Federal Register Vol. 81, No.69,

Table of Contents I. Background and Overview A. Background and Summary of the Proposed Rule B. Overview of the Final Rule and Significant Changes From the Proposed Rule II. Inclusion of U.S. Municipal Securities as HQLA A. Criteria for Inclusion of U.S. Municipal Securities as Level 2B Liquid Assets 1. U.S. General Obligation Municipal Securities 2. Investment Grade U.S. General Obligation Municipal Securities 3. Proven Record as a Reliable Source of Liquidity 4. Not an Obligation of a Financial Sector Entity or its Consolidated Subsidiaries B. Quantitative Limitations on a Company's Inclusion of U.S. General Obligation Municipal Securities in its HQLA Amount 1. Limitation on the Inclusion of U.S. General Obligation Municipal Securities With the Same CUSIP Number in the HQLA Amount 2. Limitation on the Inclusion of the U.S. General Obligation Municipal Securities of a Single Issuer in the HQLA Amount 3. Limitation on the Amount of U.S. General Obligation Municipal Securities That Can Be Included in the HQLA Amount C. HQLA Calculation III. Plain Language IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act V. Paperwork Reduction Act VI. Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 I. Background and Overview A. Background and Summary of the Proposed Rule

On May 28, 2015, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invited comment on a proposed rule (proposed rule) to allow Board-regulated institutions subject to the liquidity coverage ratio rule and modified liquidity coverage ratio rule (together, LCR rule) 1 to include certain U.S. general obligation municipal securities as high-quality liquid assets (HQLA).2 The LCR rule, adopted by the Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (collectively, the agencies) in 2014,3 is designed to promote the short-term resilience of the liquidity risk profile of large and internationally active banking organizations, and to further improve the measurement and management of liquidity risk, thereby improving the banking sector's ability to absorb shocks arising during periods of significant stress. The LCR rule requires a company to maintain an amount of HQLA (the numerator of the ratio) 4 that is no less than its total net cash outflow amount over a forward-looking 30 calendar-day period of significant stress (the denominator of the ratio).5 Community banking organizations are not subject to the LCR rule.6

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on December 9, 2015 (80 FR 76402). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4076.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received.

Boeing concurred with the NPRM.

Orbital ATK and Lockheed Martin requested that the compliance time be based on LPT blade cycles instead of calendar time. Orbital ATK cites correspondence with the U.S. Rolls-Royce representative who recommends a 15,000 cycles-since-new (CSN) duration for the LPT blade design life. Since there is no calendar time driving the unsafe condition, Orbital ATK believes this is a good mitigation factor for low utilization rate operators. Orbital ATK believes that routine borescope inspections of the LPT blades and removal of the engine prior to reaching an LPT blade limit of 15,000 CSN offers an equivalent level of safety.

We partially agree. We agree that the failure mode of the bearing support is not a time-based dependency. However, a compliance time of 24 months is specified to allow for a shop visit interval. We have determined that removal of the LPT support roller bearing addresses the unsafe condition. Operators with unique circumstances may apply for an alternative method of compliance using the procedures listed in this AD. We did not change this AD.

Lockheed Martin requested an adjustment to the estimated costs of compliance. The costs to low utilization operators would be significantly increased by imposing an unscheduled shop visit and/or unscheduled engine removal. Another possible contributor for increased costs is the lack of an approved repair station within the United States.

We partially agree. We disagree that no repair stations exist within the U.S. that may perform the work required by this AD. We agree that this AD may drive low utilization operators to the shop faster. Operators with unique circumstances may apply for an alternative method of compliance using the procedures listed in this AD. We did not change this AD.

We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed.

We estimate that this AD affects 9 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate it will take 0 hours to comply with this AD. Removing the LPT support roller bearing is required during a shop visit; therefore, no additional time is needed for removal. Required parts cost about $8,184 per engine. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $73,656.

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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

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

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 remove AD 2010-23-02, Amendment 39-16491 (75 FR 68169, November 5, 2010) and add a new AD. AD 2010-23-02 applied to Eurocopter France (now Airbus Helicopters) Model SA 365N, SA-365N1, AS 365N2, and AS 365 N3 helicopters. AD 2010-23-02 required amending the Limitations section of the RFM to limit the VNE to 150 KIAS and to add a 1,500 ft/minute R/D limitation beyond 140 KIAS and installing one or more placards on the cockpit instrument panel in full view of the pilot and copilot. AD 2010-23-01 was prompted by AD No. 2008-0204R1, Revision 1, dated May 21, 2014, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA advises that Airbus Helicopters developed MOD 07 55B28 to improve the dynamic behavior of the horizontal stabilizer and thus reduce the vibration levels during high speed descent. EASA issued AD No. 2008-0204R1 to retain the requirements of its previous AD but to exclude helicopters with MOD 07 55B28 from the applicability.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 19, 2015 (80 FR 63145). The NPRM proposed to retain the requirements to amend the Limitations section of the RFM and install one or more placards on the cockpit instrument panel. The NPRM also proposed to revise the applicability to exclude helicopters with MOD 0755B28 installed. The proposed requirements were intended to exclude certain helicopters from the applicability and restrict the VNE on other helicopters to prevent failure of the horizontal stabilizer and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (80 FR 63145, October 19, 2015).

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Eurocopter has issued an Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) with three numbers (01.00.60, 01.00.16, and 01.28), Revision 1, dated December 2, 2008. EASB No. 01.00.60 applies to U.S. type-certificated Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3 helicopters and also to military Model AS365F, Fs, Fi, and K helicopters that are not type certificated in the United States. EASB 01.00.16 applies to military Model AS565AA, MA, MB, SA, SB, and UB helicopters that are not type certificated in the United States. EASB 01.28 applies to the Model SA-366G1 helicopter. The EASB specifies bonding one or more locally-produced labels to the instrument panel stating that the VNE is limited to 150 KIAS and the R/D must not exceed 1,500 ft/min beyond 140 KIAS. Eurocopter states in the EASB that it is working on an enhanced definition that will be proposed as soon as possible. EASA classified this EASB as mandatory and issued AD No. 2008-0204-E, dated December 4, 2008, and revised with Revision 1, dated May 21, 2014, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.

Airbus Helicopters has issued Service Bulletin (SB) No. AS365-55.00.06, Revision 0, dated November 14, 2014, which Airbus Helicopters identifies as MOD 0755B28. The SB specifies repairing the stabilizer for suppression of the flutter phenomenon.

We estimate that this AD will affect 33 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. We estimate about l/2 work-hour per helicopter to make copies to include in the RFM and to make and install the placards. The parts costs are minimal. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators will be $1,403 for the fleet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that a regulatory; 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 all Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2014 (79 FR 69377) (“the NPRM”).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0176, dated August 25, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

Required actions include modifying the electrical routing installation at the RH and LH wings by installing new bracket assemblies to ensure adequate clearance between the wiring and the structure, and installing protective split sleeves as mechanical protection to the electrical harnesses.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0775-0002.

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

FedEx and United Parcel Service (UPS) requested that the NPRM reference the latest revision of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6103, Revision 02, dated February 7, 2013. UPS stated that Airbus released an operators information transmission in October 2014, which stated that an operator reported that the installation of the clamps was not possible. UPS and FedEx stated that a revised version of the service information should be mandated.

We agree with the commenters' request. Since the NPRM was issued, we have reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6103, Revision 03, dated July 3, 2015, excluding Appendices 01, 02, 03, and 04, Revision 03, dated July 3, 2015; and Airbus Service Bulletin A310-24-2105, Revision 02, dated January 5, 2015, excluding Appendix 01, Revision 02, dated January 5, 2015. Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6103, Revision 03, dated July 3, 2015, excluding Appendices 01, 02, 03, and 04, Revision 03, dated July 3, 2015, adds an installation of new bracket assemblies in the shroud box (LH and RH sides) to the modification. Airbus Service Bulletin A310-24-2105, Revision 02, dated January 5, 2015, excluding Appendix 01, Revision 02, dated January 5, 2015, only includes minor changes to the modification. We have updated paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD accordingly. Similar to the MCAI, credit is not given for Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6103, Revision 02, dated February 7, 2013.

FedEx requested that we revise the Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM. FedEx stated that the 37 work-hour estimate is consistent with what is specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6103, Revision 02, dated February 7, 2013. However, FedEx stated that Airbus Service Bulletin A310-24-2105, Revision 01, dated December 11, 2013, shows an estimate of up to 55.5 work-hours, and does not include preparation and set up time. Airbus also stated that, from their experience, the work-hours tend to be understated compared to the actual time required to accomplish the actions. FedEx commented that it believes an estimate of 60 work-hours is more realistic. FedEx stated that it must be noted that 102 FedEx-registered airplanes are listed in the effectivity section of both service bulletins, and that the overall cost assessment omits the fact that over half of the total U.S. fleet cost will be borne by a single operator.

We agree with the commenter's request to revise the estimated costs of compliance; however, we have used the cost estimate identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-24-2105, Revision 02, dated January 5, 2015, excluding Appendix 01, Revision 02, dated January 5, 2015, which does include access and close-up work-hours. We have revised the Costs of Compliance section of this final rule to specify up to 56 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD.

FedEx requested that AD 2006-22-07, Amendment 39-14800 (71 FR 62890, October 27, 2006) (“AD 2006-22-07”), be listed as an affected AD in the proposed AD, and that the NPRM supersede AD 2006-22-07. FedEx stated that the manufacturer has linked the NPRM to AD 2006-22-07.

FedEx commented that it has complied with the proposed requirements of the proposed AD, and all but two airplanes were found to be compliant with the clearance requirements specified in the applicable service information. FedEx stated that it has contacted the manufacturer for an approved method of compliance. FedEx stated that Airbus issued an EASA-approved technical adaptation requiring that the affected wire bundles be wrapped and a repetitive inspection be performed until a permanent fix is available. FedEx stated that the permanent fix is “Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6103,” which was specified in the NPRM.

FedEx commented that the manufacturer has linked the NPRM to AD 2006-22-07 because Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6103 will act as terminating action for the requirements of AD 2006-22-07 and the NPRM. FedEx also stated that it thinks that all airplanes that comply with AD 2006-22-07 without requiring additional permanent modifications should be exempt from the NPRM.

We agree that AD 2006-22-07 and this AD are related; however, we disagree with the commenter's request to supersede AD 2006-22-07 and include that AD as an affected AD in paragraph (b) of this AD. We also disagree with the commenter's request to exempt airplanes that comply with AD 2006-22-07 from this AD.

Prior issues of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6103 (issued before Revision 03, dated July 3, 2015) are not acceptable for compliance with this AD because this AD and AD 2006-22-07 address two different unsafe conditions and require different corrective actions. AD 2006-22-07 and prior issues of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6103 (issued before Revision 03, dated July 3, 2015) do not address insufficient clearance of electrical wiring bundles located in the leading and trailing edges of the RH and LH wings, which is the unsafe condition identified in this final rule. Additional actions are required in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6103, Revision 03, dated July 3, 2015, to address the unsafe conditions identified by this final rule that were not addressed on airplanes modified using previous issues of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6103.

Therefore, this final rule will not supersede AD 2006-22-07. Regardless of the findings or corrective actions accomplished in accordance with AD 2006-22-07, the service information in this final rule must still be required. We have not change this final rule in this regard.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD 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 for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

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

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-24-6103, Revision 03, dated July 3, 2015, excluding Appendices 01, 02, 03, and 04, Revision 03, dated July 3, 2015; and Service Bulletin A310-24-2105, Revision 02, dated January 5, 2015, excluding Appendix 01, Revision 02, dated January 5, 2015. The service information describes procedures for modifying the electrical routing installation at the RH and LH wings. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

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

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

We estimate that this AD affects 199 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 56 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 up to $18,000 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $4,529,240, or $22,760 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0775; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235-200 and CN-235-300 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 12, 2015 (80 FR 69898) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of false engine fire warning events, which consequently led to engine in-flight shutdowns. The NPRM proposed to require modification of the location and routing of the engine fire detection system. We are issuing this AD to prevent unnecessary engine in-flight shutdown, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0011, dated January 20, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235-200 and CN-235-300 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4809.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM 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 for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

EADS CASA has issued Service Bulletin SB-235-26-0006, dated July 8, 2014. The service information describes procedures for modifying the engine fire detection system. 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.

We estimate that this AD affects 24 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 75 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $1,577 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $190,848, or $7,952 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4809; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 27, 2015 (80 FR 74056) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a fuel leak that occurred in the baggage compartment during fuel system pressurization. The NPRM proposed to require opening the fuel boxes and restoring the sealing. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct failure of a connector or coupling on a fuel line, which, in combination with a leak in the corresponding enclosure (i.e., fuel box), could result in a fire in the baggage compartment and affect the safe flight of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0116, dated May 13, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-5813.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM 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 for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We reviewed Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-284, Revision 1, dated April 8, 2014. The service information describes procedures for opening the fuel boxes and restoring the sealing. 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.

We estimate that this AD affects 39 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 16 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts are negligible. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $53,040, or $1,360 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2015 (80 FR 26487) (“the NPRM”).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0177, dated July 25, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

Related investigative actions include rotating probe testing for cracking of the fastener holes and high frequency eddy current inspections for cracking of the stringers. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1277.

Since the NPRM was issued, Airbus has issued Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1266, Revision 03, dated May 7, 2015. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to reference this revised service information. We have revised paragraph (i) of this AD to give credit for actions done before the effective date of this AD using the following service information.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1266, dated January 11, 2013.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1266, Revision 01, dated June 20, 2013.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1266, Revision 02, dated August 13, 2014.

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

An anonymous commenter provided support for the NPRM.

United Airlines requested that we revise paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to omit the additional part replacement. United Airlines noted that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD states that the replacement of clips, shear webs, and angles must be accomplished again before 30,000 flight cycles or 60,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first, if the replacement was accomplished before 30,000 flight cycles or 60,000 flight hours, whichever occurred first from airplane's first flight. The commenter stated that this paragraph suggests that the installation of new parts does not constitute terminating action. The commenter expressed that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD has no repetitive requirement for replacement of new parts if accomplished between 30,000 and 48,000 flight cycles or 60,000 and 96,000 flight hours since the airplane's first flight. The commenter suggested that this requirement will encourage operators to replace the part when the airplane has accumulated more than 30,000 total flight cycles and 60,000 total flight hours in order to avoid the possibility of additional part replacement. The commenter added that installation of new parts twice, increases the risk of damage during the part replacement.

United Airlines stated further that the additional replacement in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD could potentially result in the requirement to replace the part twice before the threshold defined in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. By way of example, the commenter stated that if the part replacement were accomplished before 18,000 flight cycles and 36,000 flight hours since the airplane's first flight, the replacement would be required again before 48,000 flight cycles or 96,000 flight hours since the airplane's first flight. This scenario implies that the new parts reduce the fatigue life compared to an unmodified aircraft. United Airlines stated that it is not clear how the additional replacement in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD meets the intent of the NPRM. The replacement part modification prevents fatigue damage on the clips, shear webs, and angles to support operation reaching the LOV. However, there is no explanation in the AD that these new parts are life limited.

We disagree to omit the additional part replacement required by paragraph (h) of this AD. We agree with United Airlines' assessment that this AD would require replacement of the clips, shear webs, and angles twice, if those parts are first replaced prior to 30,000 total flight cycles or 60,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first. Replacement of clips, shear webs, and angles prior to 30,000 total flight cycles or 60,000 total flight hours may have been required due to reasons other than this AD. However, this AD does not require replacement of the parts before 30,000 total flight cycles or 60,000 total flight hours. We have determined that if the parts are replaced before 30,000 total flight cycles or 60,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first, a repeat replacement of those parts is necessary to support the airplane reaching its LOV of the engineering data.

We also disagree that requiring replacement of the parts twice, will increase the risk of damage. The procedures specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1266, Revision 03, dated May 7, 2015, for replacing clips, shear webs, and angles are appropriate for supporting the continued operational safety of the affected Airbus fleet and do not introduce additional risk to the structural integrity of the airplane. We have made no changes to this 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 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 for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

Airbus has issued Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1266, Revision 03, dated May 7, 2015. The service information describes procedures for replacing clips, shear webs, and angles at rear fuselage section 19, FR72 and FR74. 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.

We estimate that this AD affects 44 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 110 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $411,400, or $9,350 per product.

We have received no definitive data on the costs of required parts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 97-20-07, Amendment 39-10145 (62 FR 50251, September 25, 1997) (“AD 97-20-07”). AD 97-20-07 applied to certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 5, 2015 (80 FR 32058) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that the inspection compliance time and repetitive inspection interval must be reduced to allow timely detection of fatigue cracking in the left and right wings in the area where the top skin attaches to the center spar. The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections to detect fatigue cracking in the left and right wings in the area where the top skin attaches to the center spar, and repair or modification of this area if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to reduce the inspection compliance time and repetitive inspection intervals. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct this fatigue cracking, which could reduce the residual strength of the top skin of the wings, and consequently affect the structural integrity of the airframe.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0221, dated September 19, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1426.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Paragraph (m)(2) of the proposed AD inadvertently included the corrective action for the low frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspections for cracking specified in paragraphs (k) and (l) of the proposed AD; however, the corrective action in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD applies only to the new high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections required by this AD. We have revised paragraph (m)(2) of this AD to specify the corrective action for the HFEC inspections for cracking specified in paragraphs (i), (j), and (m)(1) of this AD. We have added new paragraph (m)(4) of this AD to specify the corrective actions for the LFEC inspections specified in paragraphs (k) and (l) of this AD.

We reviewed the available data 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 changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, dated August 19, 2011, including Appendix 01, Revision 04, dated August 19, 2011. The service information describes procedures for inspections to detect fatigue cracking in the left and right wings in the area where the top skin attaches to the center spar, and repair or modification of this area. 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.

We estimate that this AD affects 47 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions required by AD 97-20-07, and retained in this AD take about 3 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 97-20-07 is $255 per product.

We also estimate that it will take about 5 work-hours per product to comply with the new 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 $19,975, or $425 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

This AD was prompted by accident reports on Textron Aviation, Inc. Models T310Q, 310Q, and 402B airplanes. Lessons learned in the accident investigation support, analysis of past accidents, and NTSB determinations of probable cause indicate that following the loss of the attachment hardware connecting the elevator trim tab actuator to the elevator trim tab push-pull rod, the elevator tab may jam in a position outside the normal limits of travel.

This condition, if not corrected, could result in a loss of the ability to control the airplane. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

We reviewed Textron Aviation, Inc. (Cessna Aircraft Company) Multi-engine Service Bulletin No. MEB-27-02, dated February 29, 2016. The service information describes procedures for replacing the hardware connecting the elevator trim push-pull rod to the elevator trim actuator and elevator trim tab. 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 are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This AD requires replacement and repetitive inspection of the elevator trim tab push-pull rod connecting hardware.

Due to the immediate safety of flight condition of this AD action, we are requiring replacement of the hardware within 90 days after the effective date of this AD rather than the potential of up to a year as allowed in the service information.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the loss of the attachment hardware connecting the elevator trim tab actuator to the elevator trim tab push-pull rod may result in jamming of the elevator trim tab beyond normal limits, which could result in loss of ability to control the airplane. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2016-5457 and Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-008-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 5,066 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. This is the same replacement that is initially required by this AD. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this repetitive on-condition replacement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have received reports of cracks at stringers S-15, S-16, or S-17, associated end fittings, and skins in the center wing fuel tank where the stringers meet the end fittings near Xcw=13 and Xcw=15. If stringer S-15, S-16, or S-17 is cracked in this area and there is a crack in the skin adjacent to the stringer crack, the skin crack could grow to a critical length before it can be found by routine maintenance inspections. This condition, if not corrected, could result in structural failure of the wings. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A244, dated March 3, 2016. The service information describes procedures for repetitive ETHF inspections for any cracking in the left and right side center wing lower skin, 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.

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

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this AD and the Service Information. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5458.

The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this AD. Corrective actions correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A244, dated March 3, 2016, specifies to contact the manufacturer for certain instructions, but this AD requires accomplishment of repair methods, modification deviations, and alteration deviations in one of the following ways:

• In accordance with a method that we approve; or

• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because we have received reports indicating cracking at certain stringers, associated end fittings, and skins in the center wing fuel tank where the stringers meet the end fittings. This condition, if not corrected, could cause structural failure of the wings.

Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2016-5458 and Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-027-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 395 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 95-18-08, Amendment 39-9355 (60 FR 47677, September 14, 1995) (“AD 95-18-08”). AD 95-18-08 applied to all Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes (which includes Airbus Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes), Model A300 B4-622 airplanes, and Model A300 F4-622R airplanes that were added to the U.S. Type Certificate Data Sheet since issuance of AD 95-18-08. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 19, 2015 (80 FR 72395) (“the NPRM” or “the proposed AD”). The NPRM was prompted by a report that updated fatigue and damage tolerance analyses and a fleet survey found that certain inspection thresholds and intervals must be reduced to allow more timely findings of cracking. The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections to detect cracks in the bottom skin of the wing in the area of the cut-out for the pylon rear attachment fitting, and repair if necessary. The NPRM also proposed, for certain airplanes, reduce the compliance times for the inspections. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such fatigue-related cracking in the bottom skin of the wing in the area of the cut-out for the pylon rear attachment fitting, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0119, dated May 13, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-4817-0002.

The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to the comment.

FedEx Express (FedEx) stated that the NPRM will affect 71 Model A300 airplanes in its fleet. FedEx stated that 42 of its Model A300-F4 airplanes have not reached the inspection threshold, and it is currently accomplishing repetitive actions on 15 of its 29 Model A300-B4 airplanes. FedEx stated that it will adjust its inspection actions to comply with the actions specified in the NPRM.

We acknowledge FedEx's comment. No change to this AD is necessary.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6028, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011. The service information describes procedures for inspections to detect cracks in the bottom skin of the wing in the area of the cut-out for the pylon rear attachment fitting, and repair. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 124 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions required by AD 95-18-08, and retained in this AD take about 6 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 95-18-08 is $510 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 15 work-hours and require parts costing $10,000, for a cost of $11,275 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

The new requirements of this AD add no additional economic burden.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-4817; 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:

On June 2, 2014, at 79 FR 31229, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Airbus Helicopters (previously Eurocopter France) Model EC225LP, AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1, and AS332L2 helicopters with a TECALEMIT MGB hose installed.

The NPRM proposed to require repetitively inspecting each hose installed in the MGB compartment and replacing the hose before further flight if a crack, cut, or other damage exists that allows you to see the metal braid underneath. If a crack, cut, or other damage exists on the right-hand hydraulic system that does not allow you to see the metal braid underneath, the NPRM proposed replacing the hose within 300 hours TIS. If a crack, cut, or other damage exists on the left-hand hydraulic system that does not allow you to see the metal braid underneath, the NPRM proposed replacing the hose within 600 hours TIS. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent failure of a hose, which could result in loss of the hydraulic system and consequently, loss of helicopter control.

The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2013-0069, dated March 18, 2013, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter (now Airbus Helicopters) Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters. EASA advises that in-flight losses of hydraulic pressure were reported on these helicopters because of “significant” tears on the protection sheath of MGB hydraulic flexible “pipes” manufactured by TECALEMIT. This condition could lead to simultaneous left-hand and right-hand hydraulic system leakage, loss of the hydraulic system, and consequently, loss of helicopter control could occur, EASA advises.

The NPRM incorrectly stated that the Model AS332C1 helicopter did not have an FAA type certificate. We plan additional rulemaking to supersede this AD to include the Model AS332C1 helicopter.

After our NPRM (79 FR 31229, June 2, 2014) was published, we received comments from one commenter.

Airbus Helicopters noted that the proposed AD does not mention Airbus Helicopters service information specifying installation of non-TECALEMIT hoses, which it considers terminating action for the repetitive inspections of the hoses. Airbus Helicopters requested that the AD reflect that action. We agree with the comment but disagree that a change to the AD is necessary. Because the AD is only applicable if a TECALEMIT hose is installed, replacing the hose as described by Airbus Helicopters in its comment would serve as “terminating action” for the required inspections. If a non-TECALEMIT hose is installed, the AD does not apply.

Airbus Helicopters stated that the proposed AD would require that a damaged hose sheath on right-hand hydraulic system be replaced within 300 hours time-in-service (TIS) and a damaged hose sheath on the left-hand system be replaced within 600 hours TIS. Airbus Helicopters requested that we change these proposed requirements to replacing the hose within 300 hours TIS if the hose sheath is damaged on both the right- and left-hand system and replacing the hose within 600 hours TIS if the hose sheath is damaged on only one side. We do not agree. The right-hand hose is subject to higher pressure and therefore we determined more stringent requirements for the right-hand hose are necessary than for the left-hand hose.

Lastly, Airbus Helicopters requested that we extend the repetitive inspection to every 1,200 hours TIS after the initial inspection at 110 hours TIS. When asked for additional information, Airbus Helicopters stated that no discrepancies have been found as a result of the inspections on its EC225 fleet, and that most of its AS332 fleet that are operating have complied with the service information. We disagree. Airbus Helicopters provided no support for its position that the hoses perform safely for 1,200 hours TIS after the initial inspection. Because the root cause of the cracking is unknown, we have determined that inspecting the hoses every 110 hours TIS is necessary.

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA, reviewed the relevant information, considered the comments received, and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

The EASA AD requires a one-time inspection, while this AD requires that the inspection of the hoses be repeated every 110 hours TIS. The EASA AD requires that if severe damage is found in a hose on the right-hand hydraulic system, then the hose be replaced before the next flight, while this AD requires this regardless of whether the hose is on the right-hand or left-hand hydraulic system. EASA has set some compliance times based on months. We set compliance times based only on hours TIS.

Eurocopter issued Service Bulletin (SB) No. EC225-05-027, Revision 1, dated July 17, 2013, for Model EC225LP helicopters and SB No. AS332-05.00.92, Revision 1, dated July 17, 2013, for Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2 and military Model AS332B, AS332B1, AS332F1, AS332M and AS332M1 helicopters. The SBs state Eurocopter received a report concerning the loss of pressure in the left hand hydraulic system in-flight. Hydraulic fluid was found in the cabin, though the flight was completed without further incident. An examination of the hydraulic system showed that the hose located between the forward servo-control and the hydraulic manifold had burst. Further investigations have shown corrosion on the metal braid located under the fire-resistant sheath of hoses manufactured by TECALEMIT. The corrosion may be caused by the deterioration or gaping of the fire-resistant sheath at the hose ends, enabling humidity to enter between the sheath and the metal braid. As a result, SB No. EC225-05-027 and SB No. AS332-05.00.92 call for inspecting each hose for a notch, tear, crack, or scuff mark, and replacing any damaged hose.

We estimate that this AD affects 19 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 a work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect the following costs:

• Inspecting the hoses installed in a MGB compartment requires 1.5 work-hours for a labor cost of about $128 per helicopter, $2,432 for the U.S. fleet.

• Replacing a hose requires 2.5 work-hours for a labor cost of about $213. Parts cost $2,000 for a total cost of $2,213 per helicopter.

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 helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.

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

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

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

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

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

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

On October 1, 2015, we issued AD 2015-20-13, Amendment 39-18292 (80 FR 61725), (“AD 2015-20-13”), for certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA-28-161, PA-28-181, and PA-28R-201 airplanes. AD 2015-20-13 required inspecting the right wing rib at wing station 140.09 for cracks and taking necessary corrective action. AD 2015-20-13 resulted from a report from Piper Aircraft, Inc. of a production quality control problem on certain Models PA-28-161, PA-28-181, and PA-28R-201 airplanes. A change in production tooling and processes caused cracks to form along the edge of rib stiffening beads during manufacture. These cracks cause reduced structural integrity of the wing, which resulted in the inability of the wing rib to carry ultimate load. We issued AD 2015-20-13 to detect and correct cracks in the wing rib, which if not corrected, could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing with consequent loss of control.

Since we issued AD 2015-20-13, we received reports that operators in the field found the same cracks in airplanes outside the original applicability. After further investigation, Piper Aircraft, Inc. issued a new service bulletin expanding the serial number applicability of the affected airplane models. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

We reviewed Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1279A, dated March 3, 2016. The service bulletin describes procedures for inspecting the right wing rib at wing station 140.09 for cracks and for obtaining an FAA-approved repair if cracks are found. 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.

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

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because cracks in the wing rib, if not detected and corrected immediately, could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing with consequent loss of control. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2016-5432 and directorate identifier 2016-CE-009-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 725 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that will be required based on the results of the inspection. This estimate is based on replacement of the rib. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these repairs:

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

The only cost difference between this AD and AD 2015-20-13 is the cost associated with adding 710 airplanes to the Applicability section.

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.

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2011-21-06, Amendment 39-16829 (76 FR 64788, October 19, 2011) (“AD 2011-21-06”). AD 2011-21-06 applied to all BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Model 4101 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2015 (80 FR 26484) (“the NPRM”).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0043, dated February 21, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Model 4101 airplanes. The MCAI states:

The unsafe condition is the failure of certain structurally significant items, including the main landing gear and nose landing gear, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane; and fuel vapor ignition sources, which could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1279.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Since we issued the NPRM, we discovered an incorrect reference to “paragraph (j)” in paragraph (i)(3) of the proposed AD. The correct reference is to “paragraph (i),” and we have changed this AD accordingly.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We reviewed Subjects 05-10-10, “Airworthiness Limitations”; 05-10-20, “Certification Maintenance Requirements”; and 05-10-30, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL)—Fuel System”; of Chapter 05, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the BAE Systems (Operations) Limited J41 AMM, Revision 38, dated September 15, 2013. This service information describes procedures for inspections of structurally significant items and the fuel system. 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.

We estimate that this AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions required by AD 2011-21-06, Amendment 39-16829 (76 FR 64788, October 19, 2011), and retained in this AD take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2011-21-06 is $85 per product.

We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $340, or $85 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

On January 26, 2015, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chincoteague Bay, Chincoteague, VA” in the Federal Register (80 FR 3933). We received no comments on this rule. No public meeting was requested and none was held.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499. The purpose of this rule is to allow for a less restrictive operating schedule while still balancing the needs of the marine and vehicular traffic. The draw of the SR 175 Bridge will open on demand in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5 except: From 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the last consecutive Wednesday and Thursday in July, the draw need not be opened for the annual Pony swim.

The bridge owner, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), who owns and operates SR 175 Bridge across Lewis Channel and Black Narrows, mile 3.5, at Chincoteague, VA has requested to change 33 CFR 117.1005.

In 2011, a new single-leaf bascule bridge was constructed on a new alignment replacing the former swing-type bridge that was located downstream from the Chincoteague maritime community. The new alignment resulted in boaters having an improved channel access and the number of necessary bridge openings reduced.

The vertical clearance of the single-span bascule bridge is 15 feet above mean high water in the closed position and unlimited in the open position. The horizontal clearance is 60 feet between fender systems.

The current operating schedule allows the draw to open on demand from midnight to 6 a.m., and every one and a half hours from 6 a.m. to midnight (at 6 a.m., 7:30 a.m., 9 a.m., 10:30 a.m., 12 p.m., 1:30 p.m., 3 p.m., 4:30 p.m., 6 p.m., 7:30 p.m., 9 p.m., 10:30 p.m., and midnight); except from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the last consecutive Wednesday and Thursday in July, the draw need not be opened. This has been the regular operating schedule since November 16, 2006.

Based on the decreased number of bridge openings since 2011, the Chincoteague maritime community and the Accomack County Board of Supervisors favored a less restrictive opening schedule by proposing a test deviation from scheduled openings to an “on demand” schedule while still balancing the needs of marine and vehicular traffic. The monthly vessel openings at the SR 175 Bridge submitted by VDOT are as follows:

The bridge logs revealed that from April 2013 to April 2014, the SR 175 Bridge had experienced only 47 total vessel openings.

The SR 175 Bridge is the only vehicular connection between the mainland and Eastern Shore of Virginia and Chincoteague Island. Tourism is a dominant industry of Chincoteague Island with activities taking place in the Town of Chincoteague, Chincoteague Island and Assateague Island.

From August 4, 2014 to November 3, 2014, the draw of the SR 175 Bridge, mile 3.5, at Chincoteague, opened on signal in accordance with the general operating regulations set out at 33 CFR 117.5.

The monthly vessel openings at the SR 175 Bridge submitted by VDOT are as follows:

Based on the bridge log and discussions with the local community, allowing the bridge to return to an open on demand schedule except for the Pony swim will meet the reasonable needs to navigation and vehicular traffic. Therefore, 33 CFR 117.1005 will be amended to only deviate from the on demand schedule during the Pony swim.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule will make a regulatory burden less restrictive by allowing for the bridge to open on signal for the majority of the year. This rule takes into account the reasonable needs of navigation while taking into account vehicular traffic.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

The NJTRO Upper Hack Drawbridge across Hackensack River, mile 6.9, at Secaucus, New Jersey, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 8 feet at mean high water and 13 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.723(f).

The waterway is transited by seasonal recreational vessels and commercial vessels of various sizes.

The bridge owner, NJTRO, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate replacement of the rails, ties, walkways and handrails at the bridge.

Under this temporary deviation, the NJTRO Upper Hack Drawbridge may remain in the closed position for two weekends, from 12:01 a.m. on April 16, 2016 through 6:00 p.m. April 18, 2016 and from 12:01 a.m. April 23 through 6:00 p.m. April 25, 2016, and a rain date from May 14, 2016 through May 16 and May 21 through May 23, 2016 for the same time frame.

Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass.

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

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

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking COTP Captain of the Port CY Cubic Yards APA Administrative Procedure Act A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

Documents mentioned in this interim rule as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

Ongoing shoaling caused by El Niño weather patterns has been observed within the Santa Cruz Harbor in Santa Cruz, CA. El Niño has caused ocean currents, swells and surf to shift from the prevailing northwesterly direction to southerly, directly into the federal channel. Rain storms in December 2015 and January 2016 contributed large volumes of sand and debris from the San Lorenzo River and its tributaries, as well as other coastal streams west and north of the Santa Cruz Harbor federal channel to cause severe shoaling at the entrance of Santa Crux Harbor. According to the Santa Cruz Port District, “unusually high shoaling rates in the entrance channel, to date, have produced approximately 310,000 cubic yards (CY) of sand. Of that amount, 200,000 CY were dredged between December 10, 2015, and February 29, 2016, and an estimated 110,000 CY remains within the federal channel.”

The Coast Guard is issuing this interim final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The Coast Guard received the information about the severe shoaling within the harbor on March 4, 2016, and determined that good cause exists to establish an emergency safety zone to protect life and property of mariners in the area. The El Niño season has caused significant and unexpected shoaling within the Santa Cruz Harbor Channel. The shoaling presents a significant hazard to navigation as the charted depths are no longer accurate and the resulting surf conditions have created inherent hazards for all vessels transiting the area. Immediate regulatory action is required to safeguard life, health and property of mariners in the area. Notice and Comment on this rule is impracticable because it would delay the Safety Zone and consequently put mariners and dredging crews at risk of allision and groundings. On February 4, 2016, the Santa Cruz Port District declared that a state of emergency exists warranting expenditure of public funds to finance the emergency dredging of the harbor. The Coast Guard requested immediate assistance from the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct emergency dredging as soon as safe and practicable on March 8, 2016. The Coast Guard received the information about the severe shoaling within the harbor on March 4, 2016, and determined an emergency safety zone was necessary to protect life and property of mariners in the area.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish safety zones.

The Santa Cruz Harbor Shoaling safety zone will encompass the entire entrance to Santa Cruz Harbor in the area contained with two borders. A northern border defined by the line created by extending the Santa Cruz Harbor boat launch ramp to the harbor's opposite shore and a southern border defined by the line connecting the end points of the Santa Cruz Harbor East Breakwater to Santa Cruz Harbor West Breakwater as depicted in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart 18685. Due to the shifting shoaling locations, the safety zone applies to the navigable waters enclosed by these borders, effectively encompassing all of the Santa Cruz Harbor Entrance. This safety zone is effective immediately upon promulgation until 10 p.m. on May 01, 2016 or until emergency dredging is completed. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners upon the completion of emergency dredging and the deactivation of the safety zone. This safety zone is meant for safety of vessels transiting the harbor. This restricted area in the harbor is necessary to protect mariners, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated with severe shoaling. The Coast Guard has issued notice to mariners warning of significant shoaling at the harbor entrance that may result in breaking surf between the jetties.

The Coast Guard is establishing an emergency safety zone that will encompass the navigable waters of the Santa Cruz Harbor entrance channel as defined by the area contained with two borders: A northern border defined by the line created by extending the Santa Cruz Harbor boat launch ramp to the harbor's opposite shore and a southern border defined by the line connecting the end points of the Santa Cruz Harbor East Breakwater to Santa Cruz Harbor West Breakwater as depicted in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart 18685. This emergency safety zone will be effective immediately upon promulgation until 10 p.m. on May 01, 2016 or until the completion of emergency dredging. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners upon the completion of emergency dredging and the deactivation of the safety zone. The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation of all vessels in the vicinity of the severe shoaling. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep all vessels away from the severe shoaling to ensure the safety of all transiting vessels.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. We expect the economic impact of this rule will not rise to the level of necessitating a full Regulatory Evaluation. The safety zone is limited in duration, and is limited to a narrowly tailored geographic area. In addition, although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities. Vessel traffic has been very limited since December 11, 2015 due to soundings being approximately less than 02 feet at the entrance of the Santa Cruz Harbor. Local officials have been proactive in notifying the public of the hazardous conditions associated with the severe shoaling in the channel. Signage, boating notices, and verbal advisories have been issued to the public via the Harbor Master. Detailed information regarding the harbor conditions have been posted on http://www.santacruzharbor.org/ and weekly emails have been delivered.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for a limited duration. Due to the shifting locations of the shoaling, which causes erratic changes in channel depth, all traffic has been limited in transiting the Santa Cruz Harbor Channel. The maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Vessel traffic currently cannot pass safely around the safety zone area. If deemed safe, traffic would be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.

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

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a summary of the Commission's Order in WC Docket No. 10-90, 14-58 and 14-259; FCC 16-28, adopted on March 8, 2016 and released on March 9, 2016. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 or at the following Internet address: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0309/FCC-16-28A1.pdf.

1. In this Order the Commission clarifies that price cap carriers can use Phase II model-based support to serve locations in eligible census blocks where the price cap carrier has served or intends to serve a location or locations using Phase I Round 2 incremental support. The Commission also makes several modifications to the letter of credit requirements for recipients of rural broadband experiment support.

2. In 2013, the Commission instructed price cap carriers to meet their Phase I Round 2 incremental support obligations by deploying service to locations outside of the census blocks where they will receive Phase II support. The intent was to take steps to ensure that Connect America funds are used “in the most efficient manner possible” and to “avoid providing excess support in an area.” Subsequently, in December 2014, the Commission adopted a requirement that price cap carriers accepting model-based support annually submit a list of the geo-coded locations that are newly broadband-capable as a result of Phase II funding.

3. On April 29, 2015, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) announced the final details of the offer of Phase II model-based support to price cap carriers, setting an August 27, 2015 deadline to accept or decline the offer. Ten carriers accepted over $1.5 billion in annual support to provide broadband to nearly 7.3 million consumers in 45 states and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

4. Discussion. The Commission now clarifies that in light of the adoption of the geo-coded location reporting requirement for recipients of Phase II model-based support, if a price cap carrier has served or intends to serve a location or locations using Phase I Round 2 incremental support in a census block where that price cap carrier accepted Phase II model-based support, that price cap carrier may use Phase II model-based support to serve the remaining eligible locations within that census block. Because it would be an inefficient use of Connect America support to permit a price cap carrier to receive both Phase I incremental and Phase II model-based support to serve a single location, however, the price cap carrier may not count the locations it serves using Phase I Round 2 incremental support towards its Phase II obligation to serve a set number of locations within the state. Accordingly, if the price cap carrier is using Phase I Round 2 funding to upgrade, or has already upgraded, specific locations in census blocks that were part of the offer of model-based support, it will need to deploy service to other locations in Phase II eligible census blocks or extremely high-cost census blocks in the state to fulfill its Phase II model-based support obligation to serve a specific number of locations.

5. The Commission directs the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to compare the list of geocoded locations that price cap carriers submit for their Phase II deployment obligation, with the list of geocoded locations that price cap carriers must submit to indicate the locations which they have served or will serve to satisfy their Phase I Round 2 obligation. If USAC determines that a price cap carrier has included in its list of Phase II locations any locations that the price cap carrier indicated it has deployed to or will deploy to using Phase I Round 2 incremental support, that price cap carrier will be deemed to have not met its Phase II model-based support build-out obligation and will be subject to the applicable non-compliance measures.

6. The Commission makes this modest adjustment to its earlier conclusion that price cap carriers could not use Phase I Round 2 support to serve locations in census blocks where they receive Phase II support because at the time the Commission made these statements, it had not yet adopted the more granular reporting requirements for price cap carriers accepting Phase II support to identify the locations they have served using Phase II support. The Bureau and USAC will now have access to geocoded information for each location that a price cap carrier serves using Phase I Round 2 and using Phase II support, and thus can verify in a more targeted manner that support is being used efficiently on a location-by-location basis rather than on a census block-by-census block basis.

7. Before a provisionally selected bidder may be authorized to begin receiving support, it must obtain a letter of credit that meets the Commission's requirements. Under those existing requirements, throughout the 10-year support term, the letter of credit must be valued at an amount equal to the total amount of support that has been disbursed plus the amount of support the recipient will receive in the next disbursement. Rural broadband experiment recipients must maintain an open and renewed letter of credit until 120 days after the support term has ended. They must build out to 85 percent of locations with voice and broadband service meeting the relevant public interest obligations by year three and to 100 percent of locations by year five of their support term. Recipients receive their rural broadband experiment support in equal monthly installments over the 10-year term, but they were given the opportunity to request 30 percent of their support upfront. Recipients that elected this option are required to build out to at least 25 percent of the required number of locations within 15 months of their first disbursement of support.

8. Discussion. The Commission grants the Alliance of Rural Broadband Applicants (ARBA) petition for waiver in part to the extent the ARBA sought a reduction in the duration of the letter of credit requirement and asked that rural broadband experiment recipients be released from their letter of credit obligations upon satisfying their deployment obligations. In response to concerns raised about the cost of maintaining a letter of credit for the entire support period, the Commission will require that the letter of credit only remain open until the recipient has certified that it has deployed broadband and voice service meeting the Commission's requirements to 100 percent of the required number of locations, and USAC has validated that the entity has fully deployed its network. The Commission concludes that such an approach will help alleviate the costs of obtaining a letter of credit, particularly for entities that are able to build out their networks faster than the five-year build-out period, while still protecting the Commission's ability to recover the funds in the event that the entity is not building out its network as required. This approach is consistent with the approach used for Mobility Fund Phase I and Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I, where an entity is required to maintain a letter of credit valued at the support that had been disbursed until the Commission verifies that the build-out has been completed. As a result, authorized rural broadband experiment recipients must only maintain their letter of credit until it is verified that the final build-out milestone has been met.

9. Recognizing that the risk of a default will lessen as a recipient makes progress towards building its network, the Commission also finds that it is appropriate to modestly reduce the value of the letter of credit in an effort to reduce the cost of maintaining a letter of credit as the recipient meets certain build-out milestones. Once recipients have met the 85 percent build-out milestone, the Commission will also permit those recipients to obtain a new or renew their existing letters of credit so that they are valued at 80 percent of the total support disbursed plus the next year of support until the 100 percent build-out milestone has been met and verified. The Commission concludes that the benefit to recipients of potentially decreasing the cost of the letter of credit as it becomes less likely that a recipient will default outweighs the potential risk that if a recipient does default and is unable to cure, the Commission will be unable to recover a modest amount of support.

10. Once a rural broadband experiment recipient has certified that it has deployed broadband and voice service meeting the Commission's requirements to 100 percent of the required number of locations and supplied the geocoded data for the final locations, it must keep the letter of credit open until the Commission can verify that the deployment has been met. The Commission directs USAC to implement processes to verify in a timely manner that deployment has occurred. Once a rural broadband experiment recipient no longer maintains a letter of credit, the Commission will withhold support as described in the Rural Broadband Experiments Order, 79 FR 45705, August 6, 2014, if the Commission finds that the rural broadband experiment recipient is not providing voice and broadband service that meets the Commission's requirements to the funded locations. If after the year cure period, the rural broadband experiment recipient is still not providing service that meets the Commission's requirements to all of the required locations, the Commission will withhold from the entity a percentage of support equivalent to the entity's compliance gap until it comes into compliance, rather than recover 100 percent of the support as originally contemplated when the Commission expected that the entity would have a letter of credit in place for the entire support period. If the entity cures the default before the 10-year support term has ended, it will be entitled to the withheld support and any subsequent payments.

11. The Commission concludes that it is not necessary to continue to require rural broadband experiment recipients to maintain a letter of credit after the build-out period to provide an adequate incentive for rural broadband experiment recipients to offer service that meets the Commission's requirements. The Commission notes that rural broadband experiment recipients remain subject to forfeitures and other consequences for non-compliance in the event of a default, including but not limited to, potential revocation of ETC designation and disqualification from future competitive bidding for universal service support.

12. The Commission also grants ARBA's petition in part to the extent that it requests that entities that elected to receive 30 percent of their payment upfront be permitted to amend their applications to propose the standard deployment time period. The Commission adopted the requirement that entities specify whether they would be interested in receiving 30 percent of their support upfront in their applications so that the Commission could learn about whether there was interest in upfront support for the Phase II competitive bidding process. To help reduce the costs of the letter of credit requirement for entities that have elected upfront support, the Commission will permit such entities that have not already been authorized to receive rural broadband experiment support to send a letter to the Commission electing to receive support in equal installments throughout the 10-year term rather than 30 percent upfront before they are authorized to begin receiving support. If they elect this option before they are authorized, they will no longer be required to deploy to 25 percent of locations and submit the required certifications within 15 months of their first disbursement of support. To the extent provisionally selected bidders decide they still want to receive 30 percent of their support upfront they will need to obtain a letter of credit that covers this amount.

13. The Commission denies ARBA's petition in part to the extent it requests that the Commission reduce the value of the letter of credit to 50 percent of support. Such an approach would prevent the Commission from recovering half of the Connect America support that it will disburse to rural broadband experiment recipients during the build-out period in the event that such support is not used for its intended purposes. While such an approach may reduce costs further for recipients, the Commission is not persuaded that the public interest will be better served by protecting only half of the Connect America support, particularly when the Commission has adopted other measures to help reduce the costs of maintaining a letter of credit for rural broadband experiment recipients.

14. This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

15. The Commission will send a copy of this Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.

16. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

17. This Order modifies and clarifies the rules adopted by the Commission in the Rural Broadband Experiments Order, the Phase I Round 2 Order, 78 FR 38227, June 26, 2013 and the USF/ICC Transformation Order, 76 FR 73830, November 29, 2011. These modifications and clarifications do not create any burdens, benefits, or requirements that were not addressed by the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis attached to USF/ICC Transformation Order and the Rural Broadband Experiments Order. Therefore, the Commission certifies that the requirements of this Order will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy of the Order including a copy of this final certification in a report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. In addition, the Order and this certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and will be published in the Federal Register.

18. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

19. Additional Information. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Alexander Minard of the Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, [email protected], (202) 418-7400.

20. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 5, 10, 214, 218-220, 254, 303(r), 403, and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 155, 160, 214, 218-220, 254, 303(r), 403, 503, 1302, and sections 1.1, and 1.427 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, and 1.427, that this order is adopted, effective thirty (30) days after publication of the text or summary thereof in the Federal Register.

21. It is further ordered that, pursuant to section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.3, the Petition for Waiver filed by the Alliance of Rural Broadband Applicants on January 27, 2015 is granted in part and denied in part to the extent described herein.

22. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of this Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

23. It is further ordered, that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.