Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 48693 

1A vapor space is any portion of the airplane fuel 

tanks and the fuel tank vent system that, if such 

tanks and system held any fuel, could contain fuel 

vapor. 

2Flame propagation is the spread of a flame in 

a combustible environment outward from the point 

at which the combustion started. 

3A fuel tank vent system is a system that 

ventilates fuel vapor from the airplane fuel tanks to 

the atmosphere. A fuel tank vent system ensures 

that the air and fuel pressure within the fuel tank 

stay within structural limits required by § 25.975(a). 

advance filing does not violate this 

subpart or the principles of ethical 

conduct contained in § 2635.101(b). 

Example 1 to paragraph (c): An employee 

of the Federal Labor Relations Authority who 

is a public filer began negotiating for future 

employment with a law firm. At the time he 

began negotiating for future employment 

with the law firm, he was not participating 

personally and substantially in a particular 

matter that, to his knowledge, had a direct 

and predictable effect on the financial 

interest of the law firm. Although the 

employee was not required to file a recusal 

statement because he did not have a conflict 

of interest or appearance of a conflict of 

interest with the law firm identified in the 

notification statement, the Office of 

Government Ethics encourages the employee 

to submit a notification of recusal at the same 

time that he files the notification statement 

regarding the negotiations for future 

employment in order to ensure that the 

requirement of paragraph (b) of this section 

is satisfied if a conflict of interest or an 

appearance of a conflict of interest later 

arises. The agency ethics official should 

counsel the employee on applicable 

requirements but is under no obligation to 

notify the employee’s supervisor that the 

employee is negotiating for employment. 

Example 2 to paragraph (c): An employee 

of the General Services Administration is 

contacted by a prospective employer 

regarding scheduling an interview for the 

following week to begin discussing the 

possibility of future employment. The 

employee discusses the matter with the 

ethics official and chooses to file a 

notification and recusal statement prior to 

the interview. The notification and recusal 

statement contain the identity of the 

prospective employer and an estimated date 

of when the interview will occur. The 

employee has complied with the notification 

requirement of section 17 of the STOCK Act. 

(d) Agreement of future employment 

or compensation for the purposes of 

§ 2635.607 means any arrangement 

concerning employment that will 

commence after the termination of 

Government service. The term also 

means any arrangement to compensate 

in exchange for services that will 

commence after the termination of 

Government service. The term includes, 

among other things, an arrangement to 

compensate for teaching, speaking, or 

writing that will commence after the 

termination of Government service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–17553 Filed 7–25–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6345–03–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 25, 121, and 129 

[Docket No.: FAA–2014–0500; Amdt. Nos. 

25–143, 121–375, and 129–52] 

RIN 2120–AK30 

Fuel Tank Vent Fire Protection; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting a final 

rule published in the Federal Register 

on June 24, 2016 (81 FR 41200). In that 

final rule, the FAA amended certain 

airworthiness regulations for transport 

category airplanes to require fuel tank 

designs that prevent a fuel tank 

explosion caused by the propagation of 

flames, from external fires, through the 

fuel tank vents. The final rule requires 

a delay of two minutes and thirty 

seconds between exposure of external 

fuel tank vents to ignition sources and 

explosions caused by propagation of 

flames into the fuel tank, thus 

increasing the time available for 

passenger evacuation and emergency 

response. The amendments apply to 

applications for new type certificates 

and certain applications for amended or 

supplemental type certificates. The 

amendments also require certain 

airplanes produced in the future and 

operated by air carriers to meet the new 

standards. 

However, in that document, the 

amendment numbers for the final rules 

were incorrect, and an airplane model 

number in a footnote was incorrect. This 

document now posts the correct 

amendment numbers and airplane 

model number in the footnote. 

DATES: This correction is effective on 

July 26, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Mike Dostert, Propulsion 

and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM– 

112, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind 

Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 

telephone (425) 227–2132; facsimile 

(425) 227 1149; email Mike.Dostert@

faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 24, 2016, the FAA published 

a final rule titled, ‘‘Fuel Tank Vent Fire 

Protection’’ in the Federal Register (81 

FR 41200). 

