Federal Register Vol. 80, No.170,

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 A330-243, A330-243F, A330-341, A330-342, and A330-343 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2015 (80 FR 7986).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0062, dated March 11, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A330-243, A330-243F, A330-341, A330-342, and A330-343 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-0085-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 7986, February 13, 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 7986, February 13, 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 7986, February 13, 2015).

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A330-78-3021, Revision 03, dated October 15, 2014. Aircelle has issued Service Bulletin 78-AG924, dated September 26, 2012. This service information describes procedures for modifying and marking the sleeves for hinges number 3 and number 4 on the cowl doors of Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines. 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 24 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 29 work-hours per product to comply with the 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 $59,160, or $2,465 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on action will take up to 1 work-hour and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $85 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-015-0085; 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 certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 1, 2015 (80 FR 17366).

The Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-18, dated June 19, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 17366, April 1, 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 17366, April 1, 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 17366, April 1, 2015).

Bombardier has issued the following service bulletins.

• Service Bulletin 84-32-99, Revision A, dated October 2, 2012. This service information describes procedures for incorporating ModSum 4-113723 by re-locating the hand pump lever of the parking brake from the right-hand side nacelle to the right-hand side equipment bay.

• Service Bulletin 84-32-118, dated April 8, 2014. This service information describes procedures for incorporating Bombardier ModSum 4-113803 by removing the hand pump lever of the parking brake from the right-hand side nacelle.

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 82 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $20,910, or $255 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-2015-0680; 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 certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2014 (79 FR 70802). The NPRM was prompted by numerous reports of failures of the proximity sensor within the slat skew DMA leading to slats up landing events. The NPRM proposed to require replacing the slat skew DMAs with new slat skew DMAs, and marking the existing identification plates on the slat with the new part number. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the proximity sensor, which could result in the slats being shut down and a slats up high speed landing. This condition, in combination with abnormal landing conditions such as a short runway or adverse weather conditions, could result in a runway excursion.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 70802, November 28, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

United Airlines (UAL) stated that it supports the NPRM (79 FR 70802, November 28, 2014).

Boeing and UAL requested a correction of the location of the identified part numbers affected in paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of the proposed AD (79 FR 70802, November 28, 2014). UAL stated that the part numbers affected in paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of the proposed AD are the wing leading edge slat assemblies, not the DMA. Boeing also commented that the part numbers are for a complete slat assembly (structure with DMA installed) and not just the DMA.

We agree with the request. The intent of this AD is to prohibit installation of a defective slat skew DMA. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270021-00, Issue 001, dated March 20, 2014, provides instructions to modify the existing slat assembly by replacing the defective slat skew DMA and then marking the existing slat assembly identification plate with a new part number. Therefore, we have revised paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this AD to remove the text “slat skew DMA in” and just refer to the existing part numbers of the slat assembly, which contain the defective slat skew DMA.

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 70802, November 28, 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 70802, November 28, 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 B787-81205-SB270021-00, Issue 001, dated March 20, 2014. The service information describes procedures for replacing the slat skew DMAs with new slat skew DMAs, and marking the existing identification plates on the slat with the new part number. 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 15 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.

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 two notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRMs) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding ADs that would apply to all Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G airplanes. The NPRMs were prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that certain structure is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We proposed the NPRMs to address fatigue cracking that could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

One NPRM (Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-218-AD, Docket No. FAA-2014-0427), published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2014 (79 FR 37248), was prompted by the determination that the CWB is subject to WFD. This NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections and corrective actions for damage of the lower surface of the center wing box; and replacement of the center wing box, which would terminate the repetitive inspections.

The other NPRM (Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-052-AD, Docket No. FAA-2014-0779) is the subject of this AD. This NPRM, published in the Federal Register on December 1, 2014 (79 FR 71033), was prompted by the determination that the outer wings are subject to WFD. This NPRM proposed to require replacing certain outer wings with new or certain serviceable outer wings.

We have subsequently determined that the proposed compliance time for replacing the CWB and outer wings would not adequately address the unsafe condition. The risk of undetected WFD rises rapidly for certain outer wings that have accumulated 30,000 total flight hours and for CWBs that have accumulated 50,000 total flight hours.

Lockheed, commenting on the NPRMs for Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-218-AD (79 FR 37248, July 1, 2014) and Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-052-AD (79 FR 71033, December 1, 2014), also considered the proposed grace periods (24 months and 30 months, respectively) for replacing the CWBs and outer wings inappropriate in relation to the probable risk of the unsafe condition. Based on its engineering analysis, Lockheed concluded that the most prudent way to ensure fleet safety would be to ground affected Model 382 airplanes until over-threshold CWBs and outer wings are replaced.

Therefore, in light of the urgency of the unsafe condition identified in this AD, we have determined that the unsafe condition associated with both NPRMs—Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-218-AD (79 FR 37248, July 1, 2014) and Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-052-AD (79 FR 71033, December 1, 2014)—necessitates the immediate adoption of this AD. We have revised both AD actions as follows:

• For the AD action related to Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-218-AD (79 FR 37248, July 1, 2014): We are considering issuing the final rule without the requirement to replace the CWB.

• For this AD: We have added a requirement to replace the CWB, with a shorter grace period (for airplanes over the 50,000-flight-hour threshold) than was provided in the NPRM for Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-218-AD (79 FR 38249, July 1, 2014). And, for the outer wing replacement, this AD provides a shorter grace period (for airplanes over the 30,000-flight-hour threshold) than was provided in the NPRM for this AD. This AD therefore requires replacement of both the CWB and outer wings.

Other commenters had expressed concern about the urgency of the unsafe condition and the compliance times for the CWB replacement proposed in the NPRM for Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-218-AD (79 FR 37248, July 1, 2014). The following presents the comments that are related to the proposed CWB replacement requirement (which has been moved to this final rule) and the FAA's response to those comments.

Lockheed requested that we remove the grace period from the NPRM (79 FR 37248, July 1, 2014) so that any airplane with a CWB that has accumulated over 50,000 total flight hours would be grounded until the CWB is replaced. Lockheed stated the level of risk rises rapidly beyond 50,000 total flight hours due to increasing probabilities of the presence of undetected WFD.

Lynden Air Cargo (Lynden) suggested a sliding scale of compliance times, based on time accumulated on the CWB, instead of the proposed compliance time, with the highest-risk CWBs to be removed from service earliest.

Safair questioned the two-year grace period in light of the safety concern associated with this final rule. The commenter stated that the compliance time, which appears to allow the DAH time to manufacture new wings, appears to be commercially driven. Safair added that the DAH, which has considered the unsafe condition associated with this AD to be a significant safety risk, has strongly advised operators to ground airplanes with center wings having more than 50,000 total flight hours.

As explained previously under “Actions Since Previous Rulemaking,” we have determined that the proposed compliance time for replacing the CWB would not adequately address the unsafe condition. Therefore, we have shortened the proposed grace period for the CWB replacement, in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD, to 30 days or 50 flight hours (whichever occurs later) for any CWB that has accumulated 50,000 or more total flight hours.

Lynden questioned whether the FAA considered the safety risk factor for “restricted category type certificated Model C-130A through H airplanes” and whether those airplanes should be included in the applicability.

We did consider the safety risk factor for Model C-130 airplanes. We issued restricted-category type certificates only for Model C-130A and C-130B airplanes, and these are low-usage airplanes. The wings on Model C-130A airplanes are different from those of other models. In addition, the CWBs have previously been replaced on all Model C-130A airplanes. There are no civil-registered Model C-130B airplanes in service. We have not changed this AD in this regard. However, we might consider further rulemaking for Model C-130 airplanes.

Lynden requested that we revise the NPRM (79 FR 37248, July 1, 2014), for the CWB replacement requirement, to allow use of Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-90, dated November 5, 2010, which is specific to Lynden's fleet. Lynden explained that Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-90, dated November 5, 2010, includes all the detailed installation procedures, whereas Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-94, dated December 3, 2013, is more generic and could involve additional nonrecurring engineering and possible alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) for each specific CWB variant to accommodate production changes and individual airplane peculiarities. Lynden explained that those differences have already been addressed in Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-90, dated November 5, 2010.

We agree with the commenter's request, for the reasons provided by the commenter. We have included the requested provision in paragraph (l) of this AD.

Safair requested that we revise the CWB replacement costs provided in the NPRM for Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-218-AD (79 FR 37248, July 1, 2014). The commenter stated that he was “unable to achieve this level of pricing” from Lockheed, and estimated that the replacement would take 15,000 work-hours, at $8.25 million per airplane.

We do not agree to revise the per-airplane cost estimate. We have received no revised cost information from Lockheed. The cost estimates provided in this final rule are also based on costs provided by operators that have already replaced their CWBs. We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue.

Safair questioned the statement in the NPRM (79 FR 37248, July 1, 2014) that the AD “[w]ill not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.” The commenter stated that the NPRM will have a significant impact on aid and relief efforts in the Third World where the Lockheed Model 382 is a significant contributor to food and aid distribution. This impact on the cost per flight hour will result in less aid delivered.

As specified under the Regulatory Findings section, this AD does have a significant economic impact on small entities, based on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis included in the NPRM for Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-052-AD (79 FR 71033, December 1, 2014). However, the FAA has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this AD. In accordance with § 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, such analyses are required only for rules for which a notice of proposed rulemaking is required by 5 U.S.C. 553. Because of the urgency of this action, as discussed later in this preamble, we find that notice and comment procedures are not required for this rulemaking.

Safair requested that we revise the NPRM (79 FR 37248, July 1, 2014) to allow replacement of the CWB with a serviceable CWB that has accumulated less than 50,000 total flight hours, or that has more than 25,000 flight hours of usage remaining. The commenter noted that operators have acquired pre-owned center wings in anticipation of this NPRM.

We partially agree with the request. The service information for the CWB replacement (Lockheed Service Bulletins 382-57-94, dated December 3, 2013; and 382-57-90, dated November 5, 2010); provides procedures for installing only a CWB that is new. Replacement with anything other than a new CWB would therefore require using a method specific to each airplane and approved by the FAA. Paragraph (j)(1) of this AD specifies replacement with a new CWB using the specified service information, and paragraph (j)(2) of this AD specifies replacement with a serviceable CWB using a method approved by the FAA.

Safair requested that CWBs replaced before the release of Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-94, dated December 3, 2013, be excluded from the CWB replacement requirement. Safair stated that Lockheed has replaced CWBs on civil airplanes using alternative processes since the 1970s—before the release of Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-94, dated December 3, 2013. Safair explained that the industry supporting the military fleet of Model C-130 airplanes has significant experience and exposure to center wing replacements via other means, and should be credited for the experience and ability to develop sound processes.

We disagree with the request to exclude those airplanes with previously replaced CWBs. Any replacement CWB that reaches 50,000 total flight hours before the airplane reaches its limit of validity (LOV) of 75,000 total flight hours would need to be replaced again. As explained previously, paragraph (j)(2) of this AD allows replacement of the CWB with a serviceable CWB using a method approved by the FAA. This AD is based on the life of the CWB. If it can be shown that the CWB on the airplane has accumulated less than 50,000 total flight hours, then there is no need to replace the CWB until that wing reaches 50,000 total flight hours. We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue.

Paragraph (i) of the NPRM (79 FR 71033, December 1, 2014) provided certain instructions for wings with previous military usage. We have revised this wording in this AD to clarify the instructions for contacting the FAA.

The information in this section is restated (with minor editorial changes) from the NPRM for Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-218-AD (79 FR 37248, July 1, 2014) regarding the requirement to replace the CWBs. Replacement of the CWBs, as required by this AD, affects the requirements of certain other ADs:

• AD 2011-09-04, Amendment 39-16666 (76 FR 28626, May 18, 2011), requires repetitive inspections for any damage to the lower surface of the CWB, and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2011-09-04 was issued to detect and correct fatigue cracks of the lower surface of the CWB, which could result in the structural failure of the wings.

• AD 2011-15-02, Amendment 39-16749 (76 FR 41647, July 15, 2011), superseded AD 2008-20-01, Amendment 39-15680 (73 FR 56464, September 29, 2008). AD 2011-15-02 requires revising the maintenance program by incorporating new airworthiness limitations for fuel tank systems to satisfy the requirements of Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 (67 FR 57490, September 10, 2002) and 21-83 (67 FR 72830, December 9, 2002)), which is part of a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction, and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). AD 2011-15-02 also continues to require accomplishing certain fuel system modifications, initial inspections of certain repetitive fuel system limitations to phase in those inspections, and repair if necessary. AD 2011-15-02 corrects certain part number references, adds an additional inspection area and, for certain airplanes, requires certain actions to be reaccomplished according to revised service information. AD 2011-15-02 was issued to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

• AD 2012-06-09, Amendment 39-16990 (77 FR 21404, April 10, 2012), requires revising the maintenance/inspection program to include inspections that will give no less than the required damage tolerance analysis for each principal structural element (PSE), doing repetitive inspections to detect cracks of all PSEs, and repairing cracked structure. We issued AD 2012-06-09 to maintain the continued structural integrity of the fleet.

• AD 2015-05-08, Amendment 39-18118 (80 FR 14805, March 20, 2015), requires repetitive inspections of the upper and lower rainbow fittings on the outer wing to detect cracks propagating from fasteners attaching the fittings to skin panels, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary; and replacement of the upper and lower rainbow fittings on the outer wing. We issued AD 2015-05-08 to prevent fatigue cracking of the upper and lower rainbow fittings on the outer wing and skin-panel-to-fitting fastener holes, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane and possible separation of the wing from the airplane.

• AD 2015-06-08, Amendment 39-18126 (80 FR 19013, April 9, 2015), requires repetitive eddy current inspections to detect cracks in the center wing upper and lower rainbow fittings, and corrective actions if necessary; and repetitive replacements of rainbow fittings, which would extend the repetitive interval for the next inspection. We issued this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracks, which could grow large and lead to the failure of the fitting and a catastrophic failure of the center wing.

We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This AD requires replacing the CWB and certain outer wings.

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 fatigue cracking of the outer wing and the lower surface of the CWB could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

The compliance times for the replacements required by this AD for addressing WFD were established to ensure that discrepant structure is replaced before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly warrant such an extension.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2014-0779 and Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-052-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 because of 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 reviewed the following service information.

• Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin 382-57-90, dated November 5, 2010, which describes procedures for replacing the CWB with a new CWB.

• Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin 382-57-94, dated December 3, 2013, which also describes procedures for replacing the CWB with a new CWB.

• Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin 382-57-96, dated December 16, 2013, which describes procedures for replacing certain outer wings with new or certain serviceable outer wings.

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 20 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.

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 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

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No.: 2015-0145, dated July 21, 2015 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

For the reason described above, this AD requires revising applicable AFM.

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3656.

Vulcanair S.p.A. has issued Vulcanair Aircraft P.68 Variants Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 244, dated April 24, 2015. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. The service information describes procedures for replacing the applicable airplane flight manual with its latest revision including the changes related to the airplane's rate of climb performance.

Pages 5-1 through 5-34, in Section 5, Revision 27, dated April 23, 2015, of the Vulcanair Aircraft P.68R POH/AFM, NOR10.707-30C, Revision 17, dated July 22, 2013 and pages 1 through 42, in Supplement F, in Section 8, Revision 27, dated April 23, 2015, of the Vulcanair Aircraft P.68R POH/AFM, NOR10.707-30C, Revision 17, dated July 22, 2013, detailing changes related to the airplane's rate of climb performance, are the applicable airplane flight manual latest revision replacement pages required by Vulcanair Aircraft P.68 Variants Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 244, dated April 24, 2015.

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 this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority 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 differences have been found between the climb performance reported in the applicable aircraft flight manual (AFM) and the performance demonstrated during test flights. This condition, if not corrected, could result in over-estimation of the airplane's rate of climb, resulting in impact with obstructions or terrain. 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-2015-3656; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-027-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 because of 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 will affect 1 product of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would 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 the AD on U.S. operators to be $85, or $85 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.

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 The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes equipped with Pratt and Whitney engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 7, 2014 (79 FR 46201). The NPRM was prompted by reports of blocked drain lines at the engine forward strut that caused flammable fluid to accumulate in a flammable leakage zone. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive functional checks for blockage of the forward strut drain line and doing corrective actions (including cleaning or replacing any blocked drain lines) if necessary, and a one-time cleaning of certain forward strut drain lines. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct blockage of forward strut drain lines, which could cause flammable fluids to collect in the forward strut area and potentially cause an uncontrolled fire or cause failure of engine attachment structure and consequent airplane loss.

This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (l) of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

On September 23, 2014, we issued AD 2014-20-10, Amendment 39-17983 (79 FR 60331, October 7, 2014), for certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes. AD 2014-20-10 superseded AD 2013-11-14, Amendment 39-17474 (78 FR 35749, June 14, 2013). AD 2014-20-10 currently requires repetitive general visual inspections of the strut forward dry bay for the presence of hydraulic fluid, and related investigative and corrective actions (including checking drain lines for blockage due to hydraulic fluid coking; cleaning or replacing drain lines to allow drainage) if necessary; and adds airplanes to the applicability. AD 2014-20-10 was prompted by reports of hydraulic fluid contamination (including contamination caused by hydraulic fluid in its liquid, vapor, and/or solid (coked) form) found in the strut forward dry bay. The actions required by 2014-20-10 are intended to detect and correct hydraulic fluid contamination of the strut forward dry bay, which could result in hydrogen embrittlement of the titanium forward engine mount bulkhead fittings, and consequent inability of the fittings to carry engine loads and resulting in engine separation. Hydrogen embrittlement also could cause a through-crack formation across the fittings through which an engine fire could breach into the strut, resulting in an uncontained strut fire.

On December 22, 2014, we issued AD 2015-01-01, Amendment 39-18062 (80 FR 3158, January 22, 2015) for certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes. AD 2015-01-01 superseded AD 2011-09-11, Amendment 39-16673 (76 FR 24354, May 2, 2011). AD 2015-01-01 currently requires repetitive inspections for hydraulic fluid contamination of the interior of the strut disconnect assembly; repetitive inspections for discrepancies of the interior of the strut disconnect assembly, if necessary; repetitive inspections of the exterior of the strut disconnect assembly for cracks, if necessary; and corrective action if necessary. AD 2015-01-01 also provides an optional terminating action for the inspections and adds, for certain airplanes, an inspection of the side and top cover plates to determine if all cover plate attach fasteners have been installed, installing any missing fasteners including doing an inspection for damage, and repair if necessary.

AD 2015-01-01, Amendment 39-18062 (80 FR 3158, January 22, 2015) was prompted by reports of side and top cover plates installed with missing fastener bolts, which could result in an unsealed opening on the system disconnect assembly. The actions required by AD 2015-01-01 are intended to detect and correct hydraulic fluid contamination, which could cause cracking of titanium parts in the system disconnect assembly. The actions of 2015-01-01 are also intended to detect and correct missing fasteners, which could result in unsealed openings on the system disconnect assembly. Both unsafe conditions can compromise the engine firewall and result in fire hazards for both the engine compartment and the strut.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 46201, August 7, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing and Japan Airlines (JAL) requested that we add Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-71-0055, dated June 12, 2014, as a terminating action to the NPRM (79 FR 46201, August 7, 2014). Boeing specifically requested that this service information be added in the Supplementary Information—Interim Action section and as a second paragraph to paragraph (i) of the NPRM. Boeing requested that paragraph (i) of the NPRM state that accomplishment of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-71-0055, dated June 12, 2014, terminates the requirements of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0027, Revision 1, dated September 12, 2013, and is an alternative means of compliance with this AD.

We agree. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-71-0055, dated June 12, 2014, which has since been revised as Revision 1, dated April 15, 2015, describes procedures that address the identified unsafe condition. These procedures include removing the forward strut drain lines; cleaning the left systems disconnect, strut forward lower spar, and forward fireseal pan drain lines; installing new forward strut drain lines and insulation blankets; and doing a functional leak check of the forward strut drain lines, and repair if any leaking is found.

We have added new paragraph (i) to this AD to provide optional terminating action and redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly. Paragraph (i) of this AD states that accomplishment of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-71-0055, Revision 1, dated April 15, 2015, along with a revision of the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate a certain airworthiness limitation, terminates the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this AD at the modified area only.

We have also added new paragraph (j) of this AD to specify that no alternative actions or intervals may be used after incorporating the airworthiness limitation unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD. We redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

We have also added new paragraph (k) to this AD to give credit for actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-71-0055, dated June 12, 2014. We redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

In addition, we updated the “Interim Action” paragraph in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble of this final rule accordingly.

All Nippon Airways (ANA) requested that we revise the NPRM (79 FR 46201, August 7, 2014) to remove the phrase “clean the forward strut drain line” from paragraph (g)(1) of the NPRM. ANA stated that cleaning the forward strut drain line is not required if part 1, condition 1, in paragraph 3.B “Work Instructions,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0027, Revision 1, dated September 12, 2013, is met.

We agree because condition 1 is met when 354 or more ounces of water are collected within 2 minutes after the start of pouring water for the functional check of the forward strut drain line. Cleaning the blocked drain line is part of the corrective actions in condition 2 as specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0027, Revision 1, dated September 12, 2013. This change does not compromise safety or the intent of the AD, therefore, we have removed the phrase “clean the forward strut drain line,” from paragraph (g)(1) of this final rule.

ANA requested the NPRM (79 FR 46201, August 7, 2014) include three part numbers of the tee fitting. ANA indicated that paragraph 2.C., of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0027, Revision 1, dated September 12, 2013, states BACT16BR120612J tee fitting is required if replacement is necessary. ANA stated tee fittings having part numbers BACT16BR120612J, BACT16BR120612JN, and AS4139J120612 may be used according to a Boeing product standard parts list.

We agree because the tee fitting part number BACT16BR120612J listed in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0027, Revision 1, dated September 12, 2013, is obsolete. We have added text to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD to allow alternate tee fitting part numbers BACT16BR120612JN and AS4139J120612, as long as the installation of the forward strut drain lines is accomplished in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0027, Revision 1, dated September 12, 2013.

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:

• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 46201, August 7, 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 46201, August 7, 2014).

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

We consider this AD interim action. The manufacturer has issued Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-71-0055, Revision 1, dated April 15, 2015, which describes a modification that addresses the unsafe condition identified in this AD. This service information is an optional action in this AD. If final action is later identified, we might consider further rulemaking.

We reviewed the following Boeing service information.

• Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0027, Revision 1, dated September 12, 2013. The service information describes procedures for doing a functional check for blockage of the forward strut drain lines and corrective actions.

• Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-71-0055, Revision 1, dated April 15, 2015. This service information describes procedures for replacing the forward strut drain lines and adding insulation blankets.

• Airworthiness Limitation 54-AWL-01, “Forward Strut Drain Line,” Section D.4, Pratt and Whitney Forward Strut Drain Line, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622W001-9, Revision October 2014. This service information describes an airworthiness limitation task for the functional check of the forward strut drain line.

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 54 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs or replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

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.

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:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB-135BJ airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 26, 2014 (79 FR 50857). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that more restrictive fuel limitations are needed. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new compliance times and fuel limitations. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of various structural elements and prevent ignition sources in the fuel system.

The Agência Nacional De Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2013-12-02, effective December 27, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB-135BJ airplanes. The MCAI states:

Required actions include revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new compliance times and fuel limitations. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0586.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 50857, August 26, 2014) 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 (79 FR 50857, dated August 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 50857, dated August 16, 2014).

Embraer has issued the following service information.

• Temporary Revision (TR) 8-1, dated October 26, 2012, to the Embraer Legacy BJ Maintenance Planning Guide (MPG), MPG-1483.

• TR 8-2, dated December 5, 2012, to the Embraer Legacy BJ MPG, MPG-1483.

• TR 8-3, dated April 8, 2013, to the Embraer Legacy BJ MPG, MPG-1483.

The service information describes revisions to the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new compliance times and fuel limitations. 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 53 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would 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 $4,505, or $85 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-2014-0586; 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 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 26, 2014 (79 FR 50860).

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-09R1, dated May 28, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0583-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 50860, August 26, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

All Nippon Airways (ANA) and Horizon Air requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (79 FR 50860, August 26, 2014) to refer to the following service information:

Horizon also requested that we revise paragraph (n) of the proposed AD (79 FR 50860, August 26, 2014) to provide credit for the prior accomplishment of the actions specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-14, dated August 17, 2012.

We agree with the requests and have revised paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii), and (m) of this AD accordingly. We have also redesignated paragraph (n) of the proposed AD (79 FR 50860, August 26, 2014) as paragraph (n)(1) of this AD, and added new paragraph (n)(2) to this AD to indicate the new credit service information.

ANA requested that we correct the identity of the affected airplanes in paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD (79 FR 50860, August 26, 2014). Although paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM specified airplanes on which ModSum 4-113643 “was incorporated” in production, ANA noted that this requirement should apply to airplanes on which ModSum 4-113643 “was not incorporated” in production. ANA noted that ModSum 4-113643 is equivalent to the Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-09.

We agree with the request. The intent of the NPRM (79 FR 50860, August 26, 2014) was to include only airplanes on which neither the ModSum nor the corresponding service bulletin was done. We have revised paragraph (g)(2) of this AD accordingly.

Horizon Air requested that we revise paragraphs (g) and (i) of the proposed AD (79 FR 50860, August 26, 2014) to exclude the Job Set-up and the Close Out sections in certain service information, because these actions do not directly correct the unsafe condition. Horizon Air stated that requiring the actions in these sections restricts an operator's ability to do other maintenance actions concurrently with the actions required by this AD.

We agree to revise paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD to specify only the actions in paragraph B., “Procedures,” which correct the unsafe condition.

ANA requested that we allow use of “later revisions” of the service information, as done in the MCAI.

We disagree with the request. We cannot use the phrase “or later revisions” in an AD when referring to service documents because doing so violates Office of the Federal Register (OFR) regulations for approval of materials “incorporated by reference” in rules. See 1 CFR 51.1(f). In general terms, we are required by these OFR regulations to either publish the service document contents as part of the actual AD language; or submit the service document to the OFR for approval as “referenced” material, in which case we may refer to such material in the text of an AD. The AD may refer to service documents only if the OFR has approved them for incorporation by reference. See 1 CFR part 51.

To allow operators to use later revisions of the referenced document (issued after publication of the AD), either we must revise the AD to refer to specific later revisions, or operators must request approval to use later revisions as an alternative method of compliance with this AD under the provisions of paragraph (o)(1) of this AD. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.

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 50860, 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 50860, 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.

Bombardier has issued the following service information:

• Service Bulletin 84-28-09, Revision D, dated January 29, 2013, which describes procedures for replacing fuel lines, adding Teflon tubing to certain fuel lines in the fuel tank, and contacting the manufacturer for certain corrective actions.

• Service Bulletin 84-28-10, Revision B, dated March 19, 2013, which describes procedures for inspecting for the presence of certain clamps and hardware and, if those are present, removing those certain clamps and mounting hardware.

• Service Bulletin 84-28-13, dated August 17, 2012, which describes procedures for removing certain clamps and mounting hardware.

• Service Bulletin 84-28-14, Revision A, dated June 9, 2014, which describes procedures for replacing a tube assembly.

• Service Bulletin 84-28-15, dated August 17, 2012, which describes procedures for replacing fuel lines, adding Teflon tubing to certain fuel lines in the fuel tank, and contacting the manufacturer for certain corrective actions.

• Temporary Revision ALI-111, dated January 11, 2011, to Section 4-1, “Fuel System Limitations,” of Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitation Items,” of the Airworthiness Limitation Items section of Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 Maintenance Requirements Manual PSM 1-84-7, which describes updates to the fuel system limitations for inspections of the Teflon sleeve on the fuel tank vent lines.

• Temporary Revision ALI-112, dated January 11, 2011, to Section 5-1, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations,” of Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitation Items,” of the Airworthiness Limitation Items section of Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 Maintenance Requirements Manual PSM 1-84-7, which describes updates to the critical design configuration control limitations on Teflon protective sleeves on fuel vent lines inside the fuel tanks.

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 NPRM.

We estimate that this AD affects 72 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 80 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $2,845 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $694,440, or $9,645 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-2014-0583; 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:

Background

Authority for all parts of the EAR other than part 745 rests, in part, on Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001—National Emergency with Respect to Export Control Regulations, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 and on annual notices extending the emergency declared in that executive order. This rule revises the authority paragraphs for the affected parts to cite the most recent such notice, which the President signed on August 7, 2015.

This rule is purely procedural, and makes no changes other than to revise CFR authority paragraphs for the purpose of making the authority citations current. It does not change the text of any section of the EAR, nor does it alter any right, obligation or prohibition that applies to any person under the EAR.

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). This rule does not impose any regulatory burden on the public and is consistent with the goals of Executive Order 13563. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This rule does not involve any collection of information.

3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.

4. The Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because they are unnecessary. This rule only updates legal authority citations. It clarifies information and is non-discretionary. This rule does not alter any right, obligation or prohibition that applies to any person under the EAR. Because these revisions are not substantive changes, it is unnecessary to provide notice and opportunity for public comment. In addition, the 30-day delay in effectiveness otherwise required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is not applicable because this rule is not a substantive rule. Because neither the Administrative Procedure Act nor any other law requires that notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are not applicable. Accordingly, no Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is required and none has been prepared.

Accordingly, parts 730, 732, 734, 736, 738, 740, 742, 743, 744, 746, 747, 748, 750, 752, 754, 756, 758, 760, 762, 764, 766, 768, 770, 772 and 774 of the EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774) are amended as follows:

In general, items listed on the Commerce Control List with anti-terrorism stated as a reason for control require a license for export or reexport, even temporarily, to Sudan. Some limited exceptions to this requirement exist. One such exception, License Exception Baggage (BAG), allows travelers to Sudan to take with them for their personal use or use by family members their personally-owned consumer communications devices such as cell phones, Wi-Fi- enabled personal computers, global positioning systems and related software. Another exception, License Exception Consumer Communications Devices (CCD), allows the export and reexport of such devices and related software for use by non-governmental organizations or individuals in Sudan. Sudan was added as an eligible destination under CCD in a final rule published on February 18, 2015 (the February 2015 rule) (see “License Exception Availability for Consumer Communications Devices and Licensing Policy for Civil Telecommunications-Related Items Such as Infrastructure Regarding Sudan,” (80 FR 8520)). For several years prior to the February 2015 rule, a third exception, Temporary imports, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) (TMP), allowed non-governmental organizations engaged in humanitarian work in Sudan and their individual staff members, employees, or contractors to export or reexport temporarily to Sudan employer-owned consumer communications devices and related software for use as “tools of trade.” See 70 FR 8251 (Feb. 18, 2005) (authorizing exports of such items) and 73 FR 10668 (Feb. 28, 2008) (authorizing reexports of such items).

The February 2015 amendment to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) made consumer communications devices and related software available under License Exception CCD for export and reexport to non-governmental organizations and individuals in Sudan generally (with no requirement that the export or reexport be temporary). That rule was intended to foster communications to, from, and among the people of Sudan. Because the commodities and software would be available under License Exception CCD to all individuals in Sudan (including persons traveling to Sudan on a temporary basis), the February 2015 rule removed as unnecessary paragraph (a)(2) of License Exception TMP, which had authorized the temporary export and reexport of these items by non-governmental organizations engaged in humanitarian work in Sudan and their individual staff members, employees, or contractors. In addition, in an earlier rule amending License Exception CCD, which up to that time had authorized only donations made to individuals and non-governmental organizations Cuba, the phrase “either sold or donated” was added to the paragraph describing the authorization of the export and reexport of consumer communications devices and related software under the license exception. See 80 FR 2286 (Jan. 16, 2015).

Although the intent was to state that the devices or software no longer had to be donated, the addition of the “either sold or donated” language to License Exception CCD in January 2015, in combination with the removal of paragraph (a)(2) of license exception TMP by the February 2015 rule on Sudan, created problems for non-governmental organizations that send personnel to Sudan for humanitarian activities. The employer-owned devices that such personnel use in Sudan are neither sold nor donated in connection with the staff member's, employee's or contractor's travel to Sudan. As an unintended consequence of the interplay of the changes made pursuant to the two recent rules, such travelers who seek to engage in the humanitarian activities for which temporary exports and reexports have been authorized by License Exception TMP since 2005 need licenses to take to Sudan temporarily their employer-owned communication devices and software even though the same items could be exported or reexported to Sudan under a license exception if personally owned by the travelers or if being sold or donated to a non-governmental organization or to any individual in Sudan.

This final rule amends the EAR to correct License Exception TMP to clarify BIS's intent to authorize temporary export and reexport of employer-owned consumer communications devices and related software as tools of trade to Sudan under the license exception. The amended provision refers to the list of consumer communications devices and software that is contained in License Exception CCD (Section 740.19(b)) and notes that all other requirements and limitations found in License Exception TMP apply to exports and reexports of such items.

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). This rule does not impose any regulatory burden on the public and is consistent with the goals of Executive Order 13563. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This rule involves a collection of information approved under OMB control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing+ System (SNAP+) and the Multipurpose Export License Application, which carries an annual estimated burden of 31,833 hours. BIS believes that this rule will have no material impact on that burden. To the extent that it has any impact at all, the impact would be to reduce the burden because this rule makes some transactions that would otherwise require a license eligible for a license exception.

3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.

4. BIS finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice of proposed rulemaking and the opportunity for public comment because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This rule corrects an error in License Exception TMP to make certain consumer communications devices and related software eligible for temporary export and reexport to Sudan as “tools of trade.” Due to a drafting error in the February 2015 rule, license exception availability under the EAR was eliminated for employer-owned consumer communications devices and related software being exported or reexported temporarily to Sudan for use by staff members, employees, and contractors of non-governmental organizations engaged in humanitarian activities. Those same devices may be exported or reexported temporarily to Sudan under a license exception if they are owned personally by the traveler. They may also be exported or reexported permanently to Sudan under a license exception if they are to be sold or donated to a non-governmental organization or individual in Sudan. This rule is necessary in order to ensure that persons traveling to Sudan benefit from clarity on the point addressed by this rule, as it would enable them to bring certain items with them for use in their humanitarian activities in the country without having to apply for a license. Maintaining a license requirement for this limited category of exports and reexports is contrary to the public interest as it would hamper the activities of non-governmental organizations engaged in humanitarian work without providing any corresponding benefit to the foreign policy goals that export controls are intended to meet. It would be impracticable to delay this rule to allow for notice and comment, as there is an urgent need for timely clarification consistent with the purpose of the February 2015 rule, which sought to expand the scope of exports and reexports to Sudan that may occur without the need to obtain a license.

BIS also finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness. This rule does not impose any new regulatory burden on any person. It merely makes clear that certain employer-owned consumer communications devices and software may be exported or reexported temporarily to Sudan as tools of trade by persons traveling to Sudan. No person would be required to change any of its existing practices as a result of this rule. However, persons traveling to Sudan would benefit from clarity on the point addressed by this rule, as it would enable them to bring certain items with them for use in their humanitarian activities in the country without having to apply for a license. Because this rule imposes no new burden while providing a benefit to some persons, delaying implementation would be contrary to the public interest.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) are amended as follows:

Background

The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 of the EAR) identifies entities and other persons reasonably believed to be involved in, or that pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in, activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy of the United States. The EAR imposes additional licensing requirements on, and limits the availability of most license exceptions for, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to those persons or entities listed on the Entity List. The license review policy for each listed entity is identified in the License Review Policy column on the Entity List and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the Federal Register notice adding entities or other persons to the Entity List. BIS places entities on the Entity List based on certain sections of part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and part 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls) of the EAR.

The End-user Review Committee (ERC) is composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy, and where appropriate, the Treasury. The ERC makes decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote. The Departments represented on the ERC have approved these changes to the Entity List.

This rule implements the decision of the ERC to add twenty-nine persons under thirty-three entries to the Entity List. These twenty-nine persons are being added on the basis of § 744.11 (License requirements that apply to entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States) of the EAR. The thirty-three entries to the Entity List are located in the Crimea region of Ukraine, Cyprus, Finland, Romania, Russia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom (British Virgin Islands). There are thirty-three entries for the twenty-nine persons because two persons are listed in two locations and one person is listed in three locations, resulting in four additional entries.

Under § 744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) of the EAR, persons for whom there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in, activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States and those acting on behalf of such persons may be added to the Entity List. The persons being added to the Entity List have been determined to be involved in activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. Specifically, in this rule, BIS adds persons to the Entity List for violating international law and fueling the conflict in eastern Ukraine. These additions ensure the efficacy of existing sanctions on Russia. The particular additions to the Entity List and related authorities are as follows.

One entity is added based on activities that are described in Executive Order 13660 (79 FR 13493), Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, issued by the President on March 6, 2014. As described in the Order, the President found that the actions and policies of persons who have asserted governmental authority in Crimea without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets, and thereby constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. The President also declared a national emergency to deal with that threat.

Executive Order 13660 blocks all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that come within the United States, or that are or come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, misappropriation of state assets of Ukraine or of an economically significant entity in Ukraine, among other activities. Under Section 8 of the Order, all agencies of the United States Government are directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of the Order.

The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), pursuant to Executive Order 13660, has designated the following person: Private Joint-Stock Company Mako Holding. In conjunction with that designation, the Department of Commerce adds Private Joint-Stock Company Mako Holding to the Entity List under this rule and imposes a license requirement for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to this blocked person. This license requirement implements an appropriate measure within the authority of the EAR to carry out the provisions of Executive Order 13660.

Private Joint-Stock Company Mako Holding is added to the Entity List under Executive Order 13660 because it is owned or controlled by, or has acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly a person whose property and interests are blocked pursuant to that Order, Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych. Oleksandr Yanukovych is responsible for or complicit in, or has engaged in, directly or indirectly, misappropriation of state assets of Ukraine or of an economically significant entity in Ukraine.

Therefore, pursuant to § 744.11 of the EAR, the conduct of this one person raises sufficient concern that prior review of exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR involving this person, and the possible imposition of license conditions or license denials on shipments to this persons, will enhance BIS's ability to protect the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States.

Seven entities are added based on activities that are described in Executive Order 13661 (79 FR 15533), Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, issued by the President on March 16, 2014. This Order expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660, finding that the actions and policies of the Government of the Russian Federation with respect to Ukraine—including the deployment of Russian military forces in the Crimea region of Ukraine—undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets, and thereby constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.

Executive Order 13661 includes a directive that all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or thereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State to have either materially assisted, sponsored or provided financial, material or technological support for, or goods and services to or in support of a senior official of the government of the Russian Federation or operate in the defense or related materiel sector in Russia. Under Section 8 of the Order, all agencies of the United States Government are directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of the Order.

The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, pursuant to Executive Order 13661, on behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury, and in consultation with the Secretary of State, has designated the following seven persons: Airfix Aviation Oy, IPP Oil Products (Cyprus) Limited, Open Joint Stock Company Kontsern Izhmash, Izhevsky Mekhanichesky Zavod JSC, Set Petrochemicals Oy, Southeast Trading Oy, and Southport Management Services Limited. In conjunction with those designations, the Department of Commerce adds all seven of those entities to the Entity List under this rule, and imposes a license requirement for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to these persons. This license requirement implements an appropriate measure within the authority of the EAR to carry out the provisions of Executive Order 13661.

Five of the persons added to the Entity List under Executive Order 13661 meet the criteria of Section 1, subparagraph D of the Order because they are linked to the provision of material support to a person previously designated by OFAC, Gennady Timchenko: Airfix Aviation Oy, IPP Oil Products (Cyprus) Limited, Set Petrochemicals Oy, Southeast Trading Oy, and Southport Management Services Limited.

Two of the persons added to the Entity List under Executive Order 13661 meet the criteria of Section 1, subparagraph B of the Order because they operate in Russia's arms or related materiel sector: Open Joint Stock Company Kontsern Izhmash and Izhevsky Mekhanichesky Zavod JSC. Open Joint Stock Company Kontsern Izhmash and Izhevsky Mekhanichesky Zavod JSC are linked to an entity previously designated by OFAC, Kalashnikov Concern, which was added to the Entity List on July 22, 2014 (79 FR 42455).

Fifteen entities are added based on activities that are described in Executive Order 13662 (79 FR 16169), Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, issued by the President on March 20, 2014. This Order expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660 of March 6, 2014 and Executive Order 13661 of March 16, 2014. Specifically, Executive Order 13662 expanded the scope to include sectors of the Russian economy as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, such as financial services, energy, metals and mining, engineering, and defense and related materiel. Under Section 8 of the Order, all agencies of the United States Government are directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of the Order.

The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, pursuant to Executive Order 13662, on behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury, and in consultation with the Secretary of State, has designated the following fifteen persons as operating in the energy sector of Russia and owned or controlled by, or have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, a person whose property and interests are blocked pursuant to the Order, Rosneft: CJSC Vankorneft, Neft-Aktiv LLC, OJSC Achinsk Refinery, OJSC Angarsk Petrochemical Company, OJSC Kuybyshev Refinery, OJSC Novokuybyshev Refinery, OJSC Orenburgneft, OJSC RN Holding, OJSC Samotlorneftegaz, OJSC Syzran Refinery, PJSC Verkhnechonskneftegaz, Rosneft Trade Limited, Rosneft Trading S.A., RN-Komsomolsky Refinery LLC, and RN-Yuganskneftegaz LLC. In conjunction with that designation, the Department of Commerce adds to the Entity List under this rule all fifteen listed above, all of which are subsidiaries of Rosneft (Rosneft was added to the Entity List on September 17, 2014 (79 FR 55612)).

Six entities are added based on activities that are described in Executive Order 13685 (79 FR 77357), Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Crimea Region of Ukraine, issued by the President on December 19, 2014. This Order took additional steps to address the Russian occupation of the Crimea region of Ukraine with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660 of March 6, 2014, and expanded in Executive Order 13661 of March 16, 2014 and Executive Order 13662 of March 20, 2014. In particular, Executive Order 13685 prohibited the export, reexport, sale or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States or by a U.S. person, wherever located, of any goods, services, or technology to the Crimea region of Ukraine. Under Section 10 of the Order, all agencies of the United States Government are directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of the Order.

The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, pursuant to Executive Order 13685 on behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury and in consultation with the Secretary of State, has designated the following six persons as operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine: State Enterprise Evpatoria Sea Commercial Port, State Enterprise Feodosia Sea Trading Port, State Shipping Company Kerch Sea Ferry, State Enterprise Kerch Sea Commercial Port, State Enterprise Sevastopol Sea Trading Port, and State Enterprise Yalta Sea Trading Port. In conjunction with that designation, the Department of Commerce adds all six of those entities to the Entity List under this rule and imposes a license requirement for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to these blocked persons. This license requirement implements an appropriate measure within the authority of the EAR to carry out the provisions of Executive Order 13685.

For the fourteen persons under eighteen entries added to the Entity List based on activities that are described in Executive Orders 13660, 13661, or 13685, BIS imposes a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR and a license review policy of presumption of denial. The license requirements apply to any transaction in which items are to be exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to any of the persons or in which such persons act as purchaser, intermediate consignee, ultimate consignee, or end-user. In addition, no license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to the persons being added to the Entity List in this rule.

For the fifteen Russian subsidiaries of Rosneft and energy sector entities added to the Entity List based on activities described in Executive Order 13662, the Entity List imposes a license requirement for the export, reexport or transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR to those companies when the exporter, reexporter or transferor knows that the item will be used directly or indirectly in exploration for, or production of, oil or gas in Russian deepwater (greater than 500 feet) or Arctic offshore locations or shale formations in Russia, or is unable to determine whether the item will be used in such projects. License applications for such transactions will be reviewed with a presumption of denial when for use directly or indirectly for exploration or production from deepwater (greater than 500 feet), Arctic offshore, or shale projects in Russia that have the potential to produce oil. This license requirement implements an appropriate measure within the authority of BIS to carry out the provisions of Executive Order 13662.

This final rule adds the following twenty-nine persons under thirty-three entries to the Entity List:

(1) State Enterprise Evpatoria Sea Commercial Port, a.k.a., the following eight aliases:

Mariners Square 1, Evpatoria, Crimea 97416, Ukraine; and 1, Moryakov Sq, Yevpatoriya, Crimea 97408, Ukraine; and 1 Moryakov Sq., Yevpatoria, Crimea 97416, Ukraine; and 1 Moryakov Sq, Yevpatoriya, Crimea 97416, Ukraine;

(2) State Enterprise Feodosia Sea Trading Port, a.k.a., the following five aliases:

14 Gorky Street, Theodosia 98100, Ukraine,; and 14, Gorky Str., Feodosiya, Crimea 98100, Ukraine; and Gorky Street 11, Feodosia, Crimea 98100, Ukraine;

(3) State Enterprise Kerch Sea Commercial Port, a.k.a., the following six aliases:

Kirova Street 28, Kerch, Crimea 98312, Ukraine; and 28 Kirova Str., Kerch, Crimea 98312, Ukraine; and 28, Kirov Str., Kerch, Crimea 98312, Ukraine; and Ul. Kirov, 28, Kerch, Crimea 98312, Ukraine; and ul Kirova 28, Kerch 98312, Ukraine;

(4) State Enterprise Sevastopol Sea Trading Port, a.k.a., the following seven aliases:

3 Place Nakhimova, Sevastopol 99011, Ukraine; and 5, Nakhimova square, Sevastopol, Crimea 99011, Ukraine; and Nahimova Square 5, Sevastopol, Crimea 99011, Ukraine;

(5) State Enterprise Yalta Sea Trading Port, a.k.a., the following five aliases:

Roosevelt Street 3, Yalta, Crimea 98600, Ukraine; and 5, Roosevelt Str., Yalta, Crimea 98600, Ukraine; and 5 Roosevelt Street, Yalta, Crimea 98600, Ukraine; and

(6) State Shipping Company Kerch Sea Ferry, a.k.a., the following one alias:

Tselimbernaya Street 16, Kerch, Crimea, 98307, Ukraine; and 16 Tselibernaya Street, Kerch, Crimea 98307, Ukraine.

(1) IPP Oil Products (Cyprus) Limited, 12 Esperidon Street, 4th Floor, Nicosia 1087, Cyprus;

(2) Rosneft Trade Limited, f.k.a., TNK Trade Limited. Elenion Building 5 Themistokli Dervi, 2nd floor, Lefkosia, Nicosia 1066, Cyprus; and

(3) Southport Management Services Limited, Nicosia, Cyprus (See also address under United Kingdom).

(1) Airfix Aviation Oy, Tullimiehentie 4-6, Vantaa 01530, Finland (See also address under Switzerland);

(2) Set Petrochemicals Oy, Ukonvaaja 2 A, Espoo 02130, Finland; and

(3) Southeast Trading Oy, a.k.a., the following one alias:

Espoo, Finland; and Kannelkatu 8, Lappeenranta 53100, Finland; and PL 148, Lappeenranta 53101, Finland (See also addresses under Romania and Russia).

(1) Southeast Trading Oy, a.k.a., the following one alias:

Bucharest, Romania (See also addresses under Finland and Russia).

(1) CJSC VANKORNEFT, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

Dobrovolcheskoy Brigady St., 15, Krasnoyarsk Territory 660077, Russia;

(2) Izhevsky Mekhanichesky Zavod JSC, a.k.a., the following one alias:

8 Promyshlennaya Str., Izhevsk 426063, Russia;

(3) Neft-Aktiv LLC, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

Ulica Kaluzhskaya M., d., 15, str. 28, Moscow 119071, Russia;

(4) OJSC Achinsk Refinery, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

Achinsk Refinery industrial area, Bolsheuluisky district, Krasnoyarsk territory 662110, Russia;

(5) OJSC Angarsk Petrochemical Company, a.k.a., the following one alias:

Angarsk, Irkutsk region 665830, Russia; and 6 ul. K. Marksa, Angarsk 665830, Russia;

(6) OJSC Kuybyshev Refinery, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

25 Groznenskaya st., Samara 443004, Russia;

(7) OJSC Novokuybyshev Refinery, a.k.a., the following one alias:

Novokuibyshevsk, Samara region 446207, Russia;

(8) OJSC Orenburgneft, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

Magistralnaya St., 2, Buzuluk, the Orenburg Region 461040, Russia; and st. Magistralynaya 2, Buzuluk 461040, Russia;

(9) OJSC RN Holding, a.k.a., the following one alias:

60 Oktyabrskaya ul., Uvat 626170, Russia;

(10) OJSC Samotlorneftegaz, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

Lenina St. 4, the Tyumen Region, Khanty-Mansiysk, Autonomous District, Nizhnevartovsk 628606, Russia;

(11) OJSC Syzran Refinery, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

1 Astrakhanskaya st., Syzran, Samara region 446009, Russia; and Moskvorechje street 105, Building 8, Moscow 115523, Russia;

(12) Open Joint Stock Company Kontsern Izhmash, a.k.a., the following one alias:

3 Deryabin Proezd, Izhevsk, Udmurt Republic 426006, Russia;

(13) PJSC Verkhnechonskneftegaz, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

Baikalskaya St., 295 B, Irkutsk 664050, Russia;

(14) RN-Komsomolsky Refinery LLC, a.k.a., the following three aliases:

115 Leningradskaya st., Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Khabarovsk region 681007, Russia;

(15) RN-Yuganskneftegaz LLC, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

Lenina St., 26, Nefteyugansk, Tyumen Region, 628309, Russia; and

(16) Southeast Trading Oy, a.k.a., the following one alias:

St. Petersburg, Russia (See also addresses under Finland and Romania).

(1) Airfix Aviation Oy, Chemin des Papillons 4, Geneva/Cointrin 1216, Switzerland (See also address under Finland); and

(2) Rosneft Trading S.A., 2, Rue Place du Lac, 1204, Geneva, Switzerland.

(1) Private Joint-Stock Company Mako Holding, a.k.a., the following one alias:

Bohdan Khmelnytsky Avenue, Building 102, Voroshilovsky District, Donetsk, Donetsk Oblast 83015, Ukraine.

(1) Southport Management Services Limited, De Castro Street 24, Akara Building, Wickhams Cay 1, Road Town, Tortola, Virgin Islands, British (See also address under Cyprus).

In addition to the changes described above, this final rule revises the reference to “Crimea (occupied)” on the Entity List to conform to how other references in the EAR refer to Crimea, such as section § 746.6 (Crimea region of Ukraine), footnote 8 to the Commerce Country Chart in Supplement No. 1 to Part 738, and footnote 3 to the Country Groups in Supplement No. 1 to Part 740 of the EAR, which all refer to Crimea as the “Crimea region of Ukraine.” Therefore, to conform to those other EAR provisions, this final rule revises the Entity List to change all references of “Crimea (occupied)” to “Crimea region of Ukraine.”

Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222, as amended by Executive Order 13637.

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications and carries a burden estimate of 43.8 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule. You may send comments regarding the collection of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to [email protected], or by fax to (202) 395-7285.

3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment and a delay in effective date are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. (See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). BIS implements this rule to protect U.S. national security or foreign policy interests by preventing items from being exported, reexported, or transferred (in country) to the persons being added to the Entity List. If this rule were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a delay in effective date, then the entities being added to the Entity List by this action would continue to be able to receive items without a license and to conduct activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. In addition, publishing a proposed rule would give these parties notice of the U.S. Government's intention to place them on the Entity List and would create an incentive for these persons to either accelerate receiving items subject to the EAR to conduct activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, and/or to take steps to set up additional aliases, change addresses, and other measures to try to limit the impact of the listing on the Entity List once a final rule was published. Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

5. The Department finds for the change described under the heading Clarification to the Entity List for the Crimea region of Ukraine that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because they are unnecessary. This change included in this final rule is limited to making a conforming change to how the Crimea region of Ukraine is referred to in the EAR. This revision is non-substantive; therefore, providing an additional opportunity for public comment on this correction is unnecessary.

In addition, BIS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) because it will allow the clarification to go into effect immediately, which will reduce the potential for confusion among the public and make sure all members of the public are aware of how BIS interprets these Crimea region of Ukraine provisions as they relate to other EAR provisions.

Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

Paperwork Reduction Act

These temporary regulations are being issued without prior notice and public procedure pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). The collection of information contained in these regulations has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1545-2260.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.

For further information concerning this collection of information, and where to submit comments on the collection of information and the accuracy of the estimated burden, and suggestions for reducing this burden, please refer to the preamble to the cross-referenced notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the Federal Register.

Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Section 432(e)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA), permits plan sponsors of certain multiemployer plans to reduce the plan benefits payable to participants and beneficiaries (referred to as a “suspension of benefits”) if specified conditions are satisfied. One key condition is that any such plan must be projected to have insufficient funds, at some point in the future, to pay the full benefits to which individuals will be entitled under the plan (referred to as a plan in “critical and declining status”).

Under section 432(e)(9)(H), no suspension of benefits may take effect prior to a vote of the participants of the plan with respect to the suspension. Section 432(e)(9)(H) requires that the vote be administered by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and the Secretary of Labor (generally referred to in this preamble as the Treasury Department, PBGC, and Labor Department, respectively), within 30 days after approval of a suspension application. The plan sponsor is required to provide a ballot for a vote (subject to approval by the Treasury Department, in consultation with the PBGC and the Labor Department). The statute specifies information that the ballot must contain, including a statement in opposition to the proposed suspension that is compiled from comments received on the application.

On June 19, 2015, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service published temporary regulations (TD 9723) under section 432(e)(9) in the Federal Register (80 FR 35207) (June 2015 temporary regulations). The June 2015 temporary regulations provide general guidance regarding section 432(e)(9) and outline the requirements for a plan sponsor of a plan that is in critical and declining status to apply for a suspension of benefits and for the Treasury Department to begin processing such an application. A notice of proposed rulemaking cross-referencing the temporary regulations (REG-102648-15) was also published in the same issue of the Federal Register (80 FR 35262). Both the June 2015 temporary regulations and the related proposed regulations reflect consideration of comments received in response to the Request for Information on Suspensions of Benefits under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 published in the Federal Register on February 18, 2015 (80 FR 8578) (February 2015 request for information).

The June 2015 temporary regulations and the related proposed regulations set forth many of the rules relating to the participant vote under section 432(e)(9)(H). However, neither the June 2015 temporary regulations nor the related proposed regulations provide detailed guidance on how the Treasury Department would administer the vote.

These temporary regulations provide guidance relating to the administration of the participant vote required under section 432(e)(9)(H). These temporary regulations reflect consideration of comments received in response to the February 2015 request for information. The Treasury Department consulted with the PBGC and the Labor Department on these temporary regulations.

A participant vote requires the completion of three steps. First, a package of ballot materials is distributed to eligible voters. Second, the eligible voters cast their votes and the votes are collected and tabulated. Third, the Treasury Department (in consultation with the PBGC and the Labor Department) determines whether a majority of the eligible voters has voted to reject the proposed suspension. The June 2015 temporary regulations define eligible voters as all plan participants and all beneficiaries of deceased participants.

Under these temporary regulations, the Treasury Department is permitted to designate a service provider or service providers to facilitate the administration of the vote. The service provider may assist in the steps of distributing the ballot package to eligible voters and collecting and tabulating the votes. These temporary regulations provide that if a service provider is designated to collect and tabulate votes, then the service provider will provide the Treasury Department with the report of the results of the vote, which includes a breakdown of the number of eligible voters who voted, the number of eligible voters who voted in support of and to reject the suspension, and certain other information. The Treasury Department will use that information to determine (in consultation with the PBGC and the Labor Department) whether a majority of eligible voters has voted to reject the suspension.

These temporary regulations provide that the ballot package sent to eligible voters includes the approved ballot and a unique identifier for each eligible voter. The unique identifier, which is assigned by the Treasury Department or a designated service provider, is intended to ensure the validity of the vote while maintaining the eligible voters' privacy in the voting process.

These temporary regulations provide guidance on the plan sponsor's statutory requirement to provide a ballot. Because the ballot for each eligible voter is accompanied by a unique identifier, the plan sponsor cannot itself distribute the ballot. Instead, the plan sponsor is responsible for furnishing a list of eligible voters so that the ballot can be distributed on the plan sponsor's behalf. The list must include the last known mailing address for each eligible voter (except for those eligible voters for whom the last known mailing address is known to be incorrect). The plan sponsor must also provide a list of eligible voters whom the plan sponsor has been unable to locate using reasonable efforts. In addition, the plan sponsor must furnish current electronic mailing addresses for certain eligible voters, who are identified below. The plan sponsor must also furnish the individualized estimates provided to eligible voters as part of the earlier notices described in section 432(e)(9)(F) (or, if an individualized estimate is no longer accurate for an eligible voter, a corrected version of that estimate) so that an individualized estimate can be included with the ballot for each eligible voter. These materials must be provided no later than 7 days after the date the Treasury Department has approved an application for a suspension of benefits.

Under these temporary regulations, the plan sponsor is responsible for paying all costs associated with the ballot package, including postage. This is because the section 432(e)(9)(H)(iii) requirement that the plan sponsor provide a ballot means that the plan sponsor is responsible for the cost of providing the ballot package to eligible voters, including the costs associated with printing, assembling and mailing those ballot packages.

These temporary regulations provide that ballot packages will be distributed to eligible voters by first-class U.S. mail. A supplemental copy of the mailed ballot package may also be sent by an electronic communication to an eligible voter who has consented to receive electronic notifications. For example, if the ballot sent by first-class U.S. mail is not received, a supplemental ballot may be provided by electronic mail.

These temporary regulations provide additional detail on the plan sponsor's duty to communicate with eligible voters. As part of this communication requirement, these temporary regulations provide that the plan sponsor must notify certain eligible voters (using an electronic communication) that the ballot package is being mailed by first-class U.S. mail. The eligible voters who must be notified under this rule are those who received the notice of the proposed suspension under section 432(e)(9)(F) in electronic form and those who regularly receive plan-related electronic communications from the plan sponsor.1 This notification must be sent promptly after the plan sponsor is informed of the ballot distribution date. This notification in electronic form ensures that those eligible voters who ordinarily expect to receive communications from the plan sponsor in electronic form are aware that a ballot package will arrive via first-class U.S. mail. Under these temporary regulations, this notification is sent by the plan sponsor, rather than a service provider, so that the communication comes from a familiar source, which would make it less likely that the communication is delivered to a “spam” or “junk” mail folder.

The plan sponsor will have previously made reasonable efforts to contact individuals whose mailed initial notices were returned as undeliverable, and the mailing addresses for the ballot packages that are furnished by the plan sponsor will reflect updates as a result of those reasonable efforts. These temporary regulations require the plan sponsor to make similar reasonable efforts to locate eligible voters after being notified that their ballots were returned as undeliverable.

In accordance with section 432(e)(9)(H)(ii), these temporary regulations require that the Treasury Department (in consultation with the PBGC and the Labor Department) administer the participant vote no later than 30 days following the date of approval of an application for a suspension of benefits. These temporary regulations interpret the term “administer a vote” to mean that the voting period must begin (but need not end) within the 30-day timeframe. As a result, these temporary regulations require that ballot packages be distributed no later than 30 days after the application has been approved and specify that the voting period begins on the ballot distribution date. Although the temporary regulations allow for distribution of ballot packages up to 30 days following approval of an application for suspension of benefits, it is generally expected that ballot packages will be distributed well before that deadline.

These temporary regulations specify that the voting period generally will remain open until the 30th day following the date the Treasury Department approves the application for a suspension of benefits. However, the voting period will not close earlier than 21 days after the ballot distribution date. In addition, the Treasury Department (in consultation with the PBGC and the Labor Department) is permitted to specify a later end to the voting period in appropriate circumstances. For example, an extension might be appropriate if, near the end of the original voting period, there are significant technical difficulties with respect to the collection of votes and those technical difficulties are not resolved in time to provide eligible voters with sufficient time to cast their votes.

These temporary regulations specify that votes must be collected and tabulated using an automated voting system under which each eligible voter must furnish a unique identifier in order to cast a vote. Such a system will be designed to record votes both electronically (through a Web site) and telephonically (through a toll-free number that will accommodate a touch-tone or interactive voice response). This will permit any voter who lacks internet access or, for any reason, is not comfortable voting via a Web site, to cast a vote using a toll-free number. It is expected that the system will provide reasonable support to facilitate eligible voters' use of the system's electronic and telephonic features. These temporary regulations clarify that votes are permitted to be cast using only these methods and that responses returned by any other means are invalid.

The temporary regulations do not provide for the collection of votes using paper ballots because casting votes using a Web site or a telephonic system will be convenient for participants and will save time and money while providing reliable results. Providing a third voting option by also permitting votes to be cast using paper ballots would require additional time, in order for ballots to be returned by mail and authenticated and counted by hand. Voting by marking and mailing back paper ballots would also entail significant additional costs to process (such as employing additional personnel for processing and providing return postage and envelopes). The temporary regulations therefore reflect the conclusion that the most efficient and fairest approach to implementing the statutory provisions on administration of the vote on an approved suspension of benefits is to provide eligible voters with sufficient time to carefully consider the information furnished to them before casting their votes while seeking to avoid unnecessary time and expense processing those votes once they have been cast. The automated methods of voting, collecting, and tabulating votes set forth in these temporary regulations also have been used by pension plans for other types of elections that involve voting by plan participants (including retirees).

Within 7 days after the end of the voting period, these temporary regulations provide that the Treasury Department (in consultation with the PBGC and the Labor Department) will either certify that a majority of all eligible voters has voted to reject the suspension or, if a majority of eligible voters did not vote to reject the suspension, issue a final authorization to suspend. These temporary regulations permit the Treasury Department (in consultation with the PBGC and the Labor Department) to establish necessary policies and procedures to facilitate the vote. These policies and procedures may include, but are not limited to, establishing a process for an eligible voter to challenge the vote. It is expected that the Treasury Department will resolve any challenges before the conclusion of the 7-day period following the end of the voting period.

Under these temporary regulations, the statement in opposition to the proposed suspension that is compiled from comments received on the application will be prepared by the Labor Department. Under these temporary regulations, this statement in opposition must be written in a manner that is readily understandable to the average plan participant. It is intended that the statement in opposition will be written in a manner to ensure parity with the statement in support of the suspension. If there are no comments in opposition to the proposed suspension, then the statement in opposition will indicate that there were no such comments.

These temporary regulations provide that a model ballot may be published in the form of a revenue procedure, notice, or other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.

As with the previously published temporary regulations, these regulations apply on and after June 17, 2015, and expire on June 15, 2018.

Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. For the applicability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) please refer to the Special Analyses section of the preamble to the cross-referenced notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the Federal Register. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.

For general questions regarding these temporary regulations, please contact the Department of the Treasury MPRA guidance information line at (202) 622-1559 (not a toll-free number). For information regarding a specific application for a suspension of benefits, please contact the Department of the Treasury at (202) 622-1534 (not a toll-free number).

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

Background

This document contains amendments to 26 CFR part 1 under of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Section 956 determines the amount that a United States shareholder (as defined in section 951(b)) of a CFC must include in gross income with respect to the CFC under section 951(a)(1)(B). This amount is determined, in part, based on the average amount of United States property held, directly or indirectly, by the CFC at the close of each quarter during its taxable year. Subject to certain exceptions, United States property generally includes obligations of United States persons that are related to the CFC. Sections 956(c)(1)(C), 956(c)(2)(F), and 956(c)(2)(L). In general, the amount taken into account for section 956 purposes with respect to any United States property is the adjusted basis of the property, reduced by any liability to which the property is subject. See section 956(a) and § 1.956-1(e).

Section 956(e) grants the Secretary authority to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of section 956, including regulations to prevent the avoidance of section 956 through reorganizations or otherwise. In addition, section 956(d) grants the Secretary authority to prescribe regulations pursuant to which a CFC that is a pledgor or guarantor of an obligation of a United States person is considered to hold the obligation.

Section 1.956-1T(b)(4) provides in relevant part that, at the District Director's discretion, a CFC will be considered to hold indirectly investments in United States property acquired by any other foreign corporation that is controlled by the CFC if one of the principal purposes for creating, organizing, or funding (through capital contributions or debt) such other foreign corporation is to avoid the application of section 956 with respect to the CFC.

This document also contains amendments to 26 CFR part 1 under section 954. Section 954 defines foreign base company income (FBCI), which generally is income earned by a CFC that is taken into account in computing the amount that a United States shareholder of the CFC must include in income under section 951(a)(1)(A). FBCI includes FPHCI, as defined in section 954(c), which, in turn, generally includes rents and royalties. Section 954(c)(1)(A). However, rents and royalties are excluded from FPHCI if they are received from a person other than a related person and derived in the active conduct of a trade or business within the meaning of section 954(c)(2)(A) and § 1.954-2(c) and (d) (active rents and royalties exception). Temporary regulations in this document provide guidance on the active rents and royalties exception, including the treatment of cost sharing arrangements for purposes of the exception.

These regulations modify § 1.956-1T(b)(4) so that the rule can also apply when a foreign corporation controlled by a CFC is funded other than through capital contributions or debt. In addition, these temporary regulations add an example involving the funding of one CFC by another CFC that controls it to illustrate the application of the anti-avoidance rule when a principal purpose for funding the first CFC is to avoid the application of section 956 with respect to the funding CFC, even though there would be a section 956 inclusion with respect to the CFC that received the funding. This example illustrates that the CFCs' tax attributes associated with a section 956 inclusion (such as total earnings and profits, previously taxed earnings and profits, and foreign tax credit pools) are taken into account in determining whether a principal purpose of a funding was to avoid the application of section 956 with respect to the funding CFC. In addition, this example makes clear that if a CFC is considered to indirectly hold United States property pursuant to § 1.956-1T(b)(4), then the CFC that actually holds the United States property will not also be considered to hold the property for purposes of section 956. See Example 3 in § 1.956-1T(b)(4)(iv).

These regulations also modify Example 1 and Example 2 of § 1.956-1T(b)(4) to more closely reflect the language of new § 1.956-1T(b)(4)(iv). The Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the IRS do not view these modifications as a substantive change.

Moreover, § 1.956-1T(b)(4) applies if “one of the principal purposes” for the transaction is to avoid the application of section 956 with respect to the CFC. These temporary regulations apply when “a principal purpose” for the transaction is to avoid the application of section 956 with respect to the CFC. The Treasury Department and the IRS do not view this modification as a substantive change, since both formulations appropriately reflect that there may be more than one principal purpose for a transaction. Accordingly, § 1.956-1T(b)(4) may be applied if a principal purpose of a transaction is to avoid the application of section 956, even if there also were other principal purposes for the transaction.

Finally, the Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that § 1.956-1T(b)(4) should apply without requiring the IRS to exercise its discretion, and, therefore, have modified the rule to be self-executing. This modification, as well as the modification to what constitutes a funding, is consistent with a previous change to a similar rule in § 1.304-4(b). See TD 9477, 74 FR 69021 (Dec. 30, 2009).

Existing § 1.956-1T(b)(4) applies only to transactions that involve foreign corporations that are controlled by a CFC. The Treasury Department and the IRS understand that taxpayers may be using partnerships to structure transactions that are similar to the types of transactions addressed by § 1.956-1T(b)(4). For example, with a principal purpose of avoiding the application of section 956, a CFC may contribute cash to a partnership in exchange for an interest in the partnership, which in turn lends the cash to a United States shareholder of the CFC. In such a case, a taxpayer may take the position that the CFC is not treated as indirectly holding the entire obligation of the United States shareholder but instead is treated as holding the obligation only to the extent of the CFC's interest in the partnership under § 1.956-2(a)(3).

These types of partnership transactions raise concerns similar to those that are currently addressed by § 1.956-1T(b)(4). Accordingly, these temporary regulations expand § 1.956-1T(b)(4) to include transactions involving partnerships that are controlled by the CFC. These temporary regulations also contain a coordination rule in § 1.956-1T(b)(4)(iii), which provides that the new partnership rule in § 1.956-1T(b)(4)(i)(C) applies only to the extent that the amount of United States property that a CFC would be treated as holding under the rule exceeds the amount that it would be treated as holding under § 1.956-2(a)(3).

The Treasury Department and the IRS also understand that CFCs are engaging in transactions in which a CFC lends funds to a foreign partnership, which then distributes the proceeds from the borrowing to a U.S. partner who is related to the CFC and whose obligation would be United States property if it were held (or treated as held) by the CFC. Alternatively, the CFC could guarantee a loan to a foreign partnership, which then could distribute the loan proceeds to a related U.S. partner. Taxpayers take the position that section 956 does not apply to these transactions even though the CFC's earnings are effectively repatriated to a related U.S. partner.

In response to these transactions, the temporary regulations add § 1.956-1T(b)(5) to address certain cases in which a CFC funds a foreign partnership (or guarantees a borrowing by a foreign partnership) and the foreign partnership makes a distribution to a U.S. partner that is related to the CFC. For purposes of section 956, § 1.956-1T(b)(5) treats the partnership obligation as an obligation of the distributee partner to the extent of the lesser of the amount of the distribution that would not have been made but for the funding of the partnership or the amount of the foreign partnership obligation. For example, if a related United States shareholder of a CFC has an interest in a foreign partnership, the CFC lends $100 to the partnership, and the partnership distributes $100 to the United States shareholder in a distribution that would not have been made but for the loan from the CFC, then the entire $100 partnership obligation held by the CFC will be treated as an obligation of the United States shareholder that qualifies as United States property. Section 1.956-1T(b)(5) generally has the same purpose and effect as proposed § 1.956-4(c)(3) contained in the notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register (REG-155164-09) and will be removed upon the finalization of proposed § 1.956-4(c)(3).

Although rents and royalties generally are included in FPHCI under section 954(c)(1)(A), rents and royalties derived in the active conduct of a trade or business and received from a person that is not a related person are excluded from FPHCI under the active rents and royalties exception in section 954(c)(2)(A) and § 1.954-2(b)(6). The section 954 regulations provide the exclusive rules for determining whether rents and royalties are derived in the active conduct of a trade or business for purposes of section 954(c)(2)(A). Specifically, § 1.954-2(c) provides four alternative ways for rents to be derived in the active conduct of a trade or business, and § 1.954-2(d) provides two alternative ways for royalties to be derived in the active conduct of a trade or business. One way for a CFC to derive rents and royalties in the active conduct of a trade or business is to satisfy an “active development” test, which, among other things, requires the CFC to be “regularly engaged” either in the “manufacture or production of, or in the acquisition and addition of substantial value to,” certain property (§ 1.954-2(c)(1)(i), applicable to rents); or in the “development, creation or production of, or in the acquisition of and addition of substantial value to,” certain property (§ 1.954-2(d)(1)(i), applicable to royalties) (collectively, active development tests). Although certain of the alternative ways (specifically, the active management and marketing tests) in which a CFC can satisfy the active rents and royalties exception require that the relevant activities be performed by the CFC's own officers or staff of employees (§ 1.954-2(c)(1)(ii), (iv), and (d)(1)(ii)), the active development tests do not expressly contain this requirement. But see § 1.954-2(d)(3) Example 5 (indicating that royalties received by a CFC that financed independent persons in development activities were not considered derived in the active conduct of a trade or business for purposes of section 954(c)(2)(A)).

In addition to the active development tests, another way for a CFC to derive rents and royalties in the active conduct of a trade or business is to satisfy an “active marketing” test, which, among other things, requires the CFC to operate in a foreign country an organization that is regularly engaged in the business of marketing, or marketing and servicing, the leased or licensed property, and that is “substantial” in relation to the amount of rents or royalties derived from the leased or licensed property. See § 1.954-2(c)(1)(iv) and (d)(1)(ii). Pursuant to a safe harbor in the regulations, an organization is “substantial” if the active leasing or licensing expenses equal or exceed 25 percent of the adjusted leasing or licensing profits. See § 1.954-2(c)(2)(ii) and (d)(2)(ii). The regulations generally define active leasing expenses and active licensing expenses to mean, subject to certain exceptions, deductions that are properly allocable to rental or royalty income and that would be allowable under section 162 if the CFC were a domestic corporation. See § 1.954-2(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii).

In general, the active rents and royalties exception is intended to distinguish between a CFC that passively receives investment income and a CFC that derives income from the active conduct of a trade or business. See S. Rep. No. 87-1881, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., at 83 (1962). Accordingly, the policy underlying the active rents and royalties exception requires that the CFC itself actively conduct the business that generates the rents or royalties. The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that, consistent with this policy, the CFC must perform the relevant activities (that is, activities related to the manufacturing, production, development, or creation of, or, in the case of an acquisition, the addition of substantial value to, the property at issue) through its own officers or staff of employees in order to satisfy the active development tests. Thus, § 1.954-2T(c)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(i) expressly provide that the CFC lessor or licensor must perform the required functions through its own officers or staff of employees.

The Treasury Department and the IRS also have concluded that the policy of the active rents and royalties exception allows the relevant activities undertaken by a CFC through its officers or staff of employees to be performed in more than one foreign country. Thus, § 1.954-2T(c)(1)(iv) and (d)(1)(ii) provide that (i) a CFC's officers or staff of employees may be located in one or more foreign countries; and (ii) an organization that meets the requirements of the active marketing test can be maintained and operated by the officers or staff of employees either in a single foreign country or in multiple foreign countries collectively. Similarly, § 1.954-2T(c)(2)(ii) and (d)(2)(ii) indicate that an organization can be in a single foreign country or in multiple foreign countries collectively for purposes of determining the substantiality of the foreign organization.

In applying the active development tests and active marketing tests, questions have arisen as to the treatment of cost sharing arrangements under which a person other than the CFC actually conducts relevant activities. Consistent with the policy underlying the active rents and royalties exception that requires the CFC itself to conduct the relevant activities, § 1.954-2T(c)(2)(viii) and (d)(2)(v) clarify that CST Payments and PCT Payments (as defined in § 1.482-7(b)(1)) made by a CFC will not cause the CFC's officers and employees to be treated as undertaking the activities of the controlled participant to which the payments are made. This clarification applies for purposes of the active development tests and the active marketing tests, including for purposes of determining whether an organization that engages in marketing is substantial. Similarly, § 1.954-2T(c)(2)(iii)(E) and (d)(2)(iii)(E) provide that deductions for CST Payments and PCT Payments are excluded from the definition of active leasing expenses and active licensing expenses, respectively. Thus, CST Payments and PCT Payments are not active leasing expenses or active licensing expenses for purposes of determining whether an organization is “substantial” under the safe harbor test.

The rules in § 1.956-1T(b)(4) described in Part 1 of this preamble apply to taxable years of CFCs ending on or after September 1, 2015, and to taxable years of United States shareholders in which or with which such taxable years end, with respect to property acquired, including property treated as acquired as the result of a deemed exchange of property pursuant to section 1001, on or after September 1, 2015. The rule in § 1.956-1T(b)(5) described in Part 2 of this preamble applies to taxable years of CFCs ending on or after September 1, 2015, and to taxable years of United States shareholders in which or with which such taxable years end, in the case of distributions made on or after September 1, 2015. The rules regarding the active development test in §§ 1.954-2T(c)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(i) described in Part 3 of this preamble apply to rents or royalties, as applicable, received or accrued during taxable years of CFCs ending on or after September 1, 2015, and to taxable years of United States shareholders in which or with which such taxable years end, but only with respect to property manufactured, produced, developed, or created, or, in the case of acquired property, property to which substantial value has been added, on or after September 1, 2015. The rules regarding the active marketing test in §§ 1.954-2T(c)(1)(iv), (c)(2)(ii), (d)(1)(ii), and (d)(2)(ii) described in Part 3 of this preamble, as well as the rules regarding cost-sharing arrangements in §§ 1.954-2T(c)(2)(iii)(E), (c)(2)(viii), (d)(2)(iii)(E), and (d)(2)(v) also described in Part 3 of this preamble, apply to rents or royalties, as applicable, received or accrued during taxable years of CFCs ending on or after September 1, 2015, and to taxable years of United States shareholders in which or with which such taxable years end, to the extent that such rents or royalties that are received or accrued on or after September 1, 2015. No inference is intended as to the application of the provisions amended by these temporary regulations under current law. The IRS may, where appropriate, challenge transactions, including those described in these temporary regulations and this preamble, under currently applicable Code or regulatory provisions or judicial doctrines.

Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has been determined that sections 553(b) and (d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) do not apply to these regulations. For applicability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), refer to the cross-referenced notice of proposed rulemaking published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

The principal authors of these regulations are Barbara E. Rasch and Rose E. Jenkins of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

Background

In the notice of proposed rulemaking published at 79 FR 47603-47605, we discussed the possible revision of our rules pertaining to decisions to revoke terms of supervision without a revocation hearing for persons charged with only administrative violations or specifically identified misdemeanor crimes. We refer you to the previous publication for a review of the background material. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, we encouraged the public to comment on our proposed changes and we received two written comments from interested persons and/or organizations. However, only one public comment, submitted by the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, suggested modifications to the proposed rule.

PDS recommends that we develop a new risk assessment tool to be applied to all residents of the District of Columbia. While we may review the effectiveness of risk assessment tools used for all cases under our jurisdiction, we believe that the final rule for special procedures for swift and short-term sanctions should be extended only to those persons who commit low level violations of supervision.

Paragraph (d)(3) of the proposed rule stated that, notwithstanding our general policy, when revoking supervised release for administrative violations under this paragraph, we may impose new terms of supervised release that are less than the maximum authorized term. PDS recommends that we provide training to our Hearing Examiners to impose shorter terms of supervision even when revoking supervised release for other types of violations.

Based on the comments, the final rule omits the language from paragraph (d)(3) of the proposed rule. We are permitted to impose periods of supervised release that are less than the maximum authorized term for all supervised release violators. Therefore, the language from paragraph (d)(3) of the proposed rule is unnecessary and inaccurately implies that we are not permitted to impose shorter periods of supervised release when revoking for other types of violations.

PDS suggests that the inclusion of the proposed rule under the section entitled Revocation Decision Without a Hearing inaccurately implies that a person sanctioned under this paragraph is waiving any type of hearing and not just a revocation hearing. We believe that the proposed rule was included in the correct section. All other processes for revocation without a hearing outlined in § 2.66 refer to persons that waive a revocation hearing after a probable cause determination has been made. The procedures set forth in paragraph (d) are the same in that regard.

PDS expressed a concern that persons arrested outside the District of Columbia will not receive legal advice when deciding to apply for a sanction under paragraph (d)(1) of the proposed rule. Because all alleged violators of supervision are provided with the right to request an attorney at the probable cause proceeding, we are satisfied that all alleged violators who qualify for sanction under this paragraph will be provided with an attorney if they want one.

The proposed rule allows for a prison sanction of “no more than 8 months” for persons sentenced pursuant to § 2.66(d). During the pilot project that preceded publishing of the proposed rule, we issued policy statements to guide our Hearing Examiners as to the expected length of the prison term within the 8 month range. The policy statements provided a guide as to the length of the prison sanction based solely on the type of administrative violation that had occurred. However, the policy statements were not included in the proposed rule. PDS commented that failure to include these policy statements is inherently unfair because it punishes all administrative violations the same.

We have determined that it is not necessary to include the policy statements in the final rule. We have decided over 1,000 cases under these procedures since the pilot project began in 2012. A review of the data for those cases showed that we were not following the policy statements in a high number of cases. When the length of the prison term differed from what was suggested by the policy statements, the term was usually shorter than what was suggested. This included the decision to sentence over 200 alleged violators who had absconded from supervision to time served despite the policy statement that suggested that they serve between 5 and 8 months. There are a number of factors other than the type of violation that we consider in determining the length of a prison sanction. Based on our extensive experience in sanctioning alleged violators during the pilot project, we believe we can fairly consider all persons that qualify for a sanction under this section without using policy statements that are based solely on the type of administrative violation that has occurred.

PDS requested that the Commission eliminate or modify the requirement in paragraph (d)(1)(v) of the proposed rule that an alleged violator cannot be sanctioned twice under this section. We find this to be an appropriate requirement and consistent with the alleged violator's agreement to modify his or her non-compliant behavior to successfully complete any remaining period of supervision as indicated in (d)(1)(iv).

The proposed rule did not include any method for an alleged violator to ask the Commission to reconsider a decision to disapprove a sanction under this paragraph or to approve a sanction that is greater than recommended by a Hearing Examiner. It also did not require a Commissioner, when disapproving a case that qualifies, to provide a written explanation. PDS requested that the final rule include these procedures.

We have determined that these procedures are not necessary. To be sanctioned under this paragraph, an alleged violator must agree to a sanction of “no more than 8 months.” Thus, we do not believe it is appropriate to allow that same individual the right to petition the Commission to reconsider a decision that is within the scope of the written agreement. Also, a decision not to approve an alleged violator for a sanction under this paragraph only means that the Commission has decided that a revocation hearing will be conducted. If the alleged violator is not satisfied with the result of that hearing, he or she has the right to appeal the decision.

This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulation Planning and Review,” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation, and in accordance with Executive Order 13565, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” section 1(b), General Principles of Regulation. The Commission has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, and accordingly this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Under Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications requiring a Federalism Assessment.

The rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

The rule will not cause State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, to spend $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. No action under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is necessary.

These rule is not a “major rule” as defined by Section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 Subtitle E—Congressional Review Act, now codified at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies. Moreover, this is a rule of agency practice or procedure that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties, and does not come within the meaning of the term “rule” as used in Section 804(3)(C), now codified at 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.

On June 15, 2015, MSHA moved its Headquarters offices from 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209-3939 to 201 12th Street South, Arlington, VA 22202-5452. MSHA is amending its regulations to include MSHA's new address.

MSHA is also amending its regulations to update the mailing address of MSHA's Office of Technical Support, Pittsburgh Safety and Health Technology Center. MSHA will discontinue renting the Post Office boxes it uses for mail delivery. The mailing address for the Pittsburgh Safety and Health Technology Center's Respirable Dust Processing Laboratory is 626 Cochrans Mill Road, Building 38, Pittsburgh, PA 15236-3611. The mailing address to submit seal design applications for approval by the Pittsburgh Safety and Health Technology Center is 626 Cochrans Mill Road, Building 151, Pittsburgh, PA 15236-3611.

In addition, MSHA made other non-substantive changes to correct inaccurate names: §§ 48.3, 48.23, and 48.32 contain a non-substantive change to the name of the Administrator for Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health; §§ 7.505, 56.2, 57.2, and 75.301 contain a non-substantive change to the name of the Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances; and §§ 49.3, 49.4, and 49.8 contain a non-substantive change to remove an obsolete or inapplicable name.

MSHA is also amending previously approved incorporation by reference (IBR) language in some MSHA regulations. The amendments conform to current Office of the Federal Register (OFR) format requirements for an IBR regarding publisher addresses, telephone numbers, and internet addresses, and include contact information for the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

This technical amendment is a procedural “rule” under 5 U.S.C. 551(4), and is not subject to the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements in 5 U.S.C. 553. This action also does not constitute a “regulatory action” subject to Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the regulations in 30 CFR parts 7, 18, 44, 46, 48, 49, 56, 57, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, and 90 are amended to include updated information.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended, MSHA is amending chapter I of title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

We encourage you to submit comments (or related material) on this temporary interim rule. We will consider all submissions and may adjust our final action based on your comments. Comments should be marked with docket number USCG-2015-0738 and should provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You should provide personal contact information so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your comments; but please note that all comments will be posted to the online docket without change and that any personal information you include can be searchable online (see the Federal Register Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets, 73 FR 3316, Jan. 17, 2008).

Mailed or hand-delivered comments should be in an unbound 81/2 × 11 inch format suitable for reproduction. The Docket Management Facility will acknowledge receipt of mailed comments if you enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope with your submission.

Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following the Web site's instructions. You can also view the docket at the Docket Management Facility (see the mailing address under ADDRESSES) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The TriRock San Diego Triathlon is an annual reoccurring event listed in 33 CFR 100.1101 (table 1, item 11) for Southern California annual marine events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone. Special local regulations exist for the marine event to allow for special use of the San Diego Bay waterway for one day. For 2015, the event is occurring on Sunday, September 20, 2015. This temporary interim rule is therefore necessary to ensure that the same measures normally provided are in place for that day.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary interim 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.”

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM because the Coast Guard did not have sufficient information about the event early enough to publish the NPRM and receive comments. The publishing of an NPRM would be impracticable since immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the participants and the public during the event. The danger posed by the large volume of weekend marine traffic in San Diego Bay makes special local regulations necessary to provide for the safety of participants, event support vessels, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is important to have these regulations in effect during the event. The area covered by the special local regulation should have negligible impact on vessel movement. The Coast Guard will issue a broadcast notice to mariners (BNM) to advise vessel operators of navigational restrictions. In addition, the Coast Guard will also advertise notice of the event and event date changes via local notice to mariners (LNM) report.

For the same reasons, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest, because immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of the event. However, notifications will be made to users of the affected area near San Diego Bay, San Diego, California via marine information broadcast and a local notice to mariners.

Furthermore, we are providing an opportunity for subsequent public comment and, should public comment show the need for modifications to the special local regulations during the 2015 event, we may make those modifications and will provide actual notice of those modifications to the affected public.

The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1233, which authorize the Coast Guard to establish, and define special local regulations. The Captain of the Port San Diego is establishing a special local regulation for the waters of San Diego Bay, San Diego, California to protect event participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Entry into this area is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port San Diego or designated representative.

The TriRock San Diego Triathlon is an annual event normally held on a weekend day in September San Diego Bay, San Diego, California.

The regulation listing annual marine events within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone and special local regulations is CFR 100.1101. Table 1 to § 100.1101 identifies special local regulations within the COTP San Diego Zone. Table 1 to § 100.1101 at item “11” describes the enforcement date and regulated location for this marine event.

The date listed in the Table has the marine event on a Saturday in September. However, this temporary rule changes the marine event date to Sunday, September 20, 2015 to reflect the actual date of the event.

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local regulation for a marine event on San Diego Bay that will be effective from 6:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on September 20, 2015 and will be enforced in that same timeframe.

The Coast Guard will temporarily suspend the regulation listed in Table 1 to § 100.1101 item “11”, and insert this temporary regulation at Table 1 to § 100.1101, at item “19”. This change is needed to accommodate the sponsor's event plan. No other portion of Table 1 to § 100.1101 or other provisions in § 100.1101 shall be affected by this regulation.

The special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of the crew, spectators, participants, and other vessels and users of the waterway for the swimming portion of this triathlon race that will consist of a 1,600 swimmers. Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this regulated waterway unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP), or his designated representative, during the proposed times. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish information on the event in the weekly LNM.

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 expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This determination is based on the size, location, and the limited duration of the marine event and associated special local regulations. Optional waterway routes exist to allow boaters to transit around the marine event area, without impacting the race. Additionally, to the maximum extent practicable, the event sponsor will assist with the movement of boaters desiring to transit the race area throughout the day.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. 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 may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the impacted portion of San Diego Bay, California from 6:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on September 20, 2015.

This special local regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Although the special local regulations would apply to a portion of San Diego Bay, traffic would be allowed to pass around the zone or through the zone with the permission of the COTP, or his designated representative. The event sponsor, will also be advertising the event. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish event information on the internet in the weekly LNM marine information report and will provide a BMM via marine radio during the event.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 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, 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 calls for no 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 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 establishment of marine event special local regulations on the navigable waters of Mission Bay. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) 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 100 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. The Coast Guard did not receive final information about this event with sufficient time to publish an NPRM and receive comments. Delaying the effective date to provide for a comment period would be contrary to the public interest, since immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of the event participants, patrol vessels, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. The Coast Guard will provide advance notifications to users of the affected waterways of the safety zone via marine information broadcasts and local notice to mariners.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons stated above, delaying the effective date to provide for a comment period is impracticable and would be contrary to the public interest.

On September 27, 2015 from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m., Without Limits Coaching will sponsor “Swim the Loop” and “Motts Channel Sprint” on the waters adjacent to and surrounding Harbor Island in Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. The swim event will consist of up to 200 swimmers per event swimming a 1.3 mile course or a 3.5 mile course around Harbor Island in Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. To provide for the safety of participants, spectators and other transiting vessels, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the event area during this event.

The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the navigable waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway 550 yards north and south of the U.S. 74/76 Bascule Bridge, mile 283.1, latitude 34°13′06″ North, longitude 077°48′44″ West, at Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina.

To provide for the safety of participants, spectators and other transiting vessels, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the event area during this event. Specifically, the U.S. 74/76 Bascule Bridge at Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina will remain closed during the event on September 27, 2015 from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. During the event, general navigation within the safety zone will be restricted, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area, with the exception of participants and vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his representative.

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. Although this regulation will restrict access to the area, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the regulated area will be in effect for a limited time, from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m., on September 27, 2015. The Coast Guard will provide advance notification via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. The regulated area will apply only to the section of Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in the immediate vicinity of U.S. 74/76 Bascule Bridge at Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. Coast Guard vessels enforcing this regulated area can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. 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 may be small entities: The owners or operators of recreational vessels intending to transit the specified portion of Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. on September 27, 2015.

This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will only be in effect for three hours from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. The regulated area applies only to the section of Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of the U.S. 74/76 Bascule Bridge at Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. Vessel traffic may be allowed to pass through the regulated area on a case by case basis with the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. In the case where the Patrol Commander authorizes passage through the regulated area, vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the swim course. The Patrol Commander will allow non-participating vessels to transit the event area once all swimmers are safely clear of navigation channels and vessel traffic areas. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 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, 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 implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 that apply to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States that may have potential for negative impact on the safety or other interest of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area. This special local regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of the general public and event participants from potential hazards associated with movement of vessels near the event area. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. 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 proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce Special Local Regulation for the annual S.P.O.R.T. boat races in 33 CFR 100.801 (Table 3, Line 5) on September 18, 2015, from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. and on September 19 and 20, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.

This Special Local Regulation encompasses all waters of the Sabine River south of latitude 30°05′33″ N. and waters north of latitude 30°05′45″ N. (NAD 83).

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.801, a vessel may not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission from the on-scene Patrol Commander. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.801 and 33 U.S.C. 1233. In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with notification of this enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners, Marine Information Broadcasts, and Marine Safety Information Bulletins.

If the Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene Patrol Commander determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

The U.S. Army Rock Island Arsenal requested a temporary deviation for the Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge, across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 482.9, at Rock Island, Illinois to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for a four and a half hour period from 7:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., September 27, 2015, while the Quad City Marathon is held between the cities of Davenport, IA and Rock Island, IL.

The Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge currently operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, which states the general requirement that drawbridges shall open promptly and fully for the passage of vessels when a request to open is given in accordance with the subpart.

There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Upper Mississippi River.

The Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge, in the closed-to-navigation position, provides a vertical clearance of 23.8 feet above normal pool. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and recreational watercraft. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections were received.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The Metropolitan Ave. Bridge, mile 3.4, across the English Kills has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 10 feet at mean high water and 15 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.801(e).

The waterway has one commercial facility located upstream of the bridge.

New York City DOT requested this temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate essential maintenance repairs.

Under this temporary deviation, the Metropolitan Ave. Bridge may remain in the closed position from 12:01 a.m. on September 10, 2015 through 11:59 p.m. on September 12, 2015.

The bridge will not be able to open in the event of an emergency. There is no alternate route for vessel traffic; however, vessels that can pass under the closed draws during this closure may do so at any time.

The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

I. Does this action apply to me?

A list of potentially affected entities is provided in the Federal Register of June 5, 2015 (80 FR 32003) (FRL-9927-67). If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

In the June 5, 2015 Federal Register, EPA issued a direct final SNUR for the chemical substance that is identified in this final rule. This direct final SNUR was issued pursuant to the procedures in 40 CFR part 721, subpart D. EPA is removing the direct final SNUR issued for the chemical substance identified generically as substituted cyclosiloxane, which was the subject of PMN P-14-605.

This direct final rule was issued pursuant to the procedures in 40 CFR part 721, subpart D. Section 721.170(d)(4)(i)(B) provides that EPA will withdraw the relevant portion of such a direct final rule if within 30 days of publication the Agency receives a notice of intent to submit adverse comments on the SNUR. EPA received a notice of intent to submit adverse comments on the SNUR, but mistakenly did not withdraw the direct final rule as required by § 721.170(d)(4)(i)(B). The Agency is therefore removing the rule issued for the chemical substance that was the subject of PMN P-14-605. EPA intends to publish a proposed SNUR for this chemical substance under separate notice and comment procedures.

For further information regarding EPA's direct rulemaking process for issuing SNURs, see 40 CFR part 721, subpart D, and the Federal Register of July 27, 1989 (54 FR 31314).

EPA determined that there is good cause to first; promulgate this final rule without opportunity for notice and comment in accordance with section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and second; make the rule effective on the date of publication in accordance with section 553(d) of the APA. Good cause exists because the direct final rule was allowed to become effective in violation of § 721.170(d)(4)(i)(B).

This action removes regulatory requirements that were not intended to go into effect. As such, the Agency has determined that this removal will not have any adverse impacts, economic or otherwise. The statutory and Executive Order review requirements applicable to this action were discussed in the June 5, 2015 Federal Register. Those review requirements do not apply to this action because it is a removal and does not contain any new or amended requirements.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 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. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Section 808 of the CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. As required by 5 U.S.C. 808(2), this determination is supported by a brief statement in Unit III.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

Throughout this document, the terms “we”, “us”, and “our” refer to the EPA.

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”), the EPA has promulgated national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or “standards”) for certain pervasive air pollutants. The NAAQS are concentration levels the attainment and maintenance of which EPA has determined to be requisite to protect public health (i.e., the “primary” NAAQS) and welfare (i.e., the “secondary” NAAQS). Under the CAA, states are required to develop and submit plans, referred to as state implementation plans (SIPs) to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS.1 Ozone is one of the air pollutants for which the EPA has established NAAQS.2 The original NAAQS for ozone, established by the EPA in 1979, was 0.12 parts per million (ppm), 1-hour average (“1-hour ozone standard”).3

Under the CAA, the EPA is also responsible for designating areas of the country as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable for the various NAAQS. States with “nonattainment” areas are required to submit revisions to their SIPs that include a control strategy necessary to demonstrate how the area will attain the NAAQS.

Under the CAA Amendments of 1990, the “Phoenix metropolitan area,” defined by the Maricopa Association of Governments' (MAGs') urban planning area boundary (but later revised to exclude the Gila River Indian Community at 70 FR 68339 (November 10, 2005)), was classified as a “Moderate” nonattainment area, 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991), and later reclassified as a “Serious” nonattainment area, 62 FR 60001 (November 6, 1997), for the 1-hour ozone standard.

States with “Serious,” “Severe,” or “Extreme” ozone nonattainment areas were required under CAA section 182(b)(3) to submit SIP revisions that require the use of “Stage II” vapor recovery systems at gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs) located within the nonattainment area. Gasoline dispensing pump vapor control devices, commonly referred to as “Stage II” vapor recovery, are systems that control VOC vapor releases during the refueling of motor vehicles. This process takes the vapors normally emitted directly into the atmosphere when pumping gas and recycles them back into the underground fuel storage tank, preventing them from polluting the air.

In response to this requirement, the State of Arizona promulgated and submitted certain statutes and regulations that require use of Stage II vapor recovery systems in the Phoenix metropolitan area, and later extended the requirements to a larger geographic area referred to as “Area A.” 4 The EPA approved the state's Stage-II-related statutes and regulations as a revision to the Arizona SIP. See 59 FR 54521 (November 1, 1994) and 77 FR 35279 (June 13, 2012).

The 1990 amended CAA anticipates that, over time, Stage II vapor recovery requirements at GDFs would be replaced by “onboard refueling vapor recovery” (ORVR) systems that the EPA was to establish for new motor vehicles under CAA section 202(a)(6). ORVR consists of an activated carbon canister installed in a motor vehicle. The carbon canister captures gasoline vapors during refueling. There the vapors are captured by the activated carbon in the canister. When the engine is started, the vapors are drawn off of the activated carbon and into the engine where they are burned as fuel. In 1994, the EPA promulgated its ORVR standards,5 with a minimum 95% vapor capture efficiency, which fully applied to all new light duty vehicles by 2000. The ORVR requirements were phased in to apply to heavier classes of vehicles as well—reaching full effect for all new vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of up to 10,000 pounds by 2006. Recognizing that, over time, the number of vehicles with ORVR as a percentage of the overall motor vehicle fleet would increase with the turnover of older models not equipped with ORVR with newer models equipped with ORVR, CAA section 202(a)(6) also permits the EPA to promulgate a determination that ORVR is in “widespread use” throughout the motor vehicle fleet and to revise or waive Stage II vapor recovery requirements for Serious, Severe and Extreme ozone nonattainment areas.

Meanwhile, the EPA has taken certain actions that affect SIP planning in general, and the Phoenix metropolitan area and Stage II vapor recovery SIP requirements in particular, including the following:

• Revision of the NAAQS for ozone, setting it at 0.08 ppm averaged over an 8-hour timeframe (referred to herein as the “1997 8-hour ozone standard”) (62 FR 33856, July 18, 1997), and designation of the Phoenix-Mesa area 6 as a “Marginal” nonattainment area (69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004; 77 FR 28424, May 14, 2012);

• Redesignation of the Phoenix metropolitan area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard (70 FR 34362; June 14, 2005), and revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard, effective June 15, 2005 (40 CFR 50.9(b));

• Revision of the 8-hour ozone standard down to 0.075 ppm (the 2008 8-hour ozone standard) (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008), and designation of the Phoenix-Mesa area as a “Marginal” nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard (77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012); 7

• Determination that ORVR systems are in “widespread use” in the nation's motor vehicle fleet (77 FR 28772, May 16, 2012; and 40 CFR 51.126); and

• Redesignation of the Phoenix-Mesa ozone area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (79 FR 55645, September 17, 2014).

In the wake of the EPA's “widespread use” determination, states, such as Arizona, that were required to implement Stage II vapor recovery programs under CAA section 182(b)(3) are now permitted to remove the requirement from their SIPs under certain circumstances. On August 7, 2012, the EPA released its “Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures” 8 (“Stage II Guidance”) to aid in the development of SIP revisions to remove Stage II controls from GDFs. The Stage II Guidance also provides a series of equations to determine the emissions impacts of removing Stage II controls.

In summary, the State of Arizona established Stage II vapor recovery requirements in the Phoenix metropolitan area to address CAA requirements for “Serious” nonattainment areas for the 1-hour ozone standard and later extended the requirements to a larger geographic area known as Area A that roughly approximates the boundaries of the Phoenix-Mesa 1997 8-hour ozone area. The Phoenix metropolitan area has been redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard, and the Phoenix-Mesa area has been redesignated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, but the Phoenix-Mesa area remains designated “Marginal” nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. Under 40 CFR 51.126, Stage II vapor recovery is no longer a SIP requirement in ozone nonattainment areas, and existing SIP provisions establishing Stage II vapor recovery requirements may be rescinded under certain circumstances. In this action, and for the reasons set forth in the following section of this document, the EPA is approving the State of Arizona's revisions to its SIP that eliminate Stage II requirements for new GDFs and that provide for the phased removal of Stage II vapor recovery equipment at existing GDFs within the geographic area referred to as “Area A,” which roughly approximates the boundaries of the Phoenix-Mesa area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

On September 2, 2014, ADEQ submitted a SIP revision to phase-out Stage II vapor recovery requirements in Area A by eliminating the requirement to install Stage II equipment at new GDFs and by providing for a phased decommissioning process to remove Stage II equipment at existing GDFs beginning in October 2016 and ending in September 2018. The SIP submittal includes the SIP revision itself, “MAG State Implementation Plan Revision for the Removal of Stage II Vapor Recovery Controls in the Maricopa Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area” (“Stage II Vapor Recovery SIP Revision” or “SIP Revision”), as well as supporting materials related to legal authority and completeness. The Stage II Vapor Recovery SIP Revision includes nonregulatory materials, such as a narrative and supporting technical analysis, and includes a law (House Bill 2128) passed by the Arizona Legislature and signed by the Governor providing for the phase-out of the Stage II vapor recovery requirements.

Effective for State law purposes upon the Governor's signature (i.e., on April 22, 2014), HB 2128 (in relevant part) amends Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) sections 41-2131 (“Definitions”), 41-2132 (“Stage I vapor recovery systems”), 41-2133 (“Compliance schedules”), and adds new section 41-2135 (“Stage II vapor recovery systems”). The new section ARS 41-2135 retains the existing Stage II control requirements for existing GDFs and establishes a phased decommissioning process to remove Stage II controls beginning October 1, 2016 and ending September 30, 2018.

The two-year period for decommissioning is based on the expectation of the Arizona Department of Weights and Measures (ADWM) of the time necessary to safely decommission Stage II controls at the over 1,000 existing GDFs in Area A. Decommissioning is expected to be spread evenly over each of the 24 months from October 2016 through September 2018 and to occur for existing GDFs during the month when the annual scheduled Stage II controls test would have occurred. HB 2128 repeals the new section 41-2135 on September 30, 2018 coinciding with the completion of the Stage II decommissioning process. To address the potential for adverse impacts relative to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, the SIP submittal includes a year-by-year analysis of the changes in VOC emissions taking into account both the elimination of Stage II controls at new GDFs and the phase-out of Stage II controls at existing GDFs from October 2016 through September 2018.

CAA sections 110(a)(1), 110(a)(2), and 110(l) require a state to provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing prior to the adoption and submittal of a SIP or SIP revision. To meet this requirement, every SIP submittal should include evidence that adequate public notice was given and a public hearing (if requested) was held consistent with EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.

Appendix B of the Stage II Vapor Recovery SIP Revision documents the public process followed by MAG and ADEQ in developing, adopting, and submitting this SIP revision. Specifically, on May 2 and 3, 2014, ADEQ and MAG published a notice, in a newspaper of general circulation in the Phoenix area, of a joint public hearing to be held on June 3, 2014 and the availability of the draft version of the Stage II vapor recovery SIP revision for public review and comment. ADEQ and MAG conducted the public hearing on June 3, 2014. ADEQ and MAG received no comments on the draft SIP revision. On August 27, 2014, MAG's Regional Council adopted the Stage II Vapor Recovery SIP Revision. ADEQ subsequently adopted and submitted the SIP revision to EPA by letter dated September 2, 2104. As such, ADEQ and MAG have satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory procedural requirements for adoption and submittal of this SIP revision.

As discussed above, pursuant to the EPA's determination of “widespread use” (of ORVR systems in the motor vehicle fleet), Stage II vapor recovery controls are no longer a SIP requirement, and thus, states are allowed to rescind such control requirements in their SIPs if doing so is consistent with the general SIP revision requirements of CAA section 110(l) and section 193. In relevant part, CAA section 110(l) prohibits the EPA from approving a SIP revision if that revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning reasonable further progress towards, or attainment of, any of the NAAQS, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

Section 193 provides, in relevant part, that no control requirement in effect, or required to be adopted, before November 15, 1990 (i.e., the effective date of the CAA Amendments of 1990) in any area which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant may be modified after November 15, 1990 in any manner unless the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant. Arizona's Stage II vapor recovery controls were developed in response to the CAA Amendments of 1990 and thus were adopted and approved in the years following the 1990 CAA Amendments. Thus, the requirements of section 193 do not apply to this particular SIP revision.

As described in the Background section of this document, Stage II and ORVR are two types of emission control systems that capture fuel vapors from vehicle gas tanks during refueling. Stage II controls are installed in the dispensing pumps while ORVR is installed as part of the motor vehicle. Stage II and ORVR were initially both required by the 1990 CAA Amendments, but Congress recognized that Stage II and ORVR would eventually become largely redundant technologies as the percentage of the nation's motor vehicle fleet equipped with ORVR increases, and provided authority to the EPA to allow states to remove Stage II from their SIPs after the EPA finds that ORVR is in widespread use. The EPA's Stage II Guidance projects that, by 2015, over 84% of all the gasoline dispensed in the nation will be dispensed to ORVR-equipped motor vehicles.9 As such, Stage II and ORVR have become largely redundant technologies, and Stage II control systems are achieving an ever-declining emissions benefit as more ORVR-equipped vehicle continue to enter the on-road motor vehicle fleet. In addition, the EPA's Stage II Guidance recognizes that, in areas where certain types of vacuum-assist Stage II control systems are used, the limited compatibility between ORVR and some configurations of this Stage II hardware may ultimately result in an area-wide emissions disbenefit. The disbenefit can result when the Stage II controls pull air into the underground tank instead of gasoline vapors when both vacuum-assist Stage II controls and ORVR are active during refueling. This increases the pressure in the underground tank and can cause venting of excess emissions into the air.

The Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area is an area where the vast majority of Stage II systems that have been installed use vacuum assist technologies.10 As documented in chapter 2 of the Stage II Vapor Recovery SIP Revision and in MAG's technical support document (appendix A, exhibit 1 of the SIP Revision), MAG used the equations recommended by the EPA in its Stage II Guidance to calculate the areawide emission reduction benefits/disbenefits associated with Stage II controls on vehicle refueling emissions in the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area. More specifically, MAG developed year-by-year estimates of areawide VOC emissions from motor vehicle refueling with use of Stage II controls in the Phoenix-Mesa area taking into account the fraction of gasoline throughput covered by Stage II controls, the fraction of gasoline dispensed to ORVR-equipped vehicles, the Stage II control in-use control efficiency, the fraction of gasoline dispensed through vacuum-assisted Stage II control, and the compatibility factor for the increase in underground storage tank vent emissions relative to normal conditions.

Based on MAG's estimates, assuming Stage II requirements remain in place, the VOC emissions reductions benefits from Stage II controls would continue a steady decline until 2018 when the implementation of Stage II controls will first result in an emissions disbenefit. Without rescission of Stage II control requirements, the disbenefit would then increase over time in concert with the increase in the frequency of refueling by ORVR-equipped vehicles at vacuum-assist Stage II GDFs.

The Stage II Vapor Recovery SIP Revision is intended to minimize the temporary increases in VOC emissions during the decommissioning process and to avoid the long-term disbenefit by eliminating the requirement for installing Stage II equipment at new GDFs and phasing-out the Stage II requirement for (and providing for the removal of Stage II equipment at) existing GDFs from October 2016 through September 2018. To estimate the emissions impacts due to the SIP Revision, MAG developed year-by-year VOC estimates for the foregone emissions reductions due to construction of new GDFs from 2014 through 2017 without Stage II controls and due to the decommissioning of Stage II controls at existing GDFs during the 2017 ozone season. Table 1 below compares the VOC emissions impacts with and without the Stage II Vapor Recovery SIP Revision in the Phoenix-Mesa area based on MAG's estimates.

As shown in table 1, without the Stage II Vapor Recovery SIP Revision, the emissions benefits from implementation of Stage II controls in the Phoenix-Mesa area would decline until 2018 when implementation of Stage II would result in an emissions increase due to the incompatibility between ORVR-equipped vehicles and vacuum-assist Stage II technology. With the SIP Revision, table 1 shows that the emissions reduction benefits from implementation of Stage II in the Phoenix-Mesa area would be reduced slightly due to the construction and operation of new GDFs without Stage II controls and due to the phase-out of Stage II vapor controls at existing GDFs during the 2017 ozone season.11 The temporary emissions increases due to the SIP Revision (relative to the scenario in which Stage II requirements remain fully implemented) will occur during years 2014 through 2017 and range from 0.015 mtpd to 0.031 mtpd. Beginning in 2018 and increasing in magnitude thereafter, the SIP Revision will result in fewer VOC emissions than would otherwise have occurred if Stage II requirements were to remain fully implemented in the Phoenix-Mesa area (once again, due to the incompatibility of ORVR-equipped vehicles and vacuum-assist Stage II technologies).

For perspective, we note that the temporary increases in VOC emissions during years 2014 through 2017 due to the SIP Revision would represent an approximate 0.002 percent to 0.005 percent increase in the overall VOC emissions inventory in the Phoenix-Mesa area.12 Such increases would have negligible impacts on ozone concentrations in the area. More importantly, the schedule for the phase-out of Stage II controls under the SIP Revision will maintain most of the emissions reductions benefits associated with Stage II control through 2017 while avoiding the more significant increases in VOC emissions that would otherwise occur beginning in 2019 and beyond due to the incompatibility effects described above between ORVR-equipped vehicles and vacuum-assist Stage II technologies. In 2018, the scheduled phase-out will reduce the emissions increase (due to ORVR and Stage II incompatibilities) that would otherwise be expected but would not entirely avoid an emissions increase because some existing GDFs will not yet have removed Stage II controls by the beginning of the 2018 ozone season. All Stage II controls will be decommissioned by September 30, 2018 under the Stage II Vapor Recovery SIP Revision. Lastly, the phase-out of Stage II controls by the end of the 2018 ozone season will support longer-term regional efforts to attain or maintain the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone standards in the Phoenix-Mesa area.

We find MAG's methods and assumptions, as documented in chapter 2 of the Stage II Vapor Recovery SIP Revision and in MAG's technical support document, to be reasonable, and we find that MAG's emissions estimates provide a reasonable basis upon which to evaluate the ozone impacts of the SIP Revision. Moreover, based on MAG's emissions estimates and for the reasons provided above, we conclude that the SIP Revision would not interfere with reasonable further progress toward, or attainment of, any of the NAAQS and would not interfere with any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Thus, we conclude that the SIP Revision is approvable under CAA section 110(l).

The EPA is taking direct final action to approve the Stage II Vapor Recovery SIP Revision submitted by ADEQ on September 2, 2014 to provide for the phased removal of “Stage II” vapor recovery equipment at gasoline dispensing facilities in the Phoenix-Mesa area. Specifically, the EPA is approving a SIP revision that eliminates the requirement to install and operate such equipment at new gasoline dispensing facilities, and that provides for the phased removal of such equipment at existing gasoline dispensing facilities from October 2016 through September 2018.

The EPA is approving this SIP revision because Stage II vapor recovery controls are no longer a SIP requirement under CAA section 182(b)(3) due to EPA's “widespread use determination” for ORVR. Additionally, we are approving this SIP revision because the temporary incremental increase in VOC emissions from 2014 through 2018 would not interfere with reasonable further progress toward, or attainment of, any of the NAAQS, and because this SIP revision avoids the longer-term VOC emissions increases associated with continued implementation of Stage II controls in the Phoenix-Mesa area. As part of this final action, the EPA is approving the specific statutory provisions that provide for the phase-out of Stage II controls in Area A, i.e., sections 5 through 8, and 10 through 12 of House Bill 2128, amending ARS sections 41-2131, 41-2132, 41-2133 and adding section 41-2135.13

We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial SIP revision and anticipate no adverse comments. In the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register publication, however, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state SIP revision if relevant adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective November 2, 2015 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse comments by October 2, 2015.

If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a separate document withdrawing the direct final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. The 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 the EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of this rule, the 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 on November 2, 2015.

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 certain sections of House Bill 2128 amending various sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes related to stage II vapor recovery systems in Area A, effective April 22, 2014, as 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• 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 the 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 the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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. The 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 November 2, 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 the 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)).

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.

National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

Table of Contents I. Background II. Immediate Effective Date and Request for Comments III. Regulatory Analyses and Notices I. Background

Under 49 CFR parts 591 and 592, importers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are required, among other things, to provide certain information to NHTSA at the time of importation, which is collected by CBP. In the past, CBP collected all information on paper but has moved to a system that allows for either paper format filing or a “hybrid” combination of paper and electronic filing. Beginning in the fall of 2015, and with pilot programs beginning in the summer of 2015, CBP is introducing a new data collection system that will allow importers to make an electronic reporting of commodities being presented for importation at U.S. ports. After implementation of this new system, CBP may require importation declaration documents to be filed in either all paper or all electronic format. CBP is currently advising that importers will no longer have the option of using the “hybrid” filing system.

Currently, there are several provisions within 49 CFR part 591, Importation of Vehicles and Equipment Subject to Federal Safety, Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards, and a provision in 49 CFR part 592, Registered Importers of Vehicles Not Originally Manufactured to Conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, that either explicitly or impliedly require a paper filing for specific pieces of data. Thus, maintaining these provisions may mean that, once the new CBP data collection system is implemented, importers would be required to file on paper, imposing an unintended burden on those currently making hybrid filings. To avoid this result, this interim Final Rule amends the wording of the provisions in 49 CFR parts 591 and 592 that explicitly or impliedly require paper filings clarifying that filings can be made in any format accepted by CBP. This rulemaking does not impose additional obligations or burdens on any party and, specifically, does not require filing of any new or additional information. Rather, it provides importers with the option of filing importation information already required under 49 CFR parts 591 and 592 in either paper or electronic format, according to their preference.

In its rulemaking establishing a continuous entry DOT conformance bond, NHTSA required an importer to present to CBP at the time of importation a copy of Customs Form (CF) 7501. The requirement to furnish a copy of the CF 7501 was initially established at 49 CFR 591.6(c) and 49 CFR 592.6. The agency stated that the CF 7501 contained certain information such as the entered value of the vehicle that was necessary if NHTSA decided to enforce forfeiture of the DOT conformance bond. NHTSA has determined that it no longer needs information from the CF 7501 to pursue DOT conformance bond forfeiture and this requirement is being deleted from the regulation. Additionally, elimination of this previously required documentation will reduce the burden on importers.

This document is being issued as an interim Final Rule to provide timely assistance to importers by allowing alternative methods of filing importation documents with CBP. The amendments in this interim Final Rule do not create any new rights or obligations, nor impose any new reporting requirements. The agency herein requests comments on the rule. The agency will publish a notice responding to any comments received and, if appropriate, will amend provisions of the regulation.

This rule also amends the delegations of authority to reflect the current CFR citations.

The Administrative Procedure Act requires notice of a proposed rulemaking and opportunity for public comment unless an exception applies. 5 U.S.C. 553(b). One of these exceptions is when the agency finds good cause not to provide notice and public comment because public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and the agency incorporates that finding, and briefly states the reasons for that finding, in the rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). NHTSA has determined that there is good cause for not taking public comment prior to issuing this interim Final Rule since NHTSA does not anticipate any negative comments or opposition to allowing importers to file importation documentation in any format provided by CBP, making public comment unnecessary. Further, NHTSA has determined that there is good cause for not taking public comment prior to issuing this interim Final Rule because it is contrary to the public interest to take public comment where CBP is piloting the electronic filing system in the coming weeks, with implementation throughout fall 2015, and importers could be prevented from participating in both the pilot programs and the fully operational electronic filing system until these regulatory changes are made.

Further, the amendments in this interim Final Rule do not create any new rights or obligations not already present in 49 CFR parts 591 and 592. Because this interim Final Rule does not create any rights or obligations, the impacts of this rule are insignificant, making notice and public comment unnecessary.

As an interim Final Rule, this regulation is fully in effect and binding upon its effective date. No further regulatory action by the agency is necessary to make this rule effective. However, in order to benefit from any comments that interested parties and the public may have, the agency is soliciting comments on this notice. Should any pertinent comments be submitted, following the close of the comment period, the agency will publish a notice responding to those comments and, if appropriate, will amend the provisions of this rule.

NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the DOT's regulatory policies and procedures. This interim Final Rule was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” It is not considered to be significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's regulatory policies and procedures.

This regulation amends 49 CFR parts 591 and 592 to allow importers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to file customs declarations electronically, as available and offered by CBP, in addition to the paper format filing option otherwise available. This final rule does not require importers to use electronic filing, nor file any different or additional information when utilizing electronic filing and, instead, is designed to reduce the burden on importers by enabling them to utilize their preferred customs declaration format. Importers are not required to take any action(s) that they are not otherwise already required to take. Because there are not any costs or savings associated with this rulemaking, which provides various filing options for importers, we have not prepared a separate economic analysis for this rulemaking.

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities. I hereby certify that this rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The interim Final Rule affects importers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, some of which qualify as small businesses. However, this rule does not significantly affect these entities because it does not require any additional actions on their part not already required by 49 CFR parts 591 and 592, but instead provides an electronic filing option, in addition to the paper filing option, for customs declarations according to the importer's preference.

NHTSA has examined today's rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The interim Final Rule would not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This interim Final Rule also will not preempt any state law.

NHTSA has analyzed this interim Final Rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB clearance number. The information collection requirements for 49 CFR part 591, Importation of Vehicles and Equipment Subject to Federal Safety, Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards, and 49 CFR part 592, Registered Importers of Vehicles Not Originally Manufactured to Conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, are covered by OMB control number 2127-0002. The amendments in today's interim Final Rule have no impact on the burden associated with this information collection.

Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), “all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments.” The amendments in today's interim Final Rule allow importers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to file declarations with CBP electronically, using the electronic systems established by CBP, and do not involve any voluntary consensus standards as it relates to NHTSA or this rulemaking.

With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA has considered these issues and determined that this interim Final Rule would not have any retroactive or preemptive effect. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This interim Final Rule would not result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $100 million annually.

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse effect on the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. This rulemaking is not subject to E.O. 13211.

The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, NHTSA amends 49 CFR parts 591 and 592 as follows:

Regulations governing the bluefish fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Florida through Maine. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state are described in § 648.162.

The final rule implementing Amendment 1 to the Bluefish Fishery Management Plan published in the Federal Register on July 26, 2000 (65 FR 45844), provided a mechanism for transferring bluefish quota from one state to another. Two or more states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence of the Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), can transfer or combine bluefish commercial quota under § 648.162(e). The Regional Administrator is required to consider the criteria in § 648.162(e) in the evaluation of requests for quota transfers or combinations.

North Carolina has agreed to transfer 100,000 lb (45,359 kg), and Virginia 50,000 lb (22,680 kg) of their 2015 commercial bluefish quotas to Rhode Island. This transfer was requested by state officials in Rhode Island to ensure their commercial bluefish quota is not exceeded. The Regional Administrator has determined that the criteria set forth in § 648.162(e)(1) are met and approves these transfers. The revised bluefish quotas for calendar year 2015 are: North Carolina, 1,380,371 lb (626,126 kg); Virginia, 422,629 lb (191,701 kg); and Rhode Island 506,826 lb (229,892 kg), based on quota defined in the final 2015 Atlantic Bluefish Specifications (80 FR 46848, published on August 6, 2015).

This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.