Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31447 

Register on January 2, 2018 (83 FR 77). 

Copies of the proposed rule were sent 

via email to Board members and tart 

cherry handlers. The proposed rule was 

made available through the internet by 

USDA and the Office of the Federal 

Register. A 30-day comment period 

ending February 1, 2018, was provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to the proposal. 

Two comments were received. Both 

commenters urged adoption of the 

changes, noting the Board had worked 

hard on this proposal and had listened 

to the industry as part of the process. 

Accordingly, no changes will be made 

to the rule as proposed, based on the 

comments received. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Richard Lower 

at the previously mentioned address in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

After consideration of all relevant 

matter presented, including the 

information and recommendation of the 

Board and other available information, 

it is hereby found that this rule, as 

hereinafter set forth, will tend to 

effectuate the declared policy of the Act. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 930 

Marketing agreements, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Tart 

cherries. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 930 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 930—TART CHERRIES GROWN 

IN THE STATES OF MICHIGAN, NEW 

YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, OREGON, 

UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND 

WISCONSIN 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 930 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

[Subpart Redesignated as Subpart A] 

■ 2. Redesignate ‘‘Subpart—Order 

Regulating Handling’’ as ‘‘Subpart A— 

Order Regulating Handling’’. 

[Subpart Redesignated as Subpart B 

and Amended] 

■ 3. Redesignate ‘‘Subpart— 

Administrative Rules and Regulations’’ 

as subpart B and revise the heading to 

read as follows: 

Subpart B—Administrative 

Requirements 

■ 4. In § 930.162: 

■ a. Revise the sentences at the end of 

paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2); 

■ b. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(3),(4), 

and (5) as paragraphs (c)(4),(5), and (6); 

■ c. Add new paragraph (c)(3); and 

■ d. Add paragraph (h). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 930.162 Exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * In addition, the maximum 

duration of any credit activity is five 

years from the date of the first shipment. 

(2) * * * In addition, shipments of 

tart cherries or tart cherry products in 

new market development and market 

expansion outlets are eligible for 

handler diversion credit for a period of 

five years from the handler’s date of the 

first shipment into such outlets. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) When applying to the Board for an 

exemption for the use of domestic tart 

cherry products in markets not currently 

served by the domestic industry, 

handlers may provide a verifiable 

statement from the buyer of its intent to 

use domestic tart cherry products to the 

Board staff for review in lieu of review 

by the subcommittee as detailed in 

paragraph (d) of this section. A 

verifiable statement is defined as a 

written statement from the buyer that it 

will use domestic tart cherries in 

products or markets not currently 

supplied by domestic sources, which 

will be reviewed and documented by 

Board staff. 

* * * * * 

(h) Extensions and transfers. (1) If no 

shipments are made within the first year 

of any approved exemption project from 

the date of approval, new applications 

for a similar project (same market or 

product) are eligible for approval; 

provided that, handlers with an 

approved exemption project have the 

opportunity to apply to the 

subcommittee for a six-month extension 

of this time period. 

(2) For projects granted extensions, if 

no shipment is made prior to the end of 

the extension period, new applications 

for the same market or project are 

eligible for approval. 

[Subpart Redesignated as Subpart C] 

■ 5. Redesignate ‘‘Subpart—Assessment 

Rates’’ as ‘‘Subpart C—Assessment 

Rate’’. 

Dated: July 2, 2018. 

Bruce Summers, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14516 Filed 7–5–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

8 CFR Part 212 

[Docket No: USCBP–2016–0003]; [CBP 

Decision No. 18–06] 

RIN 1651–AB09 

Elimination of Nonimmigrant Visa 

Exemption for Certain Caribbean 

Residents Coming to the United States 

as H–2A Agricultural Workers 

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland 

Security. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This finalizes interim 

amendments to the Department of 

Homeland Security’s (DHS) regulations, 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 8, 2016, that eliminated the 

nonimmigrant visa exemption for 

certain Caribbean residents seeking to 

come to the United States as H–2A 

agricultural workers and the spouses or 

children who accompany or follow 

these workers to the United States. As 

a result of the interim final rule, these 

nonimmigrants are required to have 

both a valid passport and visa. The 

Department of State (DOS) revised its 

regulations in a parallel interim final 

rule and is issuing a parallel final rule 

to adopt all interim changes as final. 

DATES: This rule is effective on August 

6, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie E. Watson, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, Office of Field 

Operations, (202) 325–4548, or via email 

at Stephanie.E.Watson@cbp.dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On February 8, 2016, DHS published 

an interim final rule (IFR) in the Federal 

Register (81 FR 6430) requiring a 

British, French, or Netherlands national, 

or a national of Barbados, Grenada, 

Jamaica, or Trinidad and Tobago, who 

has his or her residence in British, 

French, or Netherlands territory located 

in the adjacent islands of the Caribbean 

area, or in Barbados, Grenada, Jamaica, 

or Trinidad and Tobago, to obtain a 

valid, unexpired visa if the alien is 

proceeding to the United States as an H– 

2A agricultural worker. The IFR also 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31448 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

1There was one substantive difference between 

the DOS and DHS IFRs. The DOS IFR removed 

Antigua from its list of exempt countries in its title 

22 regulations. The DHS title 8 regulations did not 

include Antigua in its list of exempt countries. As 

such, the DHS IFR did not reference Antigua. 

eliminated the visa exemption for 

spouses and children accompanying or 

following to join such workers. 

Additionally, the IFR eliminated a visa 

exemption for workers in the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, as well for their spouses 

and children accompanying or 

following to join such workers, pursuant 

to an unexpired indefinite certification 

granted by the Department of Labor 

(DOL). DOS published a parallel rule in 

the Federal Register on the same day. 

See 81 FR 5906; see also 81 FR 7454 

(correction).1

The H–2A nonimmigrant 

classification applies to an alien seeking 

to enter the United States to perform 

agricultural labor or services of a 

temporary or seasonal nature in the 

United States. Prior to the DHS and DOS 

interim final rules, H–2A agricultural 

workers were generally required to 

possess and present both a passport and 

a valid unexpired H–2A visa when 

entering the United States. Certain 

residents of the Caribbean, however, 

were exempted by regulation from 

having to possess and present a valid 

unexpired H–2A visa to be admitted to 

the United States as a temporary 

agricultural worker. Specifically, a visa 

was not required for H–2A agricultural 

workers who are British, French, or 

Netherlands nationals, or nationals of 

Barbados, Grenada, Jamaica, or Trinidad 

and Tobago, who have their residence in 

British, French, or Netherlands territory 

located in the adjacent islands of the 

Caribbean area, or in Barbados, Grenada, 

Jamaica, or Trinidad and Tobago. 

Additionally, a visa was not required for 

the spouse or child accompanying or 

following such an H–2A agricultural 

worker to the United States. 

DHS, in conjunction with DOS, 

determined that the nonimmigrant visa 

exemption for these classes of Caribbean 

residents, when coming to the United 

States as H–2A agricultural workers or 

as the spouses or children 

accompanying or following these 

workers, was outdated and incongruent 

with the visa requirement for other H– 

2A agricultural workers from other 

countries. Both departments determined 

that eliminating the visa exemption 

furthered the national security interests 

of the United States and ensured that 

these applicants for admission, like 

other H–2A agricultural workers, would 

be appropriately screened via DOS’s 

visa issuance process prior to arrival in 

the United States. By requiring a visa, 

DOS can ensure that these persons 

possess positive evidence of the 

intended purpose of their stay in the 

United States upon arrival at a U.S. port 

of entry. Removing the visa exemption 

also lessens the possibility that persons 

who pose security risks to the United 

States, as well as other potential 

immigration violators, may improperly 

gain admission to the United States. 

II. Discussion of Comments 

A. Overview 

Although the interim regulatory 

amendments were promulgated without 

prior public notice and comment 

procedures pursuant to the good cause 

and foreign affairs exceptions in section 

553 of the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 5 

U.S.C. 553(a)(1), respectively), the IFR 

provided for the submission of public 

comments that would be considered 

before adopting the interim 

amendments as final. The prescribed 30- 

day public comment period closed on 

April 8, 2016. During this time, DHS 

received three comments. Two of the 

comments were supportive of the rule 

and one was critical of it. 

B. Discussion 

For ease of discussion, DHS has 

divided the one critical comment 

received on the IFR into two subparts 

that raise related, but separate, issues. 

Comment: The commenter stated that, 

by eliminating this exemption, DHS is 

upending a long-standing opportunity 

for individuals from these specific 

locations to easily come to the United 

States and earn substantially more 

money than they could at home. 

According to the commenter, 

implementation of this rule, which 

creates new costs and inconveniences 

for individuals from these areas, could 

dramatically decrease or essentially 

prevent these workers from coming to 

the United States. The commenter states 

that, in the case of a Jamaican worker, 

the cost of securing a visa will be more 

than the average Jamaican worker could 

likely afford. 

Response: While the visa exemption 

for agricultural workers from the 

specified Caribbean countries dates back 

more than 70 years, it was created 

primarily to address U.S. labor shortages 

during World War II by expeditiously 

providing a source of agricultural 

workers from the British Caribbean to 

meet the needs of agricultural 

employers in the southeastern United 

States. This basis for the exemption no 

longer exists and continuing to provide 

an exemption for these individuals 

would be incongruent with the visa 

requirements for H–2A workers from 

other countries. While removing this 

exemption may make the process more 

difficult for individuals from these 

specified areas, it creates an equitable 

standard for everyone who would like to 

enter the United States as an H–2A 

agricultural worker or as the spouse or 

child accompanying or following such 

an individual. It also better ensures that 

individuals from the specified 

Caribbean areas seeking admission as 

H–2A nonimmigrants, and their spouses 

and children, are in fact eligible for 

admission under the desired 

classification and permits greater 

screening for potential fraudulent 

employment. Furthermore, by 

eliminating this exemption, the United 

States Government is better situated to 

ensure that workers are protected from 

illegal employment and recruitmentbased abuses, including the imposition 

of fees prohibited under 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(5)(xi). 

Comment: According to the same 

commenter, in eliminating this 

exemption, DHS and DOS are making 

the United States less secure by creating 

an incentive for individuals to seek to 

enter the United States illegally. The 

commenter states that the employers 

who would have hired the aliens 

affected by the IFR will now look to fill 

their positions by hiring other workers, 

potentially even illegal migrants, who 

may be willing to work for minimum 

wage or less. The commenter states that 

the new demand for inexpensive labor 

may encourage aliens to attempt to 

migrate to the United States illegally. 

Response: The exemption itself posed 

a security risk to the United States. Prior 

to the amendments in the IFR, H–2A 

agricultural workers from these 

specified Caribbean areas did not 

undergo the same visa issuance process 

as H–2A applicants from other 

countries. These individuals did not 

have to undergo a face-to-face consular 

interview and the associated fingerprint 

and security checks prior to seeking 

admission at a U.S. port of entry. As of 

February 19, 2016, the effective date of 

the IFR, these individuals have been 

subject to the same procedures as other 

H–2A applicants, providing consistency 

with the applicable procedures required 

for applicants from other countries, 

which include a more thorough 

screening afforded by the visa 

application process. 

DHS does not believe that requiring 

these individuals to obtain a visa will 

encourage illegal migration. Rather, 

removing this exemption lessens the 

possibility that persons who pose 

security risks to the United States, as 

well as other potential immigration 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31449 

2This memorandum is available at: https://

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/ 

omb/memoranda/2017/M-17-21-OMB.pdf. 

3Source: Communication with the Office of Field 

Operations (OFO) on October 11, 2016. 

4See section 3 of the Virgin Islands 

Nonimmigrant Alien Adjustment Act of 1982, 

Public Law 97–271, 96 Stat. 1157, as amended (8 

U.S.C. 1255 note). 

5Source: Communication with USCIS on October 

17, 2016. 

6Source: CBP’s BorderStat Database (internal 

database), accessed October 5, 2016. 

7The supporting statement for Form DS–160 is 

available here: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201707-1405-001. 

violators, may improperly gain 

admission to the United States. As 

mentioned above, although the removal 

of this exemption may make the process 

more difficult for individuals from these 

specified areas, it creates an equitable 

standard for H–2A applicants and 

furthers the national security interests of 

the United States. 

Comment: The two supportive 

comments stated that the amendments 

in the IFR improve national security, 

facilitate the legitimate movement of 

people into the United States, and 

promote equality among all individuals 

seeking to come to the United States as 

temporary agricultural workers. One 

commenter also noted that the 

amendments provide protection for H– 

2A workers by ensuring that they learn 

more about their rights and 

responsibilities when being interviewed 

for a visa. 

Response: CBP agrees with these 

comments and concurs that the 

amendments to the regulations support 

the benefits described. 

C. Conclusion 

After careful consideration of the 

comments received, for the reasons 

stated above, as well as the reasons 

outlined in the interim final rule, CBP 

is adopting the interim regulations, 

published on February 8, 2016, as final 

without change. 

III. Statutory and Regulatory 

Requirements 

A. Executive Orders 13563, 12866, and 

13771 

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 

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 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. Executive 

Order 13771 (‘‘Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs’’) directs 

agencies to reduce regulation and 

control regulatory costs and provides 

that ‘‘for every one new regulation 

issued, at least two prior regulations be 

identified for elimination, and that the 

cost of planned regulations be prudently 

managed and controlled through a 

budgeting process.’’ 

OIRA has designated this rule not 

significant under Executive Order 

12866. Nonetheless, DHS has 

considered the potential costs and 

benefits of this rule, as presented below, 

to inform the public of the costs and 

benefits of this rule. 

This rule is not an E.O. 13771 

regulatory action because this rule is not 

significant under E.O. 12866. See 

Section 4 of Executive Order 13771 and 

OMB’s Memorandum titled ‘‘Guidance 

Implementing Executive Order 13771, 

Titled ‘Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs’’’ (April 5, 

2017).2 Additionally, in this 

memorandum, OMB indicated that 

when a final rule neither increases nor 

decreases the cost of the interim final 

rule, the regulatory action does not need 

to be offset under this executive order. 

This final rule does not increase or 

decrease the cost of the interim final 

rule. For this reason, as well, this rule 

is not subject to the offset requirements 

of Executive Order 13771. 

Prior to publishing the IFR in 

February 2016, a British, French, and 

Netherlands national and a national of 

Barbados, Grenada, Jamaica, and 

Trinidad and Tobago, who have his or 

her residence in a British, French, or 

Netherlands territory located in the 

adjacent islands of the Caribbean area or 

in Barbados, Grenada, Jamaica, or 

Trinidad and Tobago, were not required 

to obtain a visa before traveling to the 

United States as H–2A agricultural 

workers. The IFR required these 

prospective H–2A agricultural workers 

to obtain a visa prior to travel to the 

United States. Any spouses or children 

of these workers also now have to obtain 

a visa before being brought to the United 

States. Since 99 percent of such 

workers 3 came from Jamaica, our 

analysis will focus on that country. The 

IFR also eliminated the visa exemption 

for workers in the U.S. Virgin Islands 

pursuant to an unexpired indefinite 

certification granted by DOL. Because 

these certifications have been obsolete 

for many years,4 eliminating them has 

no effect on the economy; hence, we 

will ignore this provision for the 

remainder of the analysis. 

Data on the number of visa 

applications Jamaican travelers need to 

obtain as a result of this rule is not 

available. A U.S Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS) database 

tracks the number of petitions for H–2A 

workers from Jamaica, but does not 

include the spouses or children who 

now also need visas to travel to the 

United States. A CBP database tracks the 

number of Jamaican nationals arriving 

under the H–2A program, but counts 

multiple arrivals by a single person as 

separate arrivals. For the purposes of 

this analysis, we use the number of 

petitions as our primary estimate of the 

number of visas that are needed under 

this rule. We use the number of total 

travelers from Jamaica under the H–2A 

program to illustrate the upper bound of 

costs that could result from this rule. 

Employers petitioned on behalf of an 

annual average of 190 workers from 

Jamaica under this program from FY 

2011–2015 5 and an annual average of 

4,215 Jamaicans arrived during that time 

period,6 which includes arrivals by H– 

2A agricultural workers as well as their 

spouses and children. This number also 

includes multiple arrivals in the same 

year by the same individuals. Because 

the number of unique individuals 

arriving from Jamaica under the H–2A 

program is not available, we calculate 

costs based on a range of 190 (our 

primary estimate) to 4,215 prospective 

visa applicants. The current 

nonimmigrant visa application 

processing fee, also called the MachineReadable Visa (MRV) fee, is $190. We 

assume this fee will be paid by the 

employer for the workers and by the 

employees for their spouses and 

children. We estimate that the 

imposition of the fee costs workers or 

employers between $36,100 (our 

primary estimate) and $800,850 per 

year. 

Under this rule, workers are required 

to apply for a visa using Form DS–160 

and undergo an interview at a U.S. 

embassy or consulate prior to traveling 

to the United States. According to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act estimate for 

Form DS–160,7 the Department of State 

estimates that the visa application takes 

1.25 hours to complete. The interview 

itself typically lasts approximately 5–10 

minutes; however, when accounting for 

potential wait time, the interview 

process may take up to 2 hours. Since 

the only U.S. embassy in Jamaica is in 

Kingston, visa applicants may have to 

travel up to 3.5 hours each way to 

appear for an interview, depending on 

their location. We therefore assume that 

filling out the D–160, traveling to and 

from the embassy for the visa interview, 

and the visa interview itself will require 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31450 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

8 Derived from International Labor Organization’s 

ILOSTAT internet Database. Available at http://

www.ilo.org/ilostat. Accessed October 12, 2016. Our 

weekly wage estimate (18,832 Jamaican Dollars per 

week) is from the ‘‘Mean nominal monthly earnings 

of employees by type of scenario’’ report for all 

sectors in 2013 which is the last data year available. 

Our weekly hours worked estimate (40.7 hours per 

week) is from the ‘‘Hours of work, by economic 

activity’’ report for all sectors in 2008 which is the 

last year available for this data point. We converted 

the wage rate to U.S. dollars using the currency 

converter available at http://www.xe.com/ 

currencyconverter/ on October 12, 2016. 18,832 

Jamaican Dollars divided by 40.7 hours per week, 

multiplied by 0.0078155 U.S. dollars per Jamaican 

dollar = $3.62 U.S. dollars per hour. 

a total of 10.25 hours of the applicant’s 

time. To the extent the actual time 

burden to travel to and from the 

interview is less than we estimated, 

costs would be lower. Using the average 

Jamaican wage rate of $3.62/hour 8 and 

a range of 190 to 4,215 workers per year, 

we estimate the cost of the time to 

Jamaican workers as a result of this rule 

to be between $7,050 (our primary 

estimate) and $156,398 per year. 

Combining this with the cost of the visa 

application fee, we estimate that the 

total annual cost of this rule is between 

$43,150 and $957,248. 

We are unable to quantify the benefits 

of this rule; therefore we discuss the 

benefits qualitatively. Requiring these 

prospective H–2A agricultural workers 

to obtain visas ensures that they are 

properly screened prior to arrival in the 

United States. This lessens the 

possibility that a person who poses a 

security risk to the United States and 

other potential immigration violators 

may improperly gain admission to the 

United States. DHS has determined that 

visitors from the countries affected by 

this rule are not a lower security risk 

than those coming from other countries; 

therefore, CBP believes that they should 

be subject to the same screening. Also, 

prescreening and appearing before 

consular officers provide greater 

opportunities to ensure compliance 

with DHS and DOL H–2A rules, 

including those regulatory provisions 

prohibiting the payment of fees by 

workers in connection with or as a 

condition of employment or 

recruitment. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

and Fairness Act of 1996, requires an 

agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of a 

proposed rule on small entities when 

the agency is required to publish a 

general notice of proposed rulemaking. 

A small entity may be a small business 

(defined as any independently owned 

and operated business not dominant in 

its field that qualifies as a small 

business per the Small Business Act); a 

small not-for-profit organization; or a 

small governmental jurisdiction 

(locality with fewer than 50,000 people). 

Since a general notice of proposed 

rulemaking was not necessary, a 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required. 

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no actions are 

necessary under the provisions of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. 

D. Executive Order 13132 

The rule will not 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. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 6 of Executive 

Order 13132, this rule does not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

warrant the preparation of a federalism 

summary impact statement. 

Amendments to the Regulations 

For the reasons set forth above, the 

interim final rule amending 8 CFR part 

212, which was published at 81 FR 6430 

on February 8, 2016, is adopted as final 

without change. 

Dated: June 14, 2018. 

Kristjen Nielsen, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14534 Filed 7–5–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 1, 21, 25, 26, 27, 34, 43, 

45, 60, 61, 63, 65, 91, 97, 107, 110, 119, 

121, 125, 129, 133, 135, 137, 141, 142, 

145, and 183 

[Docket No.: FAA–2018–0119; Amdt Nos. 1– 

72, 21–101, 25–145, 26–7, 27–49, 34–6, 43– 

50, 45–31, 60–5, 61–141, 63–40, 65–57A, 91– 

350, 97–1338, 107–2, 110–2, 119–19, 121– 

380, 125–68, 129–53, 133–16, 135–139, 137– 

17, 141–19, 142–10, 145–32, 183–17] 

RIN 2120–AL05 

Aviation Safety Organization Changes; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting a final 

rule published on March 5, 2018. In that 

rule, the FAA replaced specific 

references to offices within the Aircraft 

Certification Service and the Flight 

Standards Service with generic 

references not dependent on any 

particular office structure. The FAA 

incorrectly assigned amendment 

number 65–56 to this rule. The correct 

amendment number is 65–57A and this 

action fixes this error. 

DATES: Effective July 6, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions concerning AIR offices 

referred to in this action, contact 

Suzanne Masterson, Transport 

Standards Branch (AIR–670), Policy and 

Innovation Division, Aircraft 

Certification Service, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 2200 South 216th St, 

Des Moines, WA 98189; telephone (206) 

231–3211 or (425) 227–1855; email 

suzanne.masterson@faa.gov. 

For questions concerning AFS offices 

referred to in this action, contact Joseph 

Hemler, Commercial Operations Branch 

(AFS–820), Flight Standards Service, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 55 M 

Street SE, 8th floor, Washington, DC 

20003–3522; telephone (202) 267–1100; 

email joseph.k.hemler-jr@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 5, 2018, the FAA published 

a final rule entitled, ‘‘Aviation Safety 

Organization Changes’’ (83 FR 9162). In 

that final rule, the FAA replaced 

specific references to Aircraft 

Certification Service (AIR) and Flight 

Standards Service (AFS) offices with 

generic references not dependent on any 

particular office structure. This rule did 

not impose any new obligations and the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES