Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 142 / Monday, July 25, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 48323 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this AD: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska to the extent that it justifies 

making a regulatory distinction, and 

(4) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

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 part 39 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as 

follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing airworthiness directive (AD) 

2013–02–02, Amendment 39–17323 (78 

FR 5712, January 28, 2013), (‘‘AD 2013– 

02–02’’), and adding the following new 

AD: 

2016–14–10 CFM International, S.A. 

Turbofan Engines Modified by 

Supplemental Type Certificate 

SE00034EN: Amendment 39–18591; 

Docket No. FAA–2012–1289; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–NE–43–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective August 9, 2016. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD supersedes AD 2013–02–02. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to CFM International, S.A. 

CFM56–3, CFM56–3B, and CFM56–3C 

turbofan engines, modified by Supplemental 

Type Certificate SE00034EN, with a highpressure turbine (HPT) disk, part number (P/ 

N) 880026, serial number (S/N) 

GKLBAA9307, GKLBAA9335, GKLBAA9404, 

GKLBAA9407, or GKLBAA9409, installed. 

(d) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by reports that 

certain HPT disk serial numbers in AD 2013– 

02–02 and in certain Pratt & Whitney service 

information are incorrect. We are issuing this 

AD to prevent uncontained release of 

multiple turbine blades, damage to the 

engine, and damage to the airplane. 

(e) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(1) For CFM56–3, CFM56–3B, and CFM56– 

3C turbofan engines operating to 20,100 lbs 

maximum takeoff (MTO) thrust, remove the 

HPT disk from service on or before 

accumulating 8,000 cycles-since-new (CSN). 

(2) For CFM56–3B and CFM56–3C turbofan 

engines operating to 22,100 lbs MTO thrust, 

remove the HPT disk from service on or 

before accumulating 8,000 CSN. 

(3) For CFM56–3C turbofan engines 

operating to 23,500 lbs MTO thrust, remove 

the HPT disk from service on or before 

accumulating 4,000 CSN. 

(4) For HPT disks that have been used in 

multiple models or thrust installations, use 

the formula in the ADDED DATA section of 

Pratt & Whitney Special Instruction 6F–12, 

Revision A, dated May 17, 2016 to calculate 

the remaining life on the disk. 

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

The Manager, Engine Certification Office, 

FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use 

the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to 

make your request. You may email your 

request to: ANE-AD-AMOC@faa.gov. 

(g) Related Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact Kenneth Steeves, Aerospace 

Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 

Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District 

Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781– 

238–7765; fax: 781–238–7199; email: 

kenneth.steeves@faa.gov. 

(h) 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) Pratt & Whitney Corp. Special 

Instruction No. 6F–12, Revision A, dated 

May 17, 2016. 

(ii) Reserved. 

(3) For Pratt & Whitney service information 

identified in this AD, contact Pratt & 

Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 

06108; phone: 860–565–7700; fax: 860–565– 

1605. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 

District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. 

(5) You may view this service information 

at the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

July 11, 2016. 

Colleen M. D’Alessandro, 

Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–17442 Filed 7–22–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 93 

[Docket No.: FAA–2010–0302; Amdt. No. 

93–99] 

RIN 2120–AK84 

Extension of the Requirement for 

Helicopters to Use the New York North 

Shore Helicopter Route 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rulemaking amends the 

expiration date of the final rule 

requiring pilots operating civil 

helicopters under Visual Flight Rules to 

use the New York North Shore 

Helicopter Route when operating along 

that area of Long Island, New York. The 

current rule expires on August 6, 2016. 

The FAA finds it necessary to extend 

the rule for an additional four years to 

preserve the current operating 

environment while the FAA conducts 

ongoing helicopter research that will be 

considered to determine appropriate 

future actions. 

DATES: This final rule is effective August 

7, 2016, through August 6, 2020. 

ADDRESSES: For information on where to 

obtain copies of rulemaking documents 

and other information related to this 

final rule, see ‘‘How To Obtain 

Additional Information’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Kenneth Ready, Airspace 

and Rules Team, AJV–113, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–3396; email kenneth.ready@

faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
48324 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 142 / Monday, July 25, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1AEDT is the FAA’s tool for computing noise, 

emissions and fuel burn. 

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. 

The FAA has broad authority and 

responsibility to regulate the operation 

of aircraft, the use of the navigable 

airspace and to establish safety 

standards for and regulate the 

certification of airmen, aircraft, and air 

carriers. (49 U.S.C. 40104 et seq., 

40103(b)). The FAA’s authority for this 

rule is contained in 49 U.S.C. 40103 and 

44715. Under section 40103, the 

Administrator of the FAA has authority 

to ‘‘prescribe air traffic regulations on 

the flight of aircraft (including 

regulations on safe altitudes) for . . . (B) 

protecting individuals and property on 

the ground. (49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(2)(B)). 

In addition, section 44715(a), provides 

that to ‘‘relieve and protect the public 

health and welfare from aircraft noise,’’ 

the Administrator of the FAA, ‘‘as he 

deems necessary, shall prescribe . . . 

(ii) regulations to control and abate 

aircraft noise . . .’’ 

Good Cause for Immediate Adoption 

Without Prior Notice 

Section 553(d)(3) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act requires 

that agencies publish a rule not less 

than 30 days before its effective date, 

except as otherwise provided by the 

agency for good cause found and 

published with the rule. The current 

rule expires on August 6, 2016. To 

prevent confusion among pilots using 

the route and avoid disruption of the 

current operating environment, the FAA 

finds that good cause exists to make this 

rule effective in less than 30 days. 

I. Background 

In response to concerns from a large 

number of local residents regarding 

noise from helicopters operating over 

Long Island, the FAA issued the New 

York North Shore Helicopter Route final 

rule (77 FR 39911, July 6, 2012). The 

rule requires civil helicopter pilots 

operating Visual Flight Rules (VFR), 

whose route of flight takes them over 

the north shore of Long Island between 

the Visual Point Lloyd Harbor (VPLYD) 

waypoint and Orient Point (VPOLT), to 

use the North Shore Helicopter Route, 

as published in the New York 

Helicopter Chart (‘‘the Chart’’). The rule 

was promulgated to maximize use of the 

route, as published per the Chart, to 

secure and improve upon decreased 

levels of noise that had been voluntarily 

achieved. Under the rule, pilots are 

permitted to deviate from the route and 

altitude requirements when necessary 

for safety, weather conditions, or 

transitioning to or from a destination or 

point of landing. In addition, the rule is 

based on a voluntary VFR route that was 

developed by the FAA, working with 

the Eastern Region Helicopter Council. 

The voluntary route originally was 

added to the Chart on May 8, 2008. 

The rule originally had a two-year 

duration and was set to terminate on 

August 6, 2014. The FAA limited the 

duration of the rule because, at the time 

of promulgation, the FAA did not have 

data on the current rate of compliance 

with the voluntary route nor the 

circumstances surrounding an 

operator’s decision not to use the route. 

The FAA concluded there would be no 

reason to retain the rule if the FAA 

determined the noise situation along the 

North Shore of Long Island did not 

improve. Accordingly, the Agency 

decided that the rule would expire in 

two years, if it was determined there is 

no meaningful improvement in the 

effects of helicopter noise on quality of 

life or that the rule was otherwise 

unjustified. Specifically, the FAA stated 

that should there be such an 

improvement, the FAA may, after 

appropriate notice and opportunity for 

comment, decide to make the rule 

permanent. Likewise, should the FAA 

determine that reasonable modification 

could be made to the route to better 

address noise concerns (and any other 

relevant concerns), the FAA may choose 

to modify the rule after notice and 

comment. 

On June 23, 2014, the FAA issued a 

two-year extension of the rule’s 

termination date to provide additional 

time for the Agency to assess the rule’s 

impact and consider whether to make 

the mandatory use of the route 

permanent (79 FR 35488). Since then, 

the FAA has been engaged in a variety 

of helicopter research initiatives that 

could inform the Agency’s future 

actions on this rule. Topics addressed 

by these research efforts, described in 

more detail below, include modeling of 

helicopter performance and noise, 

helicopter noise-abatement procedures, 

and community response to helicopter 

noise. 

The FAA has initiated efforts to 

improve helicopter performancemodeling capabilities for more accurate 

operational impact analysis. This 

research is scheduled to be completed 

in 2016, with an implementation plan 

for incorporation into the FAA’s 

Aviation Environmental Design Tool 

(AEDT).1 Also, through the National 

Academies of Science, Engineering, and 

Medicine Transportation Review Board 

(TRB), a research project was initiated 

through the Airport Cooperative 

Research Program (ACRP) to provide 

helicopter noise-modeling guidance. 

The project reviewed, evaluated, and 

documented current helicopter noise 

prediction models and identified 

potential improvements to AEDT to 

better capture the unique complexity of 

helicopter operations. The research was 

published in January 2016. The FAA is 

currently reviewing the findings and 

will consider making modeling 

improvements in AEDT based on those 

findings. Improved modeling will allow 

better quantification of the noise 

impacts of helicopter operations and 

better inform decisions on measures to 

abate helicopter-noise impacts. 

The FAA’s Center of Excellence, 

called the Aviation Sustainability 

Center (ASCENT), has funded 

Pennsylvania State University to 

conduct modeling of helicopters to 

identify potential noise-abatement 

procedures that may result in quieter 

operations. The first phase of this 

project focuses on integrating the tools 

needed to predict helicopter-source 

noise and providing the necessary 

integration within AEDT to be able to 

illustrate potential noise impacts of 

such noise abatement procedures. The 

second phase of the project is focused 

on developing noise-abatement 

procedures for either individual 

helicopters or classes of helicopters. 

These phases of the research are 

scheduled to be completed by August 

2017. At that time, the FAA will need 

to determine whether to initiate and 

support flight tests during 2018, which 

would be necessary prior to advancing 

the use of the procedures with 

helicopter operators. 

The FAA is also engaged in research 

and collaboration with helicopter 

operators, seeking to educate pilots on 

the benefits of noise-abatement 

procedures, when to institute them, and 

the piloting procedures for achieving 

quieter operations. This project 

addresses noted issues by developing a 

strategy for pilot awareness of noiseabatement techniques, looking at ways 

to illustrate the benefits through 

modeling, and examining the potential 

for video training on how to incorporate 

noise-abatement procedures. This 

research will utilize the findings of the 

ASCENT project described above. 

Finally, the FAA has two projects to 

review methodologies to determine 

community response to helicopter 

operations. One project is administered 

through the ACRP. The objectives of the 

ACRP research project are to: (1) 

Determine the significance of acoustical 

and non-acoustical factors that 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 142 / Monday, July 25, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 48325 

influence community annoyance to 

helicopter noise, (2) describe how these 

factors compare to those contributing to 

fixed-wing aircraft community 

annoyance, and (3) develop and validate 

a research method to relate helicopternoise exposure to surveyed community 

annoyance. This project is two-thirds 

complete, and ACRP expects the project 

to be completed in late 2016. Further, 

the FAA has initiated a second project 

in an effort to test a different 

methodology for gathering information 

on community annoyance for residents 

in the vicinity of helicopter operations. 

The FAA has gathered data for this 

project, and the analysis is underway. 

The goal is to report on the methodology 

in late 2016, and when completed, it 

will provide an alternative method for 

developing an annoyance survey for 

helicopters. 

Both of these projects provide an 

opportunity for the FAA to compare 

methodologies and determine the most 

effective approach for conducting a 

helicopter noise-annoyance survey. At 

the completion of the projects, the FAA 

intends to select the most effective, 

survey methodology and determine if a 

larger scale, community survey would 

better inform the FAA on appropriate 

methods to address concerns over 

helicopter noise. The FAA will then 

consider the need for a comprehensive 

helicopter community annoyance 

survey. While the research reaches 

maturity by the end of 2017, applying 

the research will take longer. 

II. The Final Rule 

This final rule extends for an 

additional four years (i.e., to August 6, 

2020) the requirement for pilots of civil 

helicopters to use the North Shore 

Helicopter Route when transiting along 

the north shore of Long Island. The FAA 

expects that four years will be sufficient 

time to consider results of the described 

research efforts in determining 

appropriate future actions on the rule. 

Extending the requirement to use the 

North Shore Helicopter Route during 

this period will continue to foster 

maximum use of the North Shore 

Helicopter Route and avoid disruption 

of the current operating environment. 

Therefore, the FAA finds that a fouryear extension of the current rule is 

warranted. 

III. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 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) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, the Trade 

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) 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. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it to be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this final rule. The reasoning for this 

determination follows: 

This final rule extends for an 

additional four years (i.e., to August 6, 

2020) the requirement for pilots of civil 

helicopters to use the North Shore 

Helicopter Route when transiting along 

the north shore of Long Island. 

Extending the current rule for four years 

is expected to provide the FAA with 

sufficient time to consider results of the 

described research efforts in 

determining appropriate future actions 

on the rule. The FAA determined the 

2012 final rule would impose minimal 

costs because many of the existing 

operators were already complying with 

the final rule requirements. As this final 

rule extends those requirements, the 

FAA expects this final rule imposes 

only minimal costs. 

The FAA has, therefore, determined 

that this final rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation.’’ To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. However, if an agency determines 

that a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

The FAA believes that this final rule 

does not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities for the following reasons. With 

this final rule, the regulatory provisions 

already in place will be extended four 

years to provide the FAA with sufficient 

time to consider results of the described 

research efforts in determining 

appropriate future actions on the rule. 

The final regulatory flexibility analysis 

for the 2012 final rule determined that 

it had a minimal cost impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This final rule extends those 

requirements. Thus, the FAA expects a 

minimal economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Therefore, as provided in section 

605(b), the head of the FAA certifies 

that this rulemaking will not result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
48326 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 142 / Monday, July 25, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, 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 the rule will preserve 

the current operating environment and 

is not considered an unnecessary 

obstacle to foreign commerce. 

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 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 these proposed 

regulations. 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

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. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1F, ‘‘Environmental 

Impacts: Policies and Procedures,’’ 

identifies FAA actions that, in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances, 

are categorically excluded from 

requiring an environmental assessment 

(EA) or environmental impact statement 

(EIS) under the National Environmental 

Policy Act. This rule qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion in paragraph 5– 

6.6.f of that Order, which includes 

‘‘[r]egulations. . . excluding those that 

if implemented may cause a significant 

impact on the human environment. 

There are no extraordinary 

circumstances that warrant preparation 

of an EA or EIS. 

IV. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency determined that this action will 

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, 

does not have Federalism implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this final 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 is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order and it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

V. How To Obtain Additional 

Information 

A. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9680. Commenters 

must identify the docket or amendment 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this rulemaking action, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 

(1) above. 

B. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 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 person 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 93 

Air traffic control, Airspace, 

Navigation (air). 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I of Title 14 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 93–SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC 

RULES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 93 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 

40109, 40113, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44715, 

44719, 46301. 

■ 2. Add § 93.101 to read as follows: 

§ 93.101 Applicability. 

This subpart prescribes a special air 

traffic rule for civil helicopters 

operating VFR along the North Shore, 

Long Island, New York, between August 

6, 2012, and August 6, 2020. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 142 / Monday, July 25, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 48327 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in 

Washington, DC, on July 15, 2016. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2016–17427 Filed 7–22–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2016–0256] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Fox 

River, DePere to Oshkosh, WI 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is modifying 

the operating schedule for all 

drawbridges over the Fox River between 

DePere, WI and Oshkosh, WI. This rule 

will establish drawbridge schedules that 

coincide with lock schedules during the 

boating season and standard winter 

drawbridge schedules. 

DATES: This rule is effective August 24, 

2016. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to http://

www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2016– 

0256. In the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click 

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket 

Folder on the line associated with this 

rulemaking. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge 

Management Specialist, Ninth Coast 

Guard District; telephone 216–902– 

6085, email Lee.D.Soule@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

E.O. Executive Order 

FR Federal Register 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking 

Pub. L. Public Law 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

WIS–DOT Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation 

FRNSA Fox River Navigational System 

Authority 

CN–RR Canadian National Railroad 

II. Background Information and 

Regulatory History 

On May 6, 2016, we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

entitled Drawbridge Operation 

Regulation; Fox River, DePere to 

Oshkosh, WI, in the Federal Register 

(81 FR 27373). We did receive one 

comment on this rule. 

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule 

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule 

under authority 33 U.S.C. 499. 

Currently, the regulation for Fox River 

drawbridges (33 CFR 117.1087) includes 

the opening schedule for drawbridges in 

Green Bay, WI, where large commercial 

vessel traffic continues to transit. This 

rule does not include any changes to the 

schedules for drawbridges over the 

commercial ship channel in Green Bay. 

The sections of the current regulation 

that includes all other drawbridges 

between river mile 7.13 in DePere, WI 

at the DePere Pedestrian bridge, to river 

mile 58.3 in Oshkosh, WI, describe 

inconsistent dates and times for 

required drawbridge openings, 

particularly for the four highway 

drawbridges in Oshkosh. They also 

include reference to the George Street 

bridge at mile 7.27. The George Street 

bridge has been removed in the past 15 

years. In the current regulation, the 

Oshkosh drawbridges contain 

exemptions during certain dates and 

times where the drawbridges are not 

required to open for vessels or vessels 

must provide advance notice prior to 

passing during nighttime hours. 

This rule establishes the requirement 

for all drawbridges, except the Canadian 

National Railroad (CN–RR) bridge at 

mile 55.72 in Oshkosh, to open on 

signal between the hours of 8 a.m. and 

midnight each day from April 27 to 

October 7 every year. This schedule will 

match the lock schedule established by 

FRNSA and drawbridge schedules used 

by WIS–DOT. Between the hours of 

midnight and 8 a.m., except for the CN– 

RR bridge in Oshkosh, all drawbridges 

would open for vessels if at least 2- 

hours advance notice of arrival is 

provided. 

The CN–RR bridge at mile 55.72 in 

Oshkosh is located where Fox River 

feeds into the southwest section of Lake 

Winnebago. The portion of Fox River in 

the Oshkosh area, and Lake Winnebago, 

are among the busiest portions of the 

Fox River System for recreational vessel 

traffic. The CN–RR bridge provides 6 

feet of vertical clearance in the closed 

position and prevents most vessels from 

passing under the bridge, thereby 

requiring the drawbridge to open 

regularly for vessels. This is also the 

location of first responders and public 

safety vessels that may require the 

bridge to open at any time to perform 

rescue or emergency operations on Lake 

Winnebago. Vessels in distress or 

seeking shelter from weather on Lake 

Winnebago may also need the CN–RR 

bridge to open at any time. A delay in 

bridge openings at this location may 

endanger life or property and is 

therefore exempted from the proposed 

2-hour advance notice requirement from 

vessels for all other drawbridges 

between midnight and 8 a.m. 

All drawbridges would be required to 

open if at least 12-hours advance notice 

is provided prior to passing between 

October 8 and April 26 each year. 

This rule removes the George Street 

bridge from the regulation, establishes 

consistent annual dates for drawbridge 

schedules between river miles 7.13 and 

58.3, eliminates currently exempted 

bridge opening times during certain 

days and times in Oshkosh, makes 

permanent the requirement for vessels 

to provide 2-hours advance notice 

between midnight and 8 a.m., and 

establishes the winter bridge operating 

schedules throughout the entire river 

system. 

The dates, times, and conditions have 

been employed by local authorities for 

approximately 10 years and are 

generally accepted by vessel operators 

in the area as established conditions. 

The dates, times, and conditions have 

also been reviewed and accepted by 

WIS–DOT and FRNSA during the 

development of this rule. 

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes 

and the Final Rule 

The Coast Guard provided a comment 

period of 45 days and received one 

comment. Canadian National Railway 

Company (CN–RR) wished to clarify for 

the record that the bridge described in 

the NPRM as the ‘‘CN–RR bridge at Mile 

55.72 over Fox River in Oshkosh, WI’’ 

should reflect Wisconsin Central Ltd. as 

the entity holding common carrier 

responsibilities at this location. The 

Coast Guard recognizes that Wisconsin 

Central, Ltd. is owned by CN–RR, but 

for consistency in describing bridge 

owners throughout the Fox River system 

in official publications, and since the 

bridges are locally known and referred 

to as ‘‘Canadian National’’ bridges, we 

will continue to describe the railroad 

drawbridge at Mile 55.72 in Oshkosh as 

the CN–RR bridge. 

Additionally, CN–RR commented on 

the disparity of proposed bridge 

operations between nearby highway 

bridges and the CN–RR bridge at Mile 

55.72 in Oshkosh, WI. The NPRM 

excluded the CN–RR bridge at Mile 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES