Federal Register Vol. 80, No.206,

Discussion

On September 7, 2015, we issued AD 2015-19-02, Amendment 39-18265 (80 FR 55512, September 16, 2015), for all The Boeing Company Model 767 airplanes. AD 2015-19-02 required revising the maintenance or inspection program to include new airworthiness limitations. AD 2015-19-02 resulted from reports of latently failed fuel shutoff valves discovered during fuel filter replacement. We issued AD 2015-19-02 to detect and correct latent failures of the fuel shutoff valve to the engine and APU, which could result in the inability to shut off fuel to the engine and APU and, in case of certain fires, an uncontrollable fire that could lead to structural failure.

Since we issued AD 2015-19-02, Amendment 39-18265 (80 FR 55512, September 16, 2015), we have determined that extraneous language was included in two locations of the text of the airworthiness limitations specified in AD 2015-19-02. In paragraph C.7.a. of the “Description” column of figure 1 to paragraph (g) of AD 2015-19-02, the text “or the APU selector switch on the overhead panel is in the ON position” is not relevant to the actions specified in that paragraph. In paragraph A.5. of the “Description” column of figure 3 to paragraph (g) of AD 2015-19-02, the text “the FUEL CONTROL switch is in the RUN position or” is not relevant to the actions specified in that paragraph.

We have determined that the language must be corrected to avoid any confusion in the paragraphs of the airworthiness limitation. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct latent failures of the fuel shutoff valve to the engine and APU, which could result in the inability to shut off fuel to the engine and APU and, in case of certain fires, an uncontrollable fire that could lead to structural failure.

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

This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program to include new airworthiness limitations.

We consider this AD interim action. The manufacturer is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.

We are superseding AD 2015-19-02, Amendment 39-18265 (80 FR 55512, September 16, 2015), to correct inaccurate terminology in the “Description” column of figure 1 to paragraph (g) of AD 2015-19-02 and figure 3 to paragraph (g) of AD 2015-19-02. We have made no other changes to the requirements published in AD 2015-19-02. We have determined that the changes impose no additional burden on any operator. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. 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-2015-4209 and Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-156-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 affects 450 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 part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (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 all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 Mark 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 4, 2015 (80 FR 25247).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0099, dated April 30, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 Mark 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 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 25247, May 4, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the available 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 25247, May 4, 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 25247, May 4, 2015).

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.

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-2015-0933; 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:

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

On September 14, 2015, we issued Emergency AD 2015-19-51 for Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-76A, S-76B, S-76C, and S-76D helicopters with M/R servo input control pushrod (pushrod) assembly part number (P/N) 76400-00034-059 or T/R pushrod assembly P/N 76400-00014-071 installed. Emergency AD 2015-19-51 requires inspecting the M/R forward, aft, and lateral pushrod assemblies, the T/R pushrod assembly, and the jamnuts, and applying slippage marks across the pushrod tubes and jamnuts. Emergency AD 2015-19-51 was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters and was prompted by an accident of a Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-76C helicopter in which a failed pushrod assembly was identified during preliminary investigation. Separation of the pushrod tube and the control rod end with bearing was found.

We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.

Sikorsky issued Alert Service Bulletin No. 76-67-57, Basic Issue, dated September 10, 2015 (ASB), which specifies a one-time inspection of the M/R forward, aft, and lateral pushrod assemblies, the T/R pushrod assembly, and the jamnuts for proper installation, condition, and security. If a pushrod or jamnut does not meet criteria specified in the inspection, the ASB specifies replacing the assembly. The ASB also specifies applying two slippage marks across each M/R and T/R pushrod tube and jamnut. Further, the ASB references the applicable maintenance manual for a new recurring inspection of the slippage marks.

This AD requires, within five hours time-in-service (TIS), inspecting each M/R and T/R pushrod assembly by inspecting the position of the control rod end in the pushrod tube. If the lockwire passes through the inspection hole, this AD requires replacing the pushrod assembly. If the lockwire does not pass through the inspection hole, this AD requires inspecting the jamnut to determine seating position against the pushrod and whether the jamnut can be turned with finger pressure. If the jamnut is not seated against the pushrod or is loose, this AD requires replacing the pushrod assembly. This AD also requires, both for those pushrod assemblies that are replaced and for those that pass the inspections, applying two slippage marks across each M/R and T/R pushrod tube and jamnut.

We consider this AD to be an interim action as the accident investigation is ongoing. If additional action is later identified, we might consider further rulemaking.

We estimate that this AD affects 198 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. It takes about 1 work-hour to inspect the pushrod assemblies and jamnut for a cost of $85 per helicopter and $16,830 for the U.S. fleet. It takes a minimal amount of time to apply the slippage marks for a negligible cost. Replacing a pushrod assembly takes about 1.5 work-hours for a labor cost of $128. Parts for an M/R pushrod assembly cost $2,411 for a total replacement cost of $2,539. Parts for a T/R pushrod assembly cost $1,905 for a total replacement cost of $2,033.

Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we found and continue to find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because the previously described unsafe condition can adversely affect the controllability of the helicopter and the initial required action must be accomplished within five hours TIS.

Since it was found that immediate corrective action was required, notice and opportunity for prior public comment before issuing this AD were impracticable and contrary to public interest and good cause existed to make the AD effective immediately by Emergency AD 2015-19-51, issued on September 14, 2015, to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. These conditions still exist and the AD is hereby published in the Federal Register as an amendment to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it effective to all persons.

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, 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.

We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

Discussion

On September 7, 2015, we issued AD 2015-19-03, Amendment 39-18266 (80 FR 55527, September 16, 2015), for all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. AD 2015-19-03 required revising the maintenance or inspection program to include new airworthiness limitations. AD 2015-19-03 resulted from reports of latently failed fuel shutoff valves discovered during fuel filter replacement. We issued AD 2015-19-03 to detect and correct latent failures of the fuel shutoff valve to the engine, which could result in the inability to shut off fuel to the engine and, in case of certain engine fires, an uncontrollable fire that could lead to wing failure.

Since we issued AD 2015-19-03, Amendment 39-18266 (80 FR 55527, September 16, 2015), we have determined that certain language in the airworthiness limitation was not accurate. In paragraph D. of the “Description” column of figure 1 to paragraph (g) of AD 2015-19-03, the “START LEVER” is identified as a “FUEL CONTROL switch” in four locations. In addition, in two locations in paragraph D. of the “Description” column of figure 1 to paragraph (g) of AD 2015-19-03, it specifies that fuel spar valve actuators are located in the “rear spar,” but the correct location is the “front spar.” Also, in two locations in paragraph D. of the “Description” column of figure 1 to paragraph (g) of AD 2015-19-03, the term “quadrant” is used to describe the control stand, but the correct terminology is “CONTROL STAND.” We have determined that the language must be corrected to avoid any confusion in the paragraphs of the airworthiness limitation. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct latent failures of the fuel shutoff valve to the engine, which could result in the inability to shut off fuel to the engine and, in case of certain engine fires, an uncontrollable fire that could lead to wing failure.

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

This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program to include new airworthiness limitations.

We consider this AD interim action. The manufacturer is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.

We are superseding AD 2015-19-03, Amendment 39-18266 (80 FR 55527, September 16, 2015), to correct inaccurate terminology in paragraph D. of the “Description” column of figure 1 to paragraph (g) of AD 2015-19-03. We have made no other changes to the requirements published in AD 2015-19-03. We have determined that the changes impose no additional burden on any operator. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. 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-2015-4208 and Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-152-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 affects 1,244 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 part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

On October 13, 2015, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published in the Federal Register (80 FR 61278) an Interim Final Rule (CBP Dec. 15-14) document, entitled Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Filings for Electronic Entry/Entry Summary (Cargo Release and Related Entry). As published, the Interim Final regulation contains an error in the text of Amendatory Instruction 38 in the “Amendments to the CBP Regulations” section of FR Doc. 2015-25729.

On page 61289, in the second column, under “§ 141.57 [Amended]” revise Amendatory Instruction 38 to read as follows:

The Department has been asked periodically over the last 30 years to consider the application of ERISA's fiduciary rules to pension plan investments selected because of the collateral economic or social benefits they may further in addition to their investment returns. Various terms have been used to describe this and related investment behaviors, such as socially responsible investing, sustainable and responsible investing, environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing, impact investing, and economically targeted investing (ETI). The terms do not have a uniform meaning and the terminology is evolving. As used in this interpretive bulletin, however, an economically targeted investment broadly refers to any investment that is selected, in part, for its collateral benefits, apart from the investment return to the employee benefit plan investor. The Labor Department previously addressed issues relating to ETIs in Interpretive Bulletin 94-1 (IB 94-1) 1 and Interpretive Bulletin 2008-1 (IB 2008-1).2 The Department's stated objective in issuing IB 94-1 was to correct a popular misperception at the time that investments in ETIs are incompatible with ERISA's fiduciary obligations. The preamble to the Interpretive Bulletin explained that the requirements of sections 403 and 404 of ERISA do not prevent plan fiduciaries from investing plan assets in ETIs if the ETI has an expected rate of return that is commensurate to rates of return of alternative investments with similar risk characteristics that are available to the plan, and if the ETI is otherwise an appropriate investment for the plan in terms of such factors as diversification and the investment policy of the plan. Some commenters have referred to this standard as the “all things being equal” test.

The Department has also consistently stated, including in Interpretative Bulletin 94-1, that the focus of plan fiduciaries on the plan's financial returns and risk to beneficiaries must be paramount. Under ERISA, the plan trustee or other investing fiduciary may not use plan assets to promote social, environmental, or other public policy causes at the expense of the financial interests of the plan's participants and beneficiaries. Fiduciaries may not accept lower expected returns or take on greater risks in order to secure collateral benefits.

Specifically, the Department stated in Interpretive Bulletin 94-1: 3

The Department continued in Interpretative Bulletin 2008-1: 4

In the preamble to IB 94-1, the Department elaborated: 5

At the same time, however, the Department has consistently recognized that fiduciaries may consider such collateral goals as tie-breakers when choosing between investment alternatives that are otherwise equal with respect to return and risk over the appropriate time horizon. ERISA does not direct an investment choice in circumstances where investment alternatives are equivalent, and the economic interests of the plan's participants and beneficiaries are protected if the selected investment is in fact, economically equivalent to competing investments.

On October 17, 2008, the Department replaced Interpretive Bulletin 94-1, with Interpretive Bulletin 2008-01, codified at 29 CFR 2509.08-01. IB 2008-01 purported not to alter the basic legal principles set forth in IB 94-1. Its stated purpose was to clarify that fiduciary consideration of collateral, non-economic factors in selecting plan investments should be rare and, when considered, should be documented in a manner that demonstrates compliance with ERISA's rigorous fiduciary standards.

The Department believes that in the seven years since its publication, IB 2008-01 has unduly discouraged fiduciaries from considering ETIs and ESG factors. In particular, the Department is concerned that the 2008 guidance may be dissuading fiduciaries from (1) pursuing investment strategies that consider environmental, social, and governance factors, even where they are used solely to evaluate the economic benefits of investments and identify economically superior investments, and (2) investing in ETIs even where economically equivalent. Some fiduciaries believe the 2008 guidance sets a higher but unclear standard of compliance for fiduciaries when they are considering ESG factors or ETI investments.

An important purpose of this Interpretive Bulletin is to clarify that plan fiduciaries should appropriately consider factors that potentially influence risk and return. Environmental, social, and governance issues may have a direct relationship to the economic value of the plan's investment. In these instances, such issues are not merely collateral considerations or tie-breakers, but rather are proper components of the fiduciary's primary analysis of the economic merits of competing investment choices. Similarly, if a fiduciary prudently determines that an investment is appropriate based solely on economic considerations, including those that may derive from environmental, social and governance factors, the fiduciary may make the investment without regard to any collateral benefits the investment may also promote. Fiduciaries need not treat commercially reasonable investments as inherently suspect or in need of special scrutiny merely because they take into consideration environmental, social, or other such factors. When a fiduciary prudently concludes that such an investment is justified based solely on the economic merits of the investment, there is no need to evaluate collateral goals as tie-breakers.

In addition, this Interpretive Bulletin also clarifies that plan fiduciaries may invest in ETIs based, in part, on their collateral benefits so long as the investment is economically equivalent, with respect to return and risk to beneficiaries in the appropriate time horizon, to investments without such collateral benefits. In an effort to correct the misperceptions that have followed publication of IB 2008-01 the Department is withdrawing IB 2008-01, replacing it with this guidance that reinstates the language of IB 94-1.

Consistent with fiduciaries' obligations to choose economically superior investments, the Department does not believe ERISA prohibits a fiduciary from addressing ETIs or incorporating ESG factors in investment policy statements or integrating ESG-related tools, metrics and analyses to evaluate an investment's risk or return or choose among otherwise equivalent investments. Nor do sections 403 and 404 prevent fiduciaries from considering whether and how potential investment managers consider ETIs or use ESG criteria in their investment practices. As in selecting investments, in selecting investment managers, the plan fiduciaries must reasonably conclude that the investment manager's practices in selecting investments are consistent with the principles articulated in this guidance.

In addition, the Department does not construe consideration of ETIs or ESG criteria as presumptively requiring additional documentation or evaluation beyond that required by fiduciary standards applicable to plan investments generally. As a general matter, the Department believes that fiduciaries responsible for investing plan assets should maintain records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with ERISA's fiduciary provisions. As with any other investments, the appropriate level of documentation would depend on the facts and circumstances.

The Department also has concluded that the same standards set forth in sections 403 and 404 of ERISA governing a fiduciary's investment decisions, discussed above, apply to a fiduciary's selection of a “socially-responsible” mutual fund as a plan investment or, in the case of an ERISA section 404(c) plan or other individual account plan, a designated investment alternative under the plan. Specifically, in Advisory Opinion 98-04A, the Department has expressed the view that the fiduciary standards of sections 403 and 404 do not preclude consideration of collateral benefits, such as those offered by a “socially-responsible” fund, in a fiduciary's decision to designate an investment alternative in an individual account plan. Whether a particular fund or investment alternative satisfies the requirements set forth in sections 403 and 404 of ERISA is an inherently factual question that the appropriate plan fiduciaries must decide based on all the facts and circumstances of the individual situation.

The following Interpretive Bulletin deals solely with the applicability of the prudence and exclusive purpose requirements of ERISA as applied to fiduciary decisions to invest plan assets in ETIs, and in particular the collateral benefits they may provide apart from a plan's performance and the interests of participants and beneficiaries in their retirement income. The bulletin does not supersede the regulatory standard contained at 29 CFR 2550.404a-1, nor does it address any issues which may arise in connection with the prohibited transaction provisions or the statutory exemptions from those provisions.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department is amending subchapter A, part 2509 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

In order to accommodate the annual Triathlon, a temporary schedule deviation has been authorized for the John F. Kennedy Space Center (NASA) Parkway Bridge, across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 885.0 at Addison Point, FL. This deviation is in effect from 7:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on November 15, 2015. During this time, the bridge shall remain closed to navigation, including tugs with tows. Currently, the bridge opens as required per 33 CFR 117.261(l). The regulation changes may have a minor impact on vessels transiting the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of Addison Point, FL, but will still meet the reasonable needs of navigation.

The John F. Kennedy Space Center (NASA) Parkway Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 27 feet at mean high water in the closed position and a horizontal clearance of 90 feet. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. The Coast Guard will inform users of the waterways through Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange 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 following the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the normal operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

C.E.C., Inc., for the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LDOTD), requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule of the SR 661 Swing Bridge across the Houma Navigation Canal, mile 36.0, in Houma, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. The vertical clearance of the swing bridge is one foot above mean high water in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited in the open-to-navigation position. The bridge is governed by 33 CFR 117.455.

This deviation will be in effect from 6 a.m. through 6 p.m., daily, from November 9, 2015, until November 20, 2015 except weekends. This Deviation allows the bridge to remain closed-to-navigation for up to six hours, from 6 a.m. through 6 p.m. daily. During the evening and weekend time periods, the bridge will be left in the open-to-navigation position. During the closure periods, the contractor will make every effort to minimize the delays to mariners as well as maintain the bridge in the open-to-navigation position at all times when that repair work is not being conducted. Marine traffic, when allowed to pass, should pass at the slowest safe speed. The deviation was requested for the purpose of conducting necessary repairs and maintenance, including metal structure and rivet repair.

Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tugs and recreational craft. The contractor has informed the waterway users of the upcomming delays. This deviation is similar to previous work schedules and no issues were noted.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies, and there is no immediate alternate route. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices 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.

New prices will be posted under Docket Number CP2016-9 on the Postal Regulatory Commission's Web site at http://www.prc.gov.

This final rule describes the international price and classification changes and the corresponding mailing standards changes for the following Competitive Services:

• Global Express Guaranteed® (GXG®).

• Priority Mail Express InternationalTM.

• Priority Mail International®.

• First-Class Package International ServiceTM.

• International Priority Airmail® (IPA®).

• International Surface Air Lift® (ISAL®).

• Direct Sacks of Printed Matter to One Addressee (Airmail M-bags).

• International Extra Services:

• Insurance.

• International Postal Money Orders.

• International Money Order Inquiry Fee.

• International Money Transfer Service.

New prices will be located on the Postal Explorer® Web site at http://pe.usps.com.

Global Express Guaranteed (GXG) is the Postal Service's premier international expedited product provided through an alliance with FedEx Express®. The price increase for GXG service averages 7.1 percent.

The Postal Service provides Commercial Base pricing to online customers who prepare and pay for GXG shipments via USPS-approved payment methods (with the exception of Click-N-Ship® service), with a 5 percent discount off the published retail prices for GXG. Customers who prepare GXG shipments via Click-N-Ship service will now pay retail prices.

The Postal Service continues to offer Commercial Plus pricing for large volume customers who commit to tendering $100,000 in annual postal revenue from GXG, Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International, and First-Class Package International Service via USPS-approved payment methods. The Postal Service will also continue to include GXG in customized Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS) contracts offered to customers who meet certain revenue thresholds and are willing to commit a larger amount of revenue in international postage.

Priority Mail Express International (PMEI) service provides fast service to approximately 180 countries. Priority Mail Express International with Money-Back Guarantee service is available for certain destinations. The price increase for Priority Mail Express International service averages 11.6 percent. The Commercial Base price for customers that prepare and pay for Priority Mail Express International shipments via permit imprint, online at USPS.com®, or as registered end-users using an authorized PC Postage vendor (with the exception of Click-N-Ship service) will be 5 percent below the retail price. Customers who prepare Priority Mail Express International shipments via Click-N-Ship service will now pay retail prices. The Postal Service continues to offer Priority Mail Express International Commercial Plus pricing to large volume customers who commit to tendering $100,000 in annual postal revenues from GXG, Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International, and First-Class Package International Service. The Postal Service will also continue to include Priority Mail Express International in customized Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS) contracts offered to customers who meet certain revenue thresholds and are willing to commit a larger amount of revenue in international postage.

We are discontinuing the Priority Mail Express International Flat Rate Box. Customers who present items at retail to be mailed in a Priority Mail Express International Flat Rate Box will pay the retail price based on the item's weight and price group.

Priority Mail Express International flat rate pricing continues to be available for Flat Rate Envelopes. New this year, the prices for what was formerly the “all other countries” rate group are being replaced with flat rate prices in seven rate groups, based on geographical regions.

Priority Mail International (PMI) is an economical way to send merchandise and documents to about 180 countries. The price increase for Priority Mail International service averages 10.2 percent. The Commercial Base price for customers that prepare and pay for PMI items via permit imprint, online at USPS.com, or as registered end-users using an authorized PC Postage vendor (with the exception of Click-N-Ship service) will be 5 percent below the retail price. Customers who prepare Priority Mail International shipments via Click-N-Ship service will now pay retail prices. The Postal Service continues to offer Priority Mail International Commercial Plus pricing to large volume customers who commit to tendering $100,000 in annual postal revenues from GXG, Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International, and First-Class Package International Service. The Postal Service will continue to include Priority Mail International in customized Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS) contracts offered to customers who meet certain revenue thresholds and are willing to commit to a larger amount of revenue to the USPS® for Priority Mail Express International and Priority Mail International.

Priority Mail International flat rate pricing continues to be available for Flat Rate Envelopes, Small Flat Rate Priced Boxes, and Medium and Large Flat Rate Boxes. New this year, the prices for what was formerly the “all other countries” rate group are being replaced with flat rate prices in seven rate groups, based on geographical regions.

In this filing, we are proposing a structural change in the way insurance is provided and reimbursed for Priority Mail International. Priority Mail International shipments containing merchandise (other than in Priority Mail International Small Flat Rate Priced Boxes and Flat Rate Envelopes) will now be insured against loss, damage, or missing contents up to $200 at no additional charge. Additional insurance coverage up to a maximum of $5,000 (depending on individual country insurance limits) may be purchased at the sender's option. Priority Mail International shipments containing nonnegotiable documents (other than in Priority Mail International Flat Rate Envelopes and Small Flat Rate Priced Boxes) will now be insured against loss, damage, or missing contents up to $100 for document reconstruction at no additional charge. The insurance coverage will be provided on all outbound Priority Mail International shipments accepted at retail or paid for by using postage validation imprinter (PVI) labels, postage meter imprints, USPS-approved PC Postage, Click-N-Ship service postage, or permit imprint.

Electronic USPS Delivery Confirmation International service — abbreviated E-USPS DELCON INTL—is an optional service available for Priority Mail International Flat Rate Envelopes (except for the Gift Card Flat Rate Envelope) and all Small Flat Rate Priced Boxes to select destination countries, for customers using select software or online tools, at no charge. We are adding E-USPS DELCON INTL service to four countries with this price change: Lebanon, Norway, Slovak Republic, and Turkey.

In the May 2015 price change, we created new price zones for Priority Mail International to Canada, based on the distance of the origin ZIP Code to the serving International Service Center (ISC). An ISC Zone Chart is now available for a subscription fee from the National Customer Support Center in Memphis, Tennessee, to support zone-based pricing for Priority Mail International to Canada. The chart will enable mailers to determine the applicable zone, based on the origin ZIP Code. Once the zone and weight of the item are known, the mailer will be able to determine the applicable postage price.

First-Class Package International Service (FCPIS) is an economical international service for small packages weighing less than 4 pounds and not exceeding $400 in value. The pricing structure for FCPIS will continue to be simpler than for some other international products, with identical prices for 0 to 8 ounces within each country price group, and identical prices for 9 to 32 ounces within each country price group. The price increase for FCPIS averages 21.6 percent. The Commercial Base price for customers that prepare and pay for FCPIS items via permit imprint or by USPS-approved online payment methods will be 5 percent below the retail price. Customers who prepare First-Class Package International Service shipments via Click-N-Ship service will now pay retail prices. Commercial Plus pricing will be available to large volume customers who commit to tendering $100,000 in annual postal revenue for GXG, Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International, and First-Class Package International Service.

Electronic USPS Delivery Confirmation International service—abbreviated E-USPS DELCON INTL—is an optional service available for First-Class Package International Service items to select destination countries, for customers using select software or online tools, at no charge. We are adding E-USPS DELCON INTL service to four countries with this price change: Lebanon, Norway, Slovak Republic, and Turkey.

Published prices for International Priority Airmail (IPA) and International Surface Air Lift (ISAL) will increase by 4.2 percent for IPA and 3.5 percent for IPA M-bags, as well as 6.3 percent for ISAL and 5.3 percent for ISAL M-bags. The structure of IPA and ISAL price categories will continue to be priced by the worldwide and 19 country price groups and applicable mail shapes (letters and postcards, large envelopes [flats], and packages [small packets and rolls]). These categories correspond to the Universal Postal Convention requirements to use shape-based pricing. For IPA and ISAL, the Postal Service offers incentive pricing through International Negotiated Service Agreements (NSAs).

International Priority Airmail (IPA) service, including IPA M-bags, is a bulk commercial service that provides business mailers with rapid and economical worldwide delivery for volume mailings of First-Class Mail International postcards, letters, large envelopes (flats), and FCPIS packages (small packets) weighing up to a maximum 4.4 pounds. IPA is dispatched to the destination country where it is entered into the postal administration's air or surface priority mail system for delivery. The overall price increase for IPA service averages 4.2 percent.

International Surface Air Lift (ISAL) service, including ISAL M-bags, is a bulk commercial service that provides economical worldwide delivery to business mailers of volume mailings of all First-Class Mail International postcards, letters, large envelopes (flats), and FCPIS packages (small packets) weighing up to 4.4 pounds. ISAL is dispatched to the destination country where it is then entered into the postal administration's surface nonpriority network for delivery. The overall price increase for ISAL service averages 6 percent.

Airmail M-bags are direct sacks of printed matter sent to a single foreign addressee at a single address. Prices are based on the weight of the sack. The price increase for Airmail M-bags averages 9.2 percent.

Depending on country destination and mail type, customers may add a variety of extra services to their outbound shipments. Prices for some of these extra services are increasing:

International Postal Money Orders will increase 5.6 percent.

International Money Order Inquiry Fee will increase 3.5 percent.

International Money Transfer Service will increase 3.3 to 3.7 percent, depending on the rate cell.

The Postal Service hereby adopts the following changes to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, International Mail Manual (IMM), which is incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 20.1.

Accordingly, 39 CFR part 20 is amended as follows:

We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 20 to reflect these changes.

This final rule describes new prices and product features for competitive products, by class of mail, established by the Governors of the United States Postal Service. New prices are available under Docket Number CP2016-9 on the Postal Regulatory Commission's (PRC) Web site at http://www.prc.gov, and also located on the Postal Explorer® Web site at http://pe.usps.com.

The Postal Service will revise the Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), to reflect changes to prices and mailing standards for the following competitive products:

• Priority Mail Express ®.

• Priority Mail ®.

• First-Class Package Service ®.

• Parcel Select ®.

• Standard Post TM.

• Extra Services.

• Return Services.

• Mailer Services.

• Recipient Services.

Competitive product prices and changes are identified by product as follows:

Overall, Priority Mail Express prices will increase 15.6 percent. Priority Mail Express will continue to offer zoned Retail, Commercial BaseTM, and Commercial PlusTM pricing tiers.

Retail prices will increase an average of 14.4 percent. The price for the Retail Flat Rate Envelope, Legal Flat Rate Envelope, and Padded Flat Rate Envelope will increase to $22.95.

Commercial Base prices offer lower prices to customers who use authorized postage payment methods. Commercial Base prices will increase an average of 17.7 percent. Commercial Base pricing offers an average 10.0 percent discount off retail prices.

The Commercial Plus price category offers price incentives to large volume customers. Commercial Plus prices will increase an average of 48.2 percent. The Postal Service is proposing this increase to match Commercial Plus prices with Commercial Base prices as part of a pricing strategy with the long-term goal of eliminating the Commercial Plus price category to reflect the industry standard of publishing only one set of commercial price tables. Commercial Plus customers may be transitioned to Negotiated Service Agreements (NSAs) for additional discounts.

The Postal Service will discontinue the use of Priority Mail Express Flat Rate Boxes as a product offering. As of January 17, 2016, Priority Mail Express Flat Boxes will be charged the applicable Priority Mail Express price based on weight and zone.

Overall, Priority Mail prices will increase 9.8 percent. Priority Mail will continue to offer zoned Retail, Commercial Base, and Commercial Plus pricing tiers.

Retail prices will increase an average of 8.6 percent. The Flat Rate Envelope price will increase to $6.45, the Legal Flat Rate Envelope will also increase to $6.45, and the Padded Flat Rate Envelope will increase to $6.80. The Small Flat Rate Box price will increase to $6.80 and the Medium Flat Rate Boxes will increase to $13.45. The Large Flat Rate Box will increase to $18.75 and the Large APO/FPO/DPO Flat Rate Box will increase to $16.75.

Commercial Base prices offer lower prices to customers who use authorized postage payment methods. Commercial Base prices will increase an average of 9.4 percent. Commercial Base pricing offers an average 13.9 percent discount off retail prices.

The Commercial Plus price category offers price incentives to large volume customers. Commercial Plus prices will increase an average of 13.3 percent. The Postal Service is proposing this increase to bring Commercial Plus prices within three percent of Commercial Base prices as part of a pricing strategy with the long-term goal of eliminating the Commercial Plus price category to reflect the industry standard of publishing only one set of commercial price tables. Commercial Plus customers may be transitioned to Negotiated Service Agreements (NSAs) for additional discounts.

The Postal Service will discontinue the Critical Mail (Critical Mail and Critical Mail with Signature) product offering. As of January 17, 2016, Critical Mail letters and flats will be charged the Commercial Plus Flat Rate Envelope price. Critical Mail with signature letters and flats will be charged the Commercial Plus Flat Rate Envelope price and Signature Confirmation TM customer generated electronic label fee.

The Postal Service will implement a two-tier zone surcharge for Regional Rate Boxes A and B paid at retail. Zones 1-4 will have a $2.25 surcharge and Zones 5-9 will have a $1.00 surcharge.

Additionally, the Postal Service will discontinue the Priority Mail Regional Rate Box ® C to simplify this product offering. As of January 17, 2016, a Regional Rate Box C will be charged the applicable Priority Mail price based on weight and zone.

Overall, First-Class Package Service prices will increase 12.8 percent. The Intelligent Mail ® package barcode (IMpb) will continue to provide free USPS tracking and confirmation of delivery with these parcels.

The Postal Service will discontinue First-Class Package Service Commercial Plus pricing and restructure First-Class Package Service commercial parcel prices to simplify this product offering. First-Class Package Service commercial parcels will only be a single-piece product with prices starting at 1 ounce up to less than 16 ounces. First-Class Package Service commercial parcels will not be sealed against inspection.

Parcel Select Destination Entry prices will increase an average of 4.9 percent and Parcel Select Ground (formerly Parcel Select Nonpresort) prices will increase an average of 1.9 percent. The prices for Parcel Select Lightweight® (PSLW) will increase an average of 23.5 percent.

The IMpb will continue to provide free USPS tracking and confirmation of delivery with all Parcel Select parcels.

The Postal Service will rename Parcel Select Nonpresort as Parcel Select Ground. No changes to the product features or mailing standards are being made as a result of this change.

The Postal Service will discontinue the Parcel Select ONDC and NDC price categories to simplify product offerings. As of January 17, 2016, parcels entered at Parcel Select ONDC and NDC prices will be charged the applicable Parcel Select Ground prices.

The Postal Service will consolidate the Parcel Select Lightweight Machinable and Irregular price tables to simplify this product offering. The new price table, similar to the existing Irregular price table, will be titled “Parcel Select Lightweight-Commercial Parcels” and will have 5-Digit, SCF, NDC, and Mixed NDC/Single Piece price levels. The weight increments will start at 1 ounce and include pieces up to less than 16 ounces. Mail preparation will remain the same for machinable and irregular presorted parcels, and will be subject to the applicable price levels based on sortation.

Overall, Standard Post prices will increase an average of 10.0 percent.

The Postal Service will rename Standard Post as Retail Ground. No changes to the product features or mailing standards are being made as a result of this change.

Adult Signature Required and Adult Signature Restricted Delivery service prices are increasing 3.6 and 3.5 percent respectively. The price for Adult Signature Required will increase to $5.70 and Adult Signature Restricted Delivery will increase to $5.95.

Overall, Parcel Return Service (PRS) prices will increase an average of 5.0 percent.

Return Sectional Center Facility (RSCF) prices will increase an average of 5.0 percent and Return Delivery Unit (RDU) prices will increase an average of 5.0 percent.

The Parcel Return Service annual permit fee and annual account maintenance fee will not change at this time.

The Postal Service will discontinue the RNDC price option to simplify this product offering. As of January 17, 2016, parcels entered at RNDC prices will be charged the applicable Parcel Select Ground price.

The Postal Service is introducing a reduced Additional Service Fee for Parcel Select shippers who use IMpbTM ACSTM with Shipper Paid Forward/Return, when those packages are forwarded or returned. The Postal Service will charge the ACS & Shipper Paid Forward/Return Additional Service Fee of $1.50 to Parcel Select shippers when their UAA parcels have been processed using IMpb ACS with Shipper Paid Forward/Return. With certain ACS Shipper Paid ancillary services, the forwarding or return postage and ACS & Shipper Paid Forward/Return additional service fee for UAA Parcel Select may be invoiced through the ACS billing process.

Premium Forwarding Service® (PFS®) prices will increase an average of 3.6 percent. The enrollment fee paid at the retail counter will increase to $18.65 and the residential and commercial enrollment fee paid online will increase to $17.10 per application. The price of the weekly reshipment charge will increase to $18.65.

The USPS Package InterceptTM fee will increase 3.3 percent to $12.55.

The Pickup on Demand® service daily fee will remain at $20.00 for January 17, 2016.

The competitive Post Office BoxTM service prices will increase an average of 3.5 percent within the modified price ranges.

The Postal Service is restructuring Click-N-Ship® to offer only retail prices. Click-N-Ship will no longer be an authorized payment method for Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Commercial Base pricing.

The Postal Service provides additional resources to assist customers with this price change for competitive products. These tools include price lists, downloadable price files, and Federal Register Notices, which may be found on the Postal Explorer® Web site at pe.usps.com.

The Postal Service adopts the following changes to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1.

Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is amended as follows:

We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes.

The EPA is approving a request from the State of New York that EPA withdraw its approval of an affirmative defense provision in New York State's sewage sludge incineration (SSI) plan, based on a letter submitted by New York on January 27, 2015. New York State submitted the State SSI plan for EPA approval on July 1, 2013 to fulfill the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA approved the proposed State SSI plan on June 11, 2014 (79 FR 33456). The State SSI plan adopts and implements the emission guidelines (EG) set forth at Title 40 part 60 subpart MMMM of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and is applicable to existing SSI units and establishes air emission limits and other requirements. Existing SSI units are units constructed on or before October 14, 2010.

New York State requested that the EPA withdraw its approval of a provision in the State SSI plan that allows for an affirmative defense by an owner/operator of an affected SSI unit for violations of air emissions or other requirements of the State's plan in the event of malfunction(s) of the SSI unit. The EPA's withdrawal of its prior approval, once finalized and effective, results in the removal of the affirmative defense provision from the federally-enforceable State SSI plan while maintaining the federal enforceability of the remainder of the State SSI plan for covered SSI units located in New York State.

New York's State SSI plan adopted by reference all the applicable requirements of the EPA's SSI EG, including the affirmative defense provisions at § 60.5181, into its State plan at Part 200 of Title 6 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (6NYCRR) of the State of New York, entitled “General Provisions.”

For further details concerning today's action, the reader is referred to the EPA's proposed rule published in the Federal Register on August 24, 2015 (80 FR 51170).

There were no comments received on EPA's proposed rulemaking (80 FR 51170, August 24, 2015) regarding the EPA's withdrawal of its prior approval of the affirmative defense provision in New York State's SSI plan. The 30-day public comment period on EPA's proposed approval ended on September 23, 2015.

The EPA has evaluated New York's January 27, 2015 request for consistency with the CAA, as well as the EPA's regulations and policy. Therefore, the EPA is approving to withdraw its approval of the affirmative defense provision of New York's State SSI plan, which the EPA approved on June 11, 2014 (79 FR 33456) as part of New York's sections 111(d) and 129 State SSI plan for existing sewage sludge incineration units. No other provisions in the New York State SSI plan is affected by this approval.

The EPA has determined that New York State's SSI plan will continue to meet all the applicable approval criteria if EPA withdraws its approval of the affirmative defense provision. First, the removal of the affirmative defense provision is consistent with the DC Circuit's decision in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Environmental Protection Agency, 749 F3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. April 18, 2014), as described in the EPA's proposed rulemaking (80 FR 51170, August 24, 2015). Second, a state plan must be at least as protective as the emissions guidelines promulgated by the EPA, and the removal of the affirmative defense provision from the approved state plan does not render the plan less protective, as it removes a potential defense to a violation resulting from a malfunction.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a 111(d)/129 plan submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 40 CFR 62.04. Thus, in reviewing 111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 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).

The 111(d)/129 plan is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian Nation Land, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65FR67249, November 9, 2000).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 28, 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. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows:

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: