Federal Register Vol. 80, No.217,

Background

This final rule adopts the joint interim final rule that was published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2014 (available at 79 FR 75871).1 The joint interim final rule implemented for all Federal award-making agencies the final guidance Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on December 26, 2013 in 2 CFR part 200 (Uniform Guidance—available at 78 FR 78589). The Uniform Guidance followed on a Notice of Proposed Guidance issued February 1, 2013 (available at 78 FR 7282), and an Advanced Notice of Proposed Guidance issued February 28, 2012 (available at 77 FR 11778). The final guidance incorporated feedback received from the public in response to those earlier issuances. Additional supporting resources are available from the Council on Financial Assistance Reform at www.cfo.gov/COFAR.

The Uniform Guidance delivered on two presidential directives; Executive Order 13520 on Reducing Improper Payments (74 FR 62201; November 15, 20019), and February 28, 2011 Presidential Memorandum on Administrative Flexibility, Lower Costs, and Better Results for State, Local, and Tribal Governments, (Daily Comp. Pres. Docs.; http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/DCPD-201100123/pdf/DCPD-201100123.pdf). It reflected more than two years of work by the Council on Financial Assistance Reform to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Federal financial assistance. For a detailed discussion of the reform and its impacts, please see the Federal Register notice for the issuance of the final guidance (78 FR 78589).

With this final rule, we are adopting OMB's uniform guidance to make technical corrections where needed into our chapter of title 2 of the CFR. With respect to the technical corrections that OMB is issuing, these corrections are included only where it has come to the attention of the COFAR that particular language in the final guidance did not match with the COFAR's intent and would result in an erroneous implementation of the guidance. These technical corrections were detailed in the interim final rule published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2014 (available at 79 FR 75871).

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 as supplements by Executive Order 13563, OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has designated this joint interim final rule to be not significant.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency that is issuing a final rule to provide a final regulatory flexibility analysis or to certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The common interim final rule implemented OMB final guidance issued on December 26, 2013, and will not have a significant economic impact beyond the impact of the December 2013 guidance.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Ch. 3506; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1) (PRA), each agency reviewed its final rule and determined that there are no new collections of information contained therein. However, the OMB uniform guidance in 2 CFR 200 may have a negligible effect on burden estimates for existing information collections, including recordkeeping requirements for non-Federal entities that receive Federal awards.

OMB offered the public two opportunities to comment on the Uniform Guidance, first through an advanced notice of proposed guidance and, second, through a notice of proposed guidance. OMB considered over 300 comments submitted in response to each of these notices. OMB has directed agencies to adopt the uniform guidance in part 200 without change, except to the extent that an agency can demonstrate that any conflicting agency requirements are required by statute or regulations, or consistent with longstanding practice and approved by OMB. Finally, OMB made clear that the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, including the audit requirements in subpart F, will apply, starting on December 26, 2014, which gave recipients of all types of financial assistance advance notice of when the regulations would become effective. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause for waiving proposed rulemaking as unnecessary.

Generally, those agencies that are subject to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) are required to delay the effective date of their final regulations by 30 days after publication, as required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), unless an exception under subsection (d) applies.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), these agencies may waive the delayed effective date requirement if they find good cause and explain the basis for the waiver in the final rulemaking document or if the regulations grant or recognize an exemption or relieve a restriction. In the present case, there is good cause to waive the delayed effective date for two reasons.

First, OMB informed the public on December 26, 2013, that agencies would be required to adopt the Uniform Guidance and make it effective by December 26, 2014. The public has had significant time to prepare for the promulgation of these interim final regulations.

Second, while these interim final regulations are based on a new, more effective method for establishing government-wide requirements, the substance of the regulations are, in most cases, virtually identical to the requirements that exist in current agency regulations. In virtually all cases where the new regulations depart from prior OMB guidance to agencies, the new regulations reduce burdens on the public, for example, by increasing the threshold for single audits from $500,000 to $750,000.

Based on these considerations, since we are subject to the APA, we have determined that there is good cause to waive the delayed effective date for this final rule.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act) (2 U.S.C. 1532) requires that covered agencies prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act also requires covered agencies to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule. OMB has determined that the joint interim final rule will not result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Accordingly, we have not prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the regulatory alternatives considered.

OMB determined that the joint interim final rule did not have any Federalism implications, as required by Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we are adopting the interim final rule, which was published on December 19, 2014 (available at 79 FR 75871) that amended 2 CFR chapter XXIII and, under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, removed and reserved parts 435 and 437 of title 20, chapter III of the Code of Federal Regulations as a final rule without any further changes.

I. Introduction

In 2006, when DOE promulgated 10 CFR part 851, “Worker Safety and Health Program,” it adopted the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) for beryllium in 29 CFR 1910.1000, “Air Contaminants.” Section 851.23(a)(1) of part 851 also requires DOE contractors to comply with the requirements in 10 CFR part 850, “Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program.”

OSHA has published in the Federal Register a notice that proposes a new comprehensive health standard for beryllium in 29 CFR part 1910, “Subpart Z Toxic and Hazardous Substances,” which will include a new PEL and ancillary provisions. Currently, OSHA only regulates beryllium through a PEL. DOE's regulation “Worker Safety and Health Program” at 10 CFR 851.23(a)(3) requires DOE contractors among other things to comply with OSHA's PEL for beryllium. To date, OSHA has not established any ancillary requirements for the regulation of beryllium exposure. Consequently, there are currently no conflicts between the requirement in 10 CFR part 851 to comply with OSHA's regulation, including OSHA's PEL, and the remaining requirements of 10 CFR parts 850 and 851. However, should OSHA adopt a comprehensive standard for beryllium, as OSHA recently proposed in the Federal Register, there may be confusion among DOE and DOE contractors regarding which standard would apply at DOE sites. The technical amendment clarifies that it is DOE's intent to only apply OSHA's PEL for beryllium, and that DOE and DOE contractors would not be subject to any other beryllium-specific OSHA requirements, including the ancillary provisions OSHA has recently proposed to add to its health standard (e.g., exposure assessment, personal protective clothing and equipment, medical surveillance, medical removal, training, and regulated areas or access control). The Department expects its employees, including contractors to continue to implement the provisions of 10 CFR part 850 at DOE sites.

The Department is also making technical amendments to 10 CFR part 851, Appendix A, Section 7, “Biological Safety,” to avoid confusion within the DOE community regarding the correct terminology, the identity of the agency responsible for biohazards, and the correct forms to use for select agents.

This final rule has been approved by the Secretary of Energy.

This regulatory action has been determined not to be “a significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under that Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies to ensure that the potential impacts of its draft rules on small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process (68 FR 7990, February 19, 2003), and has made them available on the Office of General Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.

The regulatory amendments in this notice of final rulemaking reflect technical amendments, and clarify DOE's intent to continue to only apply OSHA's PEL for beryllium, and to not apply to DOE and DOE contractors any other beryllium-specific OSHA requirements that may be promulgated in the future. Rights and obligations under 10 CFR part 851 are unaltered and as such, are not subject to the requirement for a general notice of proposed rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)) (APA). There is no requirement under the APA or any other law that this rule be proposed for public comment. Consequently, this rulemaking is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This final rule does not impose a collection of information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

DOE has concluded that promulgation of this rule falls into a class of actions that would not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the human environment, as determined by DOE's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Specifically, this rule amends existing regulations without changing the environmental effect of the regulations being amended, and, therefore, is covered under the Categorical Exclusion in paragraph A5 of Appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations (65 FR 13735). DOE has examined this rule and has determined that it does not preempt State law and does 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. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, to be given to the regulation; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, to be given to the regulation; (5) defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of a Federal regulatory action on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. DOE has determined that this regulatory action does not impose a Federal mandate on State, local or tribal governments or on the private sector.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the OIRA, which is part of OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (2) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. This regulatory action is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

An agency may find good cause to exempt a rule from the requirement for a notice of proposed rulemaking and the opportunity for public comment under the APA if the requirement is determined to be unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the public interest under 5 U.S.C. 533(b)(3)(B). The rule clarifies references in 10 CFR part 851 concerning its adoption of provisions found in 29 CFR part 1910, and updates references to organizations and documents. The first change in this rule is to add “Occupational Safety and Health Administration beryllium requirements except for any permissible exposure limit for beryllium in 29 CFR 1910.1000” to the list of exclusions from 10 CFR part 851, found in 10 CFR 851.2. The second change in this rule is the addition of the words “and 29 CFR 1910.1000, Beryllium” at the end of 10 CFR 851.23(a)(3). Safety and Health requirements relating to DOE and DOE contractors' employees' exposure to beryllium are and will continue to be covered by 10 CFR part 850, “Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program.” The updates of referenced organizations and documents in 10 CFR part 851, Appendix A, Section 7 are strictly technical amendments. Consequently, good cause exists for issuing this amendment as a final rule as notice and comment is unnecessary.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to Congress a report regarding the issuance of this final rule prior to the effective date set forth at the outset of this rulemaking. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 801(2).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Energy amends part 851 of chapter III of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected airplane.

In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

On July 5, 2009, The Boeing Company applied for a change to type certificate no. T00021SE for structure-mounted airbags in the Model 787-9 airplane. The Model 787-9 airplane, which is a derivative of the Model 787 series currently approved under type certificate no. T00021SE, has a maximum passenger capacity of 420 passengers and a maximum takeoff weight of 557,000 lbs.

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, The Boeing Company must show that the 787-9, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations reference listed in type certificate no. T00021SE or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

The certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections of the applicable part that are not relevant to these special conditions.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model 787-9 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model 787-9 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

The Model 787-9 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: Airbags mounted to structure to prevent head injury.

Boeing proposes to install structure-mounted airbags instead of inflatable lap belts as a means to protect each occupant from serious injury in the event of an emergency landing, as required by § 25.562(c)(5), on 787-9 airplanes equipped with B/E Aerospace Super-Diamond Model business-class passenger seats.

Such use of airbags to provide injury protection for the occupant is a novel or unusual feature for this airplane model, and the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate airworthiness standards for these design features. Therefore, special conditions are needed to address requirements particular to installation of airbags in this manner.

Special conditions exist for airbags installed on seat belts, known as inflatable lap belts, which have been installed on Boeing passenger seats. Structure-mounted airbags, although a novel design, were first introduced on Jetstream Aircraft Limited Model 4100 series airplanes, which resulted in issuance of Special Conditions 25-ANM-127 on May 14, 1997. These special conditions supplemented 14 CFR part 25 and, more specifically, §§ 25.562 and 25.785.

The structure-mounted airbag, similar to the inflatable lap belt, is designed to limit occupant forward excursion in the event of an emergency landing. These airbags will reduce the potential for serious injury, including reducing the head injury criterion (HIC) measurement defined in part 25. However, structure-mounted airbags function similarly as automotive airbags, where the airbag deploys from the furniture that is in front of the passenger, relative to the airplane's direction of flight, forming a barrier between the structure and occupant. Also, unlike the inflatable lap belt, the structure-mounted airbag does not move with the occupant. To account for out-of-position and brace-position occupants, the airbag is designed to conform to the curvature of the exposed structure in the head-strike zone.

Because the airbag system is essentially a single-use device, it could deploy under crash conditions that are not sufficiently so severe as to require the injury protection the airbag system provides. Because an actual crash is frequently composed of a series of impacts before the airplane comes to rest, a larger impact following the initial impact could render the airbag system unavailable. This potential situation does not exist with standard upper-torso restraints, which tend to provide continuous protection regardless of impact severity, or number of impacts, in a crash event. Therefore, the airbag-system installation should be such that it provides protection, when it is required, by not expending its protection when it is not required. If the airbag deployment threshold is unnecessarily low, the airbag would need to continue to provide protection when an impact requiring protection occurs.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Boeing Model 787-9 airplane. Should The Boeing Company apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model series of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

Under standard practice, the effective date of final special conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register; however, as the certification date for the Boeing Model 787-9 airplane is imminent, the FAA finds that good cause exists to make these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to add an AD that would apply to certain Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2015 (80 FR 51966), and proposed to supersede AD 2014-20-13, Amendment 39-17986 (79 FR 60329, October 7, 2014).

Since we issued AD 2014-20-13, Amendment 39-17986 (79 FR 60329, October 7, 2014), Pacific Aerospace Limited has revised the related service information and developed a terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the aviation authority for New Zealand, has issued AD DCA/750XL/18A, dated August 4, 2015 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-3620-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 51966, August 27, 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 the 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 51966, August 27, 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 51966, August 27, 2015).

We reviewed Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/068, Issue 5, dated June 29, 2015. The service bulletin describes procedures for reducing the torque setting for the fin forward pickup bolt. The service bulletin also introduces a new, improved replacement fin forward pickup plate, part number (P/N) 11-0375-1, to replace P/N 11-10281-1. 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 will affect 18 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 22 work-hours per product to comply with all the requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $1,692 per product.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $64,116, or $3,562 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 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 by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3620; 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 the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

On April 22, 2015, at 80 FR 22436, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Sikorsky Model 269A, 269A-1, 269B, 269C, 269C-1, 269D, and TH-55A helicopters. The NPRM proposed to require, within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS), a one-time inspection and lubrication of the T/R driveshaft splined fittings and replacing a splined fitting and the T/R driveshaft if the fitting has excessive wear. If the helicopter has a T/R driveshaft grease fitting installed, the NPRM also proposed to require inspecting each grease fitting for certain conditions and replacing the grease fitting if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to require, at intervals not exceeding 100 hours TIS, inspecting the T/R driveshaft for straightness, twists, and scratches; inspecting each forward and aft T/R driveshaft splines for wear; and correcting the torque of each main transmission aft pinion nut. The proposed requirements were prompted by a report of excessive spline wear on the forward and aft T/R driveshaft spined fittings. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent failure of the T/R driveshaft and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Since the NPRM was issued, the FAA Southwest Regional Office has relocated. We have revised the contact information throughout this Final Rule to reflect the new address.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (80 FR 22436, April 22, 2015).

We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

We reviewed Sikorsky 269 Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) B-299.1 for Model 269A, 269A-1, 269B, 269C, and TH-55A helicopters; 269C-1 ASB C1B-036.1 for Model 269C-1 helicopters; and 269D ASB DB-041.1 for Model 269D helicopters, each Revision 1 and dated February 24, 2012. Each ASB describes procedures for cleaning, inspecting, and lubricating the forward and aft T/R driveshaft splined fittings and returning to Sikorsky any parts that exceed wear limits. Each ASB also requires implementing a 100-hour TIS recurring inspection of the T/R driveshaft, coupling and internal stop, coupling drive splines, and the pinion nut by following the procedures in each model helicopter's Handbook of Maintenance Instructions. 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.

The Sikorsky ASBs require returning any splined fittings that exceed wear limits to Sikorsky, while this AD requires replacing those fittings and the T/R driveshaft.

We estimate that this AD will affect 1,085 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, inspecting and lubricating the T/R driveshaft splined fittings requires 1.8 hours, for a cost per helicopter of $153 and a total cost of $166,005 for the fleet. Inspecting the grease fittings requires 0.25 hour, for a cost of $21 per helicopter and a total cost of $22,785 for the fleet. Inspecting the driveshaft, fittings, internal stops, and drive spines requires 1.8 hours, for a cost per helicopter of $153 and a total cost of $166,005 for the fleet, per inspection cycle.

If required, replacing the T/R driving spline and driveshaft requires 1.6 work-hours, and required parts will cost about $14,853, for a cost per helicopter of $14,989.

If required, replacing a T/R driven spline and driveshaft requires 1.5 work-hours, and required parts will cost about $14,836, for a cost per helicopter of $14,964.

If required, replacing a grease fitting requires about 0.25 work-hour, and required parts will cost about $5, for a cost per helicopter of $26.

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 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:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A318 series airplanes, Model A319 series airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 22, 2014 (79 FR 49724). The NPRM was prompted by a report of skin disbonding on a composite side shell panel of a rudder. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection to determine if any rudder composite side shell panel has been repaired, a thermography inspection of each rudder that has received this repair, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct skin disbonding on the rudder, which could affect the structural integrity of the rudder, possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0302, dated December 19, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

The related investigative actions include elasticity laminate checker (ELCH) inspections, ultrasonic testing (UT) inspections, pulse thermography inspections, and tap test or woodpecker inspections. The repetitive inspections include ELCH inspections, UT inspections, pulse thermography inspections, and detailed inspections (certain repetitive inspections are required if hole restoration is done; certain other repetitive inspections are options for certain corrective actions). The corrective actions include core venting through the inner skin, replacements, restorations, and repairs.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0574-0007.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 49724, August 22, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Delta Air Lines Inc. (DAL) requested that we change the compliance time in the NPRM (79 FR 49724, August 22, 2014) from 24 months to at least 42 months. DAL stated that the 24-month compliance time for accomplishing rudder inspections will be overly burdensome to operators of large fleets. DAL explained that it has 128 affected units, and if two full-time technicians were assigned for the inspection and rework, it would take over 7 years to accomplish the inspections. DAL added that a 42-month compliance time would allow proper planning, inspection, and rework of affected rudders and suggested that intervisual inspections could be used to support this compliance time extension.

We disagree with the commenter's request. The compliance time is based on a risk assessment. Some safety issues are more time-sensitive than others. We have considered the compliance time established by the EASA (the State of Design authority), and the overall risk to the fleet, including the severity of the identified unsafe condition and the likelihood of the occurrence of the unsafe condition, to determine the compliance time. However, under the provisions of paragraph (p)(1) of this AD, operators may apply for an extension of the compliance time by providing rationale explaining why a compliance time extension provides an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

United Airlines (UAL) and Airbus requested that we revise the NPRM (79 FR 49724, August 22, 2014) to reference Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2014, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required actions. Airbus also requested we allow credit for work accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, dated November 26, 2012.

Airbus also requested we to revise paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (79 FR 49724, August 22, 2014) to allow local sanding as an alternative to pulse thermography inspections for determining type, location, and size of repair, as described in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2014. Airbus also requested we allow credit for work accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, dated November 26, 2012.

We partially agree with the commenters' requests. We agree to reference Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2014, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required actions. We have changed paragraphs (h), (i)(2), (j), (j)(1), (j)(2), (k), (l)(1), (l)(2), and (n) of this AD accordingly. We also agree to provide credit for work accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, dated November 26, 2012. We have added new paragraph (o) to this AD to provide this credit, and redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

However, we disagree with Airbus's request to revise paragraph (h) of this AD to allow local sanding as an alternative to pulse thermography inspections for determining type, location, and size of repair. Based on Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2014, local sanding is an alternative to pulse thermography inspections only in certain specific cases, and it is possible that pulse thermography inspections would be required after the local sanding. However, operators may apply for approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the provisions specified in paragraph (p)(1) of this AD, and must identify clearly the conditions for using local sanding in lieu of pulse thermography inspections.

UAL requested we remove paragraph (n) of the proposed AD (79 FR 49724, August 22, 2014), which prohibits repair in accordance with certain SRM procedures. UAL stated it is unnecessary to prohibit repair per these procedures since the procedures have been deactivated by Airbus.

We disagree with the commenter's request. Deactivation of SRM procedures by the manufacturer cannot ensure prevention of all operators from using the SRM procedures if they have not kept their manual current. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

UAL and DAL requested that we revise the estimated cost. The commenters stated that the NPRM (79 FR 49724, August 22, 2014) understates the required costs and does not provided on-condition cost estimates. UAL and DAL provided some examples of costs incurred for previous repairs.

We disagree with the commenters' request. We indicated in the NPRM (79 FR 49724, August 22, 2014) that we do not have information about the costs associated with the on-condition actions to mitigate the risk addressed in the NPRM. The on-condition costs can vary for each operator, depending upon inspection findings. Therefore, we have not provided on-condition cost estimates; instead, we provided our best estimate for the inspection costs based on the information received from the airframe manufacturer. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

UAL and DAL requested that we remove paragraph (i)(1) of the proposed AD (79 FR 49724, August 22, 2014), which proposed to require sending to Airbus the records for each rudder and serial number of each rudder for which maintenance records are incomplete or unavailable.

Mr. Amaar Chaudhary requested we revise paragraph (i)(1) of the proposed AD (79 FR 49724, August 22, 2014) to require sending only the rudder serial number to Airbus. However, UAL stated that providing such rudder records is not reasonable because the records are embedded within various paper forms in separate archived collections spanning the airplane life of up to 19 years, and are not in a recoverable electronic format. UAL and DAL also explained that it is possible operators have not retained records for permanent rudder repairs earlier than the previous airplane overhaul per section 121.380 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.380).

We agree with the commenters' statements that paragraph (i)(1) of this AD should not require sending rudder repair records to Airbus. However, we disagree with the requests to not require submission of serial numbers of rudders without maintenance records to Airbus. Operators must report the rudders without maintenance records by serial number to Airbus to obtain related rudder manufacturing rework data. We have revised paragraph (i)(1) of this AD to specify sending to Airbus the serial number of each rudder for which maintenance records are not available or are incomplete.

DAL requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (79 FR 49724, August 22, 2014) to remove the requirement to inspect repair records, but instead to require directly complying with the pulse thermography inspection proposed by paragraph (i) of the proposed AD.

We disagree with the commenter's request. Paragraph (g) of this AD establishes the requirements for paragraph (h) and (i) of this AD. An operator is required to inspect airplane maintenance records to determine if it needs to comply with paragraph (h) or (i) of this AD. In addition, the required reporting specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD will help determine the extent of the undocumented repairs in the affected fleet. Based on the results of these reports, we might determine that further corrective action is warranted. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

DAL requested that we require a part number change for post-inspection rudders to aid in configuration and AD compliance control, and remove the parts installation limitation in paragraph (m) of the proposed AD (79 FR 49724, August 22, 2014). DAL stated that, to prevent an unnecessary airplane out of service condition in the event a rudder change is required, allowing pre- and post-inspection rudders to be installed throughout the full compliance time would provide the same level of safety.

We disagree with the commenter's requests. Configuration control can be achieved by multiple methods and is unique to each operator's method of managing its fleet. Therefore, we have not been prescriptive regarding methods for configuration control. We also disagree to omit paragraph (m) of this AD (Parts Installation Limitation). The intent of the paragraph (m) of this AD is to ensure that, from the effective date of this AD, rudders with a known unsafe condition are not installed unless the corrective actions of paragraph (j) of this AD are completed. This clarification has been coordinated with the EASA. The compliance time is established based on overall risk to the fleet, including the severity of the failure and the likelihood of the failure's occurrence, fleet utilization, and availability of service information and parts. Therefore, the parts installation limitation should not be related to the compliance time associated with mitigating the unsafe condition. We have revised paragraph (m) of this AD to prevent, as of the effective date of this AD, installing a rudder with a known unsafe condition by specifying that the inspection requirements of paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD must be done and the applicable corrective actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD must be done, except for rudders that meet the requirements of paragraph (k) of this AD.

DAL, Thermal Wave Imaging, and Snell Group requested the use of alternate equipment for performing the pulse thermography inspection required in the NPRM (79 FR 49724, August 22, 2014). DAL stated that, at a recent Airlines for America non-destructive test (NDT) forum, evidence was presented supporting use of alternate equipment for performing pulse thermography inspections. DAL, Thermal Wave Imaging, and Snell Group explained that Airbus prohibits the use of alternate equipment other than what is recommended in the “NTM task 55-40-50-290-801-A-01.”

Thermal Wave Imaging stated that since Airbus is both the manufacturer of the airplane and the vendor of the inspection equipment, it appears that the non-allowance of equivalent equipment is a business decision intended to increase its revenue and lock out other companies from not only this inspection, but future thermography inspections that may be developed. Thermal Wave Imaging and Snell Group provided a comparison of the Airbus recommended Gecko System equipment with VoyageIR Pro equipment for performing the pulse thermography inspection.

We disagree with the commenters' request. The commenters did not provide any substantiation to support the use of alternate inspection equipment other than the equipment recommended by Airbus. We were informed by Airbus that they have recommended the use of specific equipment after evaluating its performance, which will facilitate mitigating the risks associated with the identified unsafe condition. However, we will consider requests for approval of an AMOC for the use of alternate inspection equipment in accordance with the provision in paragraph (p)(1) of this AD if sufficient data is submitted to substantiate that the results from the alternate inspection equipment are conclusive to facilitate mitigating the risks associated with the identified unsafe condition. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

DAL requested that future revisions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041 be considered as approved under EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA) for accomplishing the required AD actions.

We disagree with the commenter's request. Approval authority under EASA DOA, as stated in paragraph (p)(2) of this AD, is only applicable to requirements in this AD to obtain corrective actions from the manufacturer and does not apply to approval of future service information. When referring to a specific service bulletin in an AD, using the phrase, “or later approved revisions,” violates Office of the Federal Register regulations for approving materials that are incorporated by reference. However, affected operators may request approval to use a later revision of the referenced service bulletin as an alternative method of compliance, under the provisions of paragraph (p)(1) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

As stated previously, we have revised this final rule to reference Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2014, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required actions. This service bulletin revision contains certain actions that are specified as Required for Compliance (RC).

The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for annotating which procedures and tests in the service information are required for compliance with an AD. Differentiating these procedures and tests from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. The procedures and tests identified as RC in any service information have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an identified unsafe condition.

As specified in a NOTE under the Accomplishment Instructions of the specified service information, procedures and tests that are identified as RC in any service information must be done to comply with the AD. However, procedures and tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC will require approval of an AMOC.

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 49724, August 22, 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 49724, August 22, 2014).

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

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2014. The service information describes procedures for inspection of the rudders for potential damage, and repair. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

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

We also estimate that it would take about 42 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $3,038,070, or $3,570 per product.

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

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

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-2014-0574; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart i, Section 40103, sovereignty and use of airspace, and Subpart iii, Section 44701, general requirements. Under these sections, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to regulate the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace; to govern the flight, navigation, protection, and identification of aircraft for the protection of persons and property on the ground, and for the efficient use of the navigable airspace (49 U.S.C. 40103(b)), and to promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security (49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5)). This action is within the scope of that authority.

SIAPs are promulgated by rulemaking procedures and are incorporated by reference pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 into Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations; Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), Subpart C—TERPS Procedures.

On June 27, 2014, the FAA published criteria for determining whether to retain existing SIAPs (79 FR 36576). Removing identified ground-based NDB and VOR SIAPs is an integral part of right-sizing the quantity and type of procedures in the National Airspace System (NAS). As new technology facilitates the introduction of area navigation (RNAV) instrument approach procedures, the number of procedures available in the NAS has nearly doubled over the past decade. The complexity and cost of maintaining the existing ground based navigational infrastructure while expanding RNAV capability is not sustainable.

On April 13, 2015, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to remove certain SIAPs (80 FR 19577). The NPRM included a list of 736 procedures that were identified for cancellation and the comment period closed on May 28, 2015.

The following 13 SIAPs were proposed for cancellation in the NPRM. In reviewing the procedures and comments, the FAA realized that these 13 procedures were already being processed for cancellation and were at various stages. Additionally, the navigation facilities supporting a number of these procedures were either decommissioned or at various stages of that process. The inclusion of these procedures in the NPRM was in error, in that these procedures were already subject to prior agency commitments. The FAA notes three of these procedures received comment (VOR RWY 18 at Pryor Field Regional, Alabama (DCU); NDB RWY 14 at Montgomery County Airpark, Maryland (GAI); and NDB RWY 27 at Athens/Ben Epps, Georgia (AHN)) concerning lack of backup instrument flight procedures in case of instrument landing system failure, impacts to instrument flight training, and reduced airport access. The FAA confirms that for each of the three above affected procedures, the airports continue to maintain at least one other ground based procedure. In addition, there remain procedures available within a 20 nm radius of these airports for instrument flight training. The procedures are listed below with the associated Federal Register citation announcing the cancellation.

The FAA proposed to cancel 191 procedures listed in the following table. However, after further consideration and a reevaluation of the policy criteria described in the June 27, 2014, statement of policy, the FAA has determined that these procedures do not meet the criteria at this time. Therefore these procedures will remain in effect and are not included in this final rule; however the FAA may reevaluate these procedures at a later date.

Lastly, the FAA received comments on 198 SIAPs that are still under review. Once the agency has made a determination on those procedures, and if warranted, the FAA will issue a final rule cancelling any subject procedures. For the remaining 335 SIAPs proposed in the NPRM upon which no comments were received, the FAA has decided to proceed with cancellation of those procedures.

SIAPs and associated supporting data adopted or removed by the FAA are documented on FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, and 8260-5, which are incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97. The following procedures did not receive any comments and the FAA has determined that they should be removed consistent with FAA policy on maintaining instrument approach procedures in the NAS. Additionally, the list can be viewed on the Aeronautical Information Services IFP Announcements and Reports Web page at the following link, https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/procedures/reports/.

The FAA has determined that this final rule only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(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) and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the Internet by—

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or

3. Accessing the Government Publishing Office's Web page at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. Persons requesting additional information must identify the docket or amendment number of this rulemaking.

All documents the FAA considered in developing this rule, including technical reports, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above.

Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document, may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), at section 222(h), sets out detailed requirements for in-person interviews of applicants for nonimmigrant visas. This rule amends 22 CFR 41.102 to be consistent with INA 222(h). It is also amended to reflect delegation of the Secretary of State's authority under INA section 222(h)(1)(C)(ii) to waive visa interviews upon a determination that a waiver is necessary as a result of unusual or emergent circumstances. In a delegation of authority dated August 20, 2012 (77 FR 52379), the Secretary authorized the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs to waive in-person visa interviews under such circumstances, which would include humanitarian crises or medical emergencies. The delegation also included authority to re-delegate, and the authority was re-delegated to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services.

Paragraph (b) of section 41.102 is amended to add Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO) nonimmigrants classifiable as E-1 visa holders, since such nonimmigrants are equivalent to diplomatic or official visa holders. Paragraph (c) was inserted to reflect the Secretary's undelegated authority to waive the personal appearance requirement in the national interest. The amended paragraph (d) of this regulation reflects the full scope of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services' waiver authority, consistent with the above-referenced delegations. Paragraph (e) revised the prior paragraph (d) to reflect the revised structure of the regulation and to be consistent with the authority in INA 222(h) on overcoming prior refusals.

This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is exempt from the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553. In addition, since this rulemaking relates to rules of Department organization, procedure, or practice, it is exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Finally, since this rulemaking is exempt from section 553, the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(d) do not apply, and this rulemaking is effective immediately.

Because this final rule is exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1532) generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804. The Department is aware of no monetary effect on the economy that will result from this rulemaking.

The Department of State has reviewed this rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866, and has determined that the benefits of this regulation outweigh any cost. The Department has considered this rule in light of Executive Order 13563 and affirms that this regulation is consistent with the guidance therein. The Department does not consider this rule to be a significant rulemaking action.

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The rule will not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders 12372 and 13132.

The Department has reviewed the regulation in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.

This rule does not impose any new information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR part 41 to read as follows:

I. Background II. The Rule's Changes to the Current HIP III. Comments Received on the Proposed Rule and Responses to Comments A. General B. Definitions (256.2) C. Certificate of Title (256.3) D. Eligibility (256.6) 1. Income Limits 2. Previous Assistance 3. Participation in Government Program E. Category A—Repair of Existing Homes (256.7, 256.8) F. Category B—Renovation (256.7, 256.9) G. Category C—Replacement of New Housing, Square Footage (256.7, 256.10) H. Both Categories B and C I. Category D—Down Payment Assistance (256.7, 256.11) J. New Ranking Factors (256.14) K. Ranking Factor—Dependent Children L. Ranking Factor—Age M. Ranking Factor—Disability N. Active Period for Applications O. NEPA P. Funding Q. Other Comments IV. Procedural Requirements I. Background

The Housing Improvement Program (HIP) is a safety-net program that provides grants for the cost of services to repair, renovate, or replace existing housing and provide new housing for eligible members of federally recognized Indian tribes. The BIA administers the HIP under the regulations at 25 CFR part 256. The BIA distributes HIP funding based on a priority ranking derived from a point system to identify those individuals and families most in need of housing assistance. Funding is restricted to individuals and families that reside in the tribe's service area. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, the HIP will serve approximately 140 recipients. These recipients are individuals and families with extremely low incomes.

This final rule updates various provisions to align the HIP with other Federal program requirements, allow leveraging of housing funds to increase the number of families served and projects funded, and provide tribes with flexibility to better address lengthy waiting lists of tribal members awaiting housing assistance.

Currently, the HIP provides funding for four categories of housing needs:

• Category A—for repair of existing homes;

• Category B—for renovation of existing homes to standard housing condition;

• Category C-1—for construction of replacement homes; and

• Category C-2—for new housing.

For each category, there is a limit on the amount of funding a recipient may receive. The final rule increases the limit for Category A funding from $2,500 to $7,500 and increases the limit for Category B funding from $35,000 to $60,000. The original limits are inadequate, given the average costs of repair and renovation to standard housing condition. These limit increases better reflect the actual costs of repair and renovation. Further, these limit increases will allow more households to repair and renovate existing homes, rather than spending more on each individual household to build a new home. This approach will improve housing conditions for more households.

The final rule adds a new Category D, to allow assistance toward the purchase of a modest house (e.g., financial assistance for a down payment) for families that can obtain a mortgage loan from other Federal programs. These rule changes allow for HIP assistance to families with very low income (rather than just families with extremely low income) and allow families to leverage the funding they receive, making each Federal dollar stretch farther.

Priority ranking for HIP assistance is based on total numeric value (points) received under the ranking factors. The current ranking factors are based on the applicant's annual household income, whether there is an aged person living in the house, whether there is a disabled person living in the house, and family size. There are a certain number of points available for each of the ranking factors. Each applicant receives a certain number of points under each of the ranking factors. The final rule updates the current ranking factors, as shown in the table below.

Overall, the adjustments to the points are intended to create a level playing field among applicants and provide tribes with more flexibility to determine how best to serve applicants on their long waiting lists.

Under the HIP, the recipient may be required to enter into a “payback agreement” which provides that the recipient will have to pay back the entire amount of funding received or a portion thereof if the recipient sells the home within a certain period of time. If the payback period expires, no payback is required and the money is considered a grant. Currently, for Category B, the payback period is 5 years. So, for example, a family that receives HIP funding for a home must repay the funding if the family sells the home within 5 years of receiving the funding. The final rule does not establish a uniform payback period, but provides that the payback agreement will establish the payback period. The final rule does not affect the payback period for Category C.

The final rule also increases the time for consideration of an application to 4 years. Currently an application expires after one year, requiring an applicant who does not receive assistance under the HIP to reapply annually until assistance is received. The final rule places each application in the application pool for four years, so an applicant need only apply once every 4 years until assistance is received.

HIP funding applicants must provide proof of land ownership before the grant award. The final rule allows the applicant to provide proof of a homesite lease or proof that the applicant can obtain the land, even by lease, rather than requiring ownership. A certificate of title is required if and when the applicant becomes the owner of the home.

The final rule also increases square-footage limits to allow Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements to be met, when applicable, and clarify when ADA requirements apply. The following table shows the increases in square footage the final rule makes.

The definition of “standard housing” reduces the number of persons appropriate for a three-bedroom dwelling from “up to seven persons” to “up to six persons” to reflect that, depending on the make-up of the family, three persons per bedroom may be considered crowded. Additionally, the final rule changes the bedroom sizes to require “up to 120 feet” of floor space for the first bedroom and “up to 100 feet” of floor space for each additional bedroom, to allow tribes the flexibility to provide for smaller square footage where appropriate. The current rule requires “at least 120 feet” and “at least 100 feet,” respectively.

We received 20 written comment submissions on this rule and several oral comments at tribal consultations. The following summarizes the substantive comments received and our responses.

Every tribe that submitted comments on the rule supported the proposed rule changes in general, noting the importance of the HIP as a program, and further stating that the changes provide flexibility for tribes to better address long waiting lists in their service areas, foster relationships with other agencies to leverage Federal housing funds, and increase the number of families served and projects funded. Only one commenter opposed the rule for reasons summarized below (e.g., opposition to the funding limits for Categories A and B, adding a new category for down payment assistance, the increased application period).

One tribe asked how the changes to factors will provide tribes with flexibility to better address lengthy waiting lists. Expanding the criteria and adjusting the points allows younger families more of a chance at assistance by awarding a similar number of points for different factors. This may result in more ties in points among applicants, which will allow the tribe flexibility to identify the priority among applicants with a similar number of points. By increasing the funding limits in Categories A and B, more households will be able to repair and renovate existing homes, reducing the need to build new homes. These changes, along with the new category for down-payment assistance to purchase a new home, allow Federal dollars to stretch farther and serve more households.

A commenter stated that the tribe supports allowing applicants to provide proof of a lease rather than homeownership because some families cannot afford to purchase a home but still need to participate in the HIP to bring living conditions to an acceptable level. The final rule allows proof of a lease rather than homeownership.

One commenter suggested multiple changes to the definitions, as listed here.

• The definition of “agency” should include a unit of BIA that enters into cooperative agreements and/or self-determination contracts with tribes. The final rule does not incorporate this suggestion because the context in which “agency” is used in the rule does not require specifying that tribal organizations can enter into agreements to administer the HIP.

• The citation in the definition of “overcrowding” is incorrect. The final rule includes the correct citation, to 256.10 instead of 256.11.

• The definition of “permanent members of household” should be reworded to be “adults and any children living in the household who intend to live there continuously.” The final rule does not make this change because the suggested wording could be interpreted to increase eligibility requirements by requiring proof of the children's intention to live in the household continuously.

• The definition of “standard housing condition” should include a four bedroom house as adequate for all but the largest families. The final rule inserts this provision and clarifies the number of occupants that each size house may not exceed.

• The definition of “standard housing condition” should state that, in regions of severe climate, the size of the house may be changed to comply with the requirement that the heating system has the capacity to maintain a minimum temperature of 70 degrees in the house. The final rule does not incorporate this change because the size requirements and heating system requirements are compatible and both can be met even in areas of severe climate.

Another commenter asked whether all agencies of the Federal government are using the same definition of homelessness. The definition of “homelessness” for the purposes of HIP is different from that of other Federal agencies, to ensure that our definition encompasses persons who may be without a home but staying with extended family or friends, while other agencies' definitions may focus more on chronic homelessness.

A commenter asked for more information on what it means that the rule changes will “align” HIP requirements with other programs. The rule changes will allow eligible applicants for the HIP to participate in both the HIP and other government housing programs to leverage available funding and make down payments or receive repairs or renovations they may not otherwise have been able to afford.

A few commenters recommended specifying in the definition of “standard housing condition” that, if no housing codes with building standards exist, construction must meet appropriate building standards for the region. The final rule does not incorporate this change because every housing office should have a standard housing code, which would apply.

One commenter suggested adding to the policy statement that every American Indian and Alaska Native should have the opportunity for a “safe” home and suitable living “conditions” (rather than “environment”). The final rule incorporates these edits because the opportunity for “safe” homes, in addition to decent homes, is consistent with national housing policy.

One commenter supported the provision at 256.3 requiring BIA to provide a certificate of title for the dwelling once the program participant owns the home. Another commenter suggested adding to the end of 256.25 that a certificate of title or ownership will be issued upon completion of the work. The tribe or lender may issue a certificate of title.

Several commenters stated their support of the proposal to increase the income guidelines for eligibility from 125 percent to 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Income Guidelines because it will extend the reach of the program to more applicants who are in need of housing but not eligible for other housing assistance programs. The final rule includes this increase.

One commenter requested more information about the Federal Poverty Income Guidelines. The Department of Health and Human Services publishes the guidelines on an annual basis. They are available at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/index.cfm.

Some commenters stated that, while they recognize the need to serve clients who have not previously received assistance through the HIP, they recommend that this restriction on eligibility not apply to recipients of Category B rehabilitation funds if the funds were received prior to a certain time, such as more than 25 years ago. The final rule retains the restriction on eligibility in the interest of fairness, to ensure that those who have not yet received HIP assistance are given priority.

A few commenters stated that the eligibility restriction against having acquired present housing through participation in a Federal government-sponsored housing program should be deleted. The commenters stated that the restriction could unnecessarily limit participation in the HIP and that participation in other programs, such as a Mutual Help, HUD Section 184, or Section 502 program should not prevent someone from participating in the HIP. The final rule clarifies that only past participation, over the previous 20-year period, in another Federal government-sponsored program to obtain your current home restricts your eligibility for the HIP. The final rule encourages contemporaneous participation in another Federal government-sponsored housing program to leverage available funding.

Several commenters stated their support of the proposal to increase the limit for Category A (Repair) funding from $2,500 to $7,500 because it better reflects average costs of housing repairs and would allow tribes to address more housing conditions that threaten the health and safety of tribal members. A commenter stated that current funding limits allow only minimal repairs that do not make any lasting improvements, while the proposed limits would improve the health of impoverished families by better addressing basic housing needs. The final rule includes the proposed increase in Category A funding.

One commenter stated that there should be higher limits on repair costs and lower limits on renovation costs because renovations may be strictly cosmetic. The final rule does not change the limits because renovations funded by the HIP are those necessary to bring the house to standard housing condition. See 256.7.

One commenter stated that BIA should revisit the limits in two or three years, rather than the 13 years it took to update the current limits with this rule, to ensure that the amount continues to be sufficient. While revisiting the limits in two to three years may be unrealistic, BIA will endeavor to revisit the limits more frequently to account for inflation and other factors that may affect the effectiveness of the limits.

One commenter stated that higher limits are necessary to address emergency repairs such as roofing, windows, doors, insulation, and old wiring and heating, and stated that such repairs may cost $15,000 and up. While Category A funding may be used to address safety concerns, the HIP generally is not intended for emergency repairs.

Several commenters expressed their support for increasing the limit for Category B funding from $35,000 to $60,000 because the current renovation limits fail to provide adequate funding to improve housing conditions to a level that meets applicable building code standards. The final rule includes the increase in Category B funding.

The proposed rule would have lengthened the Category B payback period to 10 years. So, for example, a family that receives HIP funding for a home would have had to repay the funding if the family sold the home within 10 years. Several commenters also expressed their support of increasing the payback agreement period from 5 years to 10 years for Category B, to better allow the tribe to recoup the costs before the recipient sells the home and allow those recouped costs to be used to address the housing needs of other program recipients on the waiting list. One commenter expressed opposition to increasing the payback period, stating that the increase would detrimentally affect grant recipients by requiring them to stay in their home for at least 10 years. Another commenter suggested a pro-rata formula for payback beyond 5 years, because wear and tear on a home over 5 years can be significant. The final rule provides that the payback agreement will establish the payback period in order to allow flexibility in determining the appropriate payback period under each set of circumstances.

One commenter stated support for the inclusion of freight costs in Category C funding for homes in Alaska. The final rule includes freight costs for Category C funding.

One commenter stated that the table at 256.10(a)(1) should also require that the land has adequate ingress and egress rights and reasonable access to utilities. The final rule does not include this additional requirement because the cited provision addresses homes already owned, so it is presumed that there is already adequate ingress and egress and reasonable access to utilities.

Several commenters supported the proposed increase in square footage limits. Some stated that that it will allow tribes to better serve families with disabilities and meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. One commenter, while conceptually in favor of the square footage limits, stated concern that, without additional appropriations, the increases may prevent the HIP from reaching a greater number of people in need or reduce the number served. Another commenter stated that the proposed increases to bedroom sizes do not go far enough. The final rule incorporates the proposed increases in square footage limits to better serve families with disabilities.

A few commenters recommended clarifying that recipients of Category B and Category C who sell the house must repay the tribe directly operating the HIP (or BIA), to ensure that funding stays in the community where it was originally invested, consistent with the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) and self-governance. The final rule incorporates this change; however, any funding returned to the tribe or tribal organization may be used only for the HIP.

One commenter suggested providing a $60,000 funding limit for Alaska and a lower funding limit for the lower 48 States because renovations are generally more costly in Alaska. The final rule imposes a funding limit of $60,000 on renovations, regardless of what State the home is located in; however, it allows for additional funding for homes in Alaska to cover freight costs.

Several commenters stated their support of the proposed new Category D, allowing for down payment assistance. The commenters pointed out that assistance with down payments will help tribes promote homeownership to families of all ages and will allow tribes to serve working class families that would not otherwise qualify for housing because they do not have the financial resources to come up with a down payment. One noted that the down payment assistance dollars could be used to buy down the interest rate and principal loan so that monthly mortgage payments are more affordable for working families.

One commenter stated a concern that Category D does not include spending caps or payback agreements that the current HIP program categories possess and that, without a cap, the limited HIP funds may serve fewer recipients. BIA agrees that a cap may be appropriate at some point but requires several years to collect data on what an appropriate cap would be. For this reason, BIA will revisit this comment at some point in the next decade or two.

A few commenters specifically supported the proposed language at 256.11(b) saying that Category D funds may be used for down payment assistance, closing costs, and pre-homeownership counseling.

A few commenters suggested defining the income eligibility for Category D using the definition provided in the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) regulations at 12 CFR 1000.10, which would allow those with an annual income that is 80 percent of the area median income or United States median income, whichever is higher, to be eligible. The final rule does not incorporate this suggestion because defining income eligibility for one category in a manner different from the other categories would be administratively burdensome.

A few commenters suggested that, to promote use of Category D, BIA set aside 10 percent of each region's HIP allocation for Category D. They also suggested that BIA document the need for Category D funding so future appropriation requests can be increased to meet down payment assistance needs. There is no change to the final rule to address this comment because BIA addresses allocations in its annual funding letter to tribes. BIA believes it will take several funding cycles to fully implement the Category D program and identify the appropriate level of funding based on participation.

One commenter stated that down payment assistance should be offered as part of Category C-2, because creating a new Category D will demand more time, resources, and procedures. BIA has determined that the more cost effective solution is to create a new Category D for down payment assistance because it can be separately tracked and administered.

A commenter stated that the 30-point ranking value for factor 6, applicants with an approved financing package, may lead to an approval bias toward Category D applications, while needs related to the other three categories go unmet. The final rule lowers the point value from 30 to 25 in response to these comments. BIA believes the 25-point value will allow tribes the flexibility to put an applicant for Category D assistance on an equal footing with applicants for other categories. HIP funds will still be made available for the other categories.

One commenter stated that, with the addition of Category D, the intent of the program is changed from a safety-net program because the program would no longer be providing assistance to the neediest of the needy with no other resources, since Category D applicants do have other resources for assistance. The final rule does not make any changes in response to the comment because Category D applicants still must meet the extremely low and very low income and other eligibility requirements for HIP participation. While Category D helps those who need HIP assistance in order to avail themselves of otherwise unavailable resources. This commenter also suggested changing the down payment assistance program to one in which a participant could provide in-kind services for down payment (e.g., labor equity toward construction of the house). The final rule does not allow for in-kind services or labor equity because doing so would pose safety and liability issues that BIA is not prepared to undertake at this point.

One commenter asked whether a person approved for participation in the HIP can get a loan “on top of” the HIP assistance. The final rule does not allow loans in addition to HIP assistance, but does encourage coordination of HIP assistance with other Federal resources to leverage those resources.

Several commenters stated their support of the new ranking factors for homelessness, overcrowding, and dilapidated housing, as helping to identify and prioritize tribal communities' housing needs.

A few commenters suggested adding a new factor for veterans; one suggested the new factor for veterans should be for 20 points. The final rule adds veteran as an “other condition” in recognition of both the important contribution to society that veterans have made and the disadvantage many veterans are under economically. The final rule provides the veteran ranking factor with a point value of 5 to balance this factor with other factors.

A few commenters stated their support for increasing the maximum number of points for dependent children. One noted that single-parent families are growing and in need of housing but have difficulty in gaining approval under the HIP, and that elders often live with these families and, as such, the proposed increase in points serves two constituencies. One commenter stated that there should be a ranking factor or priority points for families with young children, and that these families should be prioritized above all because it is our duty as society to allocate sufficient resources for habitable homes to these children. The proposed and final rule increase the maximum number of points awarded for dependent children from 5 to 15 points.

The final rule retains the threshold for being considered “aged”at 55 years old. The proposed rule proposed to increase the threshold from 55 years old to 62 years old to align the age with the Social Security age for retirement. Several commenters opposed increasing the threshold for being considered “aged” from 55 years of age to 62 years of age. These commenters recommended that the threshold stay at 55 with a maximum of 20, rather than 15 points, allowing anyone over 75 to obtain 20 points. One commenter noted that the basis for the proposed increase to 62, aligning the HIP age requirement with the Social Security age of retirement, does not reflect the realities Indian Country faces, in which the average American Indian or Alaska Native has a shorter lifespan and more medical issues. Another commenter stated that the program should target the elderly and disabled by giving them higher priority. The final rule retains the current threshold for “aged” at 55 in response to these comments. The final rule retains the proposed maximum of 15 points for this factor to ensure that it is appropriately weighted against other factors so that tribes have more flexibility to address their lengthy waiting lists in a manner they determine best serves tribal members awaiting housing assistance.

One commenter supported the proposal to provide a set number of points if at least one disabled person is in the household, regardless of how many disabled persons are in the household. Another commenter opposed the proposal to provide a set number of points, stating that it does not account for the fact that households with two disabled members often experience high mortality rates and may put at a disadvantage those households where one disabled member dies before the household is served. The final rule provides for 10 points for any household in which there is at least one disabled member.

A few commenters stated that the proposed 10 points is not enough to account for disabled persons; one suggested 20 points should be provided for a disabled person. BIA ran several scenarios using different point values and determined that 10 points is appropriate to put this factor on equal footing with the other factors. As a whole, the rule attempts to balance the number of points available in each category to allow for households with different needs to remain competitive with each other in scoring, thereby allowing the tribe to prioritize among households with tied or close scores.

One commenter asked whether someone with fetal alcohol effects would be considered disabled under the rule. The rule defines “disabled” broadly to encompass a physical or intellectual impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

Several commenters supported the proposal of allowing applications to remain active for four years, rather than the current one year, because this change removes unnecessary regulatory and administrative burdens, removes a deterrent to reapplying, benefits applicants, and provides greater flexibility to tribes in providing housing services. One commenter stated that the change is not advantageous to the applicant or the HIP because the applicant's circumstances may change over the course of four years. The final rule incorporates the four-year period because applicants may annually update their applications to address any updated circumstances.

A few commenters noted the typographical error in the title of the “National Environmental Policy Act.” The proposed rule identified the Act as the “National Environmental Protection Act.” The final rule corrects this error.

A few commenters also noted their view that all of the specific actions authorized by the HIP would be covered by a NEPA categorical exclusion and suggested adding language to 256.19 to clarify this. The final rule incorporates this change.

Nearly every commenter stated support of continued funding for the HIP and asserted that more funding is needed for the HIP. One commenter stated that the HIP targets a population in dire need of support and has had a significant impact on the lives of Indian people, but over the years, the funding in real dollars has dropped substantially. Another commenter stated that the households the tribe is serving through the HIP truly have no other options to improve living conditions. These commenters stated that there is a need for Congress and the Administration to work together to fund the HIP at a meaningful level; otherwise, the increases in funding limits, while appropriate and needed, may result in fewer families being served.

One commenter stated that funding for Category C, in particular, is needed. BIA recommends that tribes ask their regional HIP officers if additional funding for Category C is needed.

Another commenter stated that the HIP's funding formula methodology does not currently function well for tribes in its area because the income limits are too low. The final rule increases the current income limits but BIA has determined that increasing the limits further may duplicate other programs, rather than meeting the HIP's goal to meet the housing needs of the neediest.

A commenter stated that HIP funds should be leveraged with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) funding for energy efficiency. BIA encourages tribes to work with BIA, DOE, and other agencies to leverage funding.

A commenter expressed concern that the higher funding limits will mean fewer applications will be accepted and fewer households will receive benefits. BIA does not expect the rule's changes to the HIP to decrease the number of participants because the rule changes allow for better leveraging of federal funding, allowing each dollar to go farther.

A few commenters addressed issues with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapping. BIA suggests that tribes may want to consider contacting FEMA regarding mapping.

One commenter stated that households should be eligible for HIP assistance, even if prior assistance was received, if the useful life expectancy of the house has been exceeded and it otherwise qualifies as dilapidated. The final rule retains the restriction on previous assistance to be eligible for the HIP in order to prioritize getting HIP assistance to those who have not received assistance before, in the interest of fairness.

A commenter suggested adding more items to the list of other income for which applicants must provide proof in applying for the HIP. The final rule does not incorporate this change because the income items listed are examples and are not an exhaustive list.

A commenter suggested that “your position on the priority list” should be the first item listed in 256.17, listing factors that affect the length of time it takes to do work on your house. The final rule accepts this edit because the position on the priority list is an important factor that participants often overlook. This commenter also suggested that “infrastructure availability” should be added to the list. The final rule adds this to the list as an example of “other unforeseen factors.”

Commenters provided suggestions for additional non-substantive edits that the final rule does not incorporate. A few commenters suggested the Bureau create an advisory committee for updates to the HIP handbook. BIA plans to update the handbook and suggests that tribes and other interested parties work through their housing officers to provide comments.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant. E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The E.O. directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

The Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). It does not have any effect on small entities because only individuals and families are recipients of funding under the program governed by this rule. The Department provides funding through tribes to eligible individuals within service areas based on a priority ranking derived from a point system to identify those individuals and families most in need of housing assistance. While it is possible that small entities may be among the service providers performing renovations, repairs, and construction funded under this program, this rule will not foreseeably affect the demand for such services. Renovations, repairs, and construction performed using funding provided in this program must comply with applicable ordinances, including any permitting requirements.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. It will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Nor will this rule have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. Funding for the HIP comes from the Federal Government budget.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

Under the criteria in Executive Order 12630, this rule does not affect individual property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment nor does it involves a compensable “taking.” A takings implication assessment is not required.

Under the criteria in Executive Order 13132, this rule has no 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. This rule updates the implementation requirements for the HIP, which is a Federal program.

This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule has been reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and written to minimize litigation; and is written in clear language and contains clear legal standards.

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments,” Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000), 512 DM 4 and 5, and the BIA Government-to-Government Consultation Policy, we have held several listening sessions and consultation sessions with representatives of federally recognized tribes throughout the development of this rule. In 2010, BIA staff implementing the HIP opened a dialogue with Indian tribes because tribes indicated that the program as structured was not allowing them to make progress on their waiting lists of members with housing needs. BIA then held several listening sessions and incorporated comments received during those listening sessions into the rule. Following publication of the proposed rule, BIA hosted consultation sessions with Indian tribes throughout February 2015, including two sessions in Washington, DC to accommodate those attending the National American Indian Housing Council legislative conference and the National Congress of American Indian Executive Council Winter Session, one in Anchorage, Alaska, and one by teleconference. BIA has addressed the input received during those sessions in this final rule.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., prohibits a Federal agency from conducting or sponsoring a collection of information that requires OMB approval, unless such approval has been obtained and the collection request displays a currently valid OMB control number. Nor is any person required to respond to an information collection request that has not complied with the PRA. In accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), BIA submitted the information collection and recordkeeping requirements of this rule to OMB for review and approval. BIA received no comments addressing the information collection requirements and made no revisions to its request. OMB has reviewed the request and approved the information collection.

The following describes the information collection requirements in the rule. The information collection requirements differ from those in the current rule in that applicants need only submit a full application form every four years, but applicants must provide an update (in any format) annually if any information on the application changes. The application form associated with this information collection is also being updated. The revisions result in a net decrease of 4,000 hours because a full application is now required only once every four years, and applicants must only provide annual updates.

Title: Housing Improvement Program, 25 CFR part 256.

OMB Control Number: 1076-0184.

Expiration Date: 10/31/2018.

Summary: This information collection requires individuals and families that are seeking funding assistance for repair, renovation, or replacement of existing homes or new housing, to provide certain information to establish their eligibility for the HIP administered by BIA. This new information collection approval will replace existing OMB Control Number 1076-0084 to accommodate revisions to the application form.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Description of Respondents: Indian tribal members.

Total Annual Responses: 10,000.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,000.

Total Annual Non-Hour Cost Burden: $ 20,000.

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

This final rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

The primary authors of this document are Les Jensen, Office of Indian Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Elizabeth Appel, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative Action—Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, and Sabrina McCarthy, Office of the Solicitor—Division of Indian Affairs.

For the reasons given in the preamble, the Department proposes to amend 25 CFR chapter I, subchapter K, by revising part 256 to read as follows:

BNSF has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the BNSF Steamboat Slough Bridge, mile 1.0, crossing Steamboat Slough (Snohomish River), near Marysville, WA. BNSF requested the BNSF Steamboat Slough Bridge remain in the closed-to-navigation position for rail maintenance. This maintenance has been scheduled and is funded as part of the Cascade Corridor Improvement Project.

The normal operating schedule for this bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.1059, which states the draw shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given. BNSF Steamboat Slough Bridge is a swing bridge and provides 8 feet of vertical clearance above mean high water elevation while in the closed-to-navigation position.

This deviation allows the BNSF Steamboat Slough Bridge at mile 1.0 crossing Steamboat Slough on the Snohomish River, to remain in the closed-to-navigation position, and need not open for maritime traffic from 6 a.m. on November 29, 2015 to 11:59 p.m. on December 20, 2015. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.1059 at all other times.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be required to open, if needed, for vessels engaged in emergency response operations during this closure period, but any time lost to emergency openings will necessitate a time extension added to the approved dates. Waterway usage on this part of the Snohomish River and Steamboat Slough includes tug and barge to small pleasure craft. The BNSF Steamboat Slough Bridge receives an average number of three opening request during the month of December. BNSF has coordinated with Steamboat Slough users that frequently request bridge openings during this time of year. No immediate alternate route for vessels to pass is available on this part of the river. 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 drawbridges must return to their 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.

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

EPA is taking final action to approve a SIP revision submitted by the state of Missouri that removes the requirements of stage II vapor recovery control systems at gasoline dispensing facilities in the St. Louis area and includes minor revisions to the rule as described below. EPA proposed approval on July 22, 2015 and no comments were received.

On November 20, 2014, Missouri submitted a request to revise the SIP to include the following revision to Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10-5.220, “Control of Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading and Transfer” which: (1) Removes the requirements of stage II vapor recovery control systems at gasoline dispensing facilities in the St. Louis area, (2) revises certification and testing procedures for the remaining stage I systems consistent with California Air Resources Board (CARB) vapor recovery requirements instead of the Missouri Performance Evaluation and Test Procedures (MOPETP), (3) prohibits above ground storage tanks at gasoline dispensing facilities, and (4) includes general text revisions to better clarify the rule.

The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of this document, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110, section 193 and implementing regulations.

The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened July 22, 2015, the date of its publication in the Federal Register (80 FR 43371), and closed on August 21, 2015. During this period, EPA received no comments.

EPA is taking final action to amend the Missouri SIP to remove the requirements of stage II vapor recovery control systems at gasoline dispensing facilities in the St. Louis area, revise certification and testing procedures for stage I vapor recovery systems, prohibit above ground storage tanks at gasoline dispensing facilities, and include general revisions to better clarify the rule.

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference the Missouri Regulation “Control of Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading and Transfer” described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below.” EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this final 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 final action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

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

This format revision will primarily affect the “Identification of plan” section, as well as the format of the SIP materials that will be available for public inspection at NARA and the EPA Region 5 Office. EPA is also adding a table in the “Identification of plan” section which summarizes the approval actions that EPA has taken on the nonregulatory and quasi-regulatory portions of the Ohio SIP.

Each state has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) along with other Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. The SIP is extensive, containing such elements as air pollution control regulations, emission inventories, monitoring networks, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms.

Each state must formally adopt the control measures and strategies in the SIP after the public has had an opportunity to comment on them. The states then submit them to EPA as requested SIP revisions on which EPA must formally act.

EPA evaluates submitted SIPs to determine if they meet CAA requirements. If and when these control measures and strategies are approved by EPA, after notice and comment rulemaking, they are incorporated into the Federally approved SIP and identified in part 52 (Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans), title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR part 52). The actual state regulations approved by EPA are not reproduced in their entirety in 40 CFR part 52, but are “incorporated by reference”, which means that EPA has approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date. This format allows the public to know which measures are contained in a given SIP and to help determine whether the state is enforcing the regulations. It also assists EPA and the public to take enforcement action should a state not enforce its SIP-approved regulations.

The SIP is a dynamic document that the state can revise as necessary to address the unique air pollution problems in the state. Therefore, EPA must periodically take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations in order to make them part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference Federally approved SIPs.

EPA has been developing the following: (1) A revised SIP document for each state that would be incorporated by reference under the provisions of title 1 CFR part 51; (2) a revised mechanism for announcing EPA approval of revisions to an applicable SIP and updating both the IBR document and the CFR; and (3) a revised format of the “Identification of plan” sections for each applicable subpart to reflect these revised IBR procedures

The Federally approved regulations, source-specific permits, and nonregulatory provisions (entirely or portions of) submitted by each state agency and approved by EPA have been organized into a “SIP compilation”. The SIP compilation contains the updated regulations, source-specific permits, and nonregulatory provisions approved by EPA through previous rulemaking actions in the Federal Register.

Each SIP compilation contains three parts. Part one contains regulations, part two contains source-specific requirements, and part three contains nonregulatory provisions that have been EPA approved. Each part consists of a table of identifying information for each SIP-approved regulation, each SIP-approved permit, and each nonregulatory SIP provision. In this action, EPA is publishing the tables summarizing the applicable SIP requirements for Ohio. The state effective dates in the tables indicate the date of the most recent revision to a particular approved regulation. The EPA Regional Offices have the primary responsibility for updating the compilations and ensuring their accuracy.

EPA's Region 5 Office developed and will maintain the compilation for Ohio. A copy of the full text of Ohio's regulatory and source-specific compilations will also be maintained at NARA.

In order to better serve the public, EPA revised the organization of the “Identification of plan” section and included additional information to clarify the enforceable elements of the SIP.

The revised Ohio Identification of plan section contains five subsections:

All revisions to the applicable SIP become Federally enforceable as of the effective date of the revisions to paragraphs (c), (d), or (e) of the applicable Identification of plan section found in each subpart of 40 CFR part 52.

To facilitate enforcement of previously approved SIP provisions and provide a smooth transition to the new SIP processing system, EPA retains the original Identification of plan section, previously appearing in the CFR as the first or second section of part 52 for each state subpart. After an initial two-year period, EPA will review its experience with the new system and enforceability of previously approved SIP measures and will decide whether or not to retain the Identification of plan appendices for some further period.

Although EPA is retaining the original Identification of Plan section, other sections of part 52 are duplicative of the new Identification of Plan section. EPA is therefore removing §§ 52.1881(b) “Regulations for the control of sulfur dioxide in the State of Ohio”, 52.1890 “Removed control measures”, 52.1891 “Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements”, and 52.1919 “Identification of plan-conditional approval” as part of the general “housekeeping” discussed below.

This action constitutes a “housekeeping” exercise to ensure that all revisions to the state programs that have occurred are accurately reflected in 40 CFR part 52. State SIP revisions are controlled by EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 51.

EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This action simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved state programs.

Under Section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Likewise, there is no purpose served by delaying the effective date of this action. Immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by removing outdated citations.

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Ohio Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. 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 Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute as indicated in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section above, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA. This rule also 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. This rule does not involve technical standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. The rule also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). EPA's compliance with these statutes and Executive Orders for the underlying rules is discussed in previous actions taken on the State's rules.

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. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This action simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved State programs. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of November 10, 2015. 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. The changes in format to the “Identification of plan” section for Ohio are not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Ohio SIP compilations had previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for these “Identification of plan” reorganization actions for Ohio.

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