Federal Register Vol. 80, No.142,

In November 2013, pursuant to sections 1098 and 1100A of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act),1 the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau or CFPB) issued the Integrated Mortgage Disclosures Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) and the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) (TILA-RESPA Final Rule), combining certain disclosures that consumers receive in connection with applying for and closing on a mortgage loan.2 On January 20, 2015, the Bureau issued the Amendments to the 2013 Integrated Mortgage Disclosures Rule Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) and the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) and the 2013 Loan Originator Rule Under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) (TILA-RESPA Amendments or Amendments).3 As published in the Federal Register, the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and the TILA-RESPA Amendments (together, the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and Amendments) are effective on August 1, 2015. Because of an administrative error on the Bureau's part in complying with the Congressional Review Act (CRA) with respect to the TILA-RESPA Final Rule, the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and Amendments cannot take effect until, at the earliest, August 15, 2015 (CRA Effective Date).

On June 24, 2015, the Bureau issued a proposed rule to delay the effective date of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and Amendments to October 3, 2015 (Proposed Rule). The Proposed Rule also included certain technical amendments to the Official Interpretations to Regulation Z to reflect the proposed new effective date.4

The Bureau is now issuing this final rule to delay the effective date of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and Amendments to October 3, 2015, and to finalize the related technical amendments in the Proposed Rule. As discussed in more detail in parts VI and VII below, this final rule also makes certain technical corrections to the TILA-RESPA Final Rule. Specifically, the Bureau is: (1) Amending § 1026.38(i)(8)(ii) and (iii)(A) to include, in the amount disclosed as “Final” for Adjustments and Other Credits, the amount disclosed under § 1026.38(j)(1)(iii) for certain personal property sales, thus conforming the calculation of Adjustments and Other Credits on the Closing Disclosure and Loan Estimate; and (2) amending § 1026.38(j)(1)(iv) to include, in the amount disclosed as Closing Costs Paid at Closing, lender credits disclosed under § 1026.38(h)(3), thus conforming the disclosure of the borrower's cash to close in the Calculating Cash to Close and the Summaries of Transactions tables on the Closing Disclosure. These technical corrections are in line with existing industry expectations and informal Bureau guidance.

Dodd-Frank Act sections 1032(f), 1098, and 1100A mandated that the Bureau establish a single disclosure scheme for use by lenders and creditors in complying with the disclosure requirements of both the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).5 Section 1098(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act amended RESPA section 4(a) to require that the Bureau publish a single, integrated disclosure for mortgage loan transactions, including “the disclosure requirements of this section and section 5, in conjunction with the disclosure requirements of [TILA].” 6 Similarly, section 1100A(5) of the Dodd-Frank Act amended TILA section 105(b) to require that the Bureau publish a single, integrated disclosure for mortgage loan transactions, including “the disclosure requirements of this title in conjunction with the disclosure requirements of [RESPA].” 7 The Bureau issued proposed integrated disclosure forms and rules for public comment on July 9, 2012, and issued the TILA-RESPA Final Rule on November 20, 2013.8

Upon issuing the TILA-RESPA Final Rule, the Bureau initiated extensive efforts to support industry implementation.9 Information regarding the Bureau's TILA-RESPA implementation initiative and available resources can be found on the Bureau's regulatory implementation Web site at www.consumerfinance.gov/regulatory-implementation/tila-respa.

As adopted, the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and Amendments are effective on August 1, 2015. Section 801 of the CRA precludes a rule from taking effect until the Federal agency promulgating the rule submits a rule report, including a copy of the rule, to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office (GAO).10 The TILA-RESPA Final Rule is a major rule under the CRA. Major rules, as defined under the CRA, have several additional procedural requirements, including that they cannot take effect until 60 days after (1) publication in the Federal Register or (2) receipt by Congress, whichever is later.11 Although the TILA-RESPA Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on December 31, 2013, and received widespread public and Congressional attention, the Bureau discovered on June 16, 2015, that it inadvertently had not submitted the rule report to Congress. Later that day, the Bureau submitted the report to both Houses of Congress and the GAO. Under the CRA, the TILA-RESPA Final Rule cannot take effect until, at the earliest, August 15, 2015, two weeks after the originally scheduled effective date. The TILA-RESPA Amendments cannot take effect before the TILA-RESPA Final Rule, as they amend the TILA-RESPA Final Rule.

Given that the TILA-RESPA Final Rule would not take effect until the CRA Effective Date, the Bureau proposed a brief additional delay to October 3, 2015. In doing so, the Bureau discussed whether this additional delay could potentially benefit both consumers and industry more than having the new rules take effect on the CRA Effective Date. The Bureau recognized that adjusting operational systems from a target readiness date of August 1 to a target readiness date of August 15 would likely pose implementation challenges for many organizations. The Bureau also recognized that a mid-month effective date could create additional challenges. Moreover, the Bureau noted that delays in the delivery of system updates had left some creditors with limited time to fully test all of their systems and system components to ensure that each system works with the others in an effective manner. These delays pose risks to smooth implementation of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule when combined with the challenges for institutions of adjusting operational systems to a new effective date.

The Bureau also explained in the Proposed Rule that a Saturday effective date could allow for smoother implementation by affording industry time over a weekend to launch new systems configurations and to test systems. The Bureau noted that a Saturday launch would be consistent with existing industry plans tied to the original Saturday August 1 effective date. The Bureau explained its concern that a longer delay in implementation would impose unnecessary costs both on consumers and on those segments of industry that have worked diligently for a timely implementation. A longer delay would also be inconsistent with the Bureau's goal of implementing the new disclosures on the earliest practically feasible date to support consumer understanding of mortgage loan transactions.

On June 24, 2015, the Bureau issued the Proposed Rule with a request for public comment. The Proposed Rule was published in the Federal Register on June 26, 2015.12

The Bureau solicited comment on all aspects of the Proposed Rule. In particular, the Bureau asked commenters to provide specific detail and any available data regarding current and planned practices, as well as relevant knowledge and specific facts about any benefits, costs, or other impacts on both industry and consumers of the Proposed Rule. The Bureau solicited comment regarding the proposed extension of the effective date to October 3, 2015, as well as alternative dates for extension, including the prospect of allowing the new rules to take effect on the CRA Effective Date.

The comment period closed on July 7, 2015. In response to the Proposed Rule, the Bureau received more than 1,300 comments from industry trade associations, creditors, technology vendors, and other industry representatives, as well as consumer advocacy groups and others. In adopting this final rule, the Bureau has considered and discussed relevant comments in parts V and VI below. Many of the comments urged the Bureau to take actions beyond the scope of the Proposed Rule.

The Bureau is issuing this final rule pursuant to its authority under TILA, RESPA, and the Dodd-Frank Act. Specifically, the Bureau is exercising its rulemaking authority pursuant to TILA section 105(a), RESPA section 19(a), and Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(1) to delay the effective date of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and Amendments, including related technical amendments in the Proposed Rule.

The legal authority for the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and the TILA-RESPA Amendments is described in detail in the Legal Authority parts of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and the TILA-RESPA Amendments, respectively.13 As amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, TILA section 105(a) directs the Bureau to prescribe regulations to carry out the purposes of TILA and provides that such regulations may contain additional requirements, classifications, differentiations, or other provisions, and may provide for such adjustments and exceptions for all or any class of transactions, that the Bureau judges are necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of TILA, to prevent circumvention or evasion thereof, or to facilitate compliance therewith.14 Section 19(a) of RESPA authorizes the Bureau to prescribe such rules and regulations and to make such interpretations and grant such reasonable exemptions for classes of transactions as may be necessary to achieve the purposes of RESPA.15 Additionally, under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(1), the Bureau has general authority to prescribe rules “as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer financial laws, and to prevent evasions thereof.” 16 TILA and RESPA are Federal consumer financial laws.17 Accordingly, in issuing this final rule, the Bureau is exercising its authority under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(1) to prescribe rules under TILA, RESPA, and title X of the Dodd-Frank Act that carry out the purposes and objectives and prevent evasion of those laws. The Bureau believes that delaying the effective date to October 3, 2015, will facilitate compliance with—and help ensure the smooth implementation of—the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and Amendments. Section 1022(b)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act prescribes certain standards for rulemaking that the Bureau must follow in exercising its authority under section 1022(b)(1).18

The Bureau is also making technical corrections to § 1026.38(i)(8)(ii) and (iii)(A) and § 1026.38(j)(1)(iv), relying on the same authority used to implement § 1026.38(i) and (j) in the TILA-RESPA Final Rule: TILA section 105(a); RESPA section 19(a); and Dodd-Frank Act sections 1032(a) and 1405(b).19

In the Proposed Rule, the Bureau requested comment specifically regarding the proposed extension of the effective date to October 3, 2015, as well as alternative dates for extension, including allowing the new rules to take effect on the CRA Effective Date.

The vast majority of commenters who opined on the effective date—including banks, credit unions, mortgage companies, industry service providers, trade associations, and individual commenters—supported extending the effective date beyond the CRA Effective Date. Consumer advocacy groups did not oppose the extension beyond the CRA Effective Date. Many commenters supported the proposed October 3, 2015, effective date without requesting any additional delay in the effective date. Other commenters recommended extending the effective date to various other dates, including September 3, 2015; November 1, 2015; December 31, 2015; January 1, 2016; January 2, 2016; January 4, 2016; January 14, 2016; or February 1, 2016.

However, some commenters expressed concern about any delay of the effective date. For example, a few industry commenters suggested that their institutions or creditors more generally would be prepared for an August 1 effective date and that they consequently would not need or want any further delays. Several commenters were concerned about costs associated with any delay, including costs related to staffing, communications, scheduling, programming, and training, but they did not provide sufficient information about those costs from which to develop a reliable estimate of the costs on industry.

Several commenters opposed any further delay beyond an early October effective date. For example, consumer advocacy groups urged that the effective date should not be delayed any further, in order to maximize the benefits of the new disclosures. Consumer advocacy groups commented that the new integrated disclosures will improve the format, content, and timing of information provided to many consumers in connection with the biggest purchase of their lives. Several industry commenters, including various trade associations, a technology vendor, and two banks, stated that adjusting operational systems from an effective date of August 1, 2015, to a later date poses extensive implementation challenges. As a result, industry has begun the process of making operational systems adjustments, even before finalization of the Proposed Rule, based on the proposed October 3, 2015, effective date.

Support for extending the effective date was most often justified by commenters on the basis that industry needs more time to prepare. In particular, many commenters from industry, both individuals and institutions, cited delays in updating software and systems that industry relies on for compliance and also cited related delays in testing and training on such systems. Several industry commenters noted that extending the effective date would provide more time for creditors and service providers to clarify their understanding of the rule's extensive provisions, including through additional guidance issued by the Bureau. Some commenters, including trade organizations and a technology vendor, supported extending the effective date because implementation of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and Amendments has been occurring while industry is implementing or adjusting to various other legal and regulatory changes, and at least one commenter noted that their resources are stretched thin as a result. Some industry commenters expressed the opinion that a delay in implementation would benefit consumers because industry would be better prepared to implement the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and Amendments with more time.

Industry commenters who sought a further delay in the effective date beyond October 3, 2015, generally relied on the same arguments raised by other commenters for any extension of the effective date. Among commenters who requested an additional delay in the effective date beyond October 3, 2015, the most common alternative date fell sometime near the beginning of 2016 (e.g., January 1, 2016; January 2, 2016; or January 4, 2016). Industry commenters argued that they expect mortgage origination activity to slow during the end of the calendar year and the beginning of the new year, based on historical patterns, and a delay until early 2016 would thus permit a smoother transition. Some commenters, including a community bank and a credit union, requested a February 1, 2016, effective date instead of a date in January because implementation could be difficult around the end-of-the-year holidays.

Some industry commenters, including a national trade association, specifically supported a Saturday effective date (for example, October 3, 2015) because it would allow companies to migrate their systems over a weekend. At least one commenter, a state trade association, supported a Friday effective date for similar reasons. Other commenters favored different days of the week for the effective date, such as a Monday or Thursday. For example, a credit union commenter favored a Thursday effective date because the TILA-RESPA Final Rule allows a three-business-day window for delivering or placing the Loan Estimate in the mail, and thus a Thursday effective date would provide additional time to work through potential systems issues before the start of the following workweek. A credit union association commenter stated that a weekend effective date would require additional staff overtime costs and would therefore be undesirable.

Several commenters, including a credit union and an individual commenter, stated that an effective date on the first day of the month would simplify implementation. However, a bank commenter stated that there would be additional staff challenges if the effective date is within the first few days after the end of a quarterly reporting period.

The Bureau also received a number of technical comments about the effective date. One commenter suggested that the Bureau should amend an additional amendatory instruction, as discussed further below. Some commenters, including consumer advocacy groups, requested clarification as to whether all or only parts of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and Amendments will have a new effective date. Additionally, other commenters requested clarification that the proposal for the final rule to take effect immediately upon publication referred to the delay of the effective date, not to the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and Amendments.

The Bureau also received a number of comments that did not relate directly to the date when the TILA-RESPA Final Rule should become effective. Many banks, credit unions, mortgage companies, industry service providers, trade associations, and individual commenters from industry—including many who did not request an additional delay in the effective date beyond October 3, 2015—requested a safe harbor period, hold-harmless period, or other formal grace period after the effective date to insulate creditors from private liability or public enforcement. Many suggested that a grace period could apply to creditors that demonstrate good faith efforts to comply with the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and Amendments. Some commenters arguing for an effective date later than October 3, 2015, asked for a grace period if the Bureau maintained the October 3, 2015, effective date. Some commenters supporting a grace period stated that it should last for a specific duration.

Consumer advocacy groups opposed a formal grace period, expressing concerns about consumer protection, precedential value, and the Bureau's legal authority to implement a formal grace period. The consumer advocacy groups noted that regulators already have the discretion not to sanction creditors and that various existing provisions of TILA protect creditors acting in good faith.

Some industry commenters, including various credit unions and their trade associations, requested an optional “dual compliance” period before the effective date. During such a dual compliance period, the commenters stated that creditors should have the option to test their systems by using the new integrated disclosures in real-life transactions or continue using the current disclosures. A law firm commenter that supported an optional dual compliance period stated that creditors that are already prepared for an August 2015 effective date should not be penalized by being forced to wait until October or later.

Other industry commenters, including a technology vendor and a title underwriter, opposed a dual compliance period and stated that it would increase the risk of errors, create a competitive disadvantage for some (likely smaller) industry members not using the new disclosures, complicate the flow of information for secondary market investors, and increase the risk of consumer confusion.

The Bureau also received a number of other comments that did not relate, even indirectly, to the effective date and therefore are not discussed in this preamble.20

The Bureau is adopting an October 3, 2015, effective date for the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and Amendments, as proposed.

The Bureau concludes that implementation of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and Amendments will provide significant benefits to consumers and that the earliest practically feasible implementation date remains essential to aid consumer understanding of mortgage loan transactions. The TILA-RESPA Final Rule and Amendments significantly strengthen and streamline the mortgage loan disclosures provided to consumers. The Bureau believes the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and Amendments will deliver significant value to consumers, among other ways, by helping: (1) To ensure that consumers understand the costs, risks, and benefits of their loans at a time when they can still negotiate the terms of, or walk away from, the transaction; and (2) to minimize changes at the closing table and make it easier for consumers to understand how and why any costs may have changed.21

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 98-22-10, Amendment 39-10858 (63 FR 57240, October 27, 1998). AD 98-22-10 applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 26, 2014 (79 FR 50867). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracking in the surround structure of the forward galley service doorway between body station (STA) 332.1 and STA 344, which are outside the inspection area of AD 98-22-10, and by reports that cracking has been discovered on airplanes outside the applicability of AD 98-22-10. We have determined that inspections are needed in additional locations, and that additional airplanes are subject to the identified unsafe condition.

The NPRM (79 FR 50867, August 26, 2014) proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections for cracking of the aft frame and frame support structure of the forward service doorway, and repair if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to add inspections, add airplanes to the applicability, and for certain airplanes, provide an optional preventive modification, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the aft frame and frame support structure of the forward service doorway around the six doorstop fittings, which could result in door deflection and loss of pressurization.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 50867, August 26, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing stated paragraph 1.E, “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1108, Revision 7, dated July 7, 2014, provides actions for airplanes repaired or modified previously where the preventive modifications have been accomplished. Boeing stated that paragraph (l)(4) of the proposed AD reads: “AMOCs approved for AD 98-22-10, Amendment 39-10858 (63 FR 57240, October 27, 1998), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.” Boeing interpreted the latter statement to mean that AMOCs approved for AD 98-22-10 do not supersede (or negate) the additional inspection requirements provided in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1108, Revision 7, dated July 7, 2014, and requested concurrence with its interpretation of this language.

We agree with Boeing's interpretation. Paragraph (m)(4) of this AD (paragraph (l)(4) of the proposed AD) establishes that an AMOC issued for actions performed in accordance with AD 98-22-10, Amendment 39-10858 (63 FR 57240, October 27, 1998), satisfies the corresponding provisions, and only those corresponding provisions, of the this AD. All requirements of this AD must be satisfied, whether by previous AMOC, accomplishment of the specified AD actions, or a new AMOC. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Southwest Airlines (Southwest) noted that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (79 FR 50867, August 26, 2014) would provide terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD. Southwest requested that we revise the NPRM to state that the post preventive modification inspections specified in tables 9, 10, 11, and 12 in paragraph 1.E, “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1108, Revision 7, dated July 7, 2014, would not be required. Southwest also requested that this provision apply to paragraph (k) of the proposed AD (paragraph (l) of this AD), which specifies credit for actions done previously using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1108, Revision 6, dated January 9, 2014.

We agree with the requests. While the post-preventive modification inspections specified by tables 9 through 12 in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1108, Revision 7, dated July 7, 2014, may be used in support of compliance with section 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 14 CFR 129.109(b)(2)), those actions are not required by this AD. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD by specifying the required parts of the service information: Parts 2 and 4. We have also added new paragraph (j) in this final rule to specify that post-preventive modification inspections (Part 6) are not required by this AD. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs of this AD accordingly.

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/ebd1cec7b301293e86257cb30045557a/$FILE/ST01219SE.pdf) does not affect accomplishment of the actions specified in the NPRM (79 FR 50867, August 26, 2014).

We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD (79 FR 50867, August 26, 2014) as (c)(1) and added new paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/ebd1cec7b301293e86257cb30045557a/$FILE/ST01219SE.pdf) does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this final rule. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product”' alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

We have updated the Costs of Compliance section to add existing inspection and repair costs from AD 98-22-10, Amendment 39-10858 (63 FR 57240, October 27, 1998).

We have changed paragraph (b) of this AD to add AD 90-06-02, Amendment 39-6489, (55 FR 8372, March 7, 1990), as an affected AD since accomplishment of the preventative modification required by paragraph (h) of this AD is an alternative method of compliance for paragraph A. of AD 90-06-02.

In various locations, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1108, Revision 7, dated July 7, 2014, cites Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1108, Revision 6, dated January 9, 2014, instead of Revision 7 of the service information. We have added a new paragraph (k)(3) in this AD to clarify that, where Revision 7 of the service information specifies accomplishment of a preventative modification be done using Revision 6 of the service information, this AD requires accomplishment of that preventative modification with Revision 7 of this service information.

We also noted a discrepancy in table 4 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1108, Revision 7, dated July 7, 2014. Although the fourth action is an inspection of the intercostals “and attaching stringers,” the corresponding corrective action specified in table 4 is for only a crack in “an intercostal.” We have confirmed with Boeing that the “attaching stringers” were inadvertently omitted from this condition in table 4. Repair of a cracked attaching stringer, however, is described in PART 4, paragraph 7, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1108, Revision 7, dated July 7, 2014. We have added a new paragraph (k)(4) in this AD to specify that cracking in the attaching stringers also requires repair.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 50867, August 26, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 50867, August 26, 2014).

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1108, Revision 7, dated July 7, 2014. The service information describes procedures for inspections for cracking of the aft frame and frame support structure of the forward service doorway, and repair if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 419 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. 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.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2012-13-06, Amendment 39-17108 (77 FR 40485, July 10, 2012). AD 2012-13-06 applied to all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes and all Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 31, 2015 (80 FR 17003). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that the description of the inspection area specified in the service information was misleading; therefore, some operators might have inspected incorrect bonding leads. The NPRM proposed to require a new one-time detailed inspection of the FSOV bonding leads to ensure that the correct bonding leads are inspected, and corrective action if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct contact or chafing of wires and the bonding leads, which, if not detected, could be a source of sparks in the wing trailing edge, and could lead to an uncontrolled engine fire.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0204, dated September 6, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 17003, March 31, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 17003, March 31, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 17003, March 31, 2015).

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-24-0106, Revision 01, dated March 26, 2013 (for Model A300 series airplanes); and Service Bulletin A300-24-6108, Revision 01, dated March 26, 2013 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes). The service information describes procedures for inspecting the FSOV bonding leads, corrective actions, and repair of the associated wires. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 123 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate that it takes about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $500 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $145,140, or $1,180 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $50, for a cost of $135 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. 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.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0679; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 16, 2014 (79 FR 62072).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0011R1, dated January 17, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0748-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comments received. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 62072, October 16, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Airlines for America (A4A), on behalf of American Airlines (AAL), Delta Airlines (DAL), and United Airlines (UAL), requested that we extend the initial inspection compliance time in paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM (79 FR 62072, October 16, 2014) from 4 months to 12 months after the effective date of the AD. A4A stated that the fleet age of multiple U.S. carriers means that a large number of airplanes will require inspection in a short period of time, likely resulting in schedule disruptions and/or cancellations.

We disagree with the commenters' request. We base AD compliance times primarily on our assessment of safety risk. Some safety issues are more time sensitive than others. We consider the overall risk to the fleet, including the severity of the failure and the likelihood of the failure's occurrence in development of the compliance time for the ADs. The FAA and EASA work closely with the respective manufacturers to ensure that all appropriate instructions and parts are available at the appropriate time to meet our collective safety goals, and that those goals are based on safety of the fleet. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

A4A, on behalf of UAL and JetBlue, requested that we clarify the wording of the flight time/cycle guidance in paragraphs (h) and (j) of the NPRM (79 FR 62072, October 16, 2014). JetBlue asked whether an operator can continue a THSA in service in perpetuity if the inspection is performed every 4 months, or whether the THSA must be removed at 12 months after the effective date of the AD.

We agree that clarification is necessary. If a THSA exceeds 67,500 flight hours on the effective date of the AD, then repetitive inspections are to be accomplished every 4 months until replacement is performed within 12 months after the effective date of the AD. Paragraph (m) of this AD is an exception or an alternative to paragraph (j) of this AD and is intended to match the requirements of the MCAI. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

JetBlue objected to the THSA 67,500-flight-hour life limit specified by paragraph (j) of the NPRM (79 FR 62072, October 16, 2014). JetBlue stated that establishing a life limit for a component that previously had no such life limit, with no overhaul or inspection criteria for continued airworthiness, is an enormous burden for operators. JetBlue commented that both Airbus and UTAS/Goodrich are developing either an overhaul procedure to zero-time the units, or a method to permit continued airworthy operation of the units beyond the 67,500-flight-hour life limit.

A4A stated that an operator that prefers to bear the overhaul costs to restore an older THSA to service beyond 67,500 flight hours should not be precluded from doing so because repair and/or overhaul would return the unit to a new condition, which should address any safety concerns.

We disagree with the commenters' request to change the THSA life limit. JetBlue did not provide substantiation that overhaul or repair methods would provide an acceptable level of safety in lieu of the life limits. The FAA takes into consideration the system safety analysis and quantitative and qualitative risk assessment for establishing a life limit for a component, failure of which may cause a catastrophic failure and consequently affect the safe flight of the airplane. This assessment resulted in establishing the THSA life limit required by paragraph (j) of this AD. Once we issue this AD, a request for approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to extend the THSA life limit under the provisions of paragraph (o)(1) of this AD may be submitted. Sufficient data must be submitted to substantiate that the THSA has been modified or inspected in a manner that would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

A4A, on behalf of AAL and JetBlue, requested that we remove the proposed oil sampling inspection requirement in paragraph (g) of the NPRM (79 FR 62072, October 16, 2014). A4A stated that there is no data on the correlation between sample findings and associated component wear. JetBlue commented that the sampling test results may be skewed high or low depending on either a low oil level in the THSA at the time of testing or any recent introduction of clean oil.

We disagree with the commenters' request. The oil sampling inspection includes examination for metal particles in the magnetic chip detector. The spectrometric analysis checks for the presence of aluminum particles. Findings may include unusually large quantities of metal particles larger than 2 millimeters by 1 millimeter, which could indicate wear or damage of the THSA. We and our colleagues in the foreign certification authorities (in this case, EASA) work closely with manufacturers to determine appropriate service information for addressing the identified unsafe condition. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

JetBlue requested that we permit the reporting described in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 01, dated October 7, 2013, to be done at the operator's discretion. JetBlue stated that there is no value in the reporting, which does not require quantitative disclosure of the oil sampling result—only pass/fail. JetBlue stated that mandating this reporting requirement adds an undue burden to the operator as there is no information to be gained by having operators report whether or not the THSA was changed.

We agree with the commenter's request. This AD and the EASA MCAI do not include a reporting requirement. However, when the service information includes a reporting request, then operators are encouraged to provide the report. Reports provide data that can be valuable for the airframe original equipment manufacturers to develop product improvements and/or enhance safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

A4A, on behalf of AAL, JetBlue, and UAL, requested that we revise the cost analysis to accurately reflect the accomplishment burden. A4A stated that the inspections in paragraph (g) of the NPRM (79 FR 62072, October 16, 2014) would require 7 to 9 work-hours rather than 6 work-hours, while removal, replacement, and checkout typically consume 15 to 20 work-hours, not the NPRM estimate of 7 work-hours.

We partially agree with the commenter's request to revise the cost estimate. We recognize that costs may vary from operator to operator. Our cost estimates are based on the manufacturer's service information. The service information for this AD specifies 6 work-hours for the inspection and 11 work-hours for the replacement. Therefore, we have changed the work-hours for the replacement accordingly.

In order to clarify the repetitive compliance times, we have added a reference to “paragraph (h) of this AD” within paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.

We have also have added a reference to “paragraph (h) of this AD” in paragraphs (k) and (l) of this AD to clarify that repetitive inspections are required.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 62072, October 16, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 62072, October 16, 2014).

We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 01, dated October 7, 2013. The service information describes procedures for an inspection for damage of the THSA and replacement. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 851 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the inspection requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost for the inspection specified in this AD on U.S. operators to be $434,010, or $510 per product.

We estimate that it would take about 11 work-hours per product to comply with the actuator replacement requirements of this AD. Required parts would cost about $240,000 per product. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost for the actuator replacement specified in this AD on U.S. operators to be $205,035,685, or $240,935 per product.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. 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.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0748; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 98-13-23, Amendment 39-10614 (63 FR 34576, June 25, 1998). AD 98-13-23 applied to certain Airbus Model 300-600 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 10, 2014 (79 FR 7592).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0048, dated March 4, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0011-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 7592, February 10, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

FedEx acknowledges the requirements of the NPRM (79 FR 7592, February 10, 2014).

UPS requested that we revise the compliance times in the proposed AD (79 FR 7592, February 10, 2014) to reflect specific times regardless of the aircraft utilization rate. UPS stated that a comment response in AD 98-13-23, Amendment 39-10614 (63 FR 34576, June 25, 1998), noted that the FAA did not concur with the “average flight time” (AFT) compliance time methodology as it may not address the unsafe condition in a timely manner. UPS stated that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD specifies that the compliance time is at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E. of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6042, Revision 03, dated August 30, 2012, which establishes the initial and repetitive inspection compliance times based on AFT methodology. UPS requested changing the compliance times in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to reflect specific values regardless of the aircraft utilization rate to provide consistency in the compliance times for paragraphs (g) and (h) of the proposed AD.

We disagree with the commenter's request to revise the compliance times in this AD. At the time the FAA issued AD 98-13-23, Amendment 39-10614 (63 FR 34576, June 25, 1998), the required actions in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6042, Revision 1, dated February 20, 1995, contained inspection thresholds and intervals based on airplane flight cycles, and provided instructions for adjusting the flight cycle threshold and interval using each individual airplane's AFT utilization. The FAA did not agree with the AFT method because it could result in a different inspection threshold and interval for each individual airplane, and the FAA did not agree with adjusting a flight cycle based threshold and interval using the average flight time utilization without also having a related flight hour based threshold and interval. In Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6042, Revision 03, dated August 30, 2012, the inspection thresholds and intervals are now based on the accumulation of both flight cycles and flight hours, and are listed in tables appropriately grouping airplanes with average flight time utilization above 1.5 hours, and airplanes with average flight time utilization at or below 1.5 hours. The changes made in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6042, Revision 03, dated August 30, 2012 have addressed the FAA's original concerns with the AFT method and is acceptable for this AD.

We acknowledge that a fixed compliance time for a fleet could be easier for operators to schedule and record compliance. Therefore, under the provisions of paragraph (l)(1) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) if a proposal is submitted that is supported by technical data that includes fatigue and damage tolerance analysis. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

UPS requested that we allow credit for previous accomplishment of cold expansion of the fastener holes. UPS stated that paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD (79 FR 7592, February 10, 2014) requires cold working fastener holes in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6042, Revision 03, dated August 30, 2012, if no cracking is found. However, the fastener holes were previously cold worked as a requirement of paragraph (c)(2) of AD 98-13-23, Amendment 39-10614 (63 FR 34576, June 25, 1998). UPS suggested that we add the phrase “unless previously accomplished” to the second sentence of paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD.

We agree with the request to give credit if fastener holes were cold worked before the effective date of this AD. We have added a new paragraph (k)(2) to this AD to give credit for cold working fastener holes using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6042, Revision 1, dated February 20, 1995, which is referred to as the appropriate source of service information for the actions in AD 98-13-23, Amendment 39-10614 (63 FR 34576, June 25, 1998); or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6042, Revision 02, dated April 28, 1998.

We have re-designated paragraph (k) of the proposed AD (79 FR 7592, February 10, 2014) as paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. We also removed the reference to Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6042, Revision 1, dated February 20, 1995 from paragraph (k)(1) of this AD, which gives credit for actions in paragraph (g) of this AD. Paragraph (g) of this AD already refers Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6042, Revision 1, dated February 20, 1995, as a source of service information.

UPS also requested that we revise paragraph (i)(2) of the proposed AD (79 FR 7592, February 10, 2014) to remove the requirement to include the AD reference in repair approvals. UPS noted its concerns that the proposal would require development of a unique Airbus process for U.S. operators; that it could have significant financial and administrative impacts to existing customer support agreements and different AD records requirements within an operator's fleet; and that it will increase requests for approval of AMOCs and result in delayed return to service.

We concur with the commenter's request to remove from this AD the requirement that repair approvals must specifically refer to this AD. We have revised paragraph (i)(2) of this AD accordingly.

Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD. The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.

In the NPRM (79 FR 7592, February 10, 2014), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase “its delegated agent” to include “the Design Approval Holder (DAH) with a State of Design Authority's design organization approval (DOA)” to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the AD.

In its comments to the NPRM (79 FR 7592, February 10, 2014), UPS stated the following: “The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.”

This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, EASA, or Airbus's EASA DOA.

The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.

This clarification does not remove flexibility afforded previously by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the AD Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance.

Other commenters to an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) pointed out that in many cases the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the foreign authority's MCAI may have been issued some time before the FAA AD. Therefore, the DOA may have provided U.S. operators with an approved repair, developed with full awareness of the unsafe condition, before the FAA AD is issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with the FAA AD, the operator would be required to go back to the manufacturer's DOA and obtain a new approval document, adding time and expense to the compliance process with no safety benefit.

Based on these comments, we removed the requirement from this AD that the DAH-provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a requirement in the future, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals consider the unsafe condition addressed in an AD. Any such requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process, including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate.

We have also decided not to include a generic reference to either the “delegated agent” or the “DAH with State of Design Authority design organization approval,” but instead we will provide the specific delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the DAH.

We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 7592, February 10, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 7592, February 10, 2014).

Airbus issued Service Bulletin A300-53-6042, Revision 03, dated August 30, 2012. The service information describes procedures for an inspection of the lower tail plane cut-out. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions required by AD 98-13-23, Amendment 39-10614 (63 FR 34576, June 25, 1998), and retained in this AD take about 268 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 98-13-23 is $22,780 per product.

We also estimate that it will take about 88 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $37,400, or $7,480 per product per inspection cycle.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 155 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $13,175 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. 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.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0011; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2015-0099, dated June 3, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model 4101 airplanes. The MCAI states:

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has issued Inspection Service Bulletin J41-27-068, dated January 21, 2014. The service information describes procedures for a one-time inspection for damage of the stop arms of the stop plates, an adjustment of the electric trim limit switches, and replacement of the stop plates with newly manufactured stop plates if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because a pitch trim that has jammed in the fully down position could lead to loss of control of the elevator trim, and possible reduced control of the airplane. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-18218; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-089-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 15 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $1,275, or $85 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $156, for a cost of $241 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. 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.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-100-1A10 (Challenger 300) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 18, 2015 (80 FR 8564).

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-24, dated August 5, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-100-1A10 (Challenger 300) airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-0088-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 8564, February 18, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed, with minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 8564, February 18, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 8564, February 18, 2015).

Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 100-27-16, dated October 31, 2013. The service information describes procedures for modification and reidentification of the SECU. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 107 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it takes up to 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be up to $54,570, or up to $510 per product.

We have received no definitive data on the parts cost for doing the modification in this AD.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. 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.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0088; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2004-13-02, Amendment 39-13682 (69 FR 35237, June 24, 2004). AD 2004-13-02 applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, -200B, and -200F series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 23, 2015 (80 FR 3506). The NPRM was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH that indicates the longitudinal lap joints are subject to WFD. A structural modification at the lap joint, and post-modification repetitive inspections of the skin, existing internal doubler, or splice strap for cracks, and corrective actions if necessary, are necessary to reach the limit of validity (LOV). The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections to find discrepancies in the upper and lower skins of the fuselage lap joints, and repair if necessary; and to add post-repair inspections for cracking and corrosion, and repair if necessary; structural modification at the lap joints; and post-modification inspections for cracking and corrosion, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the upper and lower skins of the fuselage lap joints, which could result in sudden fracture and failure of a lap joint and rapid in-flight decompression of the airplane fuselage.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (80 FR 3506, January 23, 2015) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing stated that it concurs with the content of the proposed rule (80 FR 3506, January 23, 2015).

An anonymous commenter expressed an opinion that there may be more reason to check airplanes that are frequently pressurized to a greater than 2.0 per-square-inch (psi) range than those that are not pressurized to that extent. The commenter also asked if there should be a weighted system that requires inspections sooner if an airplane has proportionally more flight cycles in the greater-than-, rather than the less-than, 2.0-psi differentials.

We do not agree with the commenter's request for different inspection intervals based on pressurization ranges. The proposed inspection intervals were based on airplanes flying in a normal condition, which included full pressurization. In the past, if an operator had documentation substantiating flight cycles of less than 2.0 psi, some of the inspection requirements could be reduced. This reduced inspection requirement was relieving in nature and occurred roughly 10 years ago. We have since determined that fleet findings did not support this relief and have disallowed reduced inspection requirements in future ADs. We have not provided this relief in this AD. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

An anonymous commenter requested a reason why the WFD regulation applies only to Boeing and not to any other airplane manufacturer. The commenter stated that it seems like this type of WFD would be present in more than just Boeing airplanes, and yet the regulation and requirement for inspection seems to single out Boeing. The commenter suggested that it would make sense to consolidate and apply these requirements equally over all the types of airplanes.

We do not agree with the commenter's request. On May 24, 2012, we made effective Amendment 26-6 of 14 CFR 26.21, “Limit of Validity,” of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 26.21). This regulation required all design approval holders (DAHs) to develop an LOV for affected airplanes, which affected several manufacturers and models (not exclusively Boeing). The LOV is established by means of engineering data that support the structural maintenance program that corresponds to the period of time, stated as a number of total accumulated flight cycles or flight hours or both, during which it is demonstrated that WFD will not occur in the airplane. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 3506, January 23, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 3506, January 23, 2015).

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2463, Revision 2, dated June 16, 2014. The service information describes procedures for inspections and repairs of cracks and corrosion in the skin at lap joints in the fuselage. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 2 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. 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.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

ORDER NO. 790-B Table of Contents     Paragraph Nos. I. Discussion 4 A. Section 2.55(a) Auxiliary Facilities 9 B. Section 2.55(b) Replacements 14 II. Information Collection Statement 18 III. Environmental Analysis 23 IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act 24 V. Document Availability 26 VI. Effective Date and Congressional Notification 29 Order No. 790-B Final Rule Order on Rehearing and Clarification

1. On November 20, 2014, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued Order No. 790-A,1 which affirmed, inter alia, the Commission's clarification in Order No. 790 2 that auxiliary facilities installed under section 2.55(a) of the Commission's regulations 3 may only utilize rights-of-way, facility sites, and work spaces authorized for the construction and operation of interstate transmission facilities.

2. On December 22, 2014, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation and Empire Pipeline, Inc. (collectively, National Fuel) filed a request that the Commission revise its part 157, subpart F, blanket certificate regulations to provide a mechanism under those regulations for the abandonment of auxiliary facilities that were constructed under section 2.55(a) and replacement facilities that were constructed under section 2.55(b). National Fuel also requests clarification that in addition to authorizing new auxiliary installations, section 2.55(a) also authorizes the replacement of existing auxiliary facilities without the need for abandonment authority under section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA).

3. As discussed below, this order responds to National Fuel's requests by (1) adopting a new subsection 2.55(a)(3) to provide pre-granted authority to abandon or replace auxiliary facilities, subject to certain conditions; (2) amending part 157 to provide authority, subject to the blanket certificate regulations' conditions, to abandon section 2.55(a) auxiliary facilities that cannot meet the conditions for the pre-granted abandonment authority being added to section 2.55(a) and to abandon section 2.55(b) replacement facilities.

4. In Order No. 790-A, the Commission explained that section 2.55 facilities are installed under the certificate authority that authorized the interstate transmission pipeline facilities being augmented or replaced. The Commission further explained that because section 2.55 auxiliary and replacement facilities are certificated facilities, a company needs prior authorization under NGA section 7(b) to abandon such facilities. The Commission stated that in many instances companies should be able to rely on their part 157, subpart F, blanket certificate authority to abandon section 2.55 facilities. In view of this statement, National Fuel believes it is the Commission's intent that companies be able to rely on their part 157 blanket certificate authority to abandon facilities installed under section 2.55.

5. National Fuel points out, however, that section 157.202(b)(3) of the blanket certificate regulations states that a “facility” for purposes of the blanket program does not include a facility “described under section 2.55,” and that section 157.216 states that blanket certificate abandonment authority is limited to facilities that “did or could now qualify” for construction authorization under the blanket provisions. National Fuel therefore requests that the Commission revise its blanket certificate regulations to ensure that companies will be able to rely on part 157 blanket certificate authority to abandon section 2.55 auxiliary and replacement facilities. National Fuel stresses that without clear blanket certificate authority to abandon section 2.55 facilities that did or could now qualify for construction authorization under the blanket provisions, companies will be subject to the burden of having to file an NGA section 7(b) application for abandonment authorization for each individual facility.

6. In view of the Commission's statement in Order No. 790-A that NGA section 7(b) authority is required for the abandonment of section 2.55 facilities, National Fuel also seeks clarification on whether section 7(b) abandonment authority is needed to retire an auxiliary facility that is being replaced.

7. The Commission affirms its statement in Order No. 790-A that NGA section 7(b) authority is required for the abandonment of section 2.55 facilities, which includes the retirement of section 2.55 facilities that will be replaced. However, for the reasons discussed below, the Commission believes section 2.55(a) can be amended to include pre-granted authority to abandon section 2.55 facilities in certain situations and agrees that the blanket certificate regulations should be amended so that companies can rely on their blanket certificate authority to abandon auxiliary and replacement facilities that were or could have been constructed under section 2.55, provided the abandonment facilities meet the blanket program criteria.

8. Therefore, the Commission will amend: (1) Section 2.55(a) to provide pre-granted authorization to retire auxiliary facilities that are being replaced or permanently abandon the auxiliary facilities if there will be no need to go outside an authorized right-of-way, facility site, or work space,4 and (2) part 157, subpart F, to permit the use of blanket certificate authority, subject to the blanket program's conditions, to abandon section 2.55(a) auxiliary facilities if a company is unable to exercise the new pre-granted abandonment authority in section 2.55(a)(3) and to abandon section 2.55(b) replacement facilities.5 In view of the revisions and additions to section 2.55 since its original provisions were proposed in 1948,6 the Commission also is changing the current heading for section 2.55, “Definition of terms used in section 7(c).” The revised heading for section 2.55 will read “Auxiliary installations and replacement facilities.”

9. Auxiliary installations under section 2.55(a) are limited to facilities that will serve “only for the purpose of obtaining more efficient operation or more economical operation of the authorized or proposed transmission facilities” (emphasis added).7 Further, to add an auxiliary facility to a transmission pipeline system, a company cannot rely on section 2.55(a) unless its activities are confined to the permanent right-of-way, facility site, and temporary work space surveyed and authorized by the Commission in its environmental review of the transmission system.8 In addition, because section 2.55 facilities are constructed and operated under the certificate authorization for the transmission facilities being augmented or replaced, section 2.55 activities must not result in a violation of any environmental conditions applicable to the certificate authorizing the transmission facilities. Therefore, to install auxiliary facilities under section 2.55(a), a company must:

10. The Commission believes these limitations will be sufficient to obviate the need for further environmental review if section 2.55(a) is amended to include pre-granted authority for companies to abandon, or to retire and replace, auxiliary facilities “as described in section 2.55(a),” regardless of whether the facilities to be abandoned or replaced were installed under section 2.55. Therefore, the Commission will add a new paragraph to section 2.55(a)(3) to provide pre-granted authority to abandon or replace auxiliary facilities if the auxiliary facilities were or could have been installed under section 2.55(a) 10 and all activities are confined to areas previously reviewed and approved by the Commission in conjunction with its authorization of the augmented transmission facilities.

11. Auxiliary facilities, by definition, serve exclusively to enhance the efficiency or economy of the operation of a transmission system; thus, the abandonment or replacement of auxiliary facilities should not result in a reduction or abandonment of service supplied by that system.11 Nevertheless, the abandonment or replacement of auxiliary facilities under new section 2.55(a)(3) will be authorized only if there will be no adverse impact on customers' certificated services.12

12. Further, like the section 2.55(a) authority to install auxiliary facilities, the new section 2.55(a)(3) pre-granted authority will be available only if a company's abandonment or replacement activities will not result in a violation of the conditions on the certificate authorizing the augmented transmission facilities, in particular, the environmental mitigation conditions. For example, if the auxiliary facilities a company plans to abandon or replace are cathodic protection equipment located in a pipeline right-of-way, the case-specific or part 157 blanket certificate authorization for construction of the pipeline generally would have been conditioned on the company's compliance with an Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan 13 and Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures. 14 Just as the company would have been required to ensure compliance with these environmental certificate conditions to install the cathodic equipment under section 2.55(a), the company will need to similarly ensure that any exercise of the new section 2.55(a)(3) authority to abandon or replace the cathodic protection equipment will also comply with these environmental certificate conditions.15

13. Replacements under section 2.55(b), like auxiliary facility activities under section 2.55(a), are restricted to areas previously subject to the Commission's environmental review and approval.16 Also, replacements under section 2.55(b), like auxiliary facility activities under section 2.55(a), must conform to the conditions on the case-specific or part 157 blanket certificate authorization of the affected transmission facilities.

14. As discussed earlier in this proceeding, replacement projects under section 2.55(b) can be much larger in scale than auxiliary installations under section 2.55(a).17 Further, section 2.55(b) can be used without prior notice to the Commission and shippers for replacing facilities upon which existing services are dependent,18 necessitating section 2.55(b)(1)(i)'s condition limiting replacement projects to situations where companies can ensure that the abandonment of existing facilities will not result in a reduction or cessation of service. In view of these considerations, even though activities under section 2.55 are restricted to areas subject to the Commission's prior environmental review and approval, the Commission cannot find, as it has above for section 2.55(a) auxiliary facilities, that it would be consistent with the public interest to provide pre-granted authority to abandon section 2.55(b) replacement facilities. However, abandonment authority for section 2.55(b) replacements can be provided under section 157.216 of the part 157 blanket certificate regulations, since blanket abandonments provide for environmental review.19 In addition, the blanket provisions afford an opportunity for public input under the prior notice provisions applicable to larger abandonment projects and also require that a company be able to demonstrate the facility it is planning to abandon (be it original or a replacement) is no longer needed to meet its service obligations.20

15. National Fuel observes that section 157.202(b)(3) states that a “facility,” for the purposes of the blanket program, “does not include the items described” in section 2.55, and section 157.216 states that the blanket abandonment authority described in that section is limited to facilities that “did or could now qualify” for construction under the blanket certificate regulations. Because these sections operate to exclude the items described in section 2.55 from eligibility for blanket certificate abandonment authorization, we will revise the blanket certificate regulations to allow companies to use the automatic and prior notice provisions of section 157.216 to abandon (1) replacement facilities that were or could have been constructed under section 2.55(b); and (2) auxiliary facilities that cannot be abandoned under new subsection 2.55(a)(3)'s pre-granted authority because their abandonment will require going out outside areas previously reviewed and approved by the Commission in authorizing the augmented transmission facilities.

16. As a result of these revisions to the blanket certificate regulations, a company will need to file an application for case-specific authority to abandon section 2.55 facilities only when the abandonment cannot qualify under the automatic or prior notice provisions of section 157.216 because the current cost to construct the facilities would exceed the blanket regulations' applicable cost limits, or because the company cannot obtain necessary customer consent as required by section 157.216, or because the project cannot satisfy the section 157.206(b)'s environmental requirements.21

17. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 22 requires each federal agency to seek and obtain Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval before undertaking a collection of information directed to ten or more persons or contained in a rule of general applicability.23 The OMB regulations implementing the PRA require approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules.24 We expect a net decrease in the reporting burden due to this rule's amendment of section 2.55(a) to provide pre-granted authority for companies to abandon or replace auxiliary facilities and amendment of the part 157 regulations to extend blanket certificate authority to the abandonment of certain section 2.55 auxiliary and replacement facilities. Companies must identify facilities abandoned under section 157.216 in the annual report submitted pursuant to section 157.207. While the expanded authority this rule provides under section 156.216 can be expected to increase the number of facilities abandoned under that section, companies can be expected to account for these additional facilities in the annual report with minimal, ministerial efforts. Consequently, this rule will substantially reduce current burdens on companies by eliminating the additional information that would otherwise need to be submitted in an NGA section 7(b) case-specific abandonment application.25

18. The Commission solicits comments from the public on the Commission's need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimates, recommendations to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques. The burden estimates are for implementing the information collection requirements of this Final Rule. The Commission asks that any revised burden estimates submitted by commenters include the details and assumptions used to generate the estimates.

19. The collection of information modified by this Final Rule falls under FERC-537 (Gas Pipeline Certificates: Construction, Acquisition, and Abandonment). The following estimates of reporting burden are related only to this Final Rule. Public Reporting Burden: The estimated average annual burden changes made in Docket RM12-11-003 follow.

Title: FERC-537 (Gas Pipeline Certificates: Construction, Acquisition and Abandonment)

Action: Proposed revisions to information collection

OMB Control No.: 1902-0060.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit enterprise (Natural Gas Companies).

Frequency of Responses: Ongoing and annual.

Necessity of Information and Internal Review: The Commission has determined that the proposed revisions are necessary to establish more efficient means to abandon auxiliary and replacement facilities. These requirements conform to the Commission's plan for efficient information collection, communication, and management within the natural gas industry. The Commission has assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with the abandonment requirements.

20. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, email: [email protected], phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873].

21. Comments concerning the collection of information and the associated burden estimate should be sent to the Commission and to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, telephone: (202) 395-0710, fax: (202) 395-4718]. For security reasons, comments to OMB should be submitted by email to: [email protected]. Comments submitted to OMB should include OMB Control Number 1902-0060 (FERC-537).

22. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment. The Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these requirements as not having a significant effect on the human environment. Generally, the regulatory actions taken in this rulemaking proceeding fall within the categorical exclusions in the Commission's regulations for actions that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural, and for information gathering, analysis, and dissemination. Although this rule alters the procedures by which companies may obtain abandonment authorization for certain types of facilities, it will not result in any additional abandonment activities and therefore will not have a significant adverse effect on the human environment. Accordingly, an environmental review is not necessary and has not been prepared in connection with this rulemaking.

23. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) generally requires a description and analysis of agency rules that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBA Office of Size Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business. The SBA has established a size standard for companies transporting natural gas, stating that a firm is small if its annual receipts (and the receipts of its affiliates) are less than or equal to $27.5 million.27

24. The final rule provides less burdensome and less costly options for specified natural gas companies, the majority of which are not small businesses. The reporting requirements, which provide pre-granted abandonment authority under certain conditions and clarify the regulations, will reduce the burden and cost on those companies (large or small). The Commission estimates that an average of five projects per year will benefit from the less burdensome, streamlined requirements. Three of those five projects are expected to save $1,440 each, by using the new pre-granted approval in 18 CFR 2.55 (rather than the more burdensome blanket certificate abandonment application). In addition, two of those five filers are expected to save $9,720 each, by using the additional blanket certificate applications (rather than the case-specific abandonment applications). Accordingly, the Commission certifies that this Final Rule should not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

25. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

26. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.

27. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at [email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at [email protected].

28. These regulations are effective October 7, 2015. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This final rule is being submitted to the Senate, House of Representatives, Government Accountability Office, and Small Business Administration.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends parts 2 and 157, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

These final regulations amend current regulations under section 6402 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Section 6402 of the Code authorizes the Secretary to make credits or refunds of overpayments. Section 6511 provides the limitations period within which a taxpayer must file a claim for credit or refund and restricts the ability of the Secretary to issue a credit or refund unless the claim is filed by the taxpayer within that period. Section 7422 prohibits the maintenance of a suit for refund until a claim has been duly filed with the Secretary. Currently, § 301.6402-2(a)(2) provides generally that a claim for credit or refund must be filed with the service center serving the internal revenue district in which the tax was paid. These final regulations clarify that, unless otherwise directed, the proper place to file a claim for credit or refund is with the service center at which the taxpayer currently would be required to file a tax return for the type of tax to which the claim relates, irrespective of where the tax was paid or was required to have been paid.

These final regulations remove outdated portions of § 301.6402-2 that provided rules for claims filed prior to April 15, 1968 and § 301.6402-3 that provided special rules for claims for credit or refund of income taxes filed before July 1, 1976, and revises the reference in § 301.6402-4 to reflect the threshold for referral to the Joint Committee on Taxation pursuant to section 6405. These final regulations do not affect § 301.6402-3T as promulgated in Treasury Decision 9658 (79 FR 12880) (March 6, 2014). Other stylistic revisions were adopted solely to conform the regulations to modern drafting style and usage.

On June 10, 2011, the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-137128-08) in the Federal Register (76 FR 34017). No request for a public hearing was received. The IRS received written and electronic comments responding to the notice of proposed rulemaking. After consideration of the comments, the proposed regulations are adopted as amended by this Treasury decision. All comments are available at www.regulations.gov or upon request.

Commentators suggested that the regulations should provide for electronic filing, when available. Although the final regulations do not explicitly refer to electronic filing, the final regulations instruct taxpayers to file a claim for credit or refund in a manner consistent with forms, form instructions, publications, and other guidance on the IRS Web site. To the extent that electronic filing is or becomes available for filing a claim for credit or refund, it will be described elsewhere—for example, in forms, form instructions, publications, or the IRS Web site.

Commentators noted that some penalties are not related to any tax for which a return is required. These commentators observed that the instructions to Form 843, “Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement,” that taxpayers use to file a claim for credit or refund of penalties that are unrelated to any tax for which a return is required are unhelpful because they instruct taxpayers to file Form 843 with the service center in which the taxpayer would be required to file a current tax return for “the tax to which your claim or request relates.” For an assessable penalty that is unrelated to a particular tax, the notice containing or issued along with demand for payment would provide the proper address for filing a claim for credit or refund and the taxpayer should file a claim in accordance with any specific instructions contained therein.

The locations at which the IRS processes the various forms for any given subset of taxpayers may change and the proper place to identify such locations is in the various forms, instructions, publications, and the IRS.gov Web site. These regulations appropriately cross-reference such authorities.

Commentators suggested that the regulations be amended to discuss protective claims and informal claims. Although not provided for in the Code, case law provides that protective claims may be filed to preserve a taxpayer's right to claim a refund when the taxpayer's right to the refund is contingent on future events and may not be determinable until after the statute of limitations expires. Case law also provides that a claim for refund that is technically deficient with respect to some formal claim requirement (that is, an “informal” claim) might nonetheless be a valid claim as long as it meets certain basic requirements (for example, even an informal claim must contain a written component). While the IRS has recognized both protective and informal claims in some circumstances, neither is within the scope of these regulations.

Commentators suggested that Treas. Reg. sec. 301.6402-2(b)(2), which explains that the IRS lacks the authority to make a refund on equitable grounds, should include exceptions for sections 6015(f) and 6343(d). Those and other Code provisions allow the IRS to consider equitable factors in making certain determinations, such as whether a taxpayer is eligible for innocent spouse relief or whether a levy may be released. The equitable factors that the IRS may consider in these statutorily prescribed situations affect only whether the taxpayer has an overpayment or otherwise may be entitled to particular relief. Once an overpayment is determined, whether by taking equitable considerations into account or not, such overpayment may be refunded only if the taxpayer or IRS follows all of the statutory and administrative prerequisites required to allow and make a refund. See United States v. Clinton Elkhorn Mining Co., 553 U.S. 1 (2008). None of those equitable factors otherwise determine whether or how the IRS is to issue a refund. Section 6402, in turn, prescribes the treatment of overpayments and provides the regime under which the IRS may issue a refund. In other words, although equitable considerations may be taken into account under some Code sections in determining either the existence or amount of an overpayment, those sections do not provide any authority (equitable or statutory) to allow or make credits and refunds under section 6402. The statutory language of section 6402(a) provides that, if there is an overpayment, then the IRS shall refund that overpayment (subject to certain exceptions enumerated in the statute).

The IRS has discretion to grant equitable relief from joint and several liability under section 6015(f) to a requesting spouse if, considering all of the facts and circumstances, it would be inequitable to hold the requesting spouse jointly and severally liable. In those cases in which the IRS does apply equitable factors to determine whether a taxpayer is in an overpayment situation, such as under section 6015(f), the IRS considers things such as (1) whether the taxpayer is divorced, (2) whether the tax liability is due to income of the non-requesting spouse, and (3) the health of the requesting spouse. See, Rev. Proc. 2013-34, 2013-43 IRB 397 (Sept. 16, 2013). When a requesting spouse is relieved of joint and several liability, relief will rarely result in an overpayment because equitable relief under section 6015(f) generally involves unpaid liabilities. As a result, in many cases in which the IRS determines that a requesting spouse is entitled to equitable relief, the IRS ceases collection activity against the requesting spouse for any due, but unpaid, tax liabilities. Nonetheless, when equitable relief does result in an overpayment, the requesting spouse may receive a refund by filing a claim for refund using a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, that complies with section 6402. Thus, the equitable considerations in section 6015(f) relate to whether the requesting spouse is entitled to relief, not whether a resulting overpayment is refunded.

Section 6343(d) provides for the return of levied property to a taxpayer in certain circumstances, including when, “with the consent of the taxpayer or the National Taxpayer Advocate, the return of such property would be in the best interests of the taxpayer (as determined by the National Taxpayer Advocate) and the United States.” Although section 6343(d) may allow the IRS to consider equitable factors in determining whether to return the property, the return of levied property does not affect the amount of a taxpayer's tax liability and will not result in an overpayment. Accordingly, if the IRS returns property under section 6343(d) and the taxpayer fails to pay the previously assessed liability for which the levy was made on the returned property, then the IRS may collect the liability again, administratively or otherwise.

The refund provisions of section 6402 are only triggered once an overpayment exists and is established. Indeed, the section begins “[i]n the case of any overpayment. . . .” By presupposing the existence of an overpayment, the equitable factors that the IRS may have considered are not implicated or relevant in the determination of whether the overpayment is credited or refunded. Moreover, once the equitable factors have been used to establish the taxpayer's ability to claim a refund, the amount of any overpayment is a purely mathematical calculation—no equitable factors exist at this stage. The final regulations continue to make clear that the IRS lacks the authority to refund on equitable grounds penalties or other amounts legally collected that comprise an overpayment.

It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do not apply to the regulations and, therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations were submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comments on its impact on small business, and no comments were received.

The principal author of the regulations is Micah A. Levy, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure & Administration). Mr. Levy can be reached at (202) 317-6832 (not a toll-free number).

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is amended as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency, for good cause, finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details of this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect workers, the surrounding public, and vessels from the hazards associated with the maritime air show.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1 and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

The Coast Guard was informed that on July 25, 2015, and July 26, 2015, an air show will take place on the Detroit River in the vicinity of Detroit, MI. The Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that the air show may pose a significant risk to public safety and property.

With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Detroit has determined a temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Red Bull GRC air show. This safety zone will encompass U.S. navigable waters of the Detroit River from the Belle Isle Bridge to position: 42°19′58.60″ N., 083°0′38.47″ W. (NAD 83).

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, we have considered the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Detroit River from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on July 25, 2015 and July 26, 2015.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons cited in the Regulatory Planning and Review section. Additionally, before the enforcement of the zone, the Captain of the Port will issue a local Broadcast Notice to Mariners so vessel owners and operators can plan accordingly.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this rule under that order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and is therefore categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones established for Annual Fireworks Displays within the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound Area of Responsibility in 33 CFR 165.1332 during the dates and times noted below.

The following safety zone will be enforced from 5:00 p.m. on September 12, 2015 through 1:00 a.m. on September 13, 2015: Mukilteo Lighthouse Festival, Possession Sound, 47°56.9′ N., 122°18.6′ W.

The special requirements listed in 33 CFR 165.1332 apply to the activation and enforcement of these safety zones.

All vessel operators who desire to enter the safety zone must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port or Designated Representative by contacting the Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound Joint Harbor Operations Center (JHOC) on VHF Ch 13 or Ch 16 or via telephone at (206) 217-6002.

The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1332 and 33 CFR 165 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advanced notification of the safety zones via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts on the day of the events.

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking TFR Temporary Final Rule A. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from hazards associated with a large scale swimming event.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30-day notice period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1 and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

Between 5:45 a.m. and 10:15 a.m. on July 26, 2015, a large scale swimming event will be held on Lake Erie, North Coast Harbor in Cleveland, OH. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that a large scale swimming event in close proximity to a gathering of watercraft poses a significant risk to participants and the boating public safety and property.

With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of participants, spectators and vessels during the Cleveland Triathlon swimming event. This zone will be enforced from 5:45 a.m. until 10:15 a.m. on July 26, 2015. This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie, North Coast Harbor, Cleveland, OH within the vicinity of position 41°30′29.66″ N. and 081°41′46.33″ W. (NAD 83) extending in a straight line approximately .4 miles NNW of the transient marina into the East Basin.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of North Coast Harbor on the morning of July 26, 2015.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: this safety zone would be effective, and thus subject to enforcement, for only 4.5 hours and early in the day. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the enforcement of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and, therefore, it is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

EPA is taking final action to determine that the Belding area has attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS. This is based upon complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2012-2014 monitoring period showing that the area has monitored attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

Further, with this clean data determination, the requirements for the Belding area to submit an attainment demonstration together with RACM, a RFP plan, and contingency measures for failure to meet the RFP plan and attainment deadlines are suspended for as long as the area continues to attain the 2008 Pb NAAQS. As discussed below, this action is consistent with EPA's regulations and with its longstanding interpretation of subpart 1 of part D of the CAA.

If the Belding area violates the 2008 Pb NAAQS after this action, the basis for the suspension of these attainment planning requirements would no longer exist for that area, and the area would thereafter have to address applicable requirements.

On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA established a 2008 primary and secondary Pb NAAQS at 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) based on a maximum arithmetic three-month mean concentration for a three-year period. See 40 CFR 50.16. This is the “2008 Pb NAAQS.” On November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71033), EPA published its initial air quality designations for the 2008 Pb NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2007-2009. On November 22, 2011 (76 FR 72097), EPA published a second and final round of designations for the 2008 Pb NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2008-2010. As part of the second round, the Belding area was designated nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

On May 13, 2015, MDEQ submitted a request to EPA to make a determination that the Belding area has attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS based on complete, quality-assured, quality-controlled monitoring data from 2012 through 2014. For the reasons set forth in this document, EPA finds the request approvable.

Following enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, EPA promulgated its interpretation of the requirements for implementing the NAAQS in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (General Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992). In 1995, based on the interpretation of CAA sections 171 and 172, and section 182 in the General Preamble, EPA set forth what has become known as its “Clean Data Policy” for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “RFP, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard” (May 10, 1995). In 2004, EPA indicated its intention to extend the Clean Data Policy to the fine particulates (PM2.5) NAAQS. See Memorandum from Steve Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “Clean Data Policy for the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards” (December 14, 2004). This policy was extended to Pb in 2012 (see 77 FR 35653).

Since 1995, EPA has applied its interpretation under the Clean Data Policy in many rulemakings, suspending certain attainment-related planning requirements for individual areas, based on a clean data determination. For a full discussion on EPA's application of this policy, see section III of the Bristol, Tennessee Determination of Attaining Data for the 2008 Pb Standards (77 FR 35653).

This rulemaking assesses whether the Belding area has attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS, based on the most recent three years of quality-assured data. The Belding area is comprised of a partial county area in Ionia County 1 and surrounds the Mueller Industries facility.

Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.16, the 2008 primary and secondary Pb standards are met when the maximum arithmetic three-month mean concentration for a three-year period, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix R, is less than or equal to 0.15 µg/m3 at all relevant monitoring sites in the subject area.

EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for the Belding area in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 50, appendix R. All data considered are complete, quality-assured, certified, and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System database. This review addresses air quality data collected in the 2012-2014 period which are the most recent quality-assured data available.

The Belding area has two monitoring sites that are Federal reference method source-oriented monitors which meet the quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR 58, appendix A.2 After the Mueller Industries facility: Restricted Pb emissions on its chip driers and induction furnaces, implemented a preventative maintenance plan, properly operated controls, increased stack height of the chip driers, and increased monitoring, testing, and record keeping, as required through state rules by October of 2013, the monitored Pb values were well below the standard.

Table 1 shows the 2012-2014 three-month rolling averages for Belding Area monitor 26-067-0002 in µg/m3.

Table 2 shows the 2012-2014 three-month rolling averages for Belding Area monitor 26-067-0003 in µg/m3.

The data shown in Tables 1 and 2 are complete, quality-assured, and certified and show 0.06 µg/m3 as the highest three-month rolling average.

The Mueller Industries facility's National Emissions Inventory emissions in 2011 were 0.70 tons per year. With the combination of restricted Pb emissions, preventative maintenance plan, properly operating controls, increased stacks, and increased monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping at the facility, the area is now monitoring less than half of the standard.

EPA's review of these data indicates that the Belding area has attained and continues to attain the 2008 Pb NAAQS, with a design value of 0.06 µg/m3 for the period of 2012-2014.

Based on complete, quality-assured and certified data for 2012-2014, EPA is determining that the Belding area has attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS. The requirements for MDEQ to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and any other planning State Implementation Plans related to attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS for the Belding area is suspended for as long as the area continues to attain the 2008 Pb NAAQS. This EPA rulemaking is consistent and in keeping with its long-held interpretation of CAA requirements, as well as with EPA's regulations for similar determinations for ozone (see 40 CFR 51.918) and PM2.5 (see 40 CFR 51.1004(c)).

This action does not constitute a redesignation of the area to attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. This action does not involve approving a maintenance plan for the area as required under section 175A of the CAA, nor does it find that the area has met all other requirements for redesignation. The Belding area remains designated nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that the area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment and takes action to redesignate the area.

We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective September 22, 2015 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by August 24, 2015. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. Public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective September 22, 2015.

This action makes a clean data determination for the Belding area for the 2008 Pb NAAQS based on air quality data and results in the suspension of certain Federal requirements and does not impose any additional requirements. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the clean data determination is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 22, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

On September 27, 2012 and October 9, 2012, the State of Connecticut's Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) submitted to EPA proposed formal revisions to Connecticut's State Implementation Plan (SIP). The submitted SIP revisions consist of: (1) Amendments to Connecticut's PSD regulations and tables to address PM2.5 emissions; (2) a notice requirement to be provided to states affected by emissions from major new or modified construction; (3) one modified definition relating to the State's PSD program; (4) language amending an existing section of the State's NNSR SIP regulations for purposes of clarification; and (5) the addition of PM2.5 in an emissions offset provision of the State's NNSR regulations. Each of these revisions relates to requirements contained in EPA's regulations codified at either 40 CFR 51.165 (NNSR) or 51.166 (PSD).

Connecticut is currently a SIP-approved state for all CAA major stationary source preconstruction permitting programs, PSD and NNSR. EPA's analysis of Connecticut's September 27, 2012 and October 9, 2012 submissions in relation to those federal programs appears below.

Connecticut's submission included sections 22a-174-2a(b)(5)(E) and (b)(6) of its air program regulations. Those provisions clarify when and which entities will receive from the CT DEEP a copy of the notice of the State's “tentative determination” (or draft major stationary source preconstruction permit). More specifically, Connecticut's SIP-approved regulations had not previously contained a provision requiring notice (prior to issuance of a PSD permit) to states whose air quality may be affected by emissions from a major new or modified source. EPA identified this missing requirement when determining whether Connecticut's SIP met the affected state notification requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) and 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv). On October 16, 2012, EPA conditionally approved Connecticut's infrastructure SIP for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards. See 77 FR 63228. The portion of the October 16, 2012 conditional approval addressed by the State's September 27, 2012 SIP revision involved the requirement that Connecticut notify other affected states prior to issuing a PSD permit.

EPA has analyzed the submitted provisions and has determined that they are consistent with EPA's regulations, including the requirement at 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv) applicable to affected state notice. Therefore, EPA is fully approving the revisions into Connecticut's SIP.

Connecticut's submission addresses PM2.5 emissions requirements for PSD permitting by adding PM2.5 to several sections of the State's SIP regulations. These sections are Section 22a-174-1 (definition of “Major source baseline date”) and Tables 3a(i)-1 (Ambient Impact 1 ), 3a(k)-1 (Significant Emission Rate Thresholds) and 3a(k)-2 (PSD Increment) in Section 22a-174-3a.

Connecticut's SIP-approved regulations had not previously contained provisions that addressed PM2.5 requirements for PSD permitting. EPA identified these missing requirements when determining whether Connecticut's infrastructure SIP met the requirements of a fully approved PSD program set forth in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J). On October 16, 2012, EPA conditionally approved Connecticut's infrastructure SIP for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards. See 77 FR 63228. The portion of EPA's October 16, 2012 conditional approval addressed by the State's October 9, 2012 SIP revision submission involved establishing a Significant Emission Rate Threshold for PM2.5 emissions and precursors to PM2.5, PM2.5 increment, and adding PM2.5 to the definition of “Major source baseline date.”

The October 9, 2012 submission also included revisions to Connecticut's NNSR regulations. These revisions are to Section 22a-174-3a(l)(1) (applicability), discussed in more detail below, and Section 22a-174-3a(l)(4)(B)(iv), adding PM2.5 to a list of pollutants relevant to emissions offsets. We note, however, that Connecticut currently does not have any PM2.5 nonattainment areas.

In EPA's “Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers,” Final Rule, 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008), EPA established a new significance level for PM2.5 emissions. In EPA's “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC),” Final Rule, 75 FR 64864 (October 20, 2010), EPA established increments, SILs, and SMCs for PM2.5 emissions. Both of these EPA rules required Connecticut to amend their state regulations for permitting major new and modified major stationary sources in relation to the PM2.5 NAAQS.

On January 22, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted a request from EPA to vacate and remand to EPA the portions of the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2)) addressing the SILs for PM2.5 so that EPA could voluntarily correct an error in these provisions. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458, 463-66 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The court declined to vacate the SILs provision at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2) that did not contain that same error. Id. The Court also vacated the part of the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule establishing the PM2.5 SMC for the PSD permitting program, finding that EPA was precluded from using the PM2.5 SMC to exempt permit applicants from the statutory requirement to compile and submit preconstruction monitoring data as part of a complete PSD application. Id. at 469. On December 9, 2013, EPA issued a final rulemaking to remove the vacated PM2.5 SILs provisions and revising the existing PM2.5 SMC listed in 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) to zero micrograms per cubic meter (0 μg/m3). See 78 FR 73698.

Connecticut has never adopted an SMC for PM2.5 emissions pursuant to 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5), which was vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, because the provision is an optional element of a state's program and Connecticut chose not to include that element in its program. Connecticut's regulations also do not contain provisions that address the SIL provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) vacated by the Court.

EPA has analyzed the above-described amended sections of Connecticut's regulations and has determined those sections are consistent with the requirements codified at 40 CFR 51.166, and therefore should be approved into Connecticut's SIP.

Connecticut's October 9, 2012 submission also included amendments to certain sections of the State's NNSR regulations. One change affected section 22a-174-3a(l)(1) of Connecticut's regulations and was adopted to clarify that the applicability of the State's NNSR requirements is triggered in designated nonattainment areas by emissions of the pollutant for which the area is designated nonattainment.

As noted earlier, Connecticut also added PM2.5 emissions to a list of pollutants in section 22a-174-3a(l)(4)(B)(iv), which addresses emission reduction credits. As also noted earlier, however, Connecticut currently does not have any PM2.5 nonattainment areas.

EPA has analyzed the above-described amended sections of Connecticut's regulations and has determined those sections are consistent with the requirements codified at 40 CFR 51.165, and therefore should be approved into Connecticut's SIP.

The State's October 9, 2012 submission also included an amendment to Table 3a(i)-1 of section 22a-174-3a, adding values for PM2.5 Ambient Impact (these values are equivalent conceptually to EPA's SILs). The State's October 9, 2012 submission also included section 22a-174-3a(l)(l)(C), which requires sources to undergo NNSR and permitting even though they are located in attainment areas or areas that are unclassifiable, but only if the allowable emissions from such sources would cause or exacerbate a violation of a NAAQS in an adjacent nonattainment area. EPA is approving these two revisions to Connecticut's SIP. In doing so, however, we note that section 22a-174-3a(l)(l)(C) contains a reference to Table 3a(i)-1 of section 22a-174-3a (the State's Ambient Impact values) and specifies that if the modeled ambient impacts from a source's allowable emissions would be below those impact values the NNSR permitting requirements of section 22a-174-3a(l)(l)(C) would then not apply. EPA interprets this provision to only apply in the state's NNSR permitting program to determine whether a source locating in an attainment or unclassifiable area will cause or exacerbate a violation of the NAAQS in an adjacent nonattainment area and thus be subject to NNSR review under the particular requirements of the Connecticut SIP. As this provision only appears in the state's NNSR permitting rules, EPA does not interpret this provision to apply in Connecticut's PSD permitting program to determine whether a proposed new or modified source would cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS anywhere. Thus, this narrowly drafted NNSR applicability provision and the manner in which Connecticut's regulation applies the ambient impact values from Table 3a(i)-1 in this provision are not in conflict with the DC Circuit decision in Sierra Club v. EPA that vacated EPA's SIL provision at 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2). EPA views Section 22a-174-3a(l)(l)(C) as a NNSR applicability provision that has no effect on Connecticut's PSD permitting program, which still requires that a proposed new or modified source locating in an attainment or unclassifiable area to make an appropriate demonstration that it does not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or increment. See Section 22a-174-3a(k) of CT DEEP's regulations.

Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is fully approving Connecticut's September 27, 2012 and October 9, 2012 SIP revisions. The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revisions should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective September 22, 2015 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by August 24, 2015.

If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing today's final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on September 22, 2015 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the State of Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 22, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

On February 2, 2015, the Secretary of the NMED submitted rules for inclusion into the SIP which amended regulations to include authorizing and requiring the electronic submittal of data, reports and permit applications in lieu of paper submittals. The revision to the SIP would incorporate amendments to rule 20.2.1 of the New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC)—General Provisions. The amendments provide that, after proper notification is given, submittals to NMED required under 20 NMAC Chapter 2 (Air Quality) must be electronic, unless a waiver is granted (20.2.1.117NMAC). Additionally, the revision amends 20 NMAC Chapter 2, Part 1 to make non-substantive changes which primarily address updates to NMED document viewing locations.

Our regulations assert that States that wish to receive electronic documents must revise the SIP to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR part 3 (Electronic reporting) (40 CFR 51.286). EPA has evaluated the State's submittal allowing electronic reporting and has determined that it meets the applicable requirements of the EPA air quality regulations because it is consistent with EPA's requirements for electronic reporting.

Section 110(l) of the Federal CAA states that each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under this chapter shall be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. Additionally, we may not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. In its submittal, NMED provided documentation that reasonable notice and a public hearing were provided. As the revision allows for the electronic reporting of information and does not alter the substance of the state monitoring submittals, it will not interfere with any applicable requirement of the CAA.

We are approving revisions to the New Mexico SIP that pertain to electronic reporting, 20.2.1.117 A and B, as proposed in the SIP revision proposal package submitted by the Secretary of NMED on February 2, 2015.

We are also approving the amendments that were proposed to correct typographical errors and to standardize formatting of rule language.

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if relevant adverse comments are received. This rule will be effective on September 22, 2015 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse comment by August 24, 2015. If we receive relevant adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so now. Please note that if we receive relevant adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

In this rule, we are finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of the revisions to the New Mexico regulations as described in the Final Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 22, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

LSC issued its first instruction on recipient fund balances in 1983 to implement what is now the Corporation's longstanding objective of ensuring the timely expenditure of LSC funds for the effective and economical provision of high quality legal assistance to eligible clients. 48 FR 560, 561, Jan. 5, 1983. Later that year, LSC published a redrafted version titled Instruction 83-4, Recipient Fund Balances (“Instruction”). 48 FR 49710, 49711, Oct. 27, 1983. The Instruction limited recipients' ability to carry over LSC funds that remained unused at the end of the fiscal year. Id. Specifically, the Instruction provided that in the absence of a waiver granted by the Corporation, a recipient must repay to LSC any funds retained at the end of the fiscal year in excess of 10% of its total annual LSC support. Id. The Instruction also prohibited a recipient from ever retaining a fund balance in excess of 25% of its annual support, thereby limiting the Corporation's waiver granting authority to fund balance amounts of 25% or less of a recipient's annual LSC support. Id.

In 1984, LSC substantially adopted the Instruction in a regulation published at 45 CFR part 1628. 49 FR 21331, May 21, 1984. Part 1628 remained unchanged until 2000, when LSC promulgated revisions in response to public comments and staff advice that the rule was “more strict” than the fund balance requirements of most federal agencies. 65 FR 66637, 66638, Nov. 7, 2000. The revised rule provided the Corporation with more discretion to grant a recipient's request for a waiver to retain a fund balance of up to 25% of its annual LSC support. Id. at 66637. In addition, for the first time, the rule authorized the Corporation to exercise its discretion to grant a recipient's request for a waiver to retain a fund balance in excess of 25% of its annual LSC support. Id. The Corporation reasoned that, by allowing for waivers to retain that amount, “[t]he recipient can better plan and find the best use for the funds, rather than being forced into a hasty expenditure simply to avoid the limitation on the carryover of fund balances.” Id. at 66640. The rule, however, limited the situations justifying a recipient's request to retain more than 25% of its annual support to “three specific circumstances when extraordinary and compelling reasons exist for such a waiver,” listed in § 1628.3(c). Id. at 66638. These extraordinary and compelling circumstances were restricted to the following situations when a recipient received income derived from its use of LSC funds: “(1) An insurance reimbursement; (2) the sale of real property; and (3) the receipt of monies from a lawsuit in which the recipient was a party.” Id. at 66639. Although the Operations and Regulations Committee (Committee) “considered using a standard of `extraordinary and compelling' for these waivers with the three specific circumstances discussed as examples,” it ultimately decided “that more guidance was required to avoid erosion of the standard,” and the three circumstances became exclusive limitations, not mere examples. Id. at 66640. The LSC Board of Directors (Board) adopted the revisions to part 1628 on November 20, 1999, and the revised rule has been in effect since December 7, 2000. Id. at 66637-38.

During the nearly 15-year period since part 1628 was last revised, LSC grantees have experienced various unexpected occurrences outside of those listed in § 1628.3(c) that caused them to accrue fund balances in excess of 25% of their annual support. These occurrences have included an end-of-year transfer of assets from a former grantee to a current grantee, a natural disaster that resulted in a significant infusion of use-or-lose disaster relief funds from non-LSC sources, and receipt of a large attorneys' fees award in an LSC-funded case near the end of the fiscal year. In each of these situations, LSC determined that part 1628 prevented recipients with legitimate reasons for having fund balances exceeding 25% of their annual LSC support from seeking and obtaining needed waivers.

On January 22, 2015, LSC staff presented the Committee with a proposal to consider revising part 1628 to address the difficulties faced by recipients that encounter these types of occurrences, yet are unable to justify a waiver request to retain a balance in excess of 25% of their annual support under part 1628's standards. The Committee authorized LSC management to add the matter to the Committee's rulemaking agenda.

As required by the LSC Rulemaking Protocol, LSC staff prepared an explanatory rulemaking options paper, accompanied by a proposed rule amending part 1628. On April 12, 2015, the Committee voted to recommend that the Board publish the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register for notice and comment. On April 14, 2015, the Board accepted the Committee's recommendation and voted to approve publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register. 80 FR 21700, Apr. 20, 2015. The comment period remained open for thirty days and closed on May 20, 2015.

On July 16, 2015, the Committee considered the draft final rule for publication and voted to recommend its adoption publication to the Board. On July 18, 2015, the Board adopted the final rule and approved its publication.

Material regarding this rulemaking is available in the open rulemaking section of LSC's Web site at http://www.lsc.gov/about/regulations-rules/open-rulemaking. After the effective date of this rule, those materials will appear in the closed rulemaking section of LSC's Web site at http://www.lsc.gov/about/regulations-rules/closed-rulemaking.

LSC received two comments during the public comment period. One comment was submitted by an LSC recipient, the Northwest Justice Project (NJP). The other comment was submitted by the non-LSC-funded nonprofit National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA) through its Civil Policy Group and Regulations and Policy Committee. Both commenters were generally supportive of LSC's proposed changes to part 1628.

LSC proposed to revise § 1628.3(c) to eliminate the language limiting the extraordinary and compelling circumstances in which LSC may grant a recipient's request for a waiver to retain a fund balance that exceeds 25% of its annual support. LSC staff determined that the list of extraordinary and compelling circumstances should be illustrative, rather than exhaustive, so that recipients that encounter truly unforeseeable situations can avoid having to make the difficult choice between returning large portions of unused balances and hurriedly spending funds before the end of the fiscal year. Whereas existing § 1628.3(c) is limited to three circumstances where a recipient receives a sudden infusion of income, the new section expands the types of situations that the Corporation, in its discretion, may consider to be extraordinary and compelling circumstances. The new section adds the example of a natural disaster to illustrate a situation where a recipient would be unable to expend its current LSC grant for reasons other than the receipt of new funds, such as being forced to temporarily shut down operations. The section also adds the example of “a payment from an LSC-funded lawsuit, regardless of whether the recipient was a party to the lawsuit.” This revision makes clear that a recipient may request a waiver to retain a fund balance in excess of 25% of its annual support when it receives an award as the result of a court decision in an LSC-funded case, even if the recipient was not named as a party to the action. LSC also proposed to make a minor revision to § 1628.3(d) to reflect the proposed redesignation of certain paragraphs in § 1628.4.

Comments: Both commenters expressed strong support of the revisions to § 1628.3.

LSC proposed to add a new § 1628.4(d) to expressly allow recipients that expect to have a fund balance in excess of 25% of their annual support at the end of the fiscal year to submit a waiver request prior to the submission of their annual audited financial statements. This addition will require existing § 1628.4(d), (e), (f), and (g) to be redesignated as § 1628.4(e), (f), (g), and (h). The new § 1628.4(d) will list the written requirements for a waiver request to retain a fund balance in excess of 25% of annual support. It will also require recipients that receive early approval to later submit updated information consistent with the requirements of § 1628.4(a) to confirm the actual fund balance amount to be retained by the recipient, as determined by reference to its annual audited financial statements. Accordingly, an advance approval would be, in effect, an approval of the reasons for a waiver and of the proposed amount to be retained. The recipient must later provide confirmation of the actual amount of excess funds it has retained. Finally, LSC proposed to revise the introductory text of paragraph (a), as well as paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3), for clarity and readability.

Comments: Both commenters were supportive of LSC's proposal to allow recipients with fund balances in excess of 25% of annual support to submit waiver requests prior to the submission of their annual audit reports. NLADA recommended that LSC further revise § 1628.4 to also allow recipients expecting to have fund balances in excess of 10% and up to 25% of their annual LSC support to submit early waiver requests. NLADA reasoned that this would allow recipients seeking such waivers to plan for the next fiscal year with greater certainty. NJP, on the other hand, expressed support for continuing the standard waiver request process for recipients with fund balances that do not exceed 25% of annual support. NJP stated that, in its experience, such requests are more than likely to be approved and that using annual audit report information to draft them assures that the amount approved for retention is equal to the final audited carryover.

Response: As stated in the preamble of the NPRM, LSC staff found that limiting early approvals to waiver requests for fund balances in excess of 25% of annual support was proper in light of the unique and significant financial planning burdens faced by recipients that experience extraordinary and compelling circumstances causing them to accrue substantial amounts of unused funds. Furthermore, while the Corporation will continue to apply the heightened standard of “extraordinary and compelling circumstances” to requests to retain fund balances in excess of 25% of annual support, it will maintain the less burdensome standard of “special circumstances” for requests to retain fund balances that do not exceed 25% of annual support. Therefore, LSC believes that recipients seeking to retain fund balance amounts in excess of 10% and up to 25% of annual support would not benefit significantly from the minimal level of additional assurance that allowing the early submission of waiver requests may potentially provide. In addition, recipients that receive early approvals of such requests would later have to provide confirmation of the actual amount of excess funds they accrued when they submit their annual audited financial statements. LSC believes that the additional time and effort required by this process would not be justified by the small amount of additional assurance that it may provide.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Legal Services Corporation amends 45 CFR part 1628 as follows: