Federal Register Vol. 80, No.228,

On December 19, 2014, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published an Interim Final Rule that implemented for all Federal award-making agencies, including NSF, OMB's final guidance on Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, 79 FR 75871. OMB published the uniform rules as 2 CFR part 200. As part of that rulemaking, NSF adopted part 200 through an agency-specific addendum at 2 CFR part 2500. The Foundation's implementation document, the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, may be found at: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf16001/?org=NSF.

NSF received no comments in response to its adoption of the Interim Final Rule. Therefore, 2 CFR part 2500 as described in the Interim Final Rule, is adopted with no changes.

For the regulatory findings regarding this rulemaking, please refer to the analysis prepared by OMB in the Interim Final Rule, which is incorporated herein. 79 FR at 75876.

Accordingly, the Interim Final Rule adding 2 CFR part 2500, which was published at 79 FR 75871 on December 19, 2014, is adopted as a Final Rule without change.

I. Background

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act) amended the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) to add special appraisal requirements for “higher-risk mortgages.” 1 In January 2013, the Agencies issued a joint final rule implementing these requirements and adopted the term “higher-priced mortgage loan” (HPML) instead of “higher-risk mortgage” (the January 2013 Final Rule).2 In July 2013, the Agencies proposed additional exemptions from the January 2013 Final Rule (the 2013 Supplemental Proposed Rule).3 In December 2013, the Agencies issued a supplemental final rule with additional exemptions from the January 2013 Final Rule (the December 2013 Supplemental Final Rule).4 Among other exemptions, the Agencies adopted an exemption from the new HPML appraisal rules for transactions of $25,000 or less, to be adjusted annually for inflation.

The Bureau's, the OCC's, and the Board's versions of the January 2013 Final Rule and December 2013 Supplemental Final Rule and corresponding official interpretations are substantively identical. The FDIC, NCUA, and FHFA adopted the Bureau's version of the regulations under the January 2013 Final Rule and December 2013 Supplemental Final Rule.5

Section 34.203(b)(2) of Subpart G of part 34 of the OCC's regulations, § 226.43(b)(2) of the Board's Regulation Z, and § 1026.35(c)(2)(ii) of the Bureau's Regulation Z, and their accompanying interpretations, provide that the exemption threshold for smaller loans will be adjusted effective January 1 of each year based on any annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) that was in effect on the preceding June 1. Any increase in the threshold amount will be rounded to the nearest $100 increment. For example, if the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W would result in a $950 increase in the threshold amount, the threshold amount will be increased by $1,000. However, if the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W would result in a $949 increase in the threshold amount, the threshold amount will be increased by $900.6 If there is no annual percentage increase in the CPI-W, the Agencies will not adjust the threshold amounts from the prior year.7

Effective January 1, 2016, the exemption threshold amount remains at $25,500. This threshold amount is based on the CPI-W in effect on June 1, 2015, which was reported on May 22, 2015. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes consumer-based indices monthly, but does not report a Consumer Price Index change on June 1; adjustments are reported in the middle of the month. The CPI-W is a subset of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) and represents approximately 28 percent of the U.S. population. Because there was a 0.8 percent decrease in the CPI-W from April 2014 to April 2015, the OCC, the Board, and the Bureau are not adjusting the exemption threshold amount. The OCC, the Board, and the Bureau are revising the interpretations to their respective regulations to add new comments as follows:

• Comment 203(b)(2)-1.iii to 12 CFR part 34, Appendix C to Subpart G (OCC);

• Comment 43(b)(2)-1.iii to Supplement I of 12 CFR part 226 (Board); and

• Comment 35(c)(2)(ii)-1.iii in Supplement I of 12 CFR part 1026 (Bureau).

These new comments state that, from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, the threshold amount is $25,500. These revisions are effective January 1, 2016.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if an agency finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.8 The amendment in this notice is technical and applies the method previously set forth in the 2013 Supplemental Proposed Rule.9 For these reasons, the OCC, the Board, and the Bureau have determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, the amendments are adopted in final form.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required.10 As noted previously, the Agencies have determined that it is unnecessary to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this joint final rule. Accordingly, the RFA's requirements relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,11 the Agencies reviewed this final rule. No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.

The OCC analyzes proposed rules for the factors listed in Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, before promulgating a final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published.12 As discussed above, the OCC has determined that the publication of a general notice of proposed rulemaking is unnecessary.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the OCC amends 12 CFR part 34 as set forth below:

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board amends Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 226, as set forth below:

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Bureau amends Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, as set forth below:

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act) increased the threshold in the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA) for exempt consumer leases from $25,000 to $50,000, effective July 21, 2011.1 In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires that this threshold be adjusted annually for inflation by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In April 2011, the Board issued a final rule amending Regulation M (which implements the CLA) consistent with these provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act along with a similar final rule amending Regulation Z (which implements the Truth in Lending Act) (collectively, the Board Final Threshold Rules).2

Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred rulemaking authority for a number of consumer financial protection laws from the Board to the Bureau, effective July 21, 2011. In connection with this transfer of rulemaking authority, the Bureau issued its own Regulation M implementing the CLA in an interim final rule, 12 CFR part 1013 (Bureau Interim Final Rule).3 The Bureau Interim Final Rule substantially duplicated the Board's Regulation M, including the revisions to the threshold for exempt transactions made by the Board in April 2011. Although the Bureau has the authority to issue rules to implement the CLA for most entities, the Board retains authority to issue rules under the CLA for certain motor vehicle dealers covered by section 1029(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, and the Board's Regulation M continues to apply to those entities.4

Section 213.2(e)(1) of the Board's Regulation M and § 1013.2(e)(1) of the Bureau's Regulation M, and their accompanying commentaries, provide that the exemption threshold will be adjusted annually effective January 1 of each year based on any annual percentage increase in the CPI-W that was in effect on the preceding June 1. Any increase in the threshold amount will be rounded to the nearest $100 increment. For example, if the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W would result in a $950 increase in the threshold amount, the threshold amount will be increased by $1,000. However, if the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W would result in a $949 increase in the threshold amount, the threshold amount will be increased by $900.5 As stated in the Board Final Threshold Rules, if there is no annual percentage increase in the CPI-W, the Board and Bureau will not adjust the exemption threshold from the prior year.6

Effective January 1, 2016, the exemption threshold amount remains at $54,600. This is based on the CPI-W in effect on June 1, 2015, which was reported on May 22, 2015. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes consumer-based indices monthly, but does not report a CPI change on June 1; adjustments are reported in the middle of the month. The CPI-W is a subset of the CPI-U index (based on all urban consumers) and represents approximately 28 percent of the U.S. population. Because the CPI-W reported on May 22, 2015 reflects a 0.8 percent decrease in the CPI-W from April 2014 to April 2015, the Board and the Bureau are not adjusting the exemption threshold amount. The Board and the Bureau are revising the commentaries to their respective regulations to add new comment 2(e)-9.vii to state that, from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016, the threshold amount is $54,600. These revisions are effective January 1, 2016.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the Board and the Bureau find that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.7 The amendment in this notice is technical and applies the method previously set forth in the Board Final Threshold Rules.8 For these reasons, the Board and the Bureau have determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, the amendments are adopted in final form.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required.9 As noted previously, the agencies have determined that it is unnecessary to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this joint final rule. Accordingly, the RFA's requirements relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,10 the agencies reviewed this final rule. No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board amends Regulation M, 12 CFR part 213, as set forth below:

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Bureau amends Regulation M, 12 CFR part 1013, as set forth below:

I. Background

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) increased the threshold in the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) for exempt consumer credit transactions 1 from $25,000 to $50,000, effective July 21, 2011.2 In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires that this threshold be adjusted annually for inflation by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In April 2011, the Board issued a final rule amending Regulation Z (which implements TILA) consistent with these provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act along with a similar final rule amending Regulation M (which implements the Consumer Leasing Act) (collectively, the Board Final Threshold Rules).3

Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred rulemaking authority for a number of consumer financial protection laws from the Board to the Bureau, effective July 21, 2011. In connection with this transfer of rulemaking authority, the Bureau issued its own Regulation Z implementing TILA in an interim final rule, 12 CFR part 1026 (Bureau Interim Final Rule).4 The Bureau Interim Final Rule substantially duplicated the Board's Regulation Z, including the revisions to the threshold for exempt transactions made by the Board in April 2011. Although the Bureau has the authority to issue rules to implement TILA for most entities, the Board retains authority to issue rules under TILA for certain motor vehicle dealers covered by section 1029(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, and the Board's Regulation Z continues to apply to those entities.5

Section 226.3(b)(1)(ii) of the Board's Regulation Z and § 1026.3(b)(1)(ii) of the Bureau's Regulation Z, and their accompanying commentaries, provide that the exemption threshold will be adjusted annually effective January 1 of each year based on any annual percentage increase in the CPI-W that was in effect on the preceding June 1. Any increase in the threshold amount will be rounded to the nearest $100 increment. For example, if the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W would result in a $950 increase in the threshold amount, the threshold amount will be increased by $1,000. However, if the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W would result in a $949 increase in the threshold amount, the threshold amount will be increased by $900.6 As stated in the Board Final Threshold Rules, if there is no annual percentage increase in the CPI-W, the Board and Bureau will not adjust the exemption threshold from the prior year.7

Effective January 1, 2016, the exemption threshold amount remains at $54,600. This is based on the CPI-W in effect on June 1, 2015, which was reported on May 22, 2015. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes consumer-based indices monthly, but does not report a CPI change on June 1; adjustments are reported in the middle of the month. The CPI-W is a subset of the CPI-U index (based on all urban consumers) and represents approximately 28 percent of the U.S. population. Because the CPI-W reported on May 22, 2015 reflects a 0.8 percent decrease in the CPI-W from April 2014 to April 2015, the Board and the Bureau are not adjusting the exemption threshold amount. The Board and the Bureau are revising the commentaries to their respective regulations to add new comment 3(b)-1.vii to state that, from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016, the threshold amount is $54,600. These revisions are effective January 1, 2016.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the Board and the Bureau find that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.8 The amendment in this notice is technical and applies the method previously set forth in the Board Final Threshold Rules.9 For these reasons, the Board and the Bureau have determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, the amendments are adopted in final form.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required.10 As noted previously, the agencies have determined that it is unnecessary to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this joint final rule. Accordingly, the RFA's requirements relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,11 the agencies reviewed this final rule. No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board amends Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 226, as set forth below:

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Bureau amends Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, as set forth below:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-100,-200,-200C-300,-400, and-500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 30, 2014 (79 FR 36672). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracks in fuselage frames, and a report of a missing strap that was not installed on a fuselage frame during production. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection to determine if the strap adjacent to a certain stringer is installed, and repair if it is missing; repetitive inspections of the frame for cracking or a severed frame web; and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM also provided optional actions to terminate certain repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct missing fuselage frame straps and frame cracking that can result in severed frames. Continued operation of the airplane with multiple adjacent severed frames, or the combination of a severed frame and fuselage skin chemical mill cracks, can result in uncontrolled decompression of the airplane.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 36672, June 30, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that installation of winglets per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/ebd1cec7b301293e86257cb30045557a/$FILE/ST01219SE.pdf) does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM (79 FR 36672, June 30, 2014.

We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD (79 FR 36672, June 30, 2014) as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, and have added a new paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/ebd1cec7b301293e86257cb30045557a/$FILE/ST01219SE.pdf) does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Boeing noted that the SUMMARY of the NPRM (79 FR 36672, June 30, 2014) explained that some optional actions would terminate “certain” repetitive inspections. Boeing requested that we use this same wording in the Proposed AD Requirements section of the NPRM (which omitted the word “certain”).

Although we agree with the commenter's statement, the Proposed AD Requirements section is not repeated in a final rule. Since the referenced omission does not affect the required actions or the unsafe condition, no changes to this final rule are needed.

Boeing requested that we add an inspection in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (79 FR 36672, June 30, 2014). Boeing stated that this is consistent with the compliance information described in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1323, dated December 6, 2013.

We agree with the commenter's request. We inadvertently omitted the inspection requirement in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (79 FR 36672, June 30, 2014), which is described in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1323, dated December 6, 2013. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to require that the inspection and applicable repair be done by using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (q) of this AD. Paragraph (g) of this AD applies only to airplanes identified as Group 1 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1323, dated December 6, 2013. Currently, there are no Group 1 airplanes in service in the United States, so notice of this new requirement is not necessary.

Boeing requested that we revise the wording in paragraphs (i) and (j) of the proposed AD (79 FR 36672, June 30, 2014) to state the following actions.

• Doing the repair or preventive modification of the frame at station 328 terminates the applicable repetitive inspection requirements.

• Doing the preventive modification of the frame at station 360 terminates the applicable station 360 inspection requirements.

• Doing the repair or preventive modification of the frame at station 328, and doing the preventive modification of the frame at station 360 terminates the applicable repetitive inspection requirements of the frame at station 344, and the Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1323, dated December 6, 2013, skin inspections.

Boeing stated that the proposed wording in paragraphs (i) and (j) of the proposed AD (79 FR 36672, June 30, 2014) is not clear. Boeing stated that inspections of the frame at station 328 or at station 360 can be terminated by a single action (applicable repair or modification). Boeing explained that accomplishing both specified actions at station 328 and station 360 terminates the station 344 frame inspections and the option 2 skin inspections.

We agree to clarify the acceptable terminating actions. We have added new paragraph (m) of this AD, which provides the following terminating actions. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

• Accomplishing the repair or preventive modification of the frame at station 328 terminates the inspections of that frame required by paragraphs (i), (j), and (k) of this AD.

• Accomplishing the repair or preventive modification of the frame at station 328 and the preventive modification of the frame at station 360, terminates the inspections of the frame at station 344 and the fuselage skin inspections required by paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD.

• Accomplishing the repair or preventive modification of the frame at station 360 terminates the inspections of that frame required by paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD.

• Accomplishing the repair or preventive modification of the frame at station 328 terminates the fuselage skin inspections and the station 328 frame inspections required by paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD.

Boeing recommended that we specify in paragraphs (i) and (j) of the proposed AD (79 FR 36672, June 30, 2014) that the station 328 repair described in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1323, dated December 6, 2013, can be used as an optional preventive modification.

We partially agree with the commenter's request. The commenter's request is already addressed in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1323, dated December 6, 2013. However, additional text might help clarify this provision. We have added additional text to paragraphs (i), (j), and (k) of this AD that operators may do the repair of the frame at station 328, as specified in paragraph (m) of this AD, as an optional preventive modification for that frame.

Boeing requested that we revise paragraphs (i) and (j) of the proposed AD (79 FR 36672, June 30, 2014) by moving the requirements for Group 6 airplanes to a new paragraph. Boeing stated that the service information for Group 6 airplanes provides directed inspection instructions for the station 328 frame only, as provided in table 5 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1323, dated December 6, 2013. Boeing added that for Group 6 airplanes, there are no directed inspections for station 344 or station 360, but there are related investigative and corrective actions for detailed inspections of the frame at station 312 and station 344.

Southwest Airlines (SWA) requested that we specify that the frame at station 344 requires detailed inspections, not detailed and eddy current inspections. SWA stated that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1323, dated December 6, 2013, describes only detailed inspections at station 344.

We partially agree with both commenters. We disagree with making the changes requested by the commenters. However, we agree that certain actions are only done at certain locations and for certain airplanes. The inspections at station 344 are detailed inspections only. Application of the appropriate inspection method to a given frame is addressed by the phrase “as applicable,” i.e., actions are applicable to the frames identified in the service information for each group of airplane. We have revised paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2)(i), (i)(2)(ii), (j)(l), and (j)(2) of this AD by adding “as applicable” after the station locations. This revision clarifies that those actions are done only as specified in the service information.

Boeing requested that we add the subtitles “Initial Inspections” and “Follow-on Inspections” to paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2), respectively, of the proposed AD (79 FR 36672, June 30, 2014). Boeing also requested that we change the wording in paragraph (i)(2) the proposed AD to “Accomplishing the follow‐on inspections required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD,” instead of “Accomplishing the initial inspections . . . ” Boeing stated that paragraph (i) of the proposed AD would mandate the inspections for airplanes with fewer than 28,300 total flight cycles, where compliance (tables 4, 7, and 8 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1323, dated December 6, 2013) consists of initial inspections and then follow-on inspections that contain options. Boeing explained that paragraph (i)(1) of the proposed AD would mandate the initial inspections, and paragraph (i)(2) of the proposed AD would mandate the follow-on inspections. Boeing also explained that paragraph (i)(2) of the proposed AD phrase “accomplishing the initial inspections” is understood to refer to the first follow-on inspection directed by the compliance time (threshold).

We do not agree with the commenter's request. Paragraph (i)(2) of this AD follows the format of Boeing's service bulletin compliance tables, which has a different repeat interval from the inspections specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. Paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD contain both initial and repetitive inspections as well as related investigative actions. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Boeing requested that we revise the last sentence of paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD (79 FR 36672, June 30, 2014) to state, “Repeat the inspections specified in this paragraph thereafter . . . ” Boeing stated that this wording would then match the wording for the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (i)(2)(i) of the proposed AD.

We agree with the commenter's request. In this case, similar wording will provide consistent paragraph wording without changing the intent of the NPRM (79 FR 36672, June 30, 2014). We have revised the wording in paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of this AD to “Repeat the inspections specified in this paragraph thereafter at the applicable time and intervals specified in . . . .”

Europe Airpost requested that, in order to avoid any confusion, we clearly state a compliance time for paragraph (j) of the proposed AD (79 FR 36672, June 30, 2014) for airplanes that have 28,300 total flight cycles or more. The commenter asked whether those airplanes would fall under the condition 28,300 total flight cycles but less than 32,800 total flight cycles, or 32,800 total flight cycles or more.

We agree that clarification is necessary. In this case, paragraph (j) of this AD states to use the applicable times specified in tables 4, 5, 7, and 8, of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1323, dated December 6, 2013. Individual airplanes within an operator's fleet could fall into different categories and thus have different compliance times. Operators are to use the appropriate compliance times and repetitive intervals based upon the applicable number of total flight cycles that have been accumulated on each airplane as of the effective date of this AD. We have added new paragraph (n)(3) of the AD to inform operators that the “Condition” columns of the compliance tables also contain compliance information that corresponds to the effective date of the AD. We have also revised paragraphs (i)(1) and (j)(1) of this AD to refer to paragraph (n)(3) of this AD.

SWA requested that we revise the terminating action portion of paragraph (j) of the proposed AD (79 FR 36672, June 30, 2014) to clarify the specified actions. SWA stated that, as written, the terminating action statement seems to imply that the operator is required to accomplish both the preventive modification of the frame at station 360 and the repair of the frame at station 328 to terminate the repetitive inspection requirements for any of the station 328, 344, and 360 frames. SWA also stated that the terminating action in paragraph (j) of the proposed AD does not specify actions or terminating actions if a repair is installed at the station 344 frame. SWA explained that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1323, dated December 6, 2013, contains terminating action in the footnotes of the compliance tables in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” which the commenter thinks should be restated in the AD.

We agree with the commenter's request. For clarity, we have moved the terminating action provisions that were specified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), (j), and (k) of the proposed AD (79 FR 36672, June 30, 2014) to new paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(4) of this AD. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Europe Airpost requested that we clarify whether we meant to exclude the eddy current inspection at station 328 described in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1323, dated December 6, 2013, in paragraph (k) of the proposed AD (79 FR 36672, June 30, 2014). Boeing requested that we add the eddy current inspection at station 328 described in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1323, dated December 6, 2013, in paragraph (k) of the proposed AD.

We agree with Boeing's request to specify the eddy current inspection and Europe Airpost's request to clarify the eddy current inspection requirement. We inadvertently omitted the eddy current inspection from paragraph (k) of the proposed AD (79 FR 36672, June 30, 2014) which applies to Group 7 airplanes. Our intention was to match the actions described in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1323, dated December 6, 2013. In the NPRM (79 FR 36672, June 30, 2014), we did not identify any differences with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1323, dated December 6, 2013, in regards to the required inspections, which includes repetitive eddy current inspections at station 328. For Groups 2 through 7 airplanes, paragraphs (i) and (j) of the proposed AD do specify detailed and HFEC inspections for Groups 2 through 6 airplanes. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (k) of this AD to specify doing eddy current inspections, in addition to the detailed inspections, of the frame at station 328 for Group 7 airplanes.

SWA requested that we specify procedures or terminating actions for repairs installed at the station 380 frame, since paragraph (l) of the proposed AD (79 FR 36672, June 30, 2014) does not specify such actions.

We do not agree with the commenter's request. Boeing has not provided such repairs for our approval in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1323, dated December 6, 2013. Therefore, we have no specific engineering data to review and approve. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

SWA requested that we revise paragraphs (i) through (l) of the proposed AD (79 FR 36672, June 30, 2014) to include provisions for existing repairs that were done using the service repair manual (SRM) or the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) instructions. SWA requested that the NPRM be revised to either terminate the inspections or include alternative actions if existing repairs inhibit the ability to perform the inspections.

We partially agree with the commenter's request. We agree that repairs approved by Boeing via FAA Form 8100-9 (Statement of Compliance with Airworthiness Standards) would have also included the appropriate inspections. We disagree that SRM repairs would necessarily provide the same level of safety. The commenter did not specify for which SRM repairs it was requesting approval. Such repairs might or might not have included consideration of the safety issues addressed by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1323, dated December 6, 2013, and this AD (e.g., skin cracking combined with frame cracking). We have added a new paragraph (p) to this AD to provide credit for repairs of the station 328, 344, 360, and 380 frames in the areas addressed by this AD that have been approved by the Boeing ODA via FAA Form 8100-9 prior to the effective date of this AD for the repairs specified in paragraphs (i), (j), (k), and (l) of this AD. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

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 36672, June 30, 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 36672, June 30, 2014).

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

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1323, dated December 6, 2013. The service information describes procedures for inspection for cracking and missing straps, modification, and repair of certain fuselage frames. 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 417 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for certain on-condition actions specified in this AD. However, we estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs of the station 328 frame and the station 360 frame. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

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

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to SOCATA Models TB 9, TB 10, TB 20, TB 21, and TB 200 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 28, 2015 (80 FR 52215). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the proposal and the FAA's response to the comment.

Anthony Pynes commented that that he does not believe the methodology used and the foundational data available supports the need for this AD, and thus he believes that this AD is not necessary.

We do not agree. The FAA, in working with the State of Design airworthiness authority (EASA), determined that the actions of this AD on the horizontal stabilizer of the affected airplanes are necessary to correct an unsafe condition. Included in this is the risk in establishing such actions at the required compliance times. No changes to the AD have been made based on this comment.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, 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 52215, August 28, 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 52215, August 28, 2015).

We reviewed DAHER-SOCATA TB Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 10-152, Amendment 1, dated April 2015. The service information describes procedures for inspection for corrosion on the horizontal stabilizer spar and repair, if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of the AD.

We estimate that this AD will affect 195 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed 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 $33,150, or $170 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 15 to 38 work-hours and require parts costing $250 to $400 depending on the type of repair, for a cost of $2,325 to $4,280 per product. The cost may vary depending on the extent of damage found. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

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

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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-2015-3642; 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:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to add an AD that would apply to Viking Air Limited Model DHC-3 airplane. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 28, 2015 (80 FR 44892). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the proposal and the FAA's response to the comment.

Viking has reviewed the FAA NPRM (80 FR 44892, July 28, 2015) and found that paragraph (f)(4) is not applicable or relevant to Viking SB V3/0002 Revision C. All cycle information is with respect to the wing. Viking noted that it is important to make the distinction between the airplane and the wings. The possibility has come to Viking's attention that some operators may rotate wings within their airplane fleet. Additionally, the Model DHC-3 airplane nominal cycles to hours ratio used by Viking is 1.33 cycles per hour. In most cases, Viking would consider an average flight length to be 45 minutes. Therefore, Viking recommends that the calculation of the proposed AD paragraph (f)(4) not be part of the mandated actions.

We agree and will remove paragraph (f)(4) of the proposed AD and state in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD that the operator may contact Viking to help determine wing flight cycles. We will also change all reference of “flight cycles” to “wing flight cycles.” We redesignated paragraph (f)(5) of the proposed AD as paragraph (f)(4) of this AD.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 44892, July 28, 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 44892, July 28, 2015).

We reviewed Viking DHC-3 Otter Service Bulletin No. V3/0002, Revision “C”, dated April 30, 2014; and Viking DHC-3 Otter Service Bulletin 3-STC (03-50)-001, Revision “NC”, dated July 3, 2013. The service information describes procedures for installing additional wing inspection access panels and inspecting the wings using borescope and visual methods. 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 38 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 36 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $5,000 per product.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $306,280, or $8,060 per product.

The scope of damage found in the required inspection could vary significantly from airplane to airplane. We have no way of determining how much damage may be found on each airplane or the cost to repair damaged parts on each airplane.

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-2015-3073; 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:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 29, 2014 (79 FR 77972).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0033, dated February 4, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

The related investigative actions in this AD include, as applicable, an ultrasonic inspection, an elasticity laminate checker inspection, a tap test inspection, detailed inspections, and thermography inspections, and ventilation of the core. The repetitive inspections include detailed inspections and thermography inspections. The corrective actions in this AD include repairs.

The compliance time for the related investigative actions is before further flight after accomplishing the applicable inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.

The intervals for the repetitive inspections are either 900 flight hours or 1,000 flight cycles, depending on the applicable conditions identified in the service information.

The compliance times for the corrective actions range, depending on the applicable conditions identified in the service information, from before further flight to within 4,500 flight cycles but not to exceed 24 months after accomplishing the applicable inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0928-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 77972, December 29, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

American Airlines (AAL) and Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that we revise the NPRM (79 FR 77972, December 29, 2014) to cite the latest service information.

We agree with the commenters' request. Airbus has issued Airbus Service Bulletin A330-55-3043, Revision 1, dated August 20, 2014, Airbus Service Bulletin A340-55-4039, Revision 1, dated August 20, 2014, and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-55-5007, Revision 1, dated August 20, 2014. The new service information requires no additional work, and there are no new actions required by this AD. We have updated the AD with the latest service information, and we have also added a credit paragraph for previous actions done before the effective date of this AD using the service information cited in the NPRM (79 FR 77972, December 29, 2014).

AAL requested that the NPRM (79 FR 77972, December 29, 2014) clarify the specific structural repair manual (SRM) repairs that are affected. AAL stated that paragraph (j) of the proposed AD states specific serial number ranges that are not affected by the AD provided that it is determined that no repair has been accomplished on the composite side shell panel of that rudder since first installation on the airplane. AAL believes this last sentence is too broad and not in line with the intent of the service information requirements. AAL commented that stating no repair has been accomplished limits acceptable repairs covered by an Airbus repair design approval sheet, designated engineering representative repairs, and other SRM repairs not affected by the improper practices that are the subject of the NPRM. AAL stated that paragraphs (g)(1) and paragraph (l) of the proposed AD list the affected SRM repairs in the service information figures.

We agree with the commenter's request. We have revised paragraph (j) of this AD to clarify the specific repairs accomplished as described in the SRM procedures identified in Figure A-GBBAA (Sheet 01 and 02) or Figure A-GBCAA (Sheet 02) of the service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(iii) of this AD, as applicable.

DAL requested that the NPRM (79 FR 77972, December 29, 2014) include the manufacturer part numbers of the rudder serial numbers specified in paragraph (j), which provides only a list of rudder serial numbers not affected by the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of the proposed AD. DAL commented that in the event of future aircraft acquisitions or rudder (component only) purchases, operators will need the manufacturer part numbers associated with the listed serial numbers to determine AD applicability.

We disagree with the commenter's request to add part numbers to paragraph (j) of this AD. The rudder serial number, regardless of the part number, is the key to identifying whether the rudder is not affected. Only rudders that have certain serial numbers that meet the conditions specified in paragraph (j) of this AD are exempt from the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD. Airbus has informed us that rudders with the same manufacturer part number might or might not be affected; it is the serial number that determines whether it is an affected rudder. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD 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 77972, December 29, 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 77972, December 29, 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 the following service information:

• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-55-3043, Revision 1, dated August 20, 2014.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-55-4039, Revision 1, dated August 20, 2014.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-55-5007, Revision 1, dated August 20, 2014.

The service information describes procedures for a review of the maintenance records of the rudder to determine if any composite side shell panel repair has been done; a thermography inspection limited to the repair areas or complete side shells, as applicable, to identify possible in-service rudder repairs, damages, or fluid ingress; and applicable related investigative and corrective actions. 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 55 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 45 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $210,375, or $3,825 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-2014-0928; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 23, 2015 (80 FR 3500). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the oblique frame 67-2, which could lead to failure of the oblique frame 67-2, and consequent loss of the structural integrity of the tail section.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0039, dated February 20, 2014, dated (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 3500, January 23, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 3500, January 23, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 3500, January 23, 2015).

Fokker Services B.V. has issued Service Bulletin SBF100-53-124, dated January 23, 2014; and Service Bulletin SBF100-53-125, Revision 1, dated February 13, 2014. The service information describes procedures for a one-time detailed inspection of the oblique frame 67-2 for any cracking, and repair if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $680, or $85 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 12 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $1,020 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

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

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-1048; 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 DoN published a rule at 80 FR 68388 on November 4, 2015, to revise 32 CFR part 776, to comport with current policy as stated in JAG Instruction 5803.1 (Series) governing the professional conduct of attorneys practicing under the cognizance and supervision of the Judge Advocate General. The content of § 776.94 is more appropriate as an appendix, and this correction amends the CFR accordingly, redesignating § 776.94 as an appendix to subpart D. In addition, because § 776.94 becomes an appendix to its subpart, DoN is redesignating § 776.95 in the November 4 rule as § 776.94.

In FR Rule Doc. 2015-26982 appearing on page 68388 in the Federal Register of Wednesday, November 4, 2015, the following corrections are made:

The October 29, 2010, final regulations (75 FR 66832) amended the regulations for Institutional Eligibility Under the HEA, the Secretary's Recognition of Accrediting Agencies, the Secretary's Recognition Procedures for State Agencies, the Student Assistance General Provisions, the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program, the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant Program, the Federal Pell Grant Program, and the Academic Competitiveness Grant (AGC) and the National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grant (National Smart Grant) Programs. On March 22, 2013 (78 FR 17598), the Department revised the preamble discussion to the October 29, 2010, final regulations in response to the remand in Ass'n of Private Sector Colls. & Univs. (APSCU) v. Duncan, 681 F.3d 427 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (78 FR 17598). This document clarifies and provides additional information about the October 29, 2010, final regulations in accordance with a subsequent district court order in APSCU v. Duncan, 70 F. Supp. 3d 446 (D.D.C. 2014).

The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys.

At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov.

Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Graduation-Based and Completion-Based Compensation. In APSCU v. Duncan, 70 F. Supp. 3d 446 (D.D.C. 2014), the district court determined that the Department had not adequately explained or supported its decision to ban compensation to an educational institution's recruiters of students based on the students' graduation from or completion of educational programs offered by the institution. The regulations at 34 CFR 668.14(b)(22), implementing the statutory ban on enrollment-based compensation to recruiters of students, 20 U.S.C. 1094(a)(20), do not contain a ban on graduation-based or completion-based compensation. Although the Department removed the safe harbor that permitted certain graduation-based or completion-based compensation and previously indicated that it interpreted the amended regulations to ban such compensation, see, e.g., 75 FR 66874, the Department hereby indicates, in response to the district court's decision, that the Department has reconsidered its interpretation and does not interpret the regulations to proscribe compensation for recruiters that is based upon students' graduation from, or completion of, educational programs. Correspondingly, the Department will not view the references in the regulations to recruiter enrollment activities that may occur “through completion” by a student of an educational program, 34 CFR 668.14(b)(22)(iii)(B) (introduction), and (iii)(B)(2)(ii), as prohibiting graduation-based or completion-based compensation to recruiters.

The Department has changed its interpretation because, at this time, it lacks sufficient evidence to demonstrate that schools are using graduation-based or completion-based compensation as a proxy for enrollment-based compensation. In assessing the legality of a compensation structure, the Department will focus on the substance of the structure rather than on the label given the structure by an institution. Thus, although compensation based on students' graduation from, or completion of, educational programs is not per se prohibited, the Department reserves the right to take enforcement action against institutions if compensation labeled by an institution as graduation-based or completion-based compensation is merely a guise for enrollment-based compensation, which is prohibited. Compensation that is based upon success in securing enrollments, even if one or more other permissible factors are also considered, remains prohibited.

Impact on Minority Enrollment. The district court found that the Department failed to respond adequately to two commenters who questioned whether the amended regulations “might adversely affect minority outreach.” Id. at 456; see also APSCU v. Duncan, 681 F.3d 427, 449 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The district court remanded the matter for the Department to address “the potential effect on minority recruitment, i.e., whether minority enrollment could decline under the new regulations.” APSCU v. Duncan, 70 F. Supp. 3d at 456.

The particular comments were included in two submissions that also included comments on other aspects of the proposed regulations. The first commenter asked:

The ban on the payment of incentive compensation precludes institutions from paying their recruiters, or enrollment counsellors, bonuses based upon the number of students they enroll, irrespective of the student's minority or other status and irrespective of whether the goal of the recruiters is to increase diversity. The statute and accompanying regulations address the powerful incentive that such pay provides for the recruiter to close the sale—whether or not the training offered is really what the individual needs. The ban exists to shelter all students from abusive practices that have historically occurred when recruiters were rewarded based on the number of students enrolled, as opposed to a more fulsome evaluation of a student's particular needs and an institution's capacity to meet those needs. Congress had no basis to expect (nor do we) that recruiters paid by incentive-based compensation who focus their recruitment efforts on minorities (or any other group, including athletes) would disregard their personal gain as they persuade individuals to enroll.

Minority student enrollment is not a goal in itself; minority student success matters, not just enrollment. Although the ban on incentive compensation may cause minority student enrollment numbers to decline, we expect that the minority students who do ultimately enroll will have a better chance at success, because they will have enrolled based on a decision made free of pressured sales tactics, and they presumably would be a good fit for the school they select. Indeed, as the Department has stated, “[m]inority and low income students are often the targeted audience of recruitment abuses, and our regulatory changes are intended to end that abuse. It is our expectation and objective that enrollment of students, including minority students, against their best educational interests would be reduced with the elimination of improper incentive compensation.” 78 FR 17600 (2013).

In response to the district court's remand and the commenters' questions, the Department hereby acknowledges that the amended regulations could negatively affect outreach and enrollment generally, as well as student outreach that is specifically targeted at promoting diversity, which could result in fewer minority students recruited and enrolled. However, neither the statute nor any information presented by the commenters or in the administrative record provides a basis for treating a recruitment program directed at minority students differently than an institution's general or other specific recruitment programs. And, as explained below, there are ample ways for schools to maintain or increase their enrollment of minority students (and other students) that are likely to achieve a positive result from their enrollment besides providing compensation based on recruiters' enrollment numbers.

For several reasons, estimating how significant the effect on minority recruitment or enrollment may be is difficult. A robust assessment of the effect of incentive-based compensation on minority outreach and enrollment would require a comparison between schools with similar characteristics, one group of which paid its recruiters with incentive-based compensation for minority enrollments, and the other group which did not. We have not conducted such an experiment, and we have found no such study or analysis of this issue in the literature.

Another way to estimate the effect of the incentive compensation ban on institutions' recruitment of minority students would be to estimate how schools that pay incentive compensation to staff who recruit minorities would change their practices as a result of the ban on enrollment-based incentive compensation. If recruiting minority students is more difficult than recruiting other students, we expect schools would need to take steps to achieve the same level of success achieved by paying recruiters compensation based on the number of minority students they enroll, and that this would include, among other things, hiring more recruiters or changing their salary schedules in order to attract more talented recruiters, or both. We believe that schools that devote special efforts to recruit minority students and that used incentive compensation payments to drive those efforts in the past devoted significant resources to those payments, though we have no data quantifying those costs. We would expect those schools to redirect those resources if they wanted to ensure continued success in recruiting and enrolling minority students. Such steps could include increasing salaries to attract more capable recruiters or developing new or enhancing existing outreach activities. We expect that those for-profit schools that currently enroll substantial numbers and high percentages of minority students would take such steps.

Accepting for purposes of this analysis the assertion that efforts to recruit minority students are specialized and thus require more resources than ordinary recruiting efforts generally used, we consider it reasonable to expect that some schools may conclude that the cost of those resources outweighs the benefits of maintaining or increasing special recruiting efforts for minority students. The group of schools more likely to choose not to allocate the added resources needed for specialized minority recruiting would appear to be those schools which depend less on minority enrollments, specifically: For-profit schools that offer longer programs (2 year and 4 year programs), and public or non-profit institutions. Minority enrollment might decline at some institutions in this group, because institutions in this group, compared to those for-profit institutions offering shorter programs, appear to depend less on minority enrollment than for-profit institutions offering shorter programs. They would be more likely to consider the expenses of increasing salaries or adding staff for specialized minority recruiting to outweigh the benefits of maintaining their minority recruiting efforts at the same level as before the ban. Nevertheless, the size of reductions in minority enrollments that would be fairly attributable to the ban—as opposed to other causes—remains difficult to predict.

Next, we would need to determine to what extent recruiters engaged under any revised schemes would be likely to succeed in recruiting minority students without the sales tactics that the ban is intended to deter. Last, for schools affected by the ban, we would need to distinguish those effects that are fairly attributed to the incentive compensation ban itself from those effects that could be attributed to other factors such as competitors' minority student recruitment efforts or a program's performance under the Department's gainful employment regulations, which apply to the same kinds of programs at for-profit schools that are being promoted by such recruiters. No data exists from which one can make these determinations.

While there is uncertainty about the size of any adverse effect of the ban on institutions' recruitment of minority students, the evidence that is available does not support an assertion that the Department's rule will seriously undermine efforts to obtain educational diversity. In “For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success,” 1 the Senate HELP Committee referred to GAO's 2011 study of student outcomes at for-profit schools. In that study, GAO observed that African American and Hispanic students already comprised some 48 percent of all students enrolled in for-profit schools—more than the percent of students enrolled at for-profit schools who are non-Hispanic white (46 percent; Asian-Pacific Islanders and other non-Hispanic white students account for the other 6 percent of for-profit school students), double the percentage of students enrolled at private non-profit schools who are minority students, and far more than the percentage (28 percent) of students enrolled in public institutions who are minority students.2 In addition, we note that the pattern observed in the GAO report continued in succeeding years, and was reflected at each credential level.3 These data demonstrate that for-profit schools at each credential level already enroll disproportionately large percentages of minority students compared to non-minority students and therefore call into question one of the commenter's claims that minority recruitment efforts by the for-profit institutions to which the ban applies are needed to successfully assemble a diverse student body. (AR -3386, 3429, 3430). For-profit schools clearly already have diverse student bodies, dramatically different than student bodies at public or private non-profit institutions.

Although the data show that for-profit schools already enrolled a significant percentage of minority students, estimating whether this diversity has been the result of the payment of incentive compensation, and whether the incentive compensation ban will negatively affect this already very diverse enrollment, would require a reliable estimate of the prevalence of incentive-based compensation in recruiting efforts directed at these minority students, as opposed to other students. The Department has no evidence to show what percentage of these minority students were enrolled on account of incentive-based compensation, as opposed to other features of for-profit schools.4 However, we do know that the percentage of enrolled students who were minority students in degree-granting institutions increased from fall 2010 to fall 2013, after the regulations became effective: minority enrollment as a percentage of all enrollment increased from 39.5 percent in 2010 to 43.1 percent in 2013.5 Similarly, minority student enrollment as a percentage of total enrollments in for-profit degree-granting institutions increased from fall 2010 to fall 2013: from 49.3 percent (4-year institutions) and 56 percent (2-year institutions) in 2010 to 54 percent (4-year institutions) and 61 percent (2-year institutions) in 2013.6 These changes may be the result of many factors that are difficult to weigh or distinguish with respect to their effects on enrollment, including that institutions have already made changes needed to recruit in a manner compliant with the ban. However, these data do not support a claim that the incentive compensation ban has in fact negatively affected minority enrollment.

The Department continues to support all lawful efforts to promote diversity in enrollment, and nothing in the amended regulations changes that fact. Schools can implement effective recruiting programs generally, and effective minority outreach programs specifically, without compensating recruiters based on the number of students enrolled. Considerable efforts have already been made by this and other agencies, and non-governmental entities, to explore techniques to reach minority students and persuade them that postsecondary education is both available to them and worth their investment.7 It is beyond the scope of this clarification and additional information to incorporate that literature or summarize the findings. The commenters did not seek Department guidance on how to conduct outreach to minority students, and any institution interested in methods of such outreach can access resources and information on methods of outreach through Department and other sources.8 The commenters directly asked only for guidance about how to apply the compensation ban to minority recruitment practices, and we respond simply that the ban prohibits compensating those performing outreach and recruitment activities for minority students on the basis of the number of students enrolled. As we note above, minority students are often the target of recruitment practices that lead to enrollment in courses of study that do not further their educational or vocational goals and are contrary to their economic interests, and the rule is intended to reduce that occurrence.

We acknowledge that some institutions may need to revise their diversity outreach operations if they depend more on the financial motivation of the recruiter than the design of the recruiting or outreach plan or the relative value of the programs touted by the recruiter. The regulations address only the payment of incentives to recruiters, not the activities the school requires recruiters to perform. Thus, the regulations do not prevent an institution from holding a recruiter accountable for implementing an effective recruiting or minority outreach plan adopted by the institution.

In sum, the Department acknowledges that the amended regulations may result in some negative impact on minority recruitment and enrollment. But neither the statute nor any information presented by the commenters or in the administrative record provides a basis for treating a recruitment program directed at minority students differently than an institution's general or other specific recruitment programs.

I. Background

Tropospheric ozone, commonly known as smog, is formed when VOCs and nitrogen oxides react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. Because of the harmful health effects of ozone, EPA and state governments limit the amount of VOCs that can be released into the atmosphere. VOCs have different levels of reactivity, that is, some VOCs react slowly or form less ozone, and therefore, changes in their emissions have limited effects on local or regional ozone pollution episodes. It has been EPA's policy that VOCs with a negligible level of reactivity should be excluded from the regulatory definition of VOC contained at 40 CFR 51.100(s) so as to focus control efforts on compounds that do significantly increase ozone concentrations. This is accomplished by adding the substance to a list of compounds not considered to be VOCs, and thus, excluded from the definition of VOC. EPA believes that exempting such compounds creates an incentive for industry to use negligibly reactive compounds in place of more highly reactive compounds that are regulated as VOCs. On March 27, 2014 (79 FR 17037), EPA revised the definition of VOC contained in 40 CFR 51.100 to exclude one substance from the definition of VOC. The compound excluded from the definition of VOC is 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP).

On September 17, 2015, the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia) submitted a formal revision to its SIP which consists of adding AMP to the list of substances that are not considered VOCs found at 9VAC5-10-20. The September 17, 2015 SIP revision will allow the Virginia SIP to mirror the Federal definition of VOC. EPA believes that by excluding this negligibly reactive compound from the definition of VOC an incentive is created for industry to use negligibly reactive compounds in place of more highly reactive compounds; therefore, the air quality in Virginia will not be negatively affected by the approval of this SIP revision particularly as EPA has found this compound negligibly reactive for ozone formation.

EPA is approving the SIP revision to the definition of VOC submitted by Virginia on September 17, 2015. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on January 26, 2016 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by December 28, 2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.

On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege Law, Va. Code § 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts. . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.” Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”

Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

In this rulemaking action, the 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 definition of VOC. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or may be viewed at the EPA Region III 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 CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the 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 as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 26, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking action. This action, revising Virginia's definition of VOC, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

I. Background

In FR Doc. 2015-19049 which appeared in the August 17, 2015 Federal Register (80 FR 49326), entitled “Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2016 Rates; Revisions of Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers, including Changes Related to the Electronic Health Record Incentive Program; Extensions of the Medicare-Dependent, Small Rural Hospital Program and the Low-Volume Payment Adjustment for Hospitals” (hereinafter referred to as the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule), there were a number of technical and typographical errors. Therefore, we published a correcting document that appeared in the October 5, 2015 Federal Register (80 FR 60055) to correct those errors (hereinafter referred to as the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS correcting document). The provisions of the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS correcting document were effective as if they had been included in the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule that appeared in the August 17, 2015 Federal Register. Accordingly, those corrections were effective October 1, 2015.

Since publication of the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS correcting document, we discovered technical and typographic errors to data that appeared in that document. Therefore, we are correcting the errors in the following IPPS tables that are listed on page 49808 of the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, that were discussed on pages 60056 and 60057 and corrected in the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS correcting document. These tables are available on the Internet on the CMS Web site at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/FY2016-IPPS-Final-Rule-Home-Page.html:

Table 2—CASE MIX INDEX AND WAGE INDEX TABLE BY CCN—FY 2016 CORRECTION NOTICE. In the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS correcting document, we inadvertently changed the reclassification status for two hospitals (CCNs 050152 and 050228). In Table 2 of the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, prior to the revisions based on the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS correcting document, the reclassification status for CCNs 050152 and 050228 correctly reflected an MGCRB reclassification to Reclassified/Redesignated CBSA 36084. For these two hospitals, the “MGCRB Reclass” column value will be corrected by adding a “Y” and the “Reclassified/Redesignated CBSA” column value will be corrected by adding “36084.”

Also, in Table 2 that was posted on the Internet in conjunction with the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS correcting document, we inadvertently listed the “County Name” and “County Code” values for CCN 050B21 as “FAIRFIELD” and “07000”, and for CCN 070B22 as “FRESNO” and “05090”. The “County Name” and “County Code” values for CCN 050B21 should be “FRESNO” and “05090”, and for CCN 070B22 should be “FAIRFIELD” and “07000.” Therefore, the “County Name” and “County Code” for CCN 050B21 will be corrected to read “FRESNO” and “05090”, respectively; and the “County Name” and “County Code” for CCN 070B22 will be corrected to read “FAIRFIELD” and “07000”, respectively.

Table 3—WAGE INDEX TABLE BY CBSA—FY 2016 CORRECTION NOTICE. As described previously, the reclassifications for two hospitals (CCNs 050152 and 050228) to CBSA 36084 were not properly listed and are being corrected in Table 2. Therefore, we are making corresponding changes to the “Reclassified Wage Index” and “Reclassified GAF” column values for CBSA 36084 in Table 3.

We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a rule take effect in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). However, we can waive this notice and comment procedure if the Secretary finds, for good cause, that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporates a statement of the finding and the reasons therefore in the notice.

Section 553(d) of the APA ordinarily requires a 30-day delay in effective date of final rules after the date of their publication in the Federal Register. This 30-day delay in effective date can be waived, however, if an agency finds for good cause that the delay is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and the agency incorporates a statement of the findings and its reasons in the rule issued.

We believe that this correcting document does not constitute a rule that would be subject to the APA notice and comment or delayed effective date requirements. This correcting document corrects technical and typographic errors in the tables referenced in the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule as revised by the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS correcting document but does not make substantive changes to the policies or payment methodologies that were adopted in the final rule. As a result, this correcting document is intended to ensure that the tables referenced in the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflect the policies adopted in that final rule.

In addition, even if this were a rule to which the notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the final rule or delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public's interest for providers to receive appropriate payments in as timely a manner as possible, and to ensure that the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects our policies. Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not altering our payment methodologies or policies, but rather, we are simply implementing correctly the policies that we previously proposed, received comment on, and subsequently finalized. This correcting document is intended solely to ensure that the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects these payment methodologies and policies. Therefore, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment and effective date requirements.

The Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) reef fish fishery is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

On October 19, 2015, NMFS published a proposed rule for the framework action and requested public comment (80 FR 63190). The proposed rule and the framework action outline the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the actions implemented by the framework action and this final rule is provided below.

This final rule withholds 4.9 percent of the 2016 red snapper commercial quota, equal to 352,000 lb (159,665 kg), round weight, and 317,117 lb (143,842 kg), gutted weight, prior to the annual distribution of allocation to the IFQ program shareholders on January 1, 2016. The framework procedures of the FMP include the authority to retain a portion of an annual quota in anticipation of future regulatory changes during the same fishing year. This final rule allows the allocations being established through Amendment 28 to be effective for the 2016 fishing year should the Secretary approve Amendment 28 in 2016. If NMFS does not implement Amendment 28, NMFS will distribute the withheld 4.9 percent of the 2016 red snapper commercial quota to shareholders based on the shares held as of the date of distribution.

This final rule fixes an error in § 622.41(q)(2)(i) for the recreational sector of Gulf red snapper. This final rule re-inserts a sentence of regulatory text originally published in the final rule implementing Amendment 40 to the FMP (80 FR 22422, April 22, 2015), which specifies that the recreational ACL for red snapper is equal to the total recreational quota. The regulatory text was inadvertently omitted in a subsequent correcting amendment (80 FR 58219, September 28, 2015) to a final rule for a framework action that increased the commercial and recreational quotas for Gulf red snapper in the 2015, 2016, and 2017 fishing years (80 FR 24832, May 1, 2015). This final rule corrects the error by re-inserting the regulatory text into § 622.41(q)(2)(i). This action is unrelated to the actions described in this framework action.

NMFS received 46 comment submissions from individuals, commercial fishermen, and a commercial fishermen's association on the framework action and the proposed rule, along with other issues. Many of the comments NMFS received were about Amendment 28 and alternative management strategies for red snapper, for example, expanding state waters and advocating for state rather than Federal management. Such comments were beyond the scope of the proposed rule and, therefore, have not been addressed in this final rule. The comments that relate to the framework action and the proposed rule are summarized and responded to below.

Comment 1: The red snapper commercial quota should not be withheld until Amendment 28 is approved and implemented by NMFS. The resulting reallocation of the red snapper commercial quota would then apply to the 2017 fishing year.

Response: NMFS disagrees that the commercial quota necessary to implement Amendment 28 in the 2016 fishing year should not be withheld. The Council approved Amendment 28 for review and implementation in August 2015 with the expectation that the revised allocations and quotas would be implemented in 2016, if approved by the Secretary. This will not be possible unless that portion of the commercial quota is not distributed to shareholders on January 1, 2016, the date on which NMFS distributes annual red snapper allocation to shareholders. If Amendment 28 is not approved by the Secretary, the withheld red snapper commercial quota will be distributed as soon as possible to the current red snapper IFQ shareholders based on their current shares held as of the date of distribution.

Comment 2: Withholding IFQ allocation cannot be accomplished through framework procedures. NMFS regulations at 50 CFR 622.42(a) list actions that can be established or modified in accordance with the framework procedures of the FMP. Withholding IFQ allocation in anticipation of reallocation is not one of the described actions that can be accomplished by framework procedures. NMFS and the Council are not modifying approved framework items such as the red snapper quotas or the ACLs through this framework action; that is what Amendment 28 would do if and when it is approved. NMFS, therefore, lacks authority to implement this action using framework procedures.

Response: NMFS disagrees. The regulations at 50 CFR 622.42(a) refer to the framework procedures of the FMP and list quotas as one of the management measures that may be modified. The framework procedures for the FMP that were established with the Generic ACL and Accountability Measures Amendment (76 FR 82044, December 29, 2011; http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/generic/archives/generic_acl_am_amend_sept_2011.pdf) list the regulatory changes that may be implemented and expressly include “retention of portion of an annual quota in anticipation of future regulatory changes during the same fishing year.” Thus, this framework action and regulations are in accordance with the FMP (as revised through the Generic ACL and Accountability Measures Amendment), and regulations at 50 CFR 622.42(a).

Comment 3: Reducing each shareholder's allocation of red snapper by approximately five percent could reduce access to quota that was leased out to the grouper fishery for bycatch coverage. This would result in negative biological consequences that are not analyzed in the framework action.

Response: NMFS disagrees. Withholding the red snapper commercial quota until a decision to approve or disapprove Amendment 28 is made does not restrict the ability of the shareholders to continue to contribute to the private quota bank they developed. Any long-term impacts on bycatch mortality anticipated from a permanent shift in allocation to the recreational sector would be a consequence of Amendment 28 and its implementing regulations, not this rule.

Comment 4: Withholding a portion of an individual's quota indefinitely disrupts fishermen's business plans, particularly for fishermen who harvest large portions or all of their allocation early in the year, leading to inefficiencies in the allocation leasing marketplace which would reduce profitability and introduce economic and social costs to the IFQ program.

Response: NMFS disagrees. As stated in the proposed rule for this framework action, withholding a portion of the commercial quota may result in a reduction in normal total revenue, alteration of the flow of receipts, and disruption of normal business operation, consistent with the comment. These effects, however, are expected to be minor because of the small amount of quota withheld (4.9 percent) and the likely short timeframe during which withholding occurs. Thus, the full value of the quota being withheld would not be lost. Because red snapper commercial harvest occurs throughout the year, and is not subject to “race to fish” (derby) conditions, withholding this small portion is not expected to severely limit the availability of allocation for purchase or trade early in the year, nor result in a market glut if allocation is subsequently returned to shareholders. This action only applies to the 2016 fishing year. As a result, the economic and social consequences are of limited scope and duration and are not expected to harm individual businesses or the industry beyond as already described. If Amendment 28 is approved by the Secretary of Commerce and the quota is not returned to shareholders, this would be a consequence of the rule for Amendment 28 and not this current framework action and final rule.

The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS has determined that this final rule is consistent with the framework action, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this final rule.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce (DOC) certified to the Chief Counsel for advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. NMFS received no significant comments regarding the certification. However, one general comment on the expected economic effects of this rule is addressed in the Comments and Response section of this rule. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and was not prepared.

As discussed in the background section of this final rule, this rule also re-inserts a sentence of regulatory text originally published in the final rule implementing Amendment 40 (80 FR 22422, April 22, 2015). The regulatory text was inadvertently omitted in a subsequent correcting amendment (80 FR 58219, September 28, 2015) to a final rule that implemented a framework amendment for red snapper in the Gulf reef fish fishery (80 FR 24832, May 1, 2015). The DOC Chief Counsel for Regulation certified to the Chief Counsel for advocacy of the SBA that the final rules implementing both Amendment 40 and the framework amendment would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The re-insertion of this regulatory text is not expected to have direct adverse economic effects on a substantial number of small entities because it is an administrative correcting action. The final rule that originally published the regulation was certified to not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and the public may believe the omitted text is already included in the regulations. This change is needed to ensure that the public is aware of the correct recreational harvest limit (quota) and accountability measures for recreationally-caught Gulf red snapper.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity for additional public comment for this correcting action because it would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the public received notice and an opportunity to comment on the proposed rules for the framework amendment and Amendment 40 and the final rule for Amendment 40 included this regulatory text. This final rule reinstates the regulatory text that was inadvertently omitted from the correcting amendment that published on September 28, 2015 (80 FR 58219). If this final rule was delayed to allow for notice and opportunity for public comment, it could cause confusion because the public believes that the omitted text is already included in the regulations.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:

The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish (king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia) is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

The Gulf migratory group king mackerel is divided into western and eastern zones. The Gulf's eastern zone for king mackerel is further divided into the Florida west coast northern and southern subzones that have separate quotas. The quota for the Florida west coast northern subzone is 178,848 lb (81,124 kg) (50 CFR 622.384(b)(1)(i)(B)(2)).

Regulations at 50 CFR 622.388(a)(1) require NMFS to close the commercial sector for Gulf migratory group king mackerel in the Florida west coast northern subzone when the commercial quota is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. Based on the best scientific information available, NMFS has determined the commercial quota of 178,848 lb (81,124 kg) for Gulf migratory group king mackerel in the Florida west coast northern subzone will be reached by November 28, 2015. Accordingly, the Florida west coast northern subzone is closed effective noon, local time, November 28, 2015, through June 30, 2016, the end of the current fishing year, to commercial fishing for Gulf migratory group king mackerel.

Except for a person aboard a charter vessel or headboat, during the closure, no person aboard a vessel for which a commercial permit for king mackerel has been issued may fish for or retain Gulf group king mackerel in the EEZ in the closed subzone (50 CFR 622.384(e)(1) and (e)(2)). A person aboard a vessel that has a valid charter vessel/headboat permit for coastal migratory pelagic fish may continue to retain king mackerel in or from the closed subzone under the bag and possession limits set forth in 50 CFR 622.382(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2), provided the vessel is operating as a charter vessel or headboat. A charter vessel or headboat that also has a commercial king mackerel permit is considered to be operating as a charter vessel or headboat when it carries a passenger who pays a fee or when there are more than three persons aboard, including operator and crew.

During the closure, king mackerel from the closed subzone, including those harvested under the bag and possession limits, may not be purchased or sold. This prohibition does not apply to king mackerel from the closed zones or subzones that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to the closure and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor (50 CFR 622.384(e)(3)).

The Florida west coast northern subzone is that part of the EEZ between 26°19.8′ N. latitude (a line directly west from the boundary between Lee and Collier Counties, FL) and 87°31.1′ W. longitude (a line directly south from the state boundary of Alabama and Florida).

The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf migratory group king mackerel and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.388(a)(1) and 50 CFR 622.384(e) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the Florida west coast northern subzone of the Gulf eastern zone to commercial king mackerel fishing constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary, because the rule implementing the commercial quota and the associated requirement for closure of the commercial harvest when the quota is reached or is projected to be reached has already been subject to notice and public comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the quota, and there is a need to immediately implement this action to protect the king mackerel resource. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and could potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established quota.

For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

On August 5, 2015, NMFS restricted the retention, transshipment and landing of bigeye tuna captured by longline gear in the western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) as a result of the U.S. longline fishery reaching the 2015 U.S. bigeye tuna limit of 3,502 mt (80 FR 44883, July 28, 2015). Regulations at 50 CFR 300.224(d) provide an exception to this closure for bigeye tuna caught by U.S. longline vessels identified in a valid specified fishing agreement under 50 CFR 665.819(c). Further, 50 CFR 665.819(c)(9) authorized NMFS to attribute catches of bigeye tuna made by U.S. longline vessels identified in a valid specified fishing agreement to the U.S. territory to which the agreement applies.

Effective on October 9, 2015, NMFS specified a 2015 catch limit of 2,000 mt of longline-caught bigeye tuna for the CNMI (80 FR 61767, October 14, 2015). NMFS also authorized the CNMI to allocate up to 1,000 mt of its 2,000 mt bigeye tuna limit to U.S. longline fishing vessels permitted to fish under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific (FEP).

On October 9, 2015, the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, through its Executive Director, transmitted to NMFS a specified fishing agreement between the CNMI and Quota Management, Inc. (QMI), dated September 16, 2015, and amended on October 15, 2015, by adding one vessel. NMFS reviewed the agreement, as amended, and determined that it was consistent with the requirements at 50 CFR 665.819, the FEP, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable laws. The criteria that a specified fishing agreement must meet, and the process for attributing longline-caught bigeye tuna, followed the procedures in 50 CFR 665.819—Territorial catch and fishing effort limits.

In accordance with 50 CFR 300.224(d) and 50 CFR 665.819(c)(9), NMFS began attributing bigeye tuna caught in the WCPO by vessels identified in the CNMI/QMI agreement to the CNMI, beginning on October 9, 2015. NMFS monitored catches of longline-caught bigeye tuna by the CNMI longline fisheries, including catches made by U.S. longline vessels operating under the CNMI/QMI agreement. Based on this monitoring, NMFS forecasted that the CNMI territorial allocation limit of 1,000 mt will be reached by the end of November 2015, and is, as an accountability measure, prohibiting the catch and retention of longline-caught bigeye tuna by vessels in the CNMI/QMI agreement.

On November 30, 2015, through December 31, 2015, NMFS closes the U.S. pelagic longline fishery for bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean as a result of the fishery reaching the 2015 allocation limit of 1,000 mt for the CNMI.

During the closure, a U.S. fishing vessel operating under the CNMI/QMI agreement may not retain on board, transship, or land bigeye tuna captured by longline gear in the WCPO, except that any bigeye tuna already on board a fishing vessel upon the effective date of the restrictions may be retained on board, transshipped, and landed, provided that they are landed within 14 days of the start of the closure, that is, by December 14, 2015. Additionally, U.S. fishing vessels operating under the CNMI/QMI agreement are also prohibited from transshipping bigeye tuna caught in the WCPO by longline gear to any vessel other than a U.S. fishing vessel with a valid permit issued under 50 CFR 660.707 or 665.801.

During the closure, all other restrictions and requirements NMFS established on August 5, 2015, as a result of the U.S. longline fishery reaching the 2015 U.S. bigeye tuna limit of 3,502 mt (80 FR 44883, July 28, 2015) shall remain valid and effective.

NMFS notes that there is a pending case in litigation—Conservation Council for Hawai'i, et al., v. NMFS (D. Hawaii); case no. 14-cv-528—that challenges the framework process for allocations from the territories to U.S. longline fishing vessels.

There is good cause to waive the prior notice and public comment requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act, and make this rule effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register. This rule closes the U.S. longline fishery for bigeye tuna in the WCPO as a result of reaching the bigeye tuna allocation limit established by the 2015 specification for catch and allocation limits of bigeye tuna for the CNMI, and the specified fishing agreement between the Government of the CNMI and QMI dated September 16, 2015, amended on October 15, 2015.

NMFS forecasts that the fishery will reach the 2015 limit by the end of November 2015. Fishermen have been subject to longline bigeye tuna limits in the western and central Pacific since 2009. They have received ongoing, updated information about the 2015 catch and progress of the fishery in reaching the Convention Area limit via the NMFS Web site, social media, and other means. The publication timing of this rule, moreover, provides longline fishermen with seven days' advance notice of the closure date, and allows two weeks to return to port and land their catch of bigeye tuna. This action is intended to comply with regulations managing this stock, and, accordingly NMFS finds it impracticable and contrary to the public interest to have prior notice and public comment.

For the reasons stated above, there is also good cause to waive the 30-day delay requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act for this notice and temporary rule. NMFS must close the fishery as soon as possible to ensure that fishery does not exceed the allocation limit. NMFS implemented the catch and allocation limits for the CNMI consistent with management objectives to sustainable manage the bigeye tuna stock and restore the stock to levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis. Failure to close the fishery immediately would be inconsistent with bigeye tuna management objections and in violation of Federal law.

This action is required by 50 CFR 665.819(d), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.