39576 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

(b) Affected ADs 

Certain requirements of this AD affect 

certain requirements of AD 2010–11–11, 

Amendment 39–16316 (75 FR 32255, June 8, 

2010). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to Learjet Inc. Model 60 

airplanes, certificated in any category, serial 

numbers 60–001 through 60–413 inclusive. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 32, Landing gear; 57, Wings; 78, Engine 

exhaust. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by a report of a 

high-speed rejected takeoff caused by all four 

main landing gear (MLG) tires blowing out 

during the takeoff roll. We are issuing this 

AD to prevent failure of the braking system 

or adverse operation of the spoiler and thrust 

reverser system due to external damage, 

particularly from tire failure, which could 

result in loss of control of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Modification and Installation 

Within 600 flight hours or 12 months after 

the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs first: Do the actions required by 

paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, 

as applicable. 

(1) For all airplanes: Install new rigid 

hydraulic tube assemblies to the MLG struts, 

install a new MLG squat switch bracket and 

modify the MLG squat switch wire harness, 

modify the MLG anti-skid wheel transducer 

electrical wire harnesses, and route and 

secure the anti-skid wheel and squat switch 

electrical wire harnesses to the MLG strut 

assembly, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier 

Service Bulletin 60–32–33, dated July 23, 

2012. 

(2) For all airplanes: Install outboard 

bracket assemblies, anti-skid shield, forward 

electrical cover on the forward stiffener, 

upper and lower inboard bracket assemblies, 

and clamps that support the electrical wire 

harness; modify the aft stiffener for the new 

electrical wire harness support; install the aft 

electrical cover and strap on the aft stiffener; 

and install a new flat landing light lamp, as 

applicable; in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier 

Service Bulletin 60–57–7, dated July 23, 

2012. 

(3) For airplanes having serial numbers 60– 

002 through 60–276 inclusive: Install a new 

wheel speed detect box assembly, nutplates, 

brackets, and interface box; and modify the 

wiring for the new thrust reverser interface 

box; in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 

60–78–7, Revision 2, dated May 1, 2006. 

(h) Terminating Action for AD 2010–11–11, 

Amendment 39–16316 (75 FR 32255, June 8, 

2010) 

After accomplishing the actions required 

by paragraph (g) of this AD, the requirement 

in paragraph (h) of AD 2010–11–11, 

Amendment 39–16316 (75 FR 32255, June 8, 

2010), to check the nose and main tire 

pressures before 96 hours prior to takeoff, is 

terminated. All provisions of paragraphs (g) 

and (h) of AD 2010–11–11 that are not 

specifically referenced by this paragraph 

remain fully applicable and must be 

complied with. 

(i) Credit for Previous Actions 

This paragraph provides credit for the 

corresponding actions specified in paragraph 

(g)(3) of this AD, if those actions were 

performed before the effective date of this AD 

using Bombardier Service Bulletin SB60–78– 

7, dated February 21, 2005; or Revision 1, 

dated June 30, 2005; which are not 

incorporated by reference in this AD. 

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(k) Related Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact Don Ristow, Aerospace Engineer, 

Mechanical Systems and Propulsion Branch, 

ACE–116W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft 

Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, 

Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, 

KS 67209; phone: 316–946–4120; fax: 316– 

946–4107; email: donald.ristow@faa.gov. 

(l) 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) Bombardier Service Bulletin 60–32–33, 

dated July 23, 2012. 

(ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 60–57–7, 

dated July 23, 2012. 

(iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 60–78–7, 

Revision 2, dated May 1, 2006. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Learjet, Inc., One Learjet 

Way, Wichita, KS 67209–2942; telephone 

316–946–2000; fax 316–946–2220; email 

ac.ict@aero.bombardier.com; Internet http:// 

www.bombardier.com. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http:// 

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 13, 

2013. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15402 Filed 7–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 91 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0503; Amdt. No. 91– 

328] 

RIN 2120–AK25 

Adoption of Statutory Prohibition on 

the Operation of Jets Weighing 75,000 

Pounds or Less That Are Not Stage 3 

Noise Compliant 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rulemaking amends the 

airplane operating regulations to 

include certain provisions of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 

that affect jet airplanes with a maximum 

weight of 75,000 pounds or less 

operating in the United States. The law 

provides that after December 31, 2015, 

such airplanes will not be allowed to 

operate in the contiguous United States 

unless they meet Stage 3 noise levels. 

This final rule incorporates that 

prohibition and describes the 

circumstances under which an 

otherwise prohibited airplane may be 

operated. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective 

September 3, 2013. Send comments on 

or before August 1, 2013. 

Compliance with the prohibition in 

§ 91.801(e) is required after December 

31, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Sandy Liu, AEE–100, 

Office of Environment and Energy, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 

493–4864; facsimile (202) 267–5594; 

email: sandy.liu@faa.gov. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 39577 

For legal questions concerning this 

action, contact Karen Petronis, AGC– 

200, Office of the Chief Counsel, 

International Law, Legislation, and 

Regulations Division, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–3073; email: 

karen.petronis@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Good Cause for Immediate Adoption 

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 

USC 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to 

dispense with notice and comment 

procedures for rules when the agency 

for ‘‘good cause’’ finds that those 

procedures are ‘‘impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest.’’ Under this section, an agency, 

upon finding good cause, may issue a 

final rule without seeking comment 

prior to the rulemaking. 

In February 2012, in section 506 of 

the FAA Modernization and Reform Act 

of 2012 (‘‘the Act’’), Congress prohibited 

the operation of jet airplanes weighing 

75,000 pounds or less in the contiguous 

United States after December 31, 2015, 

unless the airplanes meet Stage 3 noise 

levels. The Act also describes certain 

circumstances under which otherwise 

prohibited operations will be allowed. 

These provisions have been codified at 

49 U.S.C. 47534. 

This final rule codifies the statutory 

prohibition and relieving circumstances 

into the regulations in 14 CFR. The FAA 

has no discretion to change any 

provision of the statute, and it is being 

codified into the regulations as adopted. 

The statute also directs the Secretary of 

Transportation to prescribe the 

regulations necessary to implement the 

statutory provisions. 

Accordingly, the FAA finds that 

further public comment on the 

codification of these provisions is 

unnecessary. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

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 III, Section 

44715, Controlling aircraft noise and 

sonic boom. Under that section, the 

FAA is charged with prescribing 

regulations to measure and abate aircraft 

noise. This rulemaking is also 

promulgated under the authority of 

Section 47534, prohibition on operating 

certain aircraft weighing 75,000 pounds 

or less and not complying with Stage 3 

noises levels. That authority directs the 

agency to prescribe regulations 

necessary to implement the 

requirements of Section 506 of the Act. 

This regulation is within the scope of 

that authority. 

I. Overview of This Final Rule 

This final rule adopts into the 

operating rules certain prohibitions 

from Section 506 of the Act, codified at 

49 USC 47534. That statute prohibits, 

after December 31, 2015, the operation 

in the contiguous United States of jet 

airplanes weighing 75,000 pounds or 

less that do not meet Stage 3 noise 

levels as defined in 14 CFR Part 36. This 

prohibition will decrease airplane noise 

in the contiguous United States. 

Operators of these airplanes that do not 

comply with Stage 3 noise levels may 

choose to replace them, or to 

incorporate noise-reduction 

technologies that may be available to 

make the airplanes Stage 3 noise 

compliant. 

II. History of Noise Operating Rules in 

the United States 

In December 1976, the FAA adopted 

its first noise operating rules in the 

United States as Subpart E to Part 91 of 

Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). That subpart was 

recodified in August 1989 as Subpart I— 

Operating Noise Limits. The first 

regulations prohibited the operation of 

Stage 1 airplanes by U.S. operators in 

the United States after December 31, 

1984 (41 FR 56046, December 23, 1976). 

In November 1980, the regulations were 

amended to include operations 

conducted by foreign operators in the 

United States (45 FR 79302, November 

28, 1980). 

By the late 1980s, more than 400 U.S. 

airports had adopted some type of 

airport access restriction or other action 

in an effort to reduce local noise in their 

communities. To eliminate this growing 

patchwork of restrictions, on November 

5, 1990, Congress established a national 

noise policy in the adoption of the 

Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 

(ANCA). The law required the phase-out 

of Stage 2 airplanes weighing over 

75,000 pounds operating in the 

contiguous United States. The phase-out 

was completed on December 31, 1999, 

leaving only Stage 3 large jets operating 

in the contiguous United States. 

III. Recent Statutory Changes 

The noise from smaller jet airplanes 

continues to have an impact on 

communities near airports. In 

recognition of this impact, Congress 

addressed the operations of these 

airplanes in the Act. Section 506 of the 

Act states: 

‘‘[A]fter December 31, 2015, a person may 

not operate a civil subsonic jet airplane with 

a maximum weight of 75,000 pounds or less, 

and for which an airworthiness certificate 

(other than an experimental certificate) has 

been issued, to or from an airport in the 

United States unless the Secretary of 

Transportation finds that the aircraft 

complies with [S]tage 3 noise levels.’’ 

The law is applicable to operations in 

the 48 contiguous United States. The 

law also provides for operation of 

otherwise prohibited airplanes after that 

date under certain circumstances. 

This final rule codifies into the 

regulations of 14 CFR part 91 the 

operating prohibition of § 47534 (a), and 

the circumstances for which otherwise 

prohibited operations may be conducted 

as listed in § 47534 (c). The 

circumstances are similar to those that 

were allowed under the 1990 statute 

that were codified in 14 CFR 91.858. 

This prohibition is being codified into 

the operating rules as § 91.881. Because 

Congress included operational 

circumstances in the Act that were not 

included in ANCA, we are codifying 

them separately as § 91.883 to prevent 

confusion with the circumstances 

applicable to larger jet airplanes. 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct that each Federal agency shall 

propose or adopt a regulation only upon 

a reasoned determination that the 

benefits of the intended regulation 

justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
39578 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1OAG Aviation Solutions Fleet Database as of 

November 14, 2012, was used to identify the 

individual airplanes affected by the ban. 

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 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 is as follows: 

This rule implements those 

provisions of the Act that prohibit the 

operation of civil jet airplanes weighing 

75,000 pounds or less in the 48 

contiguous United States after December 

31, 2015, unless they comply with Stage 

3 noise levels. This part of the Act 

completes the elimination of Stage 2 jet 

airplane noise that was begun in 1990 

with the Airport Noise and Capacity Act 

of 1990 (ANCA), which phased out civil 

jet airplanes weighing over 75,000 

pounds from operating at Stage 2 noise 

levels, by the end of 1999. As Congress 

mandated this phase-out, the benefits of 

the phase-out are presumed to exceed 

the costs. 

The Act affects 457 registered owners 

of 599 1 airplanes that range between 25 

to 50 years in age. Four hundred and 

three of the registered owners (88 

percent) have only one airplane affected 

by the ban; 51 of the owners have 2 to 

10 affected airplanes; and three owners 

(all nonscheduled airlines) have a 

combined total of 51 airplanes affected 

by the ban. 

OPERATOR CATEGORIES FOR CIVIL STAGE 2 JET AIRPLANES WEIGHING 75,000 POUNDS OR LESS

Operator category Number of 

owners 

Number of 

airplanes 

Corporation (Non-Airline) ......................................................................................................................................... 349 413 

Nonscheduled Airline ............................................................................................................................................... 55 128 

Leasing Company/Broker/Parts Dealer/Etc. ............................................................................................................ 31 35 

Private Individual ..................................................................................................................................................... 16 17 

Financial Institution .................................................................................................................................................. 6 6 

Grand Total ....................................................................................................................................................... 457 599 

Some models of the banned airplanes 

can be upgraded to Stage 3 noise levels 

with the installation of a hushkit. A 

hushkit is a device used for reducing 

engine noise. Of the 17 models of 

airplanes affected by this ban, hushkits 

had previously been available for six 

models: the Dassault Falcon 20; the 

Learjet 23, 24, and 25; and the 

Gulfstream II and III. An unknown 

number of these airplanes may have 

already installed a hushkit. 

Currently, the only hushkits available 

for Stage 2 civil jet airplanes weighing 

75,000 pounds or less are for the 

Gulfstream II and Gulfstream III. There 

are two companies that perform the 

Gulfstream engine modifications 

required to meet Stage 3 noise levels, 

and each has provided cost estimates to 

the FAA for this service. The estimates 

range from $0.85 million to $1.50 

million. There are 217 Gulfstream IIs 

and IIIs that can potentially be 

hushkitted; however, the cost of the 

hushkkit for the Gulfstream II exceeds 

the recorded value of the airplanes. 

The hushkit for the Falcon 20 is no 

longer manufactured and the 

Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) for 

the Learjet engine modification was 

returned to the FAA. There is no 

indication that hushkits will be 

manufactured for these airplanes. Thus, 

of the 599 airplanes affected by the ban, 

382 cannot be made Stage 3 compliant. 

Owners of civil Stage 2 airplanes that 

cannot be made Stage 3 compliant will 

have three alternatives for complying 

with the mandate: (1) Sell the airplanes 

for operation outside of the 48 

contiguous United States, (2) salvage the 

airplanes for parts, or (3) scrap the 

airplanes. The actions of the owners 

will result in an indeterminate mix of 

these choices. The FAA uses the retail 

price of the aircraft as a proxy for its 

economic value. The true economic cost 

of the mandate is the pre-law retail price 

minus the post-law retail price. For the 

reasons discussed below, the best 

estimate of the economic cost is the 

value of the fleet before the mandate 

minus a couple of special 

considerations. 

The following table provides an 

estimate of the monetary impact to 

owners based on the action they may 

choose to comply with the ban. The 

table includes the pre-law retail price of 

selling, scrapping, or hushkitting an 

airplane by equipment type. Information 

on airplane salvage value is not 

available to be included, and with the 

engines being the most valuable part of 

these airplanes, the engine value is 

expected to equal the airplane’s scrap 

value. 

PRE-LAW AIRPLANE RETAIL VALUE AND COST OF HUSHKIT INSTALLATION

[Per airplane] 

Equipment Number of A/C 

Average retail value* 

Average scrap 

value ** 

Average 

hushkit 

installation 

cost *** Low High 

Dassault Falcon 20C/CF/D/DF/DC/ECM/E/F ...................... 69 $200,000 $850,000 $2,118 N/A 

Gulfstream II (G–1159/B/TT/SP) ......................................... 109 250,000 1,050,000 8,075 1,162,500 

Gulfstream III (G–1159A) ..................................................... 108 1,000,000 2,200,000 8,075 1,162,500 

Hawker Siddeley HS.125–1/2/3 ........................................... 8 167,000 200,000 2,440 N/A 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 39579 

2Winter 2011 Edition. 3Additionally, other countries have noise 

restrictions in place or legislation enacted to limit 

their operation. http://www.qtaerospace.com/ 

noise_report.htm 

PRE-LAW AIRPLANE RETAIL VALUE AND COST OF HUSHKIT INSTALLATION—Continued 

[Per airplane] 

Equipment Number of A/C 

Average retail value* 

Average scrap 

value ** 

Average 

hushkit 

installation 

cost *** Low High 

Hawker Siddeley HS.125–400 ............................................. 7 167,000 200,000 2,440 N/A 

Hawker Siddeley HS.125–600 ............................................. 12 400,000 400,000 2,440 N/A 

IA1123 .................................................................................. 1 400,000 400,000 2,261 N/A 

Learjet 23 ............................................................................. 3 100,000 100,000 1,355 N/A 

Learjet 24 ............................................................................. 78 100,000 280,000 1,355 N/A 

Learjet 25 ............................................................................. 143 150,000 600,000 1,355 N/A 

Learjet 28 ............................................................................. 4 400,000 400,000 1,355 N/A 

Lockheed L–1329 Jetstar II ................................................. 13 550,000 800,000 4,845 N/A 

Rockwell 1121 Jet Commander ........................................... 3 235,000 235,000 2,128 N/A 

Rockwell Sabre 40 ............................................................... 15 235,000 290,000 2,518 N/A 

Rockwell Sabre 50 ............................................................... 1 235,000 235,000 2,299 N/A 

Rockwell Sabre 60 ............................................................... 24 235,000 330,000 2,299 N/A 

Rockwell UTX/T–39 Sabreliner ............................................ 1 235,000 235,000 1,759 N/A 

Total .............................................................................. 599 $100,000 $2,200,000 $4,797 ........................

*Airplane Bluebook Price Digest, Winter 2011. The Airplane Bluebook Price Digest contains the average retail value, by year, model, and serial 

number for each airplane affected by the ban. The range in value is primarily due to age (i.e., the older an airplane the lower its retail value 

versus a newer model of the same airplane). Note that this reflects the pre-law airplane value. The post-law values have yet to be determined 

but they are expected to be lower than the values shown in the table. 

**Average scrap value is based on information provided by two companies that perform this work. It does not include incidental expenses associated with delivery of the airplane to a scrap yard. 

***Average hushkit installation cost is based on four estimates provided by two companies that perform this work. 

The value of these airplanes before 

this mandate equals their retail value at 

that time. To determine the pre-law 

retail value, the Airplane Blue Book 

Price Digest 2 was used. The ‘‘Digest’’ 

provides average retail values for 

airplanes by model, year, and serial 

number. It is only a guide since the 

actual condition and upgrades to 

individual airplanes are not known. For 

the small minority of airplanes affected 

by the ban but not listed in the ‘‘Digest,’’ 

a proxy is used based on an airplane of 

similar type and year. The average prelaw retail value equals the sum of the 

listed retail value for each of the 599 

airplanes. This summation equals 

$355.5 million ($271.2 million in the 

year 2016 using 7 percent present 

value), which is the maximum 

economic cost for the mandate. 

To comply with the mandate and to 

mitigate economic losses, owners will 

most likely attempt to sell their Stage 2 

airplanes to operators outside of the 

United States. However, such an action 

will create a glut in the marketplace. 

Furthermore, with the Stage 2 ban in 

effect in the lower 48 states, this further 

reduction in operating space reduces 

these airplanes’ value to potential 

buyers. 

A Limited World-Wide Market 

Many countries have already 

preceded the U.S. in either banning or 

legislating limited operations of these 

airplanes. At least eight countries 

already ban Stage 2 operations by 

airplanes of any size. These countries 

include Australia, Austria, Belgium, 

Hong Kong, Japan, Macau, Singapore, 

and Switzerland.3 The inability to 

operate the Stage 2 airplanes across all 

borders will reduce their desirability for 

ownership. 

Excluding the United States, there are 

50 countries that have a total of 392 

registered airplanes like those banned in 

the United States. Almost 50 percent of 

these jets are registered in Mexico. The 

U.S. ban on Stage 2 operations reduces 

the value of these airplanes in Mexico 

as a large potential destination for 

operators is lost. The limited worldwide market hinders an owner’s ability 

to sell a banned airplane at the pre-law 

retail value. 

FOREIGN COUNTRIES WITH REGISTERED STAGE 2 AIRPLANES WEIGHING 75,000 POUNDS OR LESS

Rank Country Number of 

airplanes % Share* 

1 ........................ Mexico .............................................................................................................................................. 182 46.4 

2 ........................ Republic of South Africa .................................................................................................................. 25 6.4 

3 ........................ Venezuela ......................................................................................................................................... 24 6.1 

4 ........................ Iran ................................................................................................................................................... 17 4.3 

5 ........................ United Kingdom ................................................................................................................................ 16 4.1 

6 ........................ Brazil ................................................................................................................................................. 14 3.6 

7 ........................ France .............................................................................................................................................. 13 3.3 

8 ........................ Argentina .......................................................................................................................................... 12 3.1 

9 ........................ Republic of Congo ............................................................................................................................ 7 1.8 

10 ...................... Saudi Arabia ..................................................................................................................................... 7 1.8 

11 ...................... Dominican Republic ......................................................................................................................... 6 1.5 

12 ...................... Spain ................................................................................................................................................ 5 1.3 

13 ...................... Bolivia ............................................................................................................................................... 4 1.0 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
39580 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

FOREIGN COUNTRIES WITH REGISTERED STAGE 2 AIRPLANES WEIGHING 75,000 POUNDS OR LESS—Continued 

Rank Country Number of 

airplanes % Share* 

14 ...................... Canada ............................................................................................................................................. 4 1.0 

15 ...................... Ecuador ............................................................................................................................................ 4 1.0 

16 ...................... India .................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.0 

17 ...................... Libya ................................................................................................................................................. 3 0.8 

18 ...................... Pakistan ............................................................................................................................................ 3 0.8 

19 ...................... Cameroon ......................................................................................................................................... 2 0.5 

20 ...................... Egypt ................................................................................................................................................ 2 0.5 

21 ...................... Israel ................................................................................................................................................. 2 0.5 

22 ...................... Malaysia ........................................................................................................................................... 2 0.5 

23 ...................... Morocco ............................................................................................................................................ 2 0.5 

24 ...................... Nigeria .............................................................................................................................................. 2 0.5 

25 ...................... Sudan ............................................................................................................................................... 2 0.5 

26 ...................... Syria ................................................................................................................................................. 2 0.5 

27 ...................... Turkey ............................................................................................................................................... 2 0.5 

28 ...................... Ukraine ............................................................................................................................................. 2 0.5 

29 ...................... Angola .............................................................................................................................................. 1 0.3 

30 ...................... Bahrain ............................................................................................................................................. 1 0.3 

31 ...................... Chad ................................................................................................................................................. 1 0.3 

32 ...................... Chile ................................................................................................................................................. 1 0.3 

33 ...................... Comoros Islands .............................................................................................................................. 1 0.3 

34 ...................... Eritrea ............................................................................................................................................... 1 0.3 

35 ...................... Gabon ............................................................................................................................................... 1 0.3 

36 ...................... Ghana ............................................................................................................................................... 1 0.3 

37 ...................... Guatemala ........................................................................................................................................ 1 0.3 

38 ...................... Indonesia .......................................................................................................................................... 1 0.3 

39 ...................... Italy ................................................................................................................................................... 1 0.3 

40 ...................... Ivory Coast ....................................................................................................................................... 1 0.3 

41 ...................... Japan ................................................................................................................................................ 1 0.3 

42 ...................... Philippines ........................................................................................................................................ 1 0.3 

43 ...................... Portugal ............................................................................................................................................ 1 0.3 

44 ...................... Russia ............................................................................................................................................... 1 0.3 

45 ...................... Senegal ............................................................................................................................................ 1 0.3 

46 ...................... Sweden ............................................................................................................................................. 1 0.3 

47 ...................... Togo ................................................................................................................................................. 1 0.3 

48 ...................... United Arab Emirates ....................................................................................................................... 1 0.3 

49 ...................... Uruguay ............................................................................................................................................ 1 0.3 

50 ...................... Zimbabwe ......................................................................................................................................... 1 0.3 

Total .......................................................................................................................................... 392 100.0% 

United States ..................................................................................................................... 599 ....................

Grand Total ................................................................................................................. .................... 991 

* Totals in table may exactly add due to rounding. 

‘‘Scrappage’’ of Banned Airplanes 

A lack of demand for the banned 

airplanes will leave most owners with 

no choice other than to sell the 

airplanes for their scrap value. The 

salvage value is likely to equal the scrap 

value. The single most valuable part on 

the airplane is the engines which after 

the ban have essentially no value. 

Secondarily, the round-dial 

instrumentation used in the affected 

fleet is largely obsolete with a small 

used market. 

Hushkits 

Other than their sale and scrappage, 

the remaining option is to hushkit the 

Gulfstreams. In November 2012, there 

were 217 Gulfstream II and III airplanes 

registered in the United States. At that 

time, these airplanes had a pre-law 

retail value ranging from $250,000 to 

$2.2 million. Gulfstream owners will 

have to weigh the cost of hushkitting 

against not having use of the airplane. 

The cost to hushkit a Gulfstream II or 

III will average between $0.85 to $1.5 

million, per airplane. This cost exceeds 

the pre-law retail value for most 

Gulfstream II’s. The measure of 

economic loss for the Gulfstream II 

equals its pre-mandate value (assuming 

very few have been sold since that date). 

However, for a majority of the 

Gulfstream III’s, the cost to hushkit is 

less than its pre-law retail value. If all 

Gulfstream III owners hushkit their 

airplanes the economic loss is the cost 

of the hushkit which equals $125.6 

million. 

For the owners of the remaining 491 

airplanes, the economic cost is $204.3 

million. This cost equals their premandate resale value excluding some 

minor salvage value. Additionally some 

of these airplanes may have been sold 

to foreign buyers. The total economic 

loss equals the Gulfstream III hushkit 

loss of $125.6 million plus the $204.3 

million equaling $329.9 million, or in 

present value $251.7 million using 7 

percent. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 39581 

4Thresholds are based on the North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS). The NAICS 

is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies 

in classifying business establishments for the 

purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing 

statistical data related to the U.S. business 

economy. 

5OAG Aviation Solutions Fleet Database as of 

November 14, 2012. 

Costs by action and number of aircraft 

Action Number of 

aircraft 

Millions of 

2012$ 

Present value 

in 2016 at 7% 

discount 

rate—millions 

of 2012$ 

Hushkit ......................................................................................................................................... 108 $ 125.6 $ 95.8 

Scrapped/Sold Aircraft ................................................................................................................. 491 204.3 155.9 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 599 329.9 251.7 

Since Congress has mandated the 

prohibition on the operation of certain 

airplanes weighing 75,000 pounds or 

less that do not comply with Stage 3 

noise levels, Congress has determined 

that the benefits exceed the costs. The 

FAA has determined that this final rule 

is a significant regulatory action as 

defined in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866, and is 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. 

Estimated Number of Small Firms 

Potentially Impacted 

The Act requires that (except as 

otherwise noted) after December 31, 

2015, civil subsonic jet airplanes with a 

maximum weight of 75,000 pounds or 

less and for which an airworthiness 

certificate (other than an experimental 

certificate) has been issued, shall not be 

operated to or from an airport in the 

United States unless the Secretary of 

Transportation finds that the airplane 

complies with Stage 3 noise levels. The 

purpose of this statutory provision is to 

reduce noise levels at airports and the 

communities surrounding them across 

the United States. 

Under the RFA, the FAA must 

determine whether a proposed rule 

significantly affects a substantial 

number of small entities. This 

determination is typically based on 

small entity size and revenue thresholds 

that vary depending on the affected 

industry.4 To determine the number of 

small entities affected by the mandate, 

we searched a commercially available 

airplane fleet database.5 The search 

results identified five operator 

categories consisting of 457 entities that 

own 599 airplanes. The entities consist 

of privately held corporations, financial 

institutions, leasing companies, nonscheduled airlines, and private 

individuals. In most cases, the size of 

the entities cannot be determined 

because financial and employment data 

for privately held entities is sparse. 

Nevertheless, the number of small 

business entities is believed to be 

substantial. 

Of the 599 affected airplanes, over 

half (382 airplanes) cannot be converted 

to Stage 3 noise levels because there are 

no modifications currently available. 

Owners of airplanes that are unable to 

modify their airplanes may choose to (1) 

Sell their airplanes to an entity whose 

operations are not constrained by noise 

restrictions, (2) salvage the airplanes for 

parts, or (3) sell the airplanes for scrap 

value. For the remaining 217 airplanes 

that are able to be converted to Stage 3 

noise levels, owners will have to 

determine if the benefit of operating the 

airplanes outweighs the cost of making 

the airplanes Stage 3 noise compliant 

and the higher operating costs are worth 

the expense. 

As the effective date of the 

prohibition approaches (January 1, 

2016), the resale value of any remaining 

airplanes in the U.S. fleet will fall 

dramatically, ultimately to zero. In 

addition, the value of the entire world 

fleet of these Stage 2 airplanes will be 

reduced with the influx of U.S. 

airplanes available for sale and the 

prohibition of foreign Stage 2 airplanes 

from operating in the U.S. Complying 

with the congressional mandate creates 

a significant economic impact for 

owners since the compliance cost 

requires an owner to either forego the 

use of its airplane or to purchase one 

that meets Stage 3 noise levels. Since 

this rule only places Congress’ language 

of the statutory ban into the civil 

regulations and has no requirements of 

its own, the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply. 

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 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
39582 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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 since it 

implements an action by Congress, the 

Trade Agreements Act provisions do not 

apply. 

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 

$143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

Although this rule exceeds $143.1 

million the year it takes effect, it 

implements the direction of Congress 

and thus Title II of the Act is not 

applicable. 

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 information collection associated 

with the requirement to demonstrate 

eligibility under the statutory provisions 

when making a request for special flight 

authorization for otherwise prohibited 

jet airplane operations. That information 

collection requirement previously was 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) and was assigned 

OMB Control Number 2120–0652. 

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 reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these 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 

This rule implements Section 506 of 

the Act by adding jets weighing 75,000 

pounds or less to the applicability of the 

operating noise subpart in § 91.801. This 

rule incorporates the prohibition on 

operations of small jets not meeting 

Stage 3 noise levels after December 31, 

2015. It also incorporates the special 

operating circumstances allowed by law 

for these smaller jets. The 

environmental impacts of this rule, 

including the reduction in jet noise in 

the contiguous United States, and the 

minor impacts of allowing statutorily 

limited operations of Stage 2 jets, are a 

result of the statutory requirements. The 

FAA has no authority to change any of 

these statutory provisions or their 

environmental impact. 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312(f) of the Order and 

involves no extraordinary 

circumstances. 

IV. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 12866 

See the ‘‘Regulatory Evaluation’’ 

discussion in the ‘‘Regulatory Notices 

and Analyses’’ section elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

B. 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. 

C. 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. Additional Information 

A. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of a rulemaking 

document may be obtained by using the 

Internet— 

1. Search the Federal eRulemaking 

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

2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 

3. Access the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request (identified by notice, 

amendment, or docket number of this 

rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. 

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 91 

Aircraft, Operating noise limits. 

The Amendments 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND 

FLIGHT RULES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 91 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 

40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 

44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 

44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506– 

46507, 47122, 47508, 47528–47531, 47534, 

articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on 

International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), 

(126 Stat. 11). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 39583 

■ 2. Amend § 91.801 by adding new 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 91.801 Applicability: Relation to part 36. 

* * * * * 

(e) Sections 91.881 through 91.883 of 

this subpart prescribe operating noise 

limits and related requirements that 

apply to any civil subsonic jet airplane 

with a maximum takeoff weight of 

75,000 pounds or less and for which an 

airworthiness certificate (other than an 

experimental certificate) has been 

issued, operating to or from an airport 

in the contiguous United States under 

this part, part 121, 125, 129, or 135 of 

this chapter on and after December 31, 

2015. 

■ 3. Add new § 91.881 to read as 

follows: 

§ 91.881 Final compliance: Civil subsonic 

jet airplanes weighing 75,000 pounds or 

less. 

Except as provided in § 91.883, after 

December 31, 2015, a person may not 

operate to or from an airport in the 

contiguous United States a civil 

subsonic jet airplane subject to 

§ 91.801(e) of this subpart unless that 

airplane has been shown to comply with 

Stage 3 noise levels. 

■ 4. Add new § 91.883 to read as 

follows: 

§ 91.883 Special flight authorizations for 

jet airplanes weighing 75,000 pounds or 

less. 

(a) After December 31, 2015, an 

operator of a jet airplane weighing 

75,000 pounds or less that does not 

comply with Stage 3 noise levels may, 

when granted a special flight 

authorization by the FAA, operate that 

airplane in the contiguous United States 

only for one of the following purposes: 

(1) To sell, lease, or use the airplane 

outside the 48 contiguous States; 

(2) To scrap the airplane; 

(3) To obtain modifications to the 

airplane to meet Stage 3 noise levels; 

(4) To perform scheduled heavy 

maintenance or significant 

modifications on the airplane at a 

maintenance facility located in the 

contiguous 48 States; 

(5) To deliver the airplane to an 

operator leasing the airplane from the 

owner or return the airplane to the 

lessor; 

(6) To prepare, park, or store the 

airplane in anticipation of any of the 

activities described in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (a)(5) of this section; 

(7) To provide transport of persons 

and goods in the relief of an emergency 

situation; or 

(8) To divert the airplane to an 

alternative airport in the 48 contiguous 

States on account of weather, 

mechanical, fuel, air traffic control, or 

other safety reasons while conducting a 

flight in order to perform any of the 

activities described in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (a)(7) of this section. 

(b) An operator of an affected airplane 

may apply for a special flight 

authorization for one of the purposes 

listed in paragraph (a) of this section by 

filing an application with the FAA’s 

Office of Environment and Energy. 

Except for emergency relief 

authorizations sought under paragraph 

(a)(7) of this section, applications must 

be filed at least 30 days in advance of 

the planned flight. All applications 

must provide the information necessary 

for the FAA to determine that the 

planned flight is within the limits 

prescribed in the law. 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f) and 47534 in Washington, DC, 

on June 18, 2013. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15843 Filed 7–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 902 

[Docket No. 110819515–3563–03] 

RIN 0648–BA98 

Fisheries in the Western Pacific; 

Fishing in the Marianas Trench, Pacific 

Remote Islands, and Rose Atoll Marine 

National Monuments 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule; effectiveness of 

collection-of-information requirements. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces approval by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) of collection-of-information 

requirements contained in regulations 

implementing amendments to four 

western Pacific fishery ecosystem plans, 

relating to fishing in three marine 

national monuments. The intent of this 

final rule is to inform the public that 

OMB has approved the associated 

reporting requirements. 

DATES: This rule is effective August 1, 

2013. The new permit and reporting 

requirements at §§ 665.13, 665.14, and 

665.16, and new §§ 665.903(b) and (c), 

665.904(b), 665.905, 665.933(b) and (c), 

665.934(b), 665.935, 665.963(b) and (c), 

665.964(b), and 665.965, published at 78 

FR 32996 (June 3, 2013), have been 

approved by OMB and are effective on 

August 1, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments 

regarding the burden-hour estimates or 

other aspects of the collection-ofinformation requirements contained in 

this final rule may be submitted to 

NMFS, attention Michael D. Tosatto, 

1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Honolulu, HI 

96814, and to OMB by email to 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax 

to 202–395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jarad Makaiau, NMFS Pacific Islands 

Region (PIR), Sustainable Fisheries, tel 

808–944–2108. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 3, 

2013, NMFS published in the Federal 

Register a final rule to implement 

fishing requirements contained in 

Amendment 3 to the Fishery Ecosystem 

Plan (FEP) for the Mariana Archipelago, 

Amendment 2 to the Pacific Remote 

Island Areas FEP, Amendment 3 to the 

American Samoa FEP, and Amendment 

6 to the Pelagic FEP (78 FR 32996). The 

requirements of that final rule, other 

than the collection-of-information 

requirements, were effective on July 3, 

2013. OMB approved the collection-ofinformation requirements on May 29, 

2013; this rule announces the approval 

and the effective date of the 

requirements. 

Under NOAA Administrative Order 

205–11, dated December 17, 1990, the 

Under Secretary for Oceans and 

Atmosphere has delegated authority to 

sign material for publication in the 

Federal Register to the Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA. 

Classification 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, and no person shall be 

subject to penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), unless that 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

This final rule contains new 

collection-of-information requirements 

subject to the PRA under OMB Control 

Number 0648–0664. Specifically, noncommercial fishermen and recreational 

charter fishermen are required to obtain 

Federal permits and complete logbook 

reports to fish in the Marianas Trench, 

Pacific Remote Islands, and Rose Atoll 

Marine National Monuments. These are 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES