Federal Register Vol. 82, No.195,

On October 13, 2017, MSPB will relocate its Western Regional Office from 201 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA, to 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA. Appendix II of this part is amended to show the new address. The facsimile number is changing to (510) 273-7136. The geographical areas served by the Western Regional Office are unchanged. The Board is publishing this as a final rule pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1204(h).

Accordingly, the Board amends 5 CFR part 1201 as follows:

Description of Final Rule

The OTS, a Bureau of the Department of the Treasury, was abolished by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act or Act) 1 on October 19, 2011. Titles III and X of the Act transferred the powers, authorities, rights, and duties of the OTS to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (collectively, the Agencies), effective July 21, 2011.

Chapter V of title 12 of the CFR sets out the OTS regulations. Several parts of chapter V relate to the administrative functions of the OTS. Because the OTS was abolished, those parts are inoperative. The remaining parts of chapter V concern the supervision and examination of savings associations and savings and loan holding companies. Since the abolishment of the OTS, the Agencies have republished those OTS regulations they will enforce in their own chapters of title 12.2

In order to eliminate the confusion that may arise from having inoperative and superseded regulations of an abolished agency published in the CFR, the Department of the Treasury is removing chapter V of title 12 of the CFR.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires public notice and an opportunity to comment before an agency issues a final rule.3 However, notice and comment are not required before issuing a final rule if the rulemaking relates to agency organization, procedure, or practice or if an agency, for good cause, finds that “notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”

The Department of the Treasury finds that notice and comment are not required with respect to the removal of the parts of chapter V that govern the organization and administrative functions of the OTS because those parts have been inoperative since the OTS was abolished in 2011.

Furthermore, with respect to the removal of the parts of chapter V that govern savings associations and savings and loan holding companies, the Department of the Treasury finds that notice and comment under the APA are neither necessary nor in the public interest. As discussed above, titles III and X of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred the powers, authorities, rights, and duties of the OTS to the Agencies on July 21, 2011 and abolished the OTS on October 19, 2011. Since that time, the Agencies have issued rules that supersede the OTS regulations relating to savings associations and savings and loan holding companies. This final rule does not make any substantive changes to the regulations currently applicable to savings associations and savings and loan associations and does not substantively affect these regulated entities or the public. It simply removes obsolete provisions that are likely to be a source of confusion. For these reasons, advance notice and comment under the APA are unnecessary and not in the public interest.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 4 (RFA) applies only to rules for which an agency publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Pursuant to the APA at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), general notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required prior to the issuance of a final rule when an agency, for good cause, finds that “notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” As discussed above, the Department of the Treasury has determined for good cause that the APA does not require notice and public comment on this final rule and, therefore, it is not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking. Thus, the RFA, pursuant 5 U.S.C. 601(2), does not apply to this final rule.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that an agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating any rule likely to result in a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, adjusted for inflation.5 Because this final rule removes inoperative and superseded regulations, the Department of the Treasury has determined that there is no Federal mandate imposed by this rulemaking.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.

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 A319 series airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 29, 2017 (82 FR 29440) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a runway excursion due to an unexpected thrust increase leading to an unstable approach performed using the current FMGC standard. The NPRM proposed to require identification of potentially affected FMGCs, replacement of any affected FMGC, and applicable concurrent actions. We are issuing this AD to prevent unstable approaches due to an unexpected thrust increase, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane and runway excursions.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0122, dated June 21, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A319 series airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and 232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

Concurrent actions include the installation of certain FMGCs, wiring, display management computers, wiring associated with pin programming, and applicable operational program configuration disks. 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-2017-0624.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. Air Line Pilots Association, International supported the NPRM.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered 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.

Airbus has issued the following service information, which describes procedures for replacement of any affected FMGC with a serviceable FMGC. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane configurations.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1090, Revision 11, dated July 20, 2004.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1103, Revision 04, dated March 12, 2004.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1116, Revision 04, dated March 29, 2004.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1152, Revision 03, dated February 18, 2005.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1243, Revision 05, dated May 31, 2010.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1519, Revision 02, dated December 21, 2015.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 1,032 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 required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements.

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 is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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:

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 A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, 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 June 9, 2017 (82 FR 26758) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of unreliable airspeed indications that were caused by pitot heater resistance shorted to ground. The NPRM proposed to require replacement of certain parts. We are issuing this AD to ensure proper flight crew awareness of unreliable airspeed indications. This condition, if not recognized by the flight crew, could possibly result in reduced control of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0195, dated September 30, 2016 (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, Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes), and Model A310 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-2017-0515.

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.

The Air Line Pilots Association, International and FedEx expressed support for the NPRM.

Airbus requested that we include historical information regarding EASA AD 2015-0174, which is included in the quoted MCAI material in the NPRM. Airbus explained that EASA AD 2015-0174, dated August 24, 2015, superseded EASA AD 2012-0088, dated June 25, 2012, which specified accomplishment of certain Airbus Service Bulletins. Airbus stated that any corresponding FAA ADs should also be identified.

We agree that additional historical information regarding EASA AD 2015-0174 and any corresponding FAA ADs would be helpful. We have added the requested historical information to the quoted MCAI material regarding EASA AD 2015-0174, which superseded EASA AD 2012-0088, and the corresponding FAA AD.

Airbus and FedEx requested that we revise the NPRM to allow use of ECAM SGU software standard W33, which includes the corrections found in ECAM SGU software standard W32.

FedEx also requested that we update the NPRM to include new service information that provides procedures for the upgrade to ECAM SGU software standard W33. FedEx mentioned that it is preparing to upgrade its fleet to ECAM SGU software standard W33.

We agree with the requests to allow use of ECAM SGU software standard W33, because ECAM SGU software standard W33 includes all of the necessary changes from ECAM SGU software standard W32. We have revised the preamble and regulatory text of this final rule, where applicable, to include the additional ECAM SGU software standard and part number.

We also agree to add Airbus Service Bulletins A300-31-6142, Revision 01, dated November 21, 2013, and A310-31-2145, Revision 01, dated November 13, 2013, for accomplishment of the installation of ECAM SGU software standard W33. We have revised this final rule accordingly.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM 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 the following service information.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A300-31-6113, Revision 03, including Appendix 01, dated July 5, 2016 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes).

• Airbus Service Bulletin A300-31-6124, Revision 01, dated July 4, 2016 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes).

• Airbus Service Bulletin A300-31-6142, Revision 01, dated November 21, 2013 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes).

• Airbus Service Bulletin A310-31-2123, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated July 1, 2016 (for Model A310 series airplanes).

• Airbus Service Bulletin A310-31-2145, Revision 01, dated November 13, 2013 (for Model A310 series airplanes).

The service information describes procedures for replacement of the ECAM SGU software standard W32 or W33. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane configurations or apply to different ECAM SGU software standards (W32, part number 9612670332, and W33, part number 9612670333). 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 139 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2017 (82 FR 32652) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a report of laminated shims that may have been improperly installed at a certain wing tie beam. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate certification maintenance requirement tasks that introduce revised checks of the tie beam. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct degradation of the structural integrity of the affected tie beam, which could result in cracking of the pressure floor.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-34, dated October 14, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes. The MCAI states:

This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required actions that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

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.

Bombardier, Inc., has issued the following service information.

• Task 53-10-00-131, “Pressure Floor—Wing Tie Beam—FS460.00,” of Section 5-10-30, “Airworthiness Limitation Checks by ATA Chapter Number,” of Bombardier Challenger 600 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 605, Revision 37, dated April 29, 2016.

• Task 53-10-00-133, “Pressure Floor—Wing Tie Beam—FS460.00,” of Section 5-10-30, “Airworthiness Limitation Checks by ATA Chapter Number,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601-5, Revision 44, dated April 29, 2016.

• Task 53-10-00-134, “Pressure Floor—Wing Tie Beam—FS460.00,” of Section 5-10-30, “Airworthiness Limitation Checks by ATA Chapter Number,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601A-5, Revision 40, dated April 29, 2016.

This service information identifies airworthiness limitation tasks for checks of the pressure floor at a certain wing tie beam. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. 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 137 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sunriver Airport, Sunriver, OR, to support IFR operations under standard instrument approach procedures.

On July 5, 2017, the FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 31034) Docket FAA-2017-0617 a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sunriver Airport, Sunriver, OR. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sunriver Airport, Sunriver, OR. The airspace is modified to within 4 miles each side of the 016° bearing extending from Sunriver Airport to 14.3 miles north of the airport, and within 2.5 miles each side of the 196° bearing extending from the airport to 7 miles south of the airport. This action slightly reduces the airspace area east and west of the airport due to the new airspace configuration for the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it makes the necessary updates for airspace areas within the National Airspace System.

Federal Aviation Administration Airspace Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1, is published yearly. Amendments referred to as “effective date straddling amendments” were published under Order 7400.11A (dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016), but became effective under Order 7400.11B (dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017). This action incorporates these rules into the current FAA Order 7400.11B.

Accordingly, as this is an administrative correction to update final rule amendments into FAA Order 7400.11B, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary. Also, to bring these rules and legal descriptions current, I find that good cause exists, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to incorporate certain final rules into the current FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which are depicted on aeronautical charts.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

In consideration of the foregoing, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the earth at Big Timber Airport, Big Timber, MT, for the safety of aircraft and management of airspace within the National Airspace System.

On July 5, 2017, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (82 FR 31031) Docket No. FAA-2017-0392 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Big Timber Airport, Big Timber, MT. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8-mile radius of the Big Timber Airport, Big Timber, MT, with a 12-mile wide segment extending to 27.4 miles east of the airport, and a 7.6-mile wide segment extending to 12.5 miles west of the airport. This airspace is necessary to support IFR operations in standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E surface area airspace and modifies Class D and Class E airspace at Molokai Airport, Kaunakakai, HI, in support of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at this airport.

On July 28, 2017, the FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 35131) Docket FAA-2017-0295, a notice of proposed rulemaking that proposed to establish Class E surface area airspace and modify Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or E surface area; modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. at Molokai Airport, Kaunakakai, HI, and amend the geographic coordinates of the airport. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment was received supporting the proposal.

Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace designated as surface area at Molokai Airport, Kaunakakai, HI. This new airspace designation, within a 4.3-mile radius of the airport, provides controlled airspace to support increased aircraft operations under IFR during the hours that the Class D airspace area is not in effect.

This action also amends Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D or E surface area at the airport by increasing the area to a 4.3-mile wide segment (from 3.6 miles wide) extending to 8 miles west (from 7.2 miles west) of the airport. The part-time NOTAM information is removed because Class D airspace or Class E surface airspace is continuous. The FAA also removes reference to the Molokai VORTAC in the airspace legal description to reflect the FAA's transition from ground-based to satellite-based navigation aids.

Additionally, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is enlarged west of the airport from the 6.8-mile radius of the airport to an area 10 miles wide (from 3.6 miles wide) extending to 12.4 miles west (from 8.3 miles west) of the airport.

This action also updates the airport's geographic coordinates for the associated Class D and E airspace areas to reflect the FAA's current aeronautical database. Additionally, this action replaces the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement” in the Class D and E airspace legal descriptions. These modifications are necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

Lastly, a technical amendment is made to rename the airspace designation for the following airspace areas: AWP HI D Molokai, HI, is renamed Kaunakakai, HI; AWP HI E2 Molokai, HI, is renamed Kaunakakai, HI; and AWP HI E5 Molokai, HI, is renamed Kaunakakai, HI, to remain consistent in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

I. Background

On June 1, 1995, the Department issued Employee Rules of Conduct prescribing uniform rules of conduct and procedure for all employees and officials in the Department. On February 19, 2016, Treasury published in the Federal Register an interim final rule amending the Employee Rules of Conduct to account for current Department structure resulting from organizational changes that established new bureaus within Treasury and transferred certain functions and/or bureaus from the Department. The interim final rule also amended the Rules of Conduct to remove provisions that pertain solely to standards of ethical conduct. The standards of ethical conduct governing employees of the Department are contained in uniform standards of ethical conduct promulgated by the Office of Government Ethics that apply to all executive branch personnel, codified at 5 CFR part 2635 (Executive Branch-wide Standards), and in the Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Department of the Treasury, codified at 5 CFR part 3101 (Treasury Supplemental Standards). Finally, the interim final rule amended the Rules of Conduct to ensure the efficient functioning of the Department and to conform to changes in the law or Department policy.

The interim final rule went into effect on February 19, 2016. The public comment period for the interim final rule closed on April 19, 2016. One written comment responding to the interim final rule was received and is available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request. After consideration of the comment, the interim final rule revising part 0 in its entirety is adopted as amended by this final rule.

Section 0.216 of the interim final rule states: “Except for the official handling, through the proper channels, of matters relating to legislation in which the Department has an interest, employees shall not use government time, money, or property to petition a Member of Congress to favor or oppose any legislation or proposed legislation, or to encourage others to do so.” The commenter expressed concern that this language has the potential to interfere with the right of an employee representative under the Federal Labor Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. 7101, et seq., to communicate with Congress and to educate its members about legislative proposals. The commenter also observed that interim final rule section 0.216 could impermissibly chill communications between union leaders and bargaining unit employees about such proposals.

Treasury recognizes that it has a duty to bargain with the representatives of its employees over proposals to permit the use of official time for such representatives to lobby Congress regarding matters affecting conditions of employment. See AFGE and U.S. Dep't of Labor, 61 F.L.R.A. 209, 216 (2005). Section 0.216 was not intended to preclude such bargaining. In order to clarify Treasury's intent, section 0.216 has been revised to reflect that the use of government time, to petition a Member of Congress to favor or oppose any legislation or proposed legislation, is not prohibited where permitted by a collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, the following additional sentence has been added to the end of section 0.216: “This section does not prohibit the use of government time by union representatives to petition a Member of Congress to favor or oppose any legislation or proposed legislation, where permitted by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.”

Treasury disagrees that section 0.216 can reasonably be construed to limit all communications between union leaders and bargaining unit employees about legislative proposals, including those that would educate union members about legislative proposals affecting their government employment. The rule prohibits only the use of government time, money, or property for communications encouraging others to petition a Member of Congress to favor or oppose any legislation or proposed legislation. Such a prohibition does not interfere with any employee right.

Although not the subject of a public comment, Treasury has also made a clarifying change to section 0.215. That section of the interim final rule provided: “An employee shall not electronically transmit, or create audio or video recordings of, conversations, meetings, or conferences in the workplace or while conducting business on behalf of the Department, except where doing so is part of the employee's official duties” (emphasis added). This wording could be construed to preclude ad hoc authorizations to record where doing so is not part of an employee's official duties. That was not Treasury's intention, and the section has therefore been changed to substitute the phrase “where authorized” for the phrase “where doing so is part of the employee's official duties.”

Because, as explained at 81 FR 8402 (Feb. 19, 2016), no notice of proposed rulemaking was required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act) requires an agency to prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes a federal mandate that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act also requires an agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule. This rule generally sets out the conduct regulations that all Department employees and officials are required to follow. The Department therefore has determined that the rule will not result in expenditures by state, local or tribal governments or by the private sector of $100 million or more. Accordingly, the Department has not prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the regulatory alternatives considered.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), rules relating to agency management and personnel are exempt from the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). As set forth in the description of the interim rule, this final rule affects only the Department and its personnel; therefore, the APA requirements for prior notice and opportunity to comment and a delayed effective date are inapplicable. Even if this rulemaking were subject to APA procedures, the Department finds that good cause exists, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d), that the requirements for prior notice and comment are unnecessary because the rule affects only Treasury employees.

For reasons set forth in the preamble, the interim rule published February 19, 2016, at 81 FR 8402, is adopted as final with the following changes:

The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. 6101-6107 (“the Act”), which Congress enacted as part of amendments to the Older Americans Act (Pub. L. 94-135, 89 Stat. 713, 728), prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance. The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-259, 102 Stat. 28, 31 (1988)) amended the Act and other civil rights statutes to define “program or activity” to mean all of the operations of specified entities, any part of which is extended Federal financial assistance. See 42 U.S.C. 6107(4).

The Act applies to discrimination at all age levels. The Act also contains specific exceptions that permit the use of certain age distinctions and factors other than age that meet the Act's requirements.

The Act required the former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) to issue general, government-wide regulations, setting standards to be followed by all Federal agencies implementing the Act. These government-wide regulations, which were issued on June 12, 1979 (44 FR 33768), and became effective on July 1, 1979, require each Federal agency providing financial assistance to any program or activity to publish proposed regulations implementing the Act, and to submit final agency regulations to HEW (now the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)), before publication in the Federal Register. See 45 CFR 90.31.

The Act became effective on the effective date of HEW's final government-wide regulations (i.e., July 1, 1979). Treasury has enforced the provisions of the Act since that time. As a practical matter, the absence of Treasury-specific age regulations has not had an impact on Treasury's legal authority to enforce prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from Treasury. Specifically, persons alleging age discrimination have not been hampered in their ability to file complaints nor has Treasury's Office of Civil Rights and Diversity's (OCRD) ability to process these complaints been affected.

On August 4, 2015 (80 FR 46208), the Department issued a notice of proposed rulemaking and invited comments on all aspects of the proposal.

This rule is designed to fulfill the statutory and regulatory obligations of Treasury to issue a regulation implementing the Act that conforms to the government-wide regulations at 45 CFR part 90. The rule carries out the Act's prohibition of discrimination based on age in programs and activities receiving financial assistance from Treasury and provides appropriate investigative, conciliation, and enforcement procedures. OCRD, part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Management, will conduct Treasury enforcement. OCRD enforces all civil rights laws applicable to entities receiving financial assistance from Treasury.

The rule is not intended to alter the legal standards found in the Act or the government-wide regulations, which are applicable to recipients of Federal financial assistance from Treasury under other statutes. Treasury does not provide financial assistance within the meaning of these rules merely by disbursing a payment on behalf of another Federal agency. The rule closely follows the wording and format of rules issued by other Federal agencies to implement the Act. In particular, Treasury modeled much of its proposal on the agency-specific regulations issued by HHS, the lead Federal agency coordinating implementation of the Act (45 CFR part 91; 47 FR 57850, Dec. 28, 1982); and the Department of Education (ED) (34 CFR part 110; 58 FR 40194, July 27, 1993). The government-wide, HHS, and ED rules were subjected to extensive public scrutiny, and the public comments were considered in finalizing those rules. Readers may review the HHS and ED Federal Register publications for historical and explanatory material regarding the Act, the government-wide regulations, and the provisions of the HHS and ED implementing regulations.

In general, the final rule mirrors the government-wide regulations at 45 CFR part 90 and HHS's and ED's regulations implementing the Act, with modifications to aid consistency and clarify the Treasury specific provisions. Subpart A sets forth the rule's purpose, applications, and definitions. Subpart B contains the standards for determining age discrimination. Subpart C comprises the duties and responsibilities of Treasury recipients. Subpart D establishes the procedures for investigations, conciliation and enforcement. For a complete discussion of the proposal, see the August 4, 2015, proposed rule at 80 FR 46208.

Treasury received three comments on the proposed rule which generally supported the rule. One commenter suggested revisions that are discussed below.

The commenter suggested there could be confusion in the employer community and among employees who may not be aware that the Age Discrimination Act (Age Act), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) are separate statutes with different purposes, procedures, and remedies. In response to this comment, Treasury added a reference to the Age Act, 42 U.S.C. 6103 (c)(2) to the rule, specifically stating that the rule does not in any way affect the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's regulations implementing the ADEA at 29 CFR 1625, 1626, and 1627.

The commenter noted that the proposed rule purported to apply to programs under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) (29 U.S.C. 801, et seq.), but those programs are no longer in effect. Treasury has revised § 23.3(b)(2) to eliminate the reference to CETA.

The commenter suggested that the rule, at § 23.46(a)(2)(ii), should make more clear that referrals will be made to the EEOC with respect to violations of the ADEA. Treasury edited the rule to add specifically that referrals will be made to the EEOC, Labor, HHS or Education as applicable. The general reference in § 23.46(a)(2)(ii) to any Federal, State, or local government agency remains since referrals could be made to other agencies as well.

The commenter suggested that the ADEA be added to the definitions section in § 23.4. In response to this comment, Treasury added the ADEA to the definitions section.

The commenter noted that the Supreme Court held in General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. v. Cline, 540 U.S. 581, 600 (2004) that “the [ADEA] does not mean to stop an employer from favoring an older employee over a younger one,” and suggested that Treasury consider whether Cline warrants any revisions to its Age Act regulation. Treasury has reviewed the statute and case law and has concluded that, unlike the ADEA, the Age Act does not limit its protection to a specific age group. The Age Act also provides exceptions from age discrimination requirements for normal operation or to meet statutory objectives of any program or activity (see §§ 23.13 and § 23.14). Therefore, Treasury did not adopt any revisions in response to this comment.

Another comment noted that §§ 23.13 and 23.14 discuss the defenses of 42 U.S.C. 6103(b)(1) (A) and (B), that the defense in subparagraph (A) appears to be functionally similar to the “bona fide occupational qualification” (BFOQ) defense set out in § 4(f)(1) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. 623(f)(1), and that the language of the defense in subparagraph (B) is identical to the “reasonable factors other than age” (RFOA) defense set out in the same ADEA section. The commenter then noted that the EEOC regulations at 29 CFR 1625.6 and 1625.7 address the BFOQ and RFOA defenses and suggested that Treasury consider whether any points made in the EEOC's BFOQ or RFOA regulations should be adapted for inclusion in the Age Act regulation. The commenter also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005), and note that this case caused the EEOC to revise the EEOC's “reasonable factor other than age” regulation. See 29 CFR 1625.7. It suggested that Treasury consider whether Smith warrants a revision of § 23.14.

Treasury considered adopting the EEOC's regulations for BFOQ and RFOA under the ADEA, but the legislative intent of the two statutes (ADEA and Age Act) is different. The ADEA was designed to protect older workers, while the Age Act was intended to prohibit all kinds of unreasonable age discrimination. In addition, adopting EEOC's BFOQ and RFOA factors, and applying them outside of the employment arena could create confusion with the ADEA. For these reasons, Treasury decided not to adopt the EEOC's regulations for BFOQ and RFOA for inclusion in our Age Act regulation.

The commenter noted that §§ 23.43(c) and 23.44(a)(3) discuss mediation agreements and, if the settlement purports to include rights under the ADEA, section 7(f) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. 626(f), sets out specific rules for the waiver of rights and claims under the ADEA. See 29 CFR 1625.22. Treasury considered this comment, but because the regulations do not cover employment, see § 23.3(b)(2)), Treasury does not anticipate settlements will include rights under the ADEA and has made no revisions.

This rule is not a ”significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. Therefore, no regulatory impact analysis has been prepared.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), it is hereby certified that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule will clarify existing requirements for entities receiving financial assistance from Treasury. The requirements prohibiting age discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance that are in the Act and the government-wide regulations have been in effect since 1979. In addition, entities receiving financial assistance from Treasury have been expressly informed of their obligations to comply with the Act by the offices administering the assisted programs. Because the rule does not substantively change existing obligations on recipients, but merely clarifies such duties, Treasury certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Consequently, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act) requires an agency to prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act also requires an agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule. This rule will not result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments or by the private sector of $100 million or more. Accordingly, the Department has not prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the regulatory alternatives considered.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Treasury amends subtitle A of title 31 of the CFR by adding part 23 to read as follows:

The California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower Drawbridge over the Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw operates as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.

The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 8 a.m. through 11 a.m. on October 22, 2017, to allow the community to participate in the Walk Against Breast Cancer event. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. In the event of an emergency the draw can open on signal if at least one hour notice is given to the bridge operator. There are no immediate alternate routes for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators 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.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with bridge construction operations that are scheduled to begin on October 16, 2017. The Coast Guard was initially notified of the need for a safety zone on August 8, 2017. Hurricane Irma impacted the timeline for commencement of the project and the Coast Guard received updated plans for the construction operations on September 18, 2017. Therefore, publishing an NPRM is impracticable and contrary to public interest.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the same reasons stated above, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

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, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice. Documents mentioned in this NPRM 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.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Charleston has determined that potential hazards associated with the bridge construction starting October 16, 2017 will be a safety concern for anyone within a 200-yard radius of the bridge, vessels, and machinery. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the construction is in progress.

This rule establishes an intermittent safety zone related to construction of the South Carolina Highway 31 (SC-31) Bridge located in Socastee, SC on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway at mile marker 372.3. The temporary safety zone will be set during overhead construction operations starting October 16, 2017 and ending March 19, 2018. The safety zone is scheduled to take place one day per week between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. The safety zone is needed to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the bridge construction. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 200 yards of the bridge, vessels, and machinery. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without first obtaining permission from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

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 protestors.

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 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the following reasons: (1) Although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; and (2) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section VI.A above, this rule will 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 section.

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 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. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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 guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (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 an intermittent safety zone that will prohibit persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within a limited area surrounding the SC-31 Bridge on the Atlantic Intracoastal Water Way. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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 165 as follows:

As revised and restated, 39 CFR part 266 is designed to carry forward the substantive content of former §§ 266.1-266.10 in an updated, accessible format.

The Postal Service has revised § 266.1 to align with the purpose and scope of the Privacy Act of 1974, which provides the authority for these regulations. (The Postal Service has deleted former § 266.2 Policy because it did not add any significant provisions, instructions, or guidance to these regulations, and has redesignated former §§ 266.3-266.10 as §§ 266.2-266.9, respectively.)

In revised § 266.2 and throughout these regulations, the Postal Service has updated office names to reflect its current administrative structure. Thus, “Records Office” has been changed to “Privacy and Records Management Office” to reflect the new name of this office. Similarly, “Custodian” has been changed to “Records Custodian” for clarity, and the “Information System Executive” has become the “Corporate Information Security Office” to reflect the new name and role of this functional organization.

Similarly, in revised § 266.2 and throughout these regulations, the Postal Service has revised the titles of certain employees to reflect their new titles. Specifically, “Chief Privacy Officer” was changed to “Chief Privacy and Records Management Officer,” “Senior Vice President, Human Resources” was changed to “Chief Human Resources Officer and Executive Vice President” and “Vice President, General Counsel” was changed to “General Counsel and Executive Vice President.”

In revised § 266.3(b)(3), the Postal Service has defined the limited circumstances in which a mailing list may be disclosed. The Postal Service has also replaced the word “correction” with “amendment” in this section and throughout these regulations.

No substantive changes have been made to revised § 266.4. Minor editorial changes have been made to ensure clarity and consistency of format.

In revised § 266.5(b)(2), the Postal Service has added a list of the acceptable identity verification methods that a requester may use to satisfy a records custodian as to the requester's identity before review or other access to a record containing personal information is granted. The Postal Service has also added a new paragraph 266.5(c) entitled Compliance with notification request to ensure custodians understand their responsibilities and requesters are aware of their rights in this regard.

In revised § 266.6(a)(2), the Postal Service has extended the period in which a requester may file an appeal from 30 days to 90 days.

No substantive changes have been made to revised §§ 266.7-266.9. Minor editorial changes have been made to ensure clarity and consistency of format.

Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

On April 22, 2015, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) submitted revisions to 26 Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) divisions within Chapter 340, and two source sampling and monitoring manuals related to the rules. These changes were effective on April 16, 2015, as a matter of state law. On March 22, 2017, the EPA proposed to approve the submitted rule changes (82 FR 14654). Please see our proposed rulemaking for further explanation and the basis of our finding. We note that on April 20, 2017, we received a request from the public for additional time to review the submitted changes and our proposed action. In response to the request, we reopened the comment period on May 30, 2017 for an additional 30 days, closing on June 29, 2017 (82 FR 24621). We received the following comments.

Comment 1: A commenter asserted that certain public participation requirements in Division 209 of Oregon's air quality rules are vaguely worded, and as a result, could be hard to implement. The commenter gave only one specific example, pointing to a phrase in OAR 340-209-0030 Public Notice Categories and Timing: “[t]he Department will schedule a hearing to allow interested persons to submit oral or written comments if the Department determines that a hearing is necessary.” The commenter said the meaning of “necessary” is unclear and that the rule should be more specific—listing what factors will be evaluated to judge whether a hearing is, or is not, necessary.

Response 1: Federal rules require states to inform the public about plans to permit stationary sources of air pollutants. These federal requirements vary, based on the size of the source, where it's located, and the type of permit, among other things. Oregon's public participation rules in Division 209 group permit actions into four categories, assigning different levels of public participation to the categories. We first approved this approach to public involvement into the Oregon SIP on January 22, 2003 (68 FR 2891). In that action, we found that Oregon's rules were consistent with federal public process requirements for SIP permitting actions. See 68 FR 2891, at page 2894. Since 2003, Oregon has made minor changes to Division 209. On March 22, 2017, we proposed to approve the most recent version of Division 209 as meeting the public process requirements for new source review SIP permitting actions. See 82 FR 14654, at page 14658.

With respect to the commenter's concern that some aspects of Oregon's public comment procedures may be too vague to implement, the commenter cited to only one specific example: That OAR 340-209-0030 does not provide criteria for determining when a public hearing is “necessary.” We note, however, that Oregon's rules, in addition to requiring a public comment period, specifically require that a public hearing be held for all major new source review SIP permitting in attainment and unclassifiable areas (prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)). See OAR 209-0030(d)(C). For other new source review SIP permit actions, in addition to providing for a public comment period, Oregon's rules require a public hearing if 10 members of the public request a hearing, or an organization representing at least 10 people requests a hearing. See OAR 340-209-0030(c)(B). The provision that is of concern to the commenter provides additional discretionary authority for the ODEQ to conduct a public hearing whenever it considers such a process to be necessary. The absence of additional detail in this provision does not provide grounds for the EPA to change its proposed approval.

We continue to believe that Oregon's public participation rules meet federal requirements for new source review SIP permitting actions and we are therefore finalizing our action.

Comment 2: A commenter stated that, as a member of the construction industry for 48 years, the commenter has experienced the EPA to be a burden on the middle income taxpayer. The commenter asserted that the extra cost of regulation hurts builders and the working middle class, in part because the EPA refuses to work with builders, who must deal with environmental regulations, and who then pass on the extra cost of those regulations.

Response 2: The commenter's concerns are broad in nature and do not identify any specific requirements the commenter contends are inconsistent with CAA requirements. In approving SIPs under section 110 of the CAA, Congress gave states the lead in developing plans to implement, maintain, and enforce the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)—standards designed to protect public health and welfare from air pollution. In reviewing state plans, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k) and 40 CFR 52.02(a). In this case, Oregon submitted permitting and general air quality rules to the EPA and requested that the EPA approve the rules into the Oregon SIP. Our action on the April 22, 2015 Oregon submission, with which the commenter takes issue, approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Therefore, we are finalizing our action.

We are approving, and incorporating by reference, specific rule revisions submitted by Oregon on April 22, 2015. As documented in the submission, we are approving certain of the state rule revisions to also apply in Lane County, because the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission has determined those rules to be more stringent than the corresponding local rules. We are also approving, but not incorporating by reference, specific provisions that provide the ODEQ with authority needed for SIP approval, but that may conflict with the EPA's independent authorities. We note that we are deferring action on our proposed approval of changes to Oregon excess emissions and emergency provisions, OAR 340-214-0300 through 0360, to be addressed in a separate, future action.

Lastly, we are removing repealed rules from Oregon's federally-approved SIP, as requested by the state, because they are obsolete or redundant. We are not taking action on certain rules that are inconsistent with CAA requirements or that are inappropriate for SIP approval because they are not related to the criteria pollutants regulated under title I of the CAA, not essential for meeting and maintaining the NAAQS, or not related to the requirements for SIPs under section 110 of the CAA.

We are approving into the Oregon SIP, and incorporating by reference at 40 CFR part 52, subpart MM, the submitted revisions to Chapter 340 of the OAR listed below, state effective April 16, 2015:

• Division 200—General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions (0010, 0020, 0025, 0030, 0035);

• Division 202—Ambient Air Quality Standards and PSD Increments (0010, 0020, 0050, 0070, 0100, 0130, 0200, 0210, 0220, 0225);

• Division 204—Designation of Air Quality Areas (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0050, 0060, 0070, 0080, 0090, 0300, 0310, 0320);

• Division 206—Air Pollution Emergencies (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0050, 0060, 0070, 8010, 8020, 8030, 8040);

• Division 208—Visible Emissions and Nuisance Requirements (0005, 0010, 0110, 0210);

• Division 209—Public Participation (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0050, 0060, 0070, 0080);

• Division 210—Stationary Source Notification Requirements (0010, 0020, 0100, 0110, 0120, 0205, 0215, 0225, 0230, 0240, 0250);

• Division 212—Stationary Source Testing and Monitoring (0005, 0010, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0140, 0150);

• Division 214—Stationary Source Reporting Requirements (0005, 0010, 0100, 0110, 0114, 0130, 0200, 0210, 0220);

• Division 216—Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (0010, 0020, 0025, 0030, 0040, 0052, 0054, 0056, 0060, 0062, 0064, 0066, 0068, 0070, 0082, 0084, 0090, 0094, 8010, 8020);

• Division 222—Stationary Source Plant Site Emission Limits (0010, 0020, 0030, 0035, 0040, 0041, 0042, 0046, 0048, 0051, 0055, 0080, 0090);

• Division 224—New Source Review (0010, 0020, 0025, 0030, 0034, 0038, 0040, 0045, 0050, 0055, 0060, 0070, 0245, 0250, 0255, 0260, 0270, 0500, 0510—except paragraph (3), 0520, 0530, 0540);

• Division 225—Air Quality Analysis Requirements (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0045, 0050, 0060, 0070);

• Division 226—General Emissions Standards (0005, 0010, 0100, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0140, 0210, 0310, 0320, 0400, 8010);

• Division 228—Requirements for Fuel Burning Equipment and Fuel Sulfur Content (0010, 0020, 0100, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0200, 0210);

• Division 232—Emission Standards for VOC Point Sources (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0050, 0060, 0080, 0085, 0090, 0100, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0140, 0150, 0160, 0170, 0180, 0190, 0200, 0210, 0220, 0230);

• Division 234—Emission Standards for Wood Products Industries (0005, 0010 except (8) and (10), 0100, 0140, 0200, 0210—except (1), 0220—except (2), 0240—except (1), 0250—except (1) and (2), 0270, 0500, 0510, 0520, 0530, 0540);

• Divisions 236—Emission Standards for Specific Industries (0005, 0010, 0400, 0410, 0420, 0440, 8010);

• Division 240—Rules for Areas with Unique Air Quality Needs (0010, 0020, 0030, 0050, 0100, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0140, 0150, 0160, 0180, 0190, 0210, 0220, 0250, 0300, 0320, 0330, 0340, 0350, 0360, 0400, 0410, 0420, 0430, 0440, 0510, 0550, 0560, 0610);

• Division 242—Rules Applicable to the Portland Area (0400, 0410, 0420, 0430, 0440, 0600, 0610, 0620, 0630);

• Division 262—Heat Smart Program for Residential Woodstoves and Other Solid Fuel Heating Devices (0450);

• Division 264—Rules for Open Burning (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0050, 0060, 0070, 0075, 0078, 0080, 0100, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0140, 0150, 0160, 0170, 0175, 0180); and

• Division 268—Emission Reduction Credits (0010, 0020, 0030).

• Division 200—General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions (0020);

• Division 202—Ambient Air Quality Standards and PSD Increments (0050);

• Division 204—Designation of Air Quality Areas (0300, 0310, 0320);

• Division 208—Visible Emissions and Nuisance Requirements (0110, 0210);

• Division 214—Stationary Source Reporting Requirements (0114)(5);

• Division 216—Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (0040, 8010);

• Division 222—Stationary Source Plant Site Emission Limits (0090);

• Division 224—New Source Review (0030, 0530);

• Division 225—Air Quality Analysis Requirements (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0045, 0050, 0060, 0070);

• Division 226—General Emissions Standards (0210); and

• Division 228—Requirements for Fuel Burning Equipment and Fuel Sulfur Content (0210).

We are approving, but not incorporating by reference, the following provisions:

• ODEQ Source Sampling Manual, Volumes I and II, April 2015 (for purposes of the limits approved into the SIP);

• ODEQ Continuous Emissions Monitoring Manual, April 2015 (for purposes of the limits approved into the SIP);

• ODEQ-LRAPA Stringency Analysis and Directive, Attachment B; and

• Division 200—General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions (0100, 0110, 0120).

We are removing the following sections from the Oregon SIP because they have been repealed, replaced by rules noted in paragraph A above, or the state has asked that they be removed:

• Division 208—Visible Emissions and Fugitive Emissions Requirements (0100, 0200);

• Division 212—Compliance Assurance Monitoring (0200, 0210, 0220, 0230, 0240, 0250, 0260, 0270, 0280);

• Division 214—Stationary Source Reporting Requirements (0400, 0410, 0420, 0430);

• Division 222—Stationary Source Plant Site Emissions Limits (0043, 0045, 0070);

• Division 224—New Source Review (0080, 0100);

• Division 225—Air Quality Analysis Requirements (0090);

• Division 226—General Emission Standards (0200);

• Division 228—Requirements for Fuel Burning Equipment and Fuel Sulfur Content (0400, 0410, 0420, 0430, 0440, 0450, 0460, 0470, 0480, 0490, 0500, 0510, 0520, 0530);

• Division 234—Emission Standards for Wood Products Industries (0300, 0310, 0320, 0330, 0340, 0350, 0360, 0400, 0410, 0420, 0430);

• Division 236—Emission Standards for Specific Industries (0100, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0140, 0150, 0200, 0210, 0220, 0230, 0430);

• Division 240—Rules for Areas with Unique Air Quality Needs (0170, 0230, 0310);

• Division 242—Rules Applicable to the Portland Areas (0700, 0710, 0720, 0730, 0740, 0750, 0760, 0770, 0780, 0790); and

• Division 264—Rules for Open Burning (0190).

For the reasons stated above, we are not incorporating the following revised provisions into the Oregon SIP because they are inappropriate for SIP approval under section 110, title I of the CAA:

• Division 200—General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions (0050) (compliance schedules);

• Division 222—Stationary Source Plant Site Emission Limits (0060) (hazardous air pollutants);

• Division 224—New Source Review (0510(3)) (fine particulate matter inter-pollutant offset ratios); and

• Division 234—Emission Standards for Wood Products Industries (0010(8) and (10), 0210(1), 0220(2), 0240(1), 0250 (1) and (2)) (total reduced sulfur and odor).

• Division 214—Stationary Source Reporting Requirements (0300, 0310, 0320, 0330, 0340, 0350, 0360) (excess emissions and emergency provisions).

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference as described in Section III above, and the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section of this preamble for more information).

These materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally-enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.1

Oregon Revised Statute 468.126, prohibits the ODEQ from imposing a penalty for violation of an air, water or solid waste permit unless the source has been provided five days' advanced written notice of the violation and has not come into compliance or submitted a compliance schedule within that five-day period. By its terms, the statute does not apply to Oregon's title V program or to any program if application of the notice provision would disqualify the program from federal delegation. Oregon has previously confirmed that, because application of the notice provision would preclude EPA approval of the Oregon SIP, no advance notice is required for violation of SIP requirements.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

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

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

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

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

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

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

• is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and

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

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

On August 24, 2016, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted the “Staff Report, [C]ARB Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard” (“2016 CARB Staff Report”).1 On July 3, 2017, we proposed to approve the portions of the submission that address ambient ozone monitoring in the Bakersfield MSA pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(B),2 and refer to those portions herein as the “2016 Bakersfield Ozone Monitoring SIP.” 3 We proposed to approve this SIP submission because we determined that it complied with the relevant CAA requirements, as outlined below. Our proposed rule contains more information on the SIP submission and our evaluation. We provided a 30-day public comment period on the proposed rule, during which we received no comments.

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within a shorter period that the EPA may prescribe. The EPA refers to such SIP submissions as “infrastructure SIPs.” This final rule pertains to infrastructure SIP requirements for ambient air quality monitoring.

On July 18, 1997, the EPA revised the form and levels of the primary and secondary ozone standards to an 8-hour average of 0.08 parts per million (ppm).4 On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards to 0.075 ppm.5 Each of these NAAQS revisions triggered the requirement for states to submit infrastructure SIPs, including provisions for ambient ozone monitoring.

Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA requires states to provide for the establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitoring to (i) monitor, compile, and analyze data, and (ii) make data available to the EPA Administrator upon request. For the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS, the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area includes several MSAs and one Combined Statistical Area.

California made SIP submissions in 2007 and 2014 to, among other things, address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) and the EPA's implementing regulations for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA approved the submissions with respect to the ambient monitoring requirements with one exception: 6 We partially disapproved the submissions for CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Bakersfield MSA, which includes all of Kern County. Our partial disapproval was based on the closure of the MSA's maximum ozone concentration site located at Arvin-Bear Mountain Boulevard (i.e., Air Quality System (AQS) ID: 06-029-5001), without EPA approval of an alternative maximum ozone concentration site.7

CARB had operated an ozone monitor at the Arvin-Bear Mountain Boulevard site for 20 years, and the highest ozone concentrations in the Bakersfield MSA generally occurred at this site or the Edison site (i.e., AQS ID: 06-029-0007), which continues to operate. Upon notification in 2009 that the site lease would not be renewed, CARB established a replacement site at the Arvin-Di Giorgio elementary school (i.e., AQS ID: 06-029-5002). This ozone monitor site relocation had not been approved by the EPA at the time of the EPA's 2014 partial disapproval of California's 2007 and 2014 infrastructure SIPs.

Based on the 2016 Bakersfield Ozone Monitoring SIP, CARB's 2016 site relocation request,8 and the EPA's 2016 approval of that relocation request (included in the SIP submission as Appendix C to the 2016 CARB Staff Report), the EPA concluded that the Arvin-Di Giorgio site provided the most similar concentrations from similar sources to the Arvin-Bear Mountain Boulevard site and fulfilled the federal regulatory requirement that such replacement site be nearby and have the same scale of representation. In addition, we found that CARB's site relocation, as approved by the EPA consistent with 40 CFR 58.14, met the substantive requirements for site relocation under 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D, including the requirement under section 4.1(b) to designate a site to record the maximum ozone concentration in the Bakersfield MSA.

The underlying basis of the EPA's 2014 disapproval has been adequately resolved via the approved site relocation for the maximum ozone concentration site in the Bakersfield MSA. Accordingly, the EPA is fully approving the 2016 Bakersfield Ozone Monitoring SIP for CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act.

In addition, the EPA previously approved an ozone emergency episode plan from El Dorado County APCD as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS.9 That action resolved a separate, partial disapproval from the EPA's 2016 rulemaking on California's 2007 and 2014 infrastructure SIPs. However, we inadvertently did not remove certain paragraphs from the California SIP that reflected the earlier disapproval. Thus, as an administrative matter, we are removing the obsolete paragraphs, specifically 40 CFR 52.223(i)(7) and 40 CFR 52.223(l)(7), from the California SIP.

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

EPA is approving the revision as meeting the submittal requirement of section 110(a)(1). EPA is approving elements of the infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Missouri received on October 14, 2015. Specifically, EPA is approving the following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)—prevention of significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3), (D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through (M). EPA intends to act on elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1), interfering with maintenance of the NAAQs (prong 2) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—protection of visibility (prong 4) in subsequent rulemakings. EPA is taking no action section 110(a)(2)(I). EPA is also approving the state's request to include Missouri State Statute section 105.483(5) RSMo 2014, and Missouri State Statute section 105.485 RSMo 2014 into the SIP. These two statutes address aspects of the infrastructure requirements relating to conflicts of interest as found in section 128 of the CAA.

A Technical Support Document (TSD) is included as part of this docket to discuss the details of this action, including analysis of how the SIP meets the applicable 110 requirements for infrastructure SIPs.

The state's submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The state held a public comment period from July 27, 2015, to September 03, 2015. The state received no comments during the public comment period. A public hearing was held on August 27, 2015. The submission satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. As explained in more detail in the TSD, which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

We are publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

EPA is approving elements of the October 14, 2015, infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Missouri, which addresses the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. As stated above, EPA is approving the revision as meeting the submittal requirement of section 110(a)(1) and approving the following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)—prevention of significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3), (D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through (M). EPA intends to act on elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1), interfering with maintenance of the NAAQs (prong 2) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—protection of visibility (prong 4) in subsequent rulemakings. EPA is taking no action section 110(a)(2)(I).

Section 110(a)(2)(I) requires that in the case of a plan or plan revision for areas designated as nonattainment areas, states must meet applicable requirements of part D of the CAA, relating to SIP requirements for designated nonattainment areas. EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP submissions to address element (I). The specific SIP submissions for designated nonattainment areas, as required under CAA title I, part D, are subject to different submission schedules than those for section 110 infrastructure elements. EPA will take action on part D attainment plan SIP submissions through a separate rulemaking governed by the requirements for nonattainment areas, as described in part D.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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