The intent of that rule is to prevent 

fuel tank explosions caused by ignition 

from external ignition sources of fuel 

vapor either contained in vapor spaces 1

or exiting from vapor spaces through the 

fuel tank vent outlets. Potential external 

ignition sources include, but are not 

limited to, ground handling equipment, 

fuel fires that result from refueling 

spills, or ground fires that follow a 

survivable crash landing in which the 

fuel tank and the vent system remain 

intact. Means to prevent or delay the 

propagation of flame 2 from external 

sources into the fuel tank through the 

fuel tank vent system 3 would also 

prevent or delay fuel tank explosions 

following certain accidents. These 

means include flame arrestors or fuel 

tank inerting. This prevention or delay 

would provide additional time for the 

safe evacuation of passengers from the 

airplane and for emergency personnel to 

provide assistance. 

The rule applies to applications for 

new type certificates and applications 

for amended or supplemental type 

certificates on significant product-level 

change projects in which title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.975, 

‘‘Fuel tank vents and carburetor vapor 

vents,’’ is applicable to a changed area. 

Additionally, a new operating 

requirement in both 14 CFR part 121, 

‘‘Operating Requirements: Domestic, 

Flag, and Supplemental Operations,’’ 

and 14 CFR part 129, ‘‘Operations: 

Foreign Air Carriers and Foreign 

Operators of U.S.-Registered Aircraft 

Engaged in Common Carriage,’’ applies 

to airplanes that are issued an original 

airworthiness certificate after a specified 

date. 

However, the rule published with 

incorrect amendment numbers, ‘‘25– 

142, 21–376, and 129–53.’’ Amendment 

number 25–142 is the same amendment 

number as the rule titled 

‘‘Harmonization of Airworthiness 

Standards—Fire Extinguishers and Class 

B and F Cargo Compartments,’’ which 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 16, 2016 (81 FR 7698). 

Amendment numbers 21–376 and 129– 

53 are incorrect designations. The 

correct amendment numbers for this 

rule are ‘‘25–143, 121–375, and 129– 

52.’’ 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
48694 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

In the same publication on page 

41203 in footnote number 14, the 

Lockheed airplane model number 

referenced is ‘‘328.’’ The correct number 

should be ‘‘382.’’ 

Correction 

In FR Doc. 2016–14454, beginning on 

page 41200 in the Federal Register of 

June 24, 2016, make the following 

corrections: 

Correction 

1. On page 41200, in the second 

column, correct the 4th header 

paragraph to read as follows: 

‘‘[Docket No.: FAA–2014–0500; Amdt. 

Nos. 25–143, 121–375, and 129–52].’’ 

2. On page 41203, in the second 

column, correct the text of footnote 

number 14 to read as follows: 

‘‘The previously approved Lockheed 

382 and Embraer flame arrestors would 

not have met the 2 minute and 30 

second requirement.’’ 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

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

DC, on July 19, 2016. 

Lirio Liu, 

Director, Office of Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2016–17590 Filed 7–25–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 125, 129, and 135 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–1082] 

Provision of Navigation Services for 

the Next Generation Air Transportation 

System (NextGen) Transition to 

Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) 

(Plan for Establishing a VOR Minimum 

Operational Network) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final policy statement. 

SUMMARY: This action sets forth the Very 

High Frequency (VHF) Omnidirectional 

Range (VOR) Minimum Operational 

Network (MON) policy as proposed in 

the Proposed Provision of Navigation 

Services for the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System (NextGen) 

Transition to Performance-Based 

Navigation (PBN) notice of proposed 

policy published on December 15, 2011 

(76 FR 77939). This document provides 

the discontinuance selection criteria 

and candidate list of VOR Navigational 

Aids (NAVAIDs) targeted for 

discontinuance as part of the VOR MON 

Implementation Program and United 

States (U.S.) National Airspace System 

(NAS) Efficient Streamline Services 

Initiative. Additionally, this policy 

addresses the regulatory processes the 

FAA plans to follow to discontinue 

VORs. 

DATES: Effective July 26, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Leonixa Salcedo, VOR MON Program 

Manager, AJM–324, Navigation 

Programs, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

email: vormon@faa.gov; telephone: (844) 

4VORMON (844–486–7666). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 15, 2011 the FAA 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of proposed policy and request 

for comments (76 FR 77939) on the 

FAA’s proposed strategy for gradually 

reducing the current VOR network to a 

Minimum Operational Network (MON) 

as the NAS transitions to performancebased navigation (PBN) as part of the 

Next Generation Air Transportation 

System (NextGen). The FAA announced 

that, as part of a NAS Efficient 

Streamlined Services Initiative, the 

number of conventional NAVAIDs 

would be reduced while more efficient 

Area Navigation (RNAV) routes and 

procedures are implemented throughout 

the NAS. The FAA noted its intention 

to convene a working group to assist in 

developing a candidate list of VORs for 

discontinuance using relevant 

operational, safety, cost, and economic 

criteria. Interested parties were invited 

to participate in the review of this 

policy and planning effort by submitting 

written comments on the proposal. 

The FAA reviewed all 330 comments 

received and on August 21, 2012, 

published in the Federal Register the 

disposition of the comments on the 

notice of proposed policy (77 FR 50420). 

In considering and disposing of the 

comments, the FAA noted that it would 

develop an initial VOR MON Plan 

which would be made publicly 

available. The FAA renewed its 

intention to convene a working group 

that would assist in developing 

objective criteria which would be 

applied consistently nationally and 

regionally to help identify those VOR 

facilities that would remain operational. 

Criteria for Assessing VOR 

Discontinuance 

After the FAA published the 

disposition of comments, stakeholders, 

industry, and military services provided 

further inputs to the FAA for 

consideration in developing the criteria 

used to select VORs that would need to 

be retained as a part of the MON. The 

FAA also sought recommendations from 

aviation industry stakeholders through 

the RTCA Tactical Operations 

Committee (TOC). With this collective 

input, the FAA developed the criteria to 

determine which VORs would be 

candidates for retention. VORs not 

meeting these criteria were considered 

as discontinuance candidates. 

The following criteria were used by 

the FAA to determine which VORs 

would be retained as a part of the MON: 

— Retain VORs to perform Instrument 

Landing System (ILS), Localizer 

(LOC), or VOR approaches supporting 

MON airports at suitable destinations 

within 100 NM of any location within 

the CONUS. Selected approaches 

would not require Automatic 

Direction Finder (ADF), Distance 

Measuring Equipment (DME), Radar, 

or GPS. 

— Retain VORs to support international 

oceanic arrival routes. 

— Retain VORs to provide coverage at 

and above 5,000 ft AGL. 

— Retain most VORs in the Western 

U.S. Mountainous Area (WUSMA), 

specifically those anchoring Victor 

airways through high elevation 

terrain. 

— Retain VORs required for military 

use. 

— VORs outside of the CONUS were not 

considered for discontinuance under 

the VOR MON Implementation 

Program. 

The following considerations were 

used to supplement the VOR MON 

criteria above: 

— Only FAA owned/operated VORs 

were considered for discontinuance. 

— Co-located DME and Tactical Air 

Navigation (TACAN) systems will 

generally be retained when the VOR 

service is terminated. 

— Co-located communication services 

relocated or reconfigured to continue 

transmitting their services. 

Working Group 

Using the established criteria, the 

FAA convened an internal working 

group to develop a candidate list of 

VORs using the VOR MON criteria 

relevant to operational, safety, cost, and 

economic considerations. The group 

developed the VOR MON service by 

first selecting MON airports that met the 

criteria listed above. Airports with ILS 

approaches that met the criteria were 

selected in preference to VOR 

approaches. If two airports in close 

proximity had suitable approaches, then 

the airport whose ILS or VOR approach 

required the FAA to retain the fewest 

number of VORs (i.e., to identify initial, 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES