaking. The Board notes that OMB 

determined that the interim final rule is 

not a ‘‘major rule’’ within the meaning 

of the Small Business Enforcement 

Fairness Act. 

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 747 

Credit unions, Civil monetary 

penalties. 

By the National Credit Union 

Administration Board on October 27, 2016. 

Gerard S. Poliquin, 

Secretary of the Board. 

For the reasons stated above, the 

interim final rule amending 12 CFR part 

747, published at 81 FR 40152 (June 21, 

2016), is adopted as a final rule without 

change. 

[FR Doc. 2016–26712 Filed 11–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7535–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 73 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–2776; Airspace 

Docket No. 15–AEA–5] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Amendment and Establishment of 

Restricted Areas; Chincoteague Inlet, 

VA 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action expands the 

restricted airspace at Chincoteague Inlet, 

VA, to support the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration’s (NASA) 

Wallops Island Flight Facility (WFF) 

test requirements. This action adds 3 

new restricted areas, designated R– 

6604C, R–6604D, and R–6604E. 

Additionally, a minor change is made to 

2 points in the boundary of existing area 

R–6604A to match the updated 3- 

nautical mile (NM) line from the 

shoreline of the United States (U.S.) as 

provided by the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, January 

5, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Gallant, Airspace Policy Group, Office 

of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–8783. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 

40103. Under that section, the FAA is 

charged with prescribing regulations to 

assign the use of the airspace necessary 

to ensure the safety of aircraft and the 

efficient use of airspace. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority as 

it restructures the restricted airspace at 

Chincoteague Inlet, VA to enhance 

aviation safety and accommodate 

essential NASA testing programs. 

History 

On September 10, 2015, the FAA 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice proposing to expand the 

restricted airspace at Chincoteague Inlet, 

VA, to support NASA’s WFF test 

requirements (80 FR 54444), Docket No. 

FAA–2015–2776. Interested parties 

were invited to participate in this 

rulemaking effort by submitting written 

comments on the proposal. Due to an 

error, a chart depicting the proposed 

areas was not posted to the 

regulations.gov Web site for public 

viewing until November 5, 2015 (10 

days after the close of the comment 

period). Consequently, on January 21, 

2016, the FAA published a notice 

reopening the comment period for 30 

additional days (81 FR 3353), Docket 

No. FAA–2015–2776, to provide the 

public the opportunity to view the chart 

and submit comments. 

Discussion of Comments 

A total of 17 comments were received, 

including 2 duplicate submissions. 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
78030 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 215 / Monday, November 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Eight commenters expressed support for 

the proposal. Several of the supporters 

wrote that restricted areas R–6604D and 

R–6604E abut, but do not include, VOR 

Federal airway V–139, concluding, 

when those areas are in use, air traffic 

can continue to flow unimpeded on the 

airway. 

FAA Response. VOR Federal airways, 

such as V–139 consist of that airspace 

within 4–NM either side of the airway 

centerline. R–6604D and R–6604E 

essentially abut the centerline of V–139, 

which means they infringe upon the 4– 

NM width on the east side of the airway 

centerline. Therefore, the airway would 

be unusable below 4,000 feet MSL when 

either R–6604D or R–6604E is active. 

When the restricted areas are active, 

instrument flight rules (IFR) traffic must 

use the airway at or above 4,000 feet 

MSL. Otherwise, they must be vectored 

to remain clear of the active restricted 

areas or navigate by other airways. As 

an alternative, pilots flying northeastbound could use V–1 or V–139 to the 

Cape Charles VORTAC (CCV), VA, then 

fly V–1 to the Waterloo VOR/DME 

(ATR), DE, then V–308 to the Sea Isle 

VORTAC (SIE), NJ, then rejoin V–139. 

This alternative would only add about 

2–NM to the route of flight. Conversely, 

southwest-bound traffic could fly V–139 

to the Sea Isle VORTAC, then follow the 

reverse of the routing shown above and 

rejoin V–139 at the Cape Charles 

VORTAC. Air Traffic Control (ATC) will 

ensure IFR traffic filed via V–139 is 

separated from active restricted airspace 

by means of altitude assignment, route 

clearance, or radar vectors. 

VFR pilots who elect to navigate via 

V–139 would have to fly above the 

restricted areas at the appropriate VFR 

cruising altitude for the direction of 

flight. VFR cruising altitudes are ‘‘odd 

thousands plus 500 feet for northeastbound traffic and even thousands plus 

500 feet for southwest-bound traffic. 

Therefore, for VFR traffic navigating on 

V–139 (when the restricted areas are 

active), the lowest available altitudes 

would be 5,500 feet MSL for northeastbound traffic; and 4,500 feet MSL for 

southwest-bound traffic. VFR aircraft 

may also elect to deviate around the 

restricted airspace or use the alternate 

routing described above. ATC will 

continue to provide VFR flight 

advisories throughout the airspace on a 

workload permitting basis. When the 

restricted areas are not active, V–139 is 

fully available for air traffic. These 

restricted areas are expected to receive 

limited usage on an annual basis. 

Seven commenters stated additional 

concerns about the proposal, which are 

discussed below. 

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association (AOPA) wrote that the 

published feeder route from the Snow 

Hill VORTAC to the GOBYO initial 

approach fix, serving the GPS approach 

to runway 32 at Ocean City Municipal 

Airport, MD, (KOXB), would be 

unavailable during the time R–6604D is 

activated. This would reduce the 

efficiency provided by the feeder route 

increasing the likelihood of pilots flying 

longer distances with increased fuel 

consumption and costs to the operator. 

FAA Response. ATC will offset this 

impact by either clearing the aircraft to 

GOBYO at 4,000 feet MSL or above, or 

vectoring the aircraft a short distance 

around the restricted areas. 

AOPA noted that the need to 

circumnavigate the restricted areas, 

when active, would also affect pilots 

operating under VFR. When active, the 

new restricted areas would render as 

unavailable key VFR landmarks, such as 

U.S. Route 13, railroad tracks and the 

seashore, that are used by VFR pilots 

who navigate without GPS or navigation 

aids and who fly at lower altitudes. 

AOPA said that avoiding the restricted 

areas by flying to the east, over open 

water, would be dangerous for singleengine, shoreline-following pilots, and 

it would be time consuming for those 

diverting around the complex to the 

west. AOPA requested that stand-alone 

VFR waypoints be charted in the 

Chincoteague area to assist pilots 

unfamiliar with the area to safely 

navigate around the restricted areas. 

The FAA agrees and will develop 

charted VFR waypoints to assist VFR 

aircraft in avoiding the restricted areas. 

When the restricted areas are not in use, 

the above mentioned landmarks would 

remain available for VFR navigation. 

AOPA advised that, since the new 

restricted areas are close to numerous 

final approach courses of surrounding 

airports, they must be depicted on 

applicable Instrument Approach 

Procedure Charts to increase pilot 

awareness. 

The FAA agrees and is taking action 

to depict the new restricted areas on 

applicable instrument procedure charts. 

AOPA noted that the proposed 

restricted areas would be activated ‘‘By 

NOTAM,’’ but the NPRM did not 

indicate how far in advance the 

NOTAM should be issued. AOPA 

recommended at least 12 hours notice is 

necessary to assist pilots in flight 

planning. 

NASA agreed to revise the time of 

designation for R–6604C, D and E to 

read ‘‘By NOTAM at least 12 hours in 

advance.’’ 

The Helicopter Association 

International (HAI) wrote that it was 

unable to support the proposed changes. 

HAI said that the restricted area 

expansion would impact both IFR and 

VFR operators. Helicopter operators 

would be required to either fly further 

offshore for longer periods to 

circumnavigate the area, or fly further 

west into a more tightly congested 

corridor. HAI is concerned with the 

offshore option, especially during 

winter when lower sea temperatures 

would greatly reduce aircrew 

survivability times if an emergency 

resulted in a water entry. Further, the 

increased minimum altitudes to overfly 

R–6604D and R–6604E could force 

helicopter operators higher and subject 

them to increased encounters with icing 

conditions. 

FAA Response. Helicopter operators 

would have the option to avoid the 

restricted areas via the alternate routing 

discussed above or by use of the VFR 

waypoints being developed for that 

purpose. Additionally, the limited 

projected annual use of the areas 

described previously should lessen the 

potential impacts on helicopter 

operations. Further, NASA has agreed to 

promptly release the restricted areas to 

ATC for active medevac or search and 

rescue helicopter operations. 

One commenter contended that a 

requirement for restricted airspace was 

not established and suggested the use of 

a less restrictive type of special use 

airspace (SUA) such as a warning area. 

The commenter believes that the 

proposal did not justify why SUA must 

be established over land for this purpose 

and that establishing test airspace over 

water adjacent to Wallops should be 

considered before establishing SUA over 

land. 

FAA Response. NASA proposed the 

restricted area expansion to 

accommodate a variety of test activities 

that pose a hazard to nonparticipating 

aircraft. These activities include, but are 

not limited to, high-risk test profiles by 

heavily modified test aircraft, testing of 

emitters that could induce harmful 

electromagnetic interference effects on 

nonparticipating aircraft, non-eye-safe 

laser firings, and external stores 

separation testing. Warning areas may 

also contain hazardous activities and 

they are established offshore. However, 

while warning areas serve notice of the 

possible existence of hazardous 

activities, they do not restrict access by 

nonparticipating aircraft that elect to 

transit the airspace. There is an existing 

warning area, W–386, located offshore 

near WFF, but this area is delegated to 

the U.S. Navy which has its own 

requirements and scheduling priorities. 

NASA does use the overwater SUA to 

the extent possible, but some test 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 215 / Monday, November 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 78031 

operations require overland airspace in 

close proximity to an airfield. NASA’s 

restricted area proposal was designed 

for this specific purpose. 

During the design of the proposal, 

other types of SUA were considered but 

deemed insufficient for ensuring safety 

during NASA’s flight test operations. 

Use of nearby existing restricted areas 

were not an option due to technical 

requirements (co-use airspace versus 

exclusive-use airspace; travel distance 

to the SUA) as well as the dynamic 

nature of NASA’s flight test program. 

For example, the vast majority of the 

Patuxent River Naval Air Station’s 

restricted areas are not exclusive use. 

The parts of the Patuxent River 

restricted area complex that could be 

scheduled as exclusive use are in high 

demand and used for priority 

Department of Defense requirements. It 

would be highly unlikely that NASA 

would be granted access to this airspace, 

especially given the dynamic operations 

schedule. 

In this case, the FAA has determined 

that the restricted area expansion is the 

appropriate SUA designation to contain 

NASA’s hazardous activities in order to 

ensure segregation of those activities 

from nonparticipating aircraft. 

Several commenters pointed out that 

this is very busy airspace used by 

commercial and private flights. They 

contended that there is sufficient 

airspace for testing in other parts of the 

country. 

FAA Response. NASA operates a 

wide variety of highly modified aircraft 

at WFF in support of various test 

missions. The configuration of each 

aircraft changes often as dictated by the 

specific test program and the 

engineering and physical modification 

work that takes place at WFF. Further, 

in addition to facilities supporting 

aircraft operations, the infrastructure in 

place at WFF includes the 

communications, telemetry, radar 

tracking, and flight path guidance 

necessary to fulfill NASA’s testing 

commitments. It would be impractical 

and not cost effective to relocate 

infrastructure and testing operations to 

another location. In addition, at other 

locations, NASA testing would be 

competing for access to airspace and 

that would adversely impact NASA test 

programs. The design and projected use 

of the expanded restricted areas should 

minimize the impacts on other users of 

the National Airspace System. 

One commenter expressed concern 

about pilots being able to reliably and 

quickly determine the activity status of 

the restricted areas from air traffic 

control. 

FAA Response. In the NPRM, 

Patuxent River Approach Control was 

proposed as the controlling agency for 

R–6604C, D and E. The FAA has since 

decided that Washington ARTCC, which 

is the controlling agency for the existing 

R–6604A and B, should also be the 

controlling agency for the new restricted 

areas. The controlling agency typically 

coordinates SUA status with the using 

agency and is the primary source for 

pilots to determine activity status of the 

airspace at any given time. The ‘‘Special 

Use Airspace Tabulation’’ on the 

Washington Sectional Aeronautical 

Chart currently lists Washington ARTCC 

as the controlling agency for R–6604A 

and B. The tabulation also includes area 

altitudes, time of use and contact 

frequencies. The tabulation will be 

updated to include information for R– 

6604C, D and E. In addition, the 

requirement that R–6604C, D and E 

must be activated by a NOTAM issued 

at least 12 hours in advance should 

assist pilots in flight planning. 

Other Impacts 

The FAA identified several other 

potential impacts. First, when R–6604E 

is active, it would encroach into the 

protected airspace for the RNAV (GPS) 

approach to runway 21 at Accomack 

County Airport, Melfa, VA, (KMFV). 

There are several options to address this 

issue: ATC can provide radar vectors to 

runway 21; the aircraft could be cleared 

for the VOR/DME RWY 3 or the LOC 

RWY 3 approach with a circle to land 

runway 21; or ATC can temporarily 

recall a portion of R–6604E to restrict 

NASA aircraft to a minimum altitude of 

2,500 feet MSL or above, allowing 

aircraft on the approach to fly 

underneath. Once the traffic on 

approach is clear, the airspace would be 

returned to the user. This latter 

provision would be included in the 

Letter of Procedure between the FAA 

and NASA that governs use of the 

restricted areas. 

Second, the protected airspace for the 

missed approach procedure for the 

RNAV (GPS) RWY 3 approach at 

Accomack County Airport would be 

impacted when R–6604E is active. 

FAA plans to amend the missed 

approach procedure for the RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 3 approach. In the interim, the 

VOR/DME RWY 3 approach is available. 

The missed approach for that procedure 

does not conflict with the restricted 

area. Also, as described above, ATC can 

restrict aircraft operating in R–6604E to 

a minimum altitude that permits IFR 

traffic to fly the approach beneath. 

Third, Midway Airport (VG56), a 

private-use airport near Bloxom, VA, 

would be impacted by the expansion. 

Midway is located below R–6604E. The 

VFR traffic patterns and access to and 

from the airport would be affected 

unless operations are coordinated. 

NASA has agreed to establish a Letter of 

Agreement with airport operators to 

minimize impact to the private airports 

south of the WFF. 

Differences From the NPRM 

The time of designation for R–6604C, 

D and E was proposed in the NPRM as 

‘‘By NOTAM.’’ In response to comments 

received, the time of designation is 

changed to read ‘‘By NOTAM at least 12 

hours in advance.’’ 

The controlling agency for R–6604C, 

D and E was proposed as Patuxent River 

Approach Control. The FAA determined 

that Washington ARTCC will be the 

controlling agency for all R–6604 

subareas (A through E). 

The Rule 

The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 73 

by establishing 3 new restricted areas, 

designated R–6604C, R–6604D and R– 

6604E, at NASA’s WFF in Virginia. The 

new areas abut the existing restricted 

areas (R–6604A and R–6604B) and will 

be used to contain a variety of test 

activities deemed to pose a hazard to 

nonparticipating aircraft. The following 

is a general description of the areas. 

R–6604C overlies the WFF airfield 

and is contained entirely within the 

WFF property boundary. It extends from 

the surface up to 3,500 feet mean sea 

level (MSL). Expected usage will be 

approximately 1.5 hours per day (in 45- 

minute periods) on approximately 120 

days per year, totaling approximately 

180 hours per year. 

R–6604D is extends from 100 feet 

above ground level (AGL) up to 3,500 

feet MSL. It is located between the 

western boundary of R–6604B and the 

centerline of VOR Federal airway V– 

139, extending approximately 15–NM to 

the northeast of the R–6604A/R–6604B 

northern boundary. Expected usage will 

also be approximately 1.5 hours per day 

(in 45-minute periods) on 

approximately 120 days per year, 

totaling approximately 180 hours per 

year. 

R–6604E extends from 700 feet AGL 

up to 3,500 feet MSL. It is located 

between the western boundaries of R– 

6604A and R–6604B and the centerline 

of VOR Federal airway V–139. Expected 

usage will be approximately 1.5 hours 

per day (in 45-minute periods) on 

approximately 40 days per year, totaling 

approximately 60 hours per year. 

All 3 areas would be activated by a 

Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) to be issued 

at least 12 hours in advance. Specific 

times of designation were not assigned 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
78032 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 215 / Monday, November 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

for R–6604C, D and E due to the variable 

nature of test programs. 

In addition to the above, 2 points in 

the boundary of R–6604A that intersect 

a line 3–NM from the shoreline of the 

U.S. are adjusted to reflect NOAA’s 

updated calculation of the U.S. 

shoreline. The rest of the R–6604A 

description is unchanged. 

The configuration of the restricted 

areas was designed to allow for 

activation of only that portion of the 

complex required for the specific test 

profile being conducted. As is the 

current practice with R–6604A and R– 

6604B, when the new restricted areas 

are not required by the using agency, the 

airspace will be returned to the 

controlling agency for access by other 

aviation users. 

Note that the existing areas (R–6604A 

and R–6604B) will continue to be used, 

as in the past, for missile and rocket 

launches, aircraft systems development, 

expendable launch vehicles, lasers, 

RPV, and other test programs. 

The FAA is taking this action because 

the existing restricted airspace is too 

small to fully contain hazardous test 

profiles conducted by NASA’s WFF. 

Operational Note: Considering their 

location, it is important that the new 

areas be depicted on both the IFR en 

route chart (L–36) and the VFR chart 

covering the affected area before they 

are activated for use. Due to 

aeronautical chart publication cycles, 

the publication dates for the applicable 

IFR and VFR charts are not the same. 

The effective date of this rule is January 

5, 2017, to ensure the airspace will also 

be depicted on the IFR en route chart, 

which publishes on that date. However, 

the new areas will not be available for 

use or activation by NASA until they 

also appear on the next edition of the 

Washington Sectional Aeronautical 

Chart, which publishes on February 2, 

2017. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a 

‘‘significant rule’’ under Department of 

Transportation (DOT) Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; 

February 26, 1979); and (3) does not 

warrant preparation of a regulatory 

evaluation as the anticipated impact is 

so minimal. Since this is a routine 

matter that only affects air traffic 

procedures and air navigation, it is 

certified that this rule, when 

promulgated, does not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

The FAA has conducted an 

environmental review for this 

rulemaking in accordance with FAA 

Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: 

Policies and Procedures, the National 

Environmental Policy Act, and its 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

parts 1500–1508. FAA’s environmental 

impact review included an independent 

evaluation and adoption of NASA’s 

Final Environmental Assessment for the 

Establishment of Restricted Area 

Airspace (R–6604C/D/E) at Goddard 

Space Flight Center, Wallops Flight 

Facility, Wallops Island, Virginia, dated 

October 2016 (hereinafter ‘‘the FEA’’), 

for which the FAA was a cooperating 

agency, and which included the 

environmental analysis of the expanded 

restricted airspace at Chincoteague Inlet, 

VA, to support NASA’s Wallops Island 

Flight Facility (WFF) test requirements 

consisting of the addition of three new 

restricted areas, designated R–6604C, R– 

6604D, and R–6604E, and a minor 

change to two points in the boundary of 

existing area R–6604A to match the 

updated 3-nautical mile (NM) line from 

the shoreline of the U.S. as provided by 

NOAA, and as described above. Based 

on its environmental review, the FAA 

has determined that the action that is 

the subject of this rule does not present 

the potential for significant impacts to 

the human environment. The FAA’s 

Adoption EA and FONSI–ROD are 

included in the docket for this 

rulemaking. The FEA is available at 

https://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code250/ 

Establishment_R-6604CDE_DEA.html. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73 

Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted 

areas. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 73.66 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 73.66 is amended as 

follows: 

* * * * * 

R–6604A Chincoteague Inlet, VA 

[Amended] 

By removing the current boundaries 

and inserting the following in its place: 

Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 

37°55′25′′ N., long. 75°24′54′′ W.; to lat. 

37°51′31′′ N., long.75°17′16′′ W.; then 

along a line 3–NM from and parallel to 

the shoreline to lat. 37°39′20′′ N., long. 

75°31′19′′ W.; to lat. 37°47′00′′ N., long. 

75°31′18′′ W.; to lat. 37°51′00′′ N., long. 

75°29′36′′ W.; to the point of beginning. 

R–6604C Chincoteague Inlet, VA 

[New] 

Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 

37°56′57′′ N., long. 75°28′37′′ W.; to lat. 

37°56′54′′ N., long. 75°26′56′′ W.; to lat. 

37°56′23′′ N., long. 75°26′46′′ W.; to lat. 

37°56′45′′ N., long. 75°27′29′′ W.; to lat. 

37°55′15′′ N., long. 75°28′23′′ W.; to lat. 

37°55′15′′ N., long. 75°28′39′′ W.; to lat. 

37°56′32′′ N., long. 75°29′18′′ W.; to the 

point of beginning. 

Designated altitudes. Surface to 3,500 

feet MSL. 

Time of designation. By NOTAM at 

least 12 hours in advance. 

Controlling agency. FAA, Washington 

ARTCC. 

Using agency. Chief, Wallops Station, 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, Wallops Island, VA. 

R–6604D Chincoteague Inlet, VA 

[New] Boundaries 

Beginning at lat. 38°01′42′′ N., long. 

75°29′28′′ W.; to lat. 38°07′12′′ N., long. 

75°14′48′′ W.; to lat. 38°04′36′′ N., long. 

75°08′07′′ W.; thence along a line 3–NM 

from and parallel to the shoreline to lat. 

37°51′31′′ N., long. 75°17′16′′ W.; to lat. 

37°56′45′′ N., long. 75°27′29′′ W.; to lat. 

37°53′55′′ N., long. 75°29′11′′ W.; to lat. 

37°55′40′′ N., long. 75°33′27′′ W.; to the 

point of beginning; excluding R–6604C. 

Designated altitudes. 100 feet AGL to 

3,500 feet MSL. 

Time of designation. By NOTAM at 

least 12 hours in advance. 

Controlling agency. FAA, Washington 

ARTCC. 

Using agency. Chief, Wallops Station, 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, Wallops Island, VA. 

R–6604E Chincoteague Inlet, VA 

[New] 

Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 

37°55′40′′ N., long. 75°33′27′′ W.; to lat. 

37°53′55′′ N., long. 75°29′11′′ W.; to lat. 

37°50′24′′ N., long. 75°31′19′′ W.; to lat. 

37°39′20′′ N., long. 75°31′19′′ W.; to lat. 

37°38′57′′ N., long. 75°31′31′′ W.; to lat. 

37°46′55′′ N., long. 75°39′13′′ W.; to the 

point of beginning. 

Designated altitudes. 700 feet AGL to 

3,500 feet MSL. 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 215 / Monday, November 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 78033 

1Mailing address: 10903 New Hampshire Ave., 

Silver Spring, MD 20993. 

Time of designation. By NOTAM at 

least 12 hours in advance. 

Controlling agency. FAA, Washington 

ARTCC. 

Using agency. Chief, Wallops Station, 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, Wallops Island, VA. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC on November 1, 

2016. 

Leslie M. Swann, 

Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group. 

[FR Doc. 2016–26760 Filed 11–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Part 5 

[Docket No. FDA–2012–N–0222] 

Revision of Organization and 

Conforming Changes to Regulation 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) is issuing this 

final rule to amend the regulations to 

reflect organization change in the 

Agency and to make other conforming 

changes. This action is editorial in 

nature and is intended to improve the 

accuracy of the Agency’s regulations. 

DATES: This rule is effective November 

7, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Vanessa Starks, Management Analysis 

Services Staff, Food and Drug 

Administration, 11601 Landsdown St., 

3WFN—5th Floor, Rm. 05D12, North 

Bethesda, MD 20857. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

FDA is issuing this final rule to 

amend its regulations by updating the 

organizational information in part 5 (21 

CFR part 5). 

The portion of this final rule updating 

the organizational information in part 5, 

subpart M, is a rule of Agency 

organization, procedure, or practice. 

FDA is issuing these provisions as a 

final rule without publishing a general 

notice of proposed rulemaking because 

such notice is not required for rules of 

Agency organization, procedure, or 

practice under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). For 

the conforming changes to the other 

regulations, the Agency finds good 

cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) to 

dispense with prior notice and 

comment, and good cause under 5 

U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make these 

conforming changes effective less than 

30 days after publication because such 

notice and comment and delayed 

effective date are unnecessary and 

contrary to the public interest. These 

changes do not result in any substantive 

change in the regulations. 

II. Economic Analysis of Impacts 

We have examined the impacts of the 

final rule under Executive Order 12866, 

Executive Order 13563, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), and 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all 

costs and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, when regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity). We have 

developed a comprehensive Economic 

Analysis of Impacts that assesses the 

impacts of the final rule. We believe that 

this final rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

requires Agencies to analyze regulatory 

options that would minimize any 

significant impact of a rule on small 

entities. Because this rule simply 

updates the organizational information, 

it does not impose any additional costs 

on industry. Consequently, the Agency 

certifies that the final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires us to 

prepare a written statement, which 

includes an assessment of anticipated 

costs and benefits, before issuing ‘‘any 

rule that includes any Federal mandate 

that may result in the expenditure by 

State, local, and tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100,000,000 or more (adjusted 

annually for inflation) in any one year.’’ 

The current threshold after adjustment 

for inflation is $146 million, using the 

most current (2015) Implicit Price 

Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. 

This final rule would not result in an 

expenditure in any year that meets or 

exceeds this amount. 

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This final rule contains no collections 

of information. Therefore, clearance by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 is not required. 

IV. Analysis of Environmental Impact 

We have determined under 21 CFR 

25.30(h) that this action is of a type that 

does not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. Therefore, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

V. Federalism 

We have analyzed this final rule in 

accordance with the principles set forth 

in Executive Order 13132. FDA has 

determined that the rule does not 

contain policies that have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the National 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Accordingly we 

conclude that the rule does not contain 

policies that have federalism 

implications as defined in the Executive 

order and, consequently, a federalism 

summary impact statement is not 

required. 

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 5 

Authority delegations (Government 

agencies), Imports, Organization and 

functions (Government agencies). 

Therefore, under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under 

authority of the Commissioner of Food 

and Drugs, 21 CFR part 5 is revised to 

read as follows: 

PART 5—ORGANIZATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 5 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 21 U.S.C. 301– 

397. 

■ 2. Revise § 5.1100 to read as follows: 

§ 5.1100 Headquarters. 

Office of the Commissioner.1

Office of the Chief Counsel. 

Office of the Executive Secretariat. 

Freedom of Information Staff. 

Dockets Management Staff. 

Office of the Chief Scientist.1

Office of Counter-Terrorism and 

Emerging Threats. 

Office of Scientific Integrity. 

Office of Regulatory Science and 

Innovation. 

Division of Science Innovation and 

Critical Path. 

Division of Scientific Computing and 

Medical Information. 

Office of Scientific Professional 

Development. 

Office of Health Informatics. 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES