Federal Register Vol. 83, No.190,

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2016-25-03, Amendment 39-18729 (81 FR 93801, December 22, 2016) (“AD 2016-25-03”). AD 2016-25-03 applied to certain Airbus Model A300 F4-600R series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 25, 2018 (83 FR 24244). The NPRM was prompted by a report of two adjacent frame forks that were found cracked on the aft LDCD of two airplanes during scheduled maintenance, and the introduction of frame fork reinforcement or repair procedures that, when done, allow an extension of repetitive inspection intervals. The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive HFEC inspections of the aft LDCD frame forks; a one-time check of the LDCD clearances; and a one-time detailed visual inspection of hooks, eccentric bushes, and x-stops; and corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to require revised corrective actions and compliance times. We are issuing this AD to address cracked or ruptured aft LDCD frames, which could allow loads to be transferred to the remaining structural elements. This condition could lead to the rupture of one or more vertical aft LDCD frames, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the aft LDCD.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0152R1, dated May 23, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A300 F4-600R series airplanes. The MCAI states:

Required actions include repetitive HFEC inspections of the aft LDCD frame forks and repair, reinforcement, or replacement if necessary; a one-time check of the LDCD clearances and adjustment if necessary; and a one-time detailed visual inspection of hooks, eccentric bushes, and x-stops for wear, and corrective actions if necessary. Corrective actions include blend-out, adjustment, and replacement of hooks, bushes and x-stops. 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-2018-0417.

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

FedEx Express requested that we revise the proposed AD to incorporate Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6085, Revision 01, dated May 2, 2018; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6086, Revision 01, dated May 29, 2018. FedEx Express also requested that we update table 1 to paragraph (g) of the proposed AD with the revised compliance times specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6086, Revision 01, dated May 29, 2018.

We partially agree with the commenter's requested changes. We agree to incorporate Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6085, Revision 01, dated May 2, 2018; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6086, Revision 01, dated May 29, 2018; because the changes to the procedures in those documents are not significant. The changes include updating reference documents and figures and do not result in any additional work for airplanes modified using the previous issue. Therefore, we have revised this AD to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6085, Revision 01, dated May 2, 2018; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6086, Revision 01, dated May 29, 2018, as the appropriate sources of service information for certain actions. We have also revised this AD to give credit for certain actions accomplished using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6085, Revision 00, dated December 22, 2016; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6086, Revision 00, dated December 25, 2016.

The updated compliance times in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6086, Revision 01, dated May 29, 2018, are substantively different from the compliance times specified in the proposed AD and would increase the scope of this AD without allowing for public notice and comment. Therefore, we have not changed this AD with regard to the compliance times specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6086. However, under the provisions of paragraph (n)(1) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of alternative compliance times if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the extension would provide an acceptable level of safety.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule 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 addressing 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 final rule.

Airbus has issued the following service information:

• Alert Operators Transmission A52W011-15, Revision 00, including Appendices 1, 2, 3, and 4, dated July 23, 2015, which describes procedures for a check of the aft LDCD clearances “U” and “V” between the latching hooks and the eccentric bush at frame FR60 through FR64A and an adjustment of the latching hook; a detailed inspection to detect signs of wear of the hooks, eccentric bushes, and x-stops and corrective actions; and an HFEC inspection to detect cracking at all frame fork stations of the aft LDCD and a replacement of the frame fork.

• Service Bulletin A300-52-6085, Revision 01, dated May 2, 2018, which describes procedures for reinforcing frame fork fastener holes, which include related investigative and corrective actions. The related investigative actions include a rotating probe inspection for cracking of the fastener holes and a check to determine the hole diameter. Corrective actions include repair and cold working the fastener holes.

• Service Bulletin A300-52-6086, Revision 01, dated May 29, 2018, which describes procedures for a check of the aft LDCD clearances “U” and “V” between the latching hooks and the eccentric bush at FR60 through FR64A and an adjustment of the latching hook; and HFEC inspection to detect cracking at all frame fork stations of the aft LDCD and a repair of the frame fork.

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

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

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

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

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 all Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, Model A330-200 series airplanes, Model A330-300 series airplanes, Model A340-200 series airplanes, Model A340-300 series airplanes, Model A340-500 series airplanes, and Model A340-600 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2018 (83 FR 21196). The NPRM was prompted by a report of deficient fatigue performance of high strength steel used in forgings. Components made from the affected high strength steel are installed on the MLG, NLG, and CLG. The NPRM proposed to require identifying the part number and serial number of certain components installed on the MLG, NLG, and CLG; replacing affected parts; identifying the airplane's weight variant; and determining the applicable life limit for certain components installed on the MLG, NLG, and CLG.

We are issuing this AD to address certain parts made from 300M high strength steel, which if uncorrected, could lead to structural failure of the landing gear, and possible loss of control of the airplane during take-off or landing.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0185, dated September 22, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, Model A330-200 series airplanes, Model A330-300 series airplanes, Model A340-200 series airplanes, Model A340-300 series airplanes, Model A340-500 series airplanes, and Model A340-600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0395.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. 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 final rule 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 addressing the unsafe condition; and

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

Airbus SAS has issued the following service information.

• Service Bulletin A330-32-3281, Revision 02, including Appendixes 01 through 06, dated June 16, 2017; and Service Bulletin A340-32-4310, Revision 02, including Appendixes 01 through 06, dated June 16, 2017. This service information includes procedures for inspections to identify the part numbers and serial numbers of the main fittings, bogie beams, and sliding pistons of the MLG; and procedures for determining the airplane's weight variant. This service information also describes the reduced life limits for affected parts. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

• Service Bulletin A340-32-5119, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01 through 07, dated January 31, 2017. This service information includes procedures for inspections to identify the part numbers and serial numbers of the main fittings and bogie beams of the MLG, NLG, and CLG; and procedures for determining the airplane's weight variant. This service information also describes the reduced life limits for affected parts.

In addition, Airbus has issued the following service information, which describes life limits for affected parts. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models and different life limited parts.

• A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL-ALI),” Revision 09, dated September 18, 2017.

• A330 ALS Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL-ALI),” Variation 9.2, dated November 28, 2017.

• A340 ALS Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL-ALI),” Revision 09, dated September 18, 2017.

• A340 ALS Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL-ALI),” Variation 9.2, dated November 28, 2017.

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 103 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

This AD 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 and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

The FAA issued AD 2018-10-11, Amendment 39-19286 (83 FR 22836, May 17, 2018), (“AD 2018-10-11”), for all CFM model CFM56-7B engines. AD 2018-10-11 required initial and repetitive ultrasonic inspections (USI) or eddy current inspection (ECI) of certain fan blades and, if they fail the inspection, their replacement with parts eligible for installation. AD 2018-10-11 resulted from an April 2018 event involving an engine failure due to a fractured fan blade leading to the engine inlet cowl disintegrating and debris penetrating the fuselage, causing a loss of pressurization and prompting an emergency descent. One passenger fatality occurred as a result. The agency issued AD 2018-10-11 to prevent failure of the fan blade due to cracking, which could lead to an engine in-flight shutdown, uncontained release of debris, damage to the airplane, and possible airplane decompression.

Since the FAA issued AD 2018-10-11, CFM gained a better understanding of the fan blade failures based on the inspections and further analysis of the detected cracks and the April 2018 event. As a result, CFM reduced the repetitive inspection interval to prevent a fan blade failure. CFM has published Service Bulletin (SB) CFM56-7B S/B 72-1033, Revision 2, dated July 27, 2018, to reduce the repetitive inspection interval from 3,000 cycles to 1,600 cycles. The FAA expects that all affected engines will have completed the initial inspection based on the previously issued ADs.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA has determined that, in AD 2018-10-11, it underestimated the cost per fan blade to be $8,500. However, based on CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1033, Revision 2, dated July 27, 2018, and earlier versions the estimated cost per fan blade should be $51,400. The FAA erroneously assumed the cost in the service bulletin represented the cost for a set of 24 fan blades when it actually represented the cost for two fan blades. In this final rule, the agency has updated the on-condition costs to reflect the correct cost of the fan blade.

The FAA reviewed CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1033, Revision 2, dated July 27, 2018, and Subtask 72-21-01-220-091, of Task 72-21-01-200-001, from the CFM56-7B Engine Shop Manual (ESM), Revision 57, dated January 15, 2018. CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1033, Revision 2, describes procedures for performing a USI of the affected fan blades. Subtask 72-21-01-220-091, of Task 72-21-01-200-001, from the CFM56-7B ESM, describes procedures for performing an ECI of the affected fan blades. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA also reviewed CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1019, dated March 24, 2017, CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1019, Revision 1, dated June 13, 2017, CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1024, dated July 26, 2017, CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1033, dated April 20, 2018, and General Electric Field Support Technology (FST) Procedure 2370, dated December 9, 2016. These SBs and the FST provide information on performing the USI.

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

This AD requires initial and repetitive USI or ECI of certain fan blades and, if they fail the inspection, their replacement with parts eligible for installation.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule. Due to the reduction in the repetitive inspection interval, some fan blades have reached or exceeded the revised repetitive inspection threshold. Because of this, the compliance time for the required action is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for the FAA to issue the final rule to ensure the unsafe condition is addressed. Therefore, the agency finds good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reasons stated in this paragraph, the FAA finds that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and the FAA did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, the agency invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2018-0785 and product identifier 2018-NE-14-AD at the beginning of your comments. The agency specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final rule. The agency will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact the agency receives about this final rule.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 3,716 engines installed on 1,858 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to complete any necessary replacement of a single fan blade that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of engines that might need fan blades to be replaced:

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.

The FAA is 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 within the Aircraft Certification Service, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 22, 2018 (83 FR 29056). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations.

We are issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements; such fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion could result in reduced structural integrity 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 2018-0009, dated January 15, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 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-2018-0549.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. 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 final rule 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 addressing the unsafe condition; and

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

Dassault Aviation has issued Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 17, dated December 20, 2017, of the Dassult Falcon 200 Maintenance Manual. The service information describes mandatory maintenance tasks that operators must perform at specified intervals. 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 9 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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 and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Burlington Municipal Airport, Burlington, WI, to support IFR operations at the airport.

The FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (82 FR 40080; August 24, 2017) for Docket No. FAA-2017-0145 to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Burlington Municipal Airport, Burlington, WI. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. Two comments were received in support of the proposal.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C 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 amends Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.4-mile radius (reduced from a 7.4-mile) radius of Burlington Municipal Airport, Burlington, WI. Airspace redesign is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Burbun VOR, and cancellation of the VOR approach, while implementing more efficient area navigation routes within the national airspace system for the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

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, does 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 5-6.5.a. 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:

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) owns the Youngs Bay Bridge across Youngs Bay, mile 0.7, Old Youngs Bay Bridge across Youngs Bay, mile 2.4, foot of Fifth Street, and the Lewis and Clark River Bridge across the Lewis and Clark River, mile 1.0. ODOT has requested this temporary deviation from the operating schedule while a rule change is being reviewed for approval. The three subject bridges are within one mile of each other, and currently open on signal for the passage of vessels with one half-hour notice by marine radio, telephone, or other suitable means. These three bridges are operated by the Lewis and Clark River bridge operator in accordance with 33 CFR 117.899.

This deviation will allow ODOT to operate without a bridge operator attending the three subject bridges until an opening request has been received. This deviation authorizes ODOT's bridge operator to open the subject bridges within two hours after receiving a request for an opening from 5 p.m. on Friday to 7 a.m. on Monday, including all Federal holidays, starting at 7 a.m. on September 22, 2018, through 7 a.m. on March 19, 2019. The Youngs Bay Bridge provides a vertical clearance approximately 37 feet above mean high water when in the closed-to-navigation position. The Old Youngs Bay Bridge provides a vertical clearance approximately 19 feet above mean high water when in the closed-to-navigation position. The Lewis and Clark River Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 17 feet above mean high water when in the closed-to-navigation position. Vessels operating on Youngs Bay and the Lewis and Clark River range from small recreational vessels, sailboats, tribal fishing boats and small commercial fishing vessels.

Vessels able to pass through the subject bridges in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. The bridges will not be able to open for emergencies from 5 p.m. on Friday to 7 a.m. on Monday unless a two hour notice is given, and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will 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 drawbridges must return to their regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

On June 7, 2018, we published a temporary deviation entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Snohomish River and Steamboat Slough, Everett and Marysville, WA, in the Federal Register (83 FR 26365). That temporary deviation allowed the SR 529 Highway Bridge, north bound, to not open to marine vessels from 12:01 a.m. on July 2, 2018 to 11:59 p.m. on September 30, 2018. While performing initial repairs, the bridge owner, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), discovered additional damage and corrosion. This modification is required so that WSDOT can perform repairs, painting, and preservation related to the newly discovered damage and corrosion. WSDOT has requested an extension to the current published temporary deviation to make required repairs.

The SR 529 Highway Bridge, north bound, across Steamboat Slough, mile 1.2, provides 10 feet of vertical clearance above mean high water elevation while in the closed-to-navigation position; and this bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.1059(f). The subject bridge is authorized to remain in the closed-to navigation position, and need not open for maritime traffic from 12:01 a.m. on October 1, 2018 to 11:59 p.m. on October 31, 2018. The subject bridge's lift span vertical clearance is also authorized to be reduced from ten feet to seven feet except for a 50 foot wide section that shall not be reduced for maritime passage. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.1059(f) at all other times.

Waterway usage on this part of the Snohomish River and Steamboat Slough includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Vessels able to pass under the subject bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. The subject bridge will not be able to open for vessels engaged in emergency response during the closure period. An alternate route for vessels to pass is available through Ebey Slough and Union Slough near the entrance of Steamboat Slough at high tide. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridges so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to the 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.

BNSF (bridge owner) has requested for Bridge 7.6 be allowed to close the span, and need not open to marine traffic to replace bridge deck ties and install new rail joints. BNSF's Bridge 7.6 crosses the Swinomish channel, mile 8.4, near Whitmarsh, WA. The subject bridge provides 8 feet of vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position, and 100 feet of horizontal clearance in the open-to-navigation position. Bridge 7.6 provides unlimited vertical clearance in the open-to-navigation position. Vertical and horizontal clearances are referenced to mean high-water elevation.

BNSF work requires the swing span to be in the closed-to-navigation position. The deviation period allows the subject bridge to be in the closed-to-navigation position from 7 a.m. on September 23, 2018 to 3 p.m. on October 05, 2018. During the closure times, the swing span may be opened if at least a two hour notice has been given to the bridge operator. The span will open for emergencies and tribal fishing vessels with a one hour notice to the bridge operator. The deviation period and span operation is described in the table below:

Bridge 7.6 normally operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, and is normally maintained in the open-to-navigation position. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.5 at all other times. Waterway usage on the Swinomish Channel includes commercial tugs and barges, U.S. Coast Guard vessels, and large to small pleasure craft. BNSF coordinated with tribal leaders to open Bridge 7.6 during the closure period herein to tribal fishing vessels with an hour notice. BNSF also coordinated with marinas on Swinomish Channel to open the subject bridge, with at least a two hour notice, during the closure period herein.

Vessels able to pass through the subject bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. An alternate route is via the southern Swinomish Channel using Skagit Bay. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

I. Table of Abbreviations COTP Captain of the Port CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

After Hurricane Florence passed over the Cape Fear River, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted surveys of the navigable channel to identify obstructions that may have collected on the river bottom and pose risks to shipping traffic. The surveys identified a number of potential obstructions that require further investigation and possible removal. Operations are scheduled to begin on September 26, 2018. These operations involve diving in murky water with strong currents, using heavy-lift equipment on floating platforms, and other inherently risky activities that require strict safety procedures. Vessels that pass too close or too quickly increase the risk of these operations. To mitigate such risks, the COTP is establishing a safety zone around the vessels conducting diving and salvage operations. This safety zone will move with the vessels as they transit the river to investigate and remove obstructions.

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 to do so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Waiting to return the waterway to conditions that accommodate the safe, full resumption of commercial shipping is contrary to the public interest. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because recovery assets will be on scene on or about September 26, 2018, and the safety zone needs to be in place at that time to protect vessels and persons in the vicinity of salvage operations.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Immediate action is needed to protect vessels and persons conducting diving and salvage operations, as well as vessels transiting nearby, from the potential hazards associated with these operations.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port North Carolina (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with salvage operations starting on or about September 26, 2018, will be a safety concern when anyone approaches within 100 yards of salvage vessels and divers. This rule is needed to protect personnel and vessels in the navigable waters within and transiting near the safety zone.

This rule establishes a moving safety zone that protects vessels and affiliated divers engaged in post-Hurricane Florence salvage operations on the navigable waters of the Cape Fear River. The safety zone includes all navigable waters within 100 yards of vessels actively engaged in salvage and dive support vessels being used to conduct salvage operations on the Cape Fear River. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Vessels requesting to enter or transit the safety zone may contact the Sector North Carolina Command Center via VHF-FM channel 16 or telephone at 910-362-4015.

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 size, location, and flexibility of the safety zone. Because of its size, vessels will typically be able to safely transit around the zone. In cases where the location of salvage operations don't allow safe passage without transiting through the zone, the regulation is written to give the opportunity for transiting through after coordinating with salvage operators and the COTP. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone updating mariners of the location of current salvage operations.

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 V.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 Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 a safety zone that is active only during salvage operations that will prohibit entry within 100 yards of salvage vessels, machinery, and divers being used to investigate and remove obstructions from the Cape Fear River. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. 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:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations RNA Regulated Navigation Area COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking RNA Regulated Navigation Area § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

The northwest part of Lake Huron forms the approach to, and the east part of the, Straits of Mackinac. At the extreme northwest end, the lake narrows abruptly to a width of 4 miles. Spanning this divide is the Mackinac Bridge. Two main shipping lanes lead north and south of Bois Blanc Island and pass under the bridge. Numerous shoals and several islands obstruct the Straits Area. Located approximately a mile west of the Mackinac Bridge are submerged electrical cables and the Enbridge Line 5 Pipeline. Posted on NOAAs navigation charts are cautionary notes advising mariners of the cable and pipeline area. There is no prohibition nor is there an enforcement mechanism to discourage anchoring in this area. The Captain of the Port (COTP) of Sault Sainte Marie has determined that the high volume of vessel transits and the potential for damage to submerged infrastructure warrants the creation of a regulatory measure to specifically outline an area of regulated navigation that establishes transit and communication expectations through the Straits.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to better enhance the safety of vessels and protection of sub-surface cables and pipelines within the navigable waters of the Straits of Mackinac. The Coast Guard publishes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

On the behalf of COTP Sector Sault Sainte Marie, the Ninth Coast Guard District is creating a Regulated Navigation Area that mandates transiting vessels make a direct passage with no anchoring or loitering, unless expressly granted permission from the COTP or designated representative. Vessels that are required to comply with this RNA include vessels of 40 meters or more in length, towing vessels of 20 meters or more in length while engaged in towing another vessel, vessels certificated to carry 50 or more passengers for hire, when engaged in trade, or any dredge or floating plant.

Within the RNA, the District Commander or COTP may establish temporary traffic rules that include but are not limited to channel obstructions, winter navigation, unusual weather conditions, or unusual water levels. This rule will ensure transiting mariners are fully aware of existing and emergent hazards to navigation on or below the navigable waterways and provide the Coast Guard with greater situational awareness and oversight. The regulatory text appears at the end of this document.

In total, we received 21 comments on the proposed regulated navigation area (RNA) for the Straits of Mackinac published on August 2, 2018 (83 FR 37780). In consideration of the comments received, we have amended the regulatory text in this final rule.

We received seven comments expressing support for proceeding with the rulemaking.

One comment did not address the proposed rule, nor offer any support for or criticism against the rulemaking.

One commenter suggested that pipelines and cables could be protected with a smaller than proposed RNA. The Coast Guard believes that requiring ships to seek permission from the COTP to anchor in any part of the regulated area, coupled with the requirement to notify the COTP 15 minutes prior to getting underway, will reduce the likelihood of an accidental anchor deployment through areas with pipes and cables below.

Another commenter expressed disapproval of the proposed rule, saying it would not prevent accidents in the future. The comment did not offer any suggestions for how to improve the regulations. For the same reasons given above, the Coast Guard believes that there will be fewer accidental anchor deployments causing damage to the pipes and cables below the surface.

One commenter suggested that we should remove the pipelines. The purpose of this RNA, however, is to protect all of the submerged pipes and cables in the Straits of Mackinac and to prevent accidental anchor deployment through them.

One comment from NOAA's charting team requested clarification of the horizontal datum type used. In this final rule, we include the horizontal datum type, NAD 83, in the regulatory text after the latitude coordinates.

We received four comments from commercial vessel owners and operators concerned that the rulemaking would prohibit large vessels from anchoring to safely endure foul weather. Other commenters expressed similar concern on having to anchor within the RNA, away from submerged cables and pipelines, in adverse weather with little or no notice. To address these safety concerns, we have added clarification that in emergency cases, regulated vessels may anchor in the RNA without one hour notice to the COTP, but they must give notice of anchoring as soon as practical. Nothing in this rule prohibits vessel masters from safely navigating their vessels and/or anchoring when necessary while in extremis and/or to preserve safety of life at sea. Communicating the need and requesting permission to anchor with an hour's notice, or as soon as practicable, gives the COTP the situational awareness and ability to respond to mariner needs.

Six comments were received from sight-seeing, ferry, and tourism related waterway users concerned with this rule prohibiting their ability to linger, loiter, stop, etc. to observe specific areas of interest. The Coast Guard does not intend to overly burden businesses engaged in these activities. Therefore, we amended this final rule's definition of loiter to explicitly exclude brief stops for sightseeing, ferrying and tourism. Thus, operations that require stopping by passenger ships for sightseeing, ferrying, and tourism purposes do not require expressed permission from the COTP under this rule because we do not think these brief stops reduce the safety goals of this RNA. However, this rule requires that vessels engaged in sightseeing, ferrying, and tourism contact the COTP within one hour of their intent to anchor within the RNA.

The regulatory text in this final rule differs from the NPRM in that we added the ability for operators of vessels engaged in activities, such as tourism, ferrying, or sightseeing, to request a waiver from the COTP to anchor within the RNA, but not within charted submerged cables and/or pipelines areas. The sightseeing, ferry, and tourism waivers are intended for frequent vessel operations and configurations that are reasonably determined by the COTP to not pose a threat to sensitive submerged infrastructure.

Lastly, this rule differs from the NPRM in that we added language to § 165.944(c)(4) that states even when one (1) hour notice is given to the COTP, anchoring in the charted submerged cable and pipeline areas is prohibited. This additional language is necessary to achieve our goal of promoting safe transit through the RNA now that we have added waivers and permission to anchor with little to no notice in emergencies.

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 fact that no part of this rulemaking and its stipulations will require any additional equipment purchases or create an undue burden to marine operations. This rule will increase communication and situational awareness of the specified area.

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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. The majority of this rule applies to vessels typically larger than those operated by small entities. The size and operational applicability of this rule is found at the end of this document.

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.

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 Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination 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 creating a permanent Regulated Navigation Area detailing how mariners shall transit through the Straits of Mackinac. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. 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:

In this Order, the Commission adopts final rules revising periodic reporting requirements codified in 39 CFR part 3050. The final rules adopted by this Order amend existing rules by adjusting the deadlines of certain quarterly and monthly reports, modifying the format of the Monthly Summary Financial Report, and adding or removing certain reporting requirements. The final rules amend several existing sections of 39 CFR part 3050, and add several subsections to § 3050.21.

On December 27, 2017, the Postal Service requested that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider revisions to the periodic reporting requirements codified in 39 CFR part 3050.1 On January 5, 2018, the Commission established this docket and invited comments and reply comments regarding the Postal Service's proposed revisions.2 The Commission received comments from the Public Representative 3 and the United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS).4 The Commission received reply comments from the Postal Service 5 and the Parcel Shippers Association (PSA).6

The Postal Service's petition contained three requests. First, the Postal Service requested that the Commission adjust deadlines for the quarterly Revenue, Pieces, and Weight (RPW) report; the Quarterly Statistics Report (QSR); the quarterly Billing Determinants report; and the monthly National Consolidated Trial Balance and Revenue and Expense Summary (Trial Balance) report to align the deadlines with other financial reporting deadlines. Petition at 1. The Postal Service stated that aligning the deadlines would be more effective, as the current rules require the reports to be submitted before key information is available. Id. at 3-5.

Second, the Postal Service requested that the Commission change the format of the Monthly Summary Financial Report. Id. at 6. The Postal Service sought to revise § 3050.28(b)(1), Table 1 and Table 2. For Table 1, the Postal Service requested a change of the term “Operating Revenue” to “Revenue,” and to remove a breakdown of types of operating revenue. Id. at 6-8. For Table 2, the Postal Service requested to update the product name for USPS Marketing Mail, as the previous format used the old product name of Standard Mail. Id. at 8.

Third, the Postal Service requested that the Commission remove any requirements deemed unnecessary to the Commission's evaluation of compliance with title 39. Id. at 9-10.

The Commission considered the comments it received in response to Order No. 4706 and reviewed its periodic reporting rules to determine if updates were warranted, and as a result proposed revisions to the rules.7 The revisions incorporated the Postal Service's proposal to adjust the filing date for the RPW, QSR, Billing Determinants, and Trial Balance reports.8

The proposed rules also changed the format of the Monthly Summary Financial Report. In § 3050.28(b)(1), Table 1, the existing input for “Operating Revenue” remains, but component inputs “Mail and Services Revenue” and “Government Appropriations” were removed. A new heading, “Revenue,” contains an input for “Operating Revenue,” a new input for “Other Revenue,” and an input for their combined “Total Revenue.”  9 Proposed changes to Table 2 included a replacement of the current input “Standard Mail” to “USPS Marketing Mail,” and the replacement of the “Total All Mail” input and its components with distinct inputs for “Total Volume” and “Total Operating Revenue.” 10

In Order No. 4706, the Commission also explained several modifications to the existing rules that the Commission deemed necessary to increase the efficiency and decrease the administrative burden, for both the Postal Service and the Commission, of the Annual Compliance Determination (ACD) process. Id. at 13. The proposed rules added a requirement that the Postal Service file documentation with its Annual Compliance Report (ACR) showing that non-compensatory market dominant negotiated service agreements (NSAs) improve the Postal Service's net financial position or enhance the performance of mail preparation, processing, transportation, or other functions.11

Proposed § 3050.21(j) replaced the existing section requiring the Postal Service to provide any information it believes will assist the Commission in evaluating compliance with title 39. The Commission's proposed rules renumbered that requirement as § 3050.21(n), and revised § 3050.21(j) to require that the Postal Service provide a distribution breakdown of mail fees for market dominant and competitive products.12

Proposed § 3050.21(k) added a requirement that the Postal Service provide in its annual filing any third-party service performance results where a financial penalty or bonus is applied, and to provide the amount of any forfeited revenue.13

Proposed § 3050.21(l) added a requirement that the Postal Service provide all total workhour data and data sources, showing workhour measurements by Labor Distribution Code.14

In proposed § 3050.21(m), the Commission added a requirement that the Postal Service provide with its ACR Inbound Letter Post 15 revenue, volume, attributable cost, and contribution data aggregated by Universal Postal Union (UPU) country group and by shape for the preceding five fiscal years.16

The Commission's proposed rules also removed a requirement from § 3050.60. Id. at 19. The current § 3050.60(c) requires the Postal Service to provide hard and electronic copies of any publications or handbooks, data collection forms, and training handbooks whenever they are changed. The Commission, finding that providing a hard-copy form might create unnecessary administrative effort, proposed to remove the requirement of providing those publications in hard-copy form.17

In Order No. 4706, the Commission invited comments on the proposal from interested parties. Id.

In response to Order No. 4706, the Commission received comments from the Postal Service,18 UPS,19 the Public Representative,20 the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,21 and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).22

Postal Service Comments. The Postal Service supports the proposed rules regarding deadlines for periodic reports, the format of the Monthly Summary Financial Report, and the removal of the requirement that the Postal Service produce hard copies of updated publications or handbooks.23

The Postal Service agrees in theory that including in the initial ACR filing certain information it routinely provides in response to information requests would improve efficiency. Id. at 4. The Postal Service notes that for information regarding non-compensatory bilateral agreements, international product third-party service performance, and total workhour and related data by Labor Distribution Code, the Postal Service has provided the reports as additional components of existing ACR folders. Id. at 4-5. However, for fee distribution information required by proposed § 3050.21(j), the Postal Service notes that in Docket Nos. ACR2015, ACR2016, and ACR2017, the format of the information varied. Id. at 5. The Postal Service states that the format varied due to foreseeable changes in circumstances, including new products, new product names, price adjustments, and transfers. Id. The Postal Service suggests that if the Commission desires to specify the format for fee distribution report each year, the existing Chairman's Information Request procedure would be most appropriate. Id. at 6. Alternatively, the Postal Service suggests that under the proposed rule, it could make a good-faith effort to make appropriate adjustments to the report's format. Id.

The Postal Service states that the Commission should exclude proposed § 3050.21(m), requiring Inbound Letter Post revenue, volume, attributable cost, and contribution data by UPU country group and by shape. Id. at 7. The Postal Service contends that the rule seeks information that is “unrelated to the Commission's performance of its annual compliance determination, would encourage an incomplete and misleading analysis of the financial performance of [inbound letter post,24 ] and create a risk of significant harm from disclosure of commercially sensitive data.” Id.

The Postal Service states that there is no justification for separation of information by UPU country group or by shape for ACR purposes. Id. The Postal Service states that the Commission's observations in previous ACR dockets on Inbound Letter Post are “inapplicable to the current and future financial performance of Inbound Letter Post,” and do not justify the proposed reporting requirements. Id. at 8. The Postal Service states that the proposed rule's 5-year reporting period is inappropriate because of the year-to-year changes in UPU country groups, and the limited availability of shape-based data. Id. at 9.

The Postal Service also argues that the information sought will not present all revenue sources for inbound letter post. Id. The Postal Service states that it receives inbound letter post revenue from a number of other sources, including NSAs, supplemental UPU remuneration for signature confirmation and tracking, PRIME multilateral agreements, negotiated rates under bilateral agreements, air conveyance dues, and base terminal dues. Id. at 9-10. The Postal Service argues that proposed § 3050.21(m) relies only on the MCS section 1130 Inbound Letter Post revenue from base terminal dues and air conveyance dues, without taking into account these other sources of revenue for inbound letter post. Id. at 10.

The Postal Service suggests revising proposed § 3050.21(m) to include inbound revenue and costs for other MCS products including the Inbound Registered Mail, the PRIME Exprés Service Agreement, the PRIME Tracked Service Agreement, the Inbound Market Dominant Multi-Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators 1, and the PRIME Registered Service Agreement. Id. at 10-11.

Finally, the Postal Service suggests that producing the Inbound Letter Post information would put sensitive non-public material at risk. Id. at 11-12.

UPS Comments. UPS supports the proposed modifications to reporting deadlines, noting that the deadlines are reasonable and should relieve the reporting burden on the Postal Service, ultimately allowing it to provide better data. August 17 UPS Comments at 2.

Regarding changes to the Monthly Summary Financial Report, UPS urges the Commission to require the Postal Service to produce two versions of the affected tables for the next 12 months (alternatively 6 months if 12 months were found burdensome). Id. at 4. UPS requests that the Commission confirm that the only permitted departures from the current de facto reporting format of Table 2 are those described in Order No. 4607. Id. at 5. UPS states that any future changes to the reporting format should include a reproduction of past monthly reports using new definitions, or the production of both new and old versions of the reports for a period. Id.

UPS supports all of the additional requirements in the proposed rules. Id. at 5-8. UPS asks the Commission to clarify that the Postal Service should report Inbound Letter Post information according to proposed § 3050.21(m) in a public filing or library reference. Id. at 8. UPS renews its request for the Commission to consider requiring segment-level reporting for competitive products in order to promote transparency. Id.

Public Representative Comments. The Public Representative supports the proposed changes to reporting deadlines, and does not object to changes to the format of the Monthly Summary Financial Report.25 She notes, as the Postal Service does, that the input for “Total Revenue” mentioned in Order No. 4706 is not in the proposed regulatory text. August 17 PR Comments at 4. She also notes that the proposed regulatory text replaces the input “Other Expenses” with “Other Services” without explanation. Id.

Regarding proposed § 3050.21(f)(6), and (j) through (m), the Public Representative supports the Commission's efforts to improve and streamline ACR dockets by requiring certain reports be included in an initial filing. See id. at 1. However, she suggests that the Commission can improve the proposed rules by using clearer, consistent, and precise terminology. Id. She provides line-by-line revisions with suggested terminology and minor reorganization. Id. at 5-6; Attachment A.

The Public Representative proposes that because both proposed § 3050.21(j) and (k) apply to “all market dominant and competitive products,” both requirements are better nested as subparagraphs, below a paragraph stating that both requirements apply to all market dominant and competitive products. Id. at 2-3 (emphasis in original). She notes, for example, that the proposed rules unnecessarily include the phrase “including all negotiated service agreements” for proposed paragraph (k) of this section, but not for proposed paragraph (j) of this section, despite both requirements being applicable to NSAs. Id. at 2.

The Public Representative also recommends clarifying proposed § 3050.21(m), which requires Inbound Letter Post data for “the preceding five fiscal years.” Id. at 3. She notes that, as written, the rule appears to require data for the five years preceding the year of the ACR filing, without including the year of the filing. Id. at 3-4 (emphasis added). She also states that the proposed rule was unclear as to whether the rule requires the Postal Service to provide data for each of the five years, or the five years in aggregate. Id. at 4. Therefore, she suggests changing the language of the rule to require data “for the fiscal year subject to review and each of the preceding four fiscal years.” Id. at 4, 6.

The Public Representative includes a list of line-by-line revisions to the proposed rules, and a redlined version of the regulatory text. Id. at 5-6; Attachment A.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Comments. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports requiring the reporting of Inbound Letter Post data. The Chamber of Commerce suggests that the Postal Service should provide public data “so long as delivery rates for inbound letter post are established by intergovernmental agreement and not equally available to domestic mailers and private international carriers.” Chamber of Commerce Comments.

National Association of Manufacturers Comments. NAM supports requiring data on Inbound Letter Post, stating that such data would “allow the Commission to draw meaningful inferences from trends in global postal traffic and to spot the nature and severity of problems with regard to net-losses incurred by the [Postal Service].” NAM Comments at 1. NAM suggests that the UPU terminal dues system is “prime for abuse.” Id. NAM states that there is a compelling public interest in requiring the data and that the burden on the Postal Service is “non-existent.” Id. NAM suggests that the Commission require the Postal Service to “disclose more granular and useful data over time.” Id. at 1-2.

No commenter objects to the proposed deadlines for the filing of quarterly RPW, QSR, and Billing Determinants reports. Neither does any commenter object to the proposed deadlines for the Monthly Summary Financial Report or the Trial Balance.

Accordingly, the Commission makes no changes to the deadlines set forth at proposed §§ 3050.25(c)-(e), and 3050.28(b), (c). The Commission adopts those rules as set forth in Order No. 4706.

The proposed revisions to the Monthly Summary Financial Report utilize a definition of “operating revenue” that is consistent with the definition used for Form 10-K reporting.26

While no commenter objects to the format changes as proposed, UPS requests that the Commission require the Postal Service to either: (1) Reproduce figures in past monthly reports using the new proposed definitions; or (2) produce monthly reports using both the old and new versions of the affected tables. August 17 UPS Comments at 3-4. UPS states that without a device enabling direct comparison of reports completed under the old format to reports completed under the new format, “it will be difficult for the Commission and interested parties to compare certain data across different time periods.” Id. at 4. UPS argues that there is “negligible burden on the Postal Service” in producing the comparable data, and that in the interest of transparency the Commission should require its production for 12 months. Id. Alternatively, to the extent that the Commission finds such production to be too burdensome, UPS suggests that the Commission require production of both versions for only six months. Id.

In its reply comments, the Postal Service avers that requiring parallel reporting of the Monthly Summary Financial Report, “would be unwarranted given the modest nature of the proposed changes.” Postal Service Reply Comments at 5. The Postal Service also noted that the Public Representative identified alternative sources of the data in the removed sub-inputs.27 UPS states that although “Government Appropriation” data are available, it is unclear whether the corresponding “Mail and Service Revenue” data are available from other sources. August 17 UPS Comments at 4.

The Commission finds that the revised format, as proposed, will improve the quality, accuracy, and completeness of the Postal Service data pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3652(e)(2). While the Commission recognizes the minimal burden on the Postal Service in producing duplicate tables under the current format and under the new format, it also finds that the proposal represents only a modest format change, and that the itemized data remain available. The “Government Appropriations” data, which refers to amounts incurred in providing free and reduced rate mail, are available in the Monthly Trial Balance. The former “Mail Services Revenue” line input represents the remainder of the new line input “Operating Revenue” on Table 1 and “Total Operating Revenue” on Table 2, and is now included in “Operating Revenue” combined with the “Government Appropriations” amount. The Commission declines to order that the Postal Service provide the Tables of the Monthly Summary Financial Report in both formats as the change itself is minor, and the data are available by other means.

Both the Postal Service and the Public Representative note that the Commission's proposed rules do not precisely match the explanations set forth in Order No. 4706. Postal Service Comments at 3-4; August 17 PR Comments at 4-5. Both the Postal Service and Public Representative note the omission of the line input for “Total Revenue” in proposed § 3050.28(b)(1), Table 1. Id.; August 17 PR Comments at 4-6.

The Public Representative also notes that the proposed Table 1 also replaces the existing line input for “Other Expenses” with “Other Services.” August 17 PR Comments at 4. She also notes a duplicative heading row in proposed Table 1, and an underlined heading, “Total Volume” in proposed Table 2. Id. at 6.

The Postal Service notes that the line input for “Net Operating Income” in existing Table 1 appears to have changed to “New Operating Income.” Postal Service Comments at 4. The Postal Service suggests that the Commission correct the change. Id.

The Commission acknowledges the errors identified by the Postal Service and the Public Representative, and makes appropriate corrections in the final rules.

The Public Representative identifies that proposed § 3050.21(j) and (k) both apply to all market dominant products. August 17 PR Comments at 2-3. She proposes revising paragraph (j) of this section to include both requirements set forth in proposed paragraphs (j) and (k) of this section, with the requirements—the distribution breakdown of fee revenues and third-party performance results and forfeited revenue—as subparagraphs (1) and (2). Id.

The Public Representative suggests revising the requirement in proposed § 3050.21(j) of “a distribution breakdown of mail fees” with “a distribution breakdown of fee revenues” stating that her suggestion is more precise and inclusive of non-mail products. Id. at 3.

The Public Representative suggests a number of other changes, including those reflecting her proposed renumbering. Id. at 5-6. She suggests hyphenating the word “non-compensatory” in paragraph (f)(6) of this section. Id. at 5. She suggests revising the 5-year reporting requirement in paragraph (m) of this section, replacing “the preceding five fiscal years” with “for the fiscal year subject to review and each of the preceding four fiscal years.” Id. at 6.

The Commission acknowledges that the Public Representative's suggested revisions are a more concise and effective alternative to achieving the intent of the proposed rules. The Commission finds that adopting the minor changes creates more precise requirements and will improve the quality, accuracy, and completeness of the Postal Service's reporting. Accordingly, the Commission adopts the Public Representative's suggested reorganization and rewording in its final rules.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, NAM, and UPS, each support proposed § 3050.21(m), requiring the Postal Service to provide Inbound Letter Post revenue, volume, attributable cost, and contribution data by UPU country group and shape.28 Those commenters note the importance of transparency and public access to Inbound Letter Post data, and identify particular public interest in the Inbound Letter Post product.

The Postal Service opposes the proposed reporting requirement, arguing that information sought: (1) Is unrelated to the Commission's performance of its annual compliance determination; (2) would encourage incomplete and misleading analysis of Inbound Letter Post performance; and (3) would create a risk of harm from disclosure of commercially sensitive data of third parties. Postal Service Comments at 7. For the reasons set forth below, the Commission declines to make any additional modifications to proposed § 3050.21(m).

The Postal Service suggests that the Commission's conclusions on the Inbound Letter Post product are “inapplicable to the current and future performance” of the product. Id. at 8. The Postal Service also states that those conclusions provide no justification for the disaggregation of Inbound Letter Post data by UPU country group and shape. Id.

As noted in Order No. 4706, it is not uncommon for the Commission to seek enhanced information about products of particular concern. For example, in the FY 2017 ACD report, the Commission chose to analyze Periodicals volume, revenue, attributable cost, and contribution, as well as unit revenue, unit attributable cost, and unit contribution for fiscal years 2007 through 2017.29 The Commission, noting a year-after-year trend for the Periodicals class, requested this enhanced disaggregated data in order to address ongoing issues with the class. The past performance of the Periodicals class, while not directly at issue in the ACD, showed a trend of insufficient Periodicals revenues to cover attributable costs.

When the Commission determines the noncompliance of a product, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3653(c), it must order that the Postal Service “take such action as the Commission considers appropriate in order to achieve compliance.” 39 U.S.C. 3662(c). Conducting a trend analysis, as done for the Periodicals class during the FY 2017 annual compliance review, best allows the Commission to determine the appropriate remedial actions. Past performance of the product, particularly where it shows a trend of continued failure to cover its attributable costs, is relevant when determining the appropriate corrective action in an ACD.

As noted in Order No. 4706, there is a well-documented history of concern about Inbound Letter Post's ongoing negative contribution, both in Commission orders and in stakeholder comments.30 Additionally, a recent Presidential Memorandum directed the executive branch to seek reforms within the UPU's terminal dues system that provides: (1) Fair and nondiscriminatory terminal dues that promote unrestricted and undistorted competition; (2) terminal dues that cover the costs of delivering Inbound Letter Post mailpieces; (3) and terminal dues that avoid favoring foreign mailers over domestic mailers or favoring postal operators over private sector entities.31 This Presidential Memorandum highlights the Administration's focus on the Inbound Letter Post product. Accordingly, the Commission finds that providing enhanced data for the purposes of conducting a trend analysis across a period of years is appropriate, particularly where the prices for a product or products have routinely been non-compensatory.

The Postal Service notes that a new terminal dues system that charges higher prices for bulky letters and small packets than for letters and flats may improve the Inbound Letter Post product's financial performance. Postal Service Comments at 8. The Postal Service avers that the past performance of Inbound Letter Post under the former terminal dues rate structure is not relevant to the Commission ACD dockets under a new rate structure. Id. at 7-8.

The revenue, volume, attributable cost, and contribution data—even for past years under a different terminal dues rate structure—are of significant value in the Commission's ACD. The Commission's analysis of these data assists in identifying the cause or causes of the product's negative contribution. If for example, under the new rate structure, the product continues to display similar trends, the Commission might identify problems with the product unrelated to price structure. Price structure is not singularly determinative of a product's financial performance. Other factors might contribute to the product's performance. For example, in its trend analysis on the Periodicals class, the Commission identified declining productivity of mail processing operations as a reason for the negative trend. See FY 2017 ACD at 50. The data required by proposed § 3050.21(m) will assist the Commission's efforts to identify the challenges facing the product, and to make appropriate recommendations.

The new rate structure has separate rates for letters/flats and bulky letters/small packets, which vary by UPU country group.32 The Commission's ability to identify which rates account for what portion of the product's contribution is critical to assessing how to improve overall product cost coverage. To the extent that a new price structure does improve Inbound Letter Post performance, such improvement will be reflected in the data reporting, and more easily attributed to the changes in price structure, due to the fuller picture provided by the enhanced reporting.

Given the public interest and the Commission's recurring findings that Inbound Letter Post revenue fails to cover the product's costs, the Commission finds that it is necessary and appropriate to require reporting at this additional level of aggregation. The Postal Service's current reporting format does not disaggregate by shape and UPU country group so it is difficult to determine what particular aspect or aspects of the terminal dues system are responsible for most of the negative contribution. Providing this disaggregated information will aid the Commission in determining the appropriate remedial action to prescribe.

Furthermore, the legislative history underlying the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) indicates that enhanced transparency was a key motivation in the enactment of the PAEA.33 The Commission, consistent with this goal, aims to be transparent in its issuance of regulatory decisions and encourages public participation in its dockets.34 In fact, the PAEA requires the Commission to consider whether the public has access to “timely, adequate information” when prescribing the content and form of the ACR. 39 U.S.C. 3652(e)(1)(A). The additional Inbound Letter Post data required under proposed § 3050.21(m) will not only improve the completeness of information available to the Commission for its determination, but will also enhance public participation by presenting more comprehensive and understandable data for a product of substantial public interest.

The Postal Service also states that the proposed rule's 5-year reporting period is inappropriate because of the year-to-year changes in the composition of UPU country groups, and that data limitations may reduce the Postal Service's ability to produce shape-based data for previous years. Postal Service Comments at 9.

The Commission acknowledges that changes to the composition of UPU country groups create year-to-year comparison challenges. However, the Commission has experience in analyzing changes within and among products. For example, the Commission has been able to account for previous changes to the composition of UPU country groups in previous ACDs.35 Thus, the Commission is prepared to address these challenges. To the extent that the Postal Service lacks a full 5-year accounting of shape-based data, the Commission notes that the Postal Service is able to request the exclusion or partial exclusion of that component of the reporting requirement until such time that shape-based data becomes available for an entire 5-year period. See 39 CFR 3055.3(a).

The Postal Service states that proposed § 3050.21(m), if implemented, will “encourage the use of data that support an incomplete and inaccurate evaluation of the financial performance of inbound letter post.” Postal Service Comments at 9. The Postal Service's concern is that because proposed § 3050.21(m) requires reporting on the Inbound Letter Post product 36 it will not reflect the financial performance of other products the Postal Service classifies as “inbound letter post.” 37 The Postal Service suggests that for an accurate assessment of the financial performance of “inbound letter post,” the Commission should consider volume and supplemental revenue derived from those other products. The Postal Service proposes an alternative reporting requirement for inbound revenues and costs for MCS sections 1130, 1510.2, and 1602. Postal Service Comments at 10-11. Notably, the Postal Service's proposal does not require that the Postal Service report the alternative data by UPU country group and shape. See id.

The Commission finds the Postal Service's concerns about misleading data unpersuasive. The Postal Service made a similar argument during the FY 2017 ACD proceeding.38 In Docket No. ACR2017, the Postal Service asserted that the analysis for the Inbound Letter Post product should include analysis of “the volume and revenue for supplemental UPU remuneration for signature confirmation and tracking on registered items as well as for bilateral market dominant NSAs and the PRIME multilateral market dominant NSAs.” FY 2017 ACD at 66. The Postal Service stated that the Public Representative's analysis of the Inbound Letter Post product was incomplete because it was limited to the volume and revenue for the Inbound Letter Post product. Id. In the FY 2017 ACD report, the Commission rejected the Postal Service's suggested analysis and stated that “[t]he Commission has consistently evaluated compliance at the product level because products, by definition, reflect distinct cost or market characteristics to which a rate or rates are applied.” Id. at 67.

In each ACD, the Commission reviews each product, including those identified by the Postal Service as “inbound letter post,” for cost coverage and compliance. For example, in FY 2017, the Commission found that “International Ancillary Services did not cover its attributable cost due to the failure of International Registered Mail to cover its attributable cost.” Id. at 71. The Commission also reviewed Market Dominant NSA products, finding that Inbound Market Dominant Multi-Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators 1, Inbound Market Dominant Exprés Service Agreement 1, and Inbound Market Dominant Registered Service Agreement 1 products satisfied 39 U.S.C. 3622(c)(10), while Inbound Market Dominant PRIME Tracked Service Agreement product did not. Id. at 74.

The Commission fulfills its mandate to determine whether the rates or fees in effect comply with 39 U.S.C. 3622 at the product level. 39 U.S.C. 3653(b)(1). The Postal Service provides no compelling basis for the Commission to depart from the reasonable practice of evaluating compliance for each market dominant international mail product at the product level. The other products the Postal Service classifies as “inbound letter post” are in fact distinct products from the Inbound Letter Post product, and the performances of those products speak for themselves. The Commission reviews those products for compliance transparently in its ACD. Because the Commission makes a determination of compliance for each of those products individually, increased granularity will not give rise to a misleading representation of Inbound Letter Post performance. In contrast, the Postal Service's suggestion would mask the data by aggregating it with other products' data, which would be less transparent and potentially misleading. Accordingly, the Commission declines to remove the proposed reporting requirement for the Inbound Letter Post product on the basis that the additional data will be incomplete or misleading.

The Postal Service states that requiring reporting of additional data by UPU country group and shape would put commercially sensitive third-party information at risk of disclosure.39 The Postal Service acknowledges it would file the Inbound Letter Post data required under proposed § 3050.21(m) under seal, but suggests that a non-public filing would likely be challenged. Id.

The Postal Service acknowledges that the PAEA and the Commission rules outline a procedure for application for non-public treatment of information. See id. To the extent that the Postal Service believes that public disclosure of Inbound Letter Post data separated by UPU country group and shape would cause a commercial harm, it could file an application for non-public treatment pursuant to §§ 3007.200 and 3007.201 of this chapter. As noted in Order No. 4707, the application must particularly identify “the nature and extent of the harm alleged and the likelihood of each harm.” 40 The Commission's regulations also outlines a procedure for participants or the Commission to seek to unseal material filed non-publicly by the Postal Service. See 39 CFR 3007.103; see also 39 CFR 3007.104. Accordingly, the Commission will address the non-public status of data filed under proposed § 3050.21(m), if and when the Postal Service files the data under seal and if the Commission issues a preliminary determination concerning the appropriate degree of protection, if any, to be accorded to materials filed under seal.

The Commission finds that rules regarding non-public treatment of commercially sensitive information are sufficient in addressing the Postal Service's concerns. The Postal Service's assertion that a challenge to a non-public disclosure would put the information “at risk” is not itself enough reason to support removing the proposed reporting requirement altogether. Accordingly, the Commission declines to remove proposed § 3050.21(m) on the basis of hypothetical risk to commercially sensitive information.

The Postal Service states that it agrees, in theory, that including material routinely requested in ACR proceedings in the initial filing is likely to be more efficient. Postal Service Comments at 4. The Postal Service notes, however, that for fee distribution data, the Commission's requests have sought the information in different formats in each of the past three years. Id. at 5. The Postal Service correctly attributes these format changes to continuing adjustments to products lists. Id. The Postal Service, anticipating that those adjustments will continue going forward, offers two suggestions for determining the format of fee distribution data. Id. at 6.

The Postal Service suggests that the Commission might determine that it is most efficient to continue the current practice of using an information request specifying the format for the fee distribution data. Id. Such a determination would obviate the need to adopt proposed § 3050.21(j) as a final rule. The Postal Service suggests that alternatively, the Commission could allow the Postal Service to make reasonable updates to the format of the report each year, pursuant to the anticipated product adjustments. Id.

The Commission is satisfied with the Postal Service's proposal to make efforts to make appropriate changes to the format of fee distribution data based on product adjustments. In its annual submission, the Postal Service should identify any such product adjustments and corresponding format changes.

No commenter objects to the removal of the requirement that the Postal Service provide hard-copy updates of publications and handbooks. The Postal Service supports the modification. Id. at 3. Accordingly, the Commission does not make any changes to proposed § 3050.60(c).

UPS requests that the Commission reconsider its position on a proposal to require segment-level reporting for competitive products. August 17 UPS Comments at 8. In Order No. 4706, the Commission explained that it declined to propose such requirements, because the current single segment reporting is adequate for determining compliance. Order No. 4706 at 12-13. The PAEA allows the Commission to consider the adequacy of information provided in determining the lawfulness of rates charged, and can revise the reporting requirements to “improve the quality, accuracy, or completeness of Postal Service data.” 39 U.S.C. 3652(e)(2). UPS states that requiring segment-level reporting “would promote transparency and represent an improvement over the status quo.” August 17 UPS Comments at 8.

The Commission finds that UPS has not shown that the current single-level reporting practices are inaccurate or inadequate. UPS must show that the data, “ha[ve] become significantly inaccurate or can be significantly improved.” 39 U.S.C. 3652(e)(2)(A) (emphasis added). The proposal for segment-level reporting may be appropriate for review in another docket devoted toward the question. In the instant docket, however, UPS has not demonstrated the inadequacy in the current reporting method or how it would be significantly improved for determining compliance. In fact, the Commission finds that the current single-level reporting is sufficiently accurate and adequate for the purposes of assessing compliance. Accordingly, the Commission declines to adopt rules requiring segment-level reporting for competitive products.

The final rules incorporate many of the commenters' suggestions. The final rules contain the correction of some omissions from the proposed rules, adjust the language of proposed rules, and restructure and renumber proposed rules. The substance of the rules initially proposed in Order No. 4706 largely remains the same. Below, the Commission describes the differences between the proposed and final rules.

Proposed § 3050.21(f)(6) is revised to hyphenate the word “non-compensatory” pursuant to the suggestion of the Public Representative. Also, because of the addition of paragraph (f)(6) of this section, the word “and” at the end of paragraph (f)(4) of this section is moved to the end of paragraph (f)(5) of this section. The Commission adopts this revision pursuant to the Public Representative's suggestion.

Proposed § 3050.21(j) and (k) are revised as paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this section. Paragraph (j) of this section now reads “For all market dominant and competitive products.” Proposed paragraph (j) of this section, now located at paragraph (j)(1) of this section, required the distribution breakdown of mail fees. The final rule replaces “mail fees” with “fee revenues” to more accurately reflect that the requirement applies to some non-mail products. Proposed paragraph (k) of this section, now located at paragraph (j)(2) of this section required the Postal Service to “provide . . . the amount of any forfeited revenue.” Final § 3050.21(j)(2) revises the proposed rule, now requiring that the Postal Service “identify” the amount of forfeited revenue.

Because the final rules combine proposed paragraphs (j) and (k) of this section, the final rules require a minor restructuring and renumbering. Proposed paragraphs (l) through (n) of this section are revised and renumbered as paragraphs (k) through (m) of this section, respectively.

The Commission also revises proposed § 3050.21(m), renumbered to § 3050.21(l) in the final rules, pursuant to the Public Representative's suggestion. The proposed rule required Inbound Letter Post Date “for the preceding five fiscal years.” Final § 3050.21(l) more precisely defines this requirement as “the fiscal year subject to review and each of the preceding four fiscal years.”

Because of the renumbering, the Commission also adopts a revision to proposed § 3050.21(a), listing the required content of the Postal Service's section 3652 report. The proposed rule states that the report shall provide the items listed in paragraphs (b) through (n) of this section. Consistent with the renumbering, the final rule states that the report shall provide the items listed in paragraphs (b) through (m) of this section.

The Commission also revises the amendatory instructions for the Federal Register, consistent with the revisions made to § 3050.21.

The Commission does not revise § 3050.25 as proposed in Order No. 4706.

In consideration of the comments of the Postal Service and the Public Representative, the Commission makes several revision to proposed § 3050.28(b)(1), Table 1 and Table 2.

The final rules add the input “Total Revenue” beneath the sub-inputs for “Operating Revenue” and “Other Revenue” and above “Operating Expenses” in Table 1. This revision is consistent with the explanation of changes in Order No. 4706. Pursuant to the Postal Service's suggestion, the Commission revises the input “New Operating Income” in proposed Table 1. The final rules correct the input to “Net Operating Income.” The final rules also remove a duplicative heading row in Table 1 and extraneous underlining within certain cells in Table 2.

The Commission, pursuant to the Public Representative's suggestion, revises the amendatory instructions preceding final § 3050.28, to indicate that the introductory language in paragraph (b) of this section also contains revisions. The content of the introductory text of paragraph (b) of this section remains unchanged from that proposed in Order No. 4706.

The Commission does not revise § 3050.50(c) as proposed in Order No. 4706.

It is ordered:

1. Part 3050 of title 39, Code of Federal Regulations, is revised as set forth below the signature of this Order, effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

2. The Postal Service shall make a good-faith effort to make appropriate adjustments to the format of the fee distribution in each year's Annual Compliance Report, as necessary to reflect product changes.

3. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission amends Chapter III of title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The revisions and addtions read as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that SIPs provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. On July 6, 2016, Maine submitted an infrastructure SIP revision for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, including an enclosure to address the “Good Neighbor” (or “transport”) provisions of the Act. See CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On August 13, 2018 (83 FR 39957), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in which EPA proposed full approval of all elements of Maine's infrastructure SIP revision for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, except for requirements regarding State Boards and Conflicts of Interest, which we proposed to conditionally approve. The NPRM includes the rationale for approval, and EPA will not restate it here.

This rulemaking does not cover three substantive areas that are not integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) at sources that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that purport to permit revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits with limited public process or without requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA; and, (iii) existing provisions for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final New Source Review (NSR) Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007). Instead, EPA has the authority to address each of these substantive areas separately. A detailed history, interpretation, and rationale for EPA's approach to infrastructure SIP requirements can be found in EPA's May 13, 2014, proposed rule entitled, “Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS” in the section, “What is the scope of this rulemaking?” See 79 FR 27241 at 27242-45.

During the comment period, EPA received one comment, which discusses subjects outside the scope of this SIP action, does not explain (or provide a legal basis for) how the proposed action should differ in any way, and makes no specific mention of the proposed action. As such, the comment is not germane and does not require further response to finalize the action as proposed.

EPA is fully approving Maine's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS as a revision to the Maine SIP, except with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) regarding State Boards and Conflicts of Interest, which we are conditionally approving.

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, 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);

• This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 November 30, 2018. 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 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

On August 3, 2018 (83 FR 38104), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Connecticut. The NPRM proposed approval of 2011 base year emissions inventories, an emissions statement certification, reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstrations, reasonably available control measures (RACM) analyses, motor vehicle emissions budgets, and contingency measures for the Greater Connecticut and the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT moderate ozone nonattainment areas. These submittals were made to meet, in part, requirements for moderate areas for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Other specific requirements of Connecticut's SIP revisions for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.

We received a number of anonymous comments that address subjects outside the scope of our proposed action, do not explain (or provide a legal basis for) how the proposed action should differ in any way, and make no specific mention of the substantive aspects of the proposed action. Consequently, these comments are not germane to this rulemaking and require no further response.

EPA is approving revisions to the Connecticut SIP for the Greater Connecticut and the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT moderate ozone nonattainment areas. EPA is approving submittals which include 2011 base year emissions inventories, an emissions statement certification, reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstrations, reasonably available control measures (RACM) analyses, motor vehicle emissions budgets, and contingency measures.

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, 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);

• This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 November 30, 2018. 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 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

States are required to have a SIP that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, States are required to make a SIP submission to establish that they have, or are adding, the provisions necessary to address various requirements to address the new or revised NAAQS. These SIPs are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIPs. The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each State's air quality management program are adequate to meet the State's responsibilities under the CAA. In this action EPA is approving the prong 1 and prong 2 interstate transportation obligations of the State's 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submittal. On June 5, 2018, the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register proposing to approve the prong 1 and prong 2 elements of the State of Missouri's 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submittal. See 83 FR 25979. The NPRM, and technical support document (TSD) for the action, included: a summary of existing modeling data; a summary of monitoring data from areas downwind of Missouri; and a summary of annual emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), both of which are precursors of PM2.5. This information showed that local control in Missouri is not necessary to address contribution, with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS any other State. As the EPA's rationale for approving the SIP submission was provided in detail in the NPRM and the TSD for the action, and both documents are included in the docket identified in the ADDRESSES section of this document, the rationale will not be restated in detail in this document.

The State's submission 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 3, 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.

The public comment period for the NPRM closed on July 5, 2018. The EPA received three sets of comments prior to the close of the comment period; all three sets of comments were not directly related to the action and therefore not considered by the EPA to be adverse to the action being taken. As the EPA only responds to adverse comments, there are no responses required for this final action. The comments can be found in the docket to this action at EPA-R07-OAR-2018-0261. No changes were made to the proposal in this final action after consideration of the comments received. All comments on the proposed action are available in the docket identified in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

As described above, the EPA is approving the prong 1 and prong 2 interstate transportation obligations of the State's 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submittal.

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);

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.

• 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 the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; 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 amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

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

This final action approves a revision from the state of Iowa to revise the Iowa SIP and Operating Permits Program. EPA published in the Federal Register the proposed approval of the State's submission on July 26, 2018, at 83 FR 35451. The revisions to the SIP are to clarify the types of mailing services that may be used for submitting construction permit applications to include the U.S. Postal Service, private parcel delivery services, and hand delivery. Construction permit applications are not required to be submitted by certified mail. The revisions also eliminate the requirement for construction permit applications for projects that will not emit greenhouses gases to submit the current three-page form.

The revisions to the operating permits program clarifies the types of mailing services that may be used for submitting operating permit applications to include the U.S. Postal Service, private parcel delivery services, and hand delivery. Operating permit applications are not required to be submitted by certified mail. This revision to the operating permits program is being made to require only one copy of the operating permit application instead of two.

This action also includes minor grammatical corrections to the SIP for construction permit rules and minor grammatical corrections to the operating permits program rules.

The state submittal met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, these revisions meet the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations. These revisions are also consistent with applicable EPA requirements of Title V of the CAA and 40 CFR part 70. The submission was sent to EPA on January 4, 2018, and received January 9, 2018.

The public comment period for EPA's proposed rule opened July 26, 2018, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed on August 27, 2018. During this period, EPA received five comments which are available in the docket; two in support of the proposed rule revisions, and three comments that were outside of the scope of the proposed rule. Therefore, EPA will not provide a specific response to the comments.

This final action approves revisions to the Iowa SIP and the Operating Permits Program. The revisions clarify the types of mailing services that may be used for submitting construction and operating permit applications, and clarifies that applications are not required to be submitted by certified mail. The revisions also eliminate the requirement for construction permit applications or projects that will not emit greenhouse gases (GHG) to submit the current separate three-page GHG form. In addition, a revision to the operating permit program is being made to require only one copy of the permit application instead of two. Finally, this action includes minor grammatical corrections.

In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of a revision to Iowa's Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by 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 EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.1

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);

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.

• 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 the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; 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).

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

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

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 November 30, 2018. 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 stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR parts 52 and 70 as set forth below:

On March 26, 2018, VA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (83 FR 12922) which announced VA's intent to amend regulations for VAAR Case RIN 2900-AP81 (parts 811 and 832). In particular, this final rule revises part 811 to remove coverage of what brand name or equal purchase descriptions must include as the FAR provides sufficient coverage; removes coverage pertaining to brand names based on current FAR coverage; removes purchase description clauses; removes VAAR coverage of bid samples; removes the section providing coverage on procedures for negotiated procurements; removes VAAR coverage on “items peculiar to one manufacturer.” It revises part 832 to add policy to implement an OMB memorandum entitled “Accelerating Payments to Small Businesses for Goods and Services,” to encourage making payments to small business contractors within 15 days of receipt of invoice; delegates authority within VA to approve contract terms concerning advance payments; and removes subparts 832.5, Progress Payments Based on Costs and 832.8, Assignment of Claims, as both contain internal procedural guidance not having a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of VA.

VA provided a 60-day comment period for the public to respond to the proposed rule. The comment period for the proposed rule ended on May 25, 2018 and VA received no comments. This document adopts as a final rule, the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on March 26, 2018, with minor stylistic and grammatical edits. This final rule has Federal Register administrative format changes in the amendatory text which make no substantive text changes at the affected sections.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule 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 (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal Governments or on the private sector.

This final rule imposes the following amended information collection requirements to two of the six existing information collection approval numbers associated with this rule. Although this action contains provisions constituting collections of information at 48 CFR 852.236-82 and 852.236-83, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), no new proposed collections of information are associated with these clauses. The information collection requirements for 48 CFR 852.236-82 and 852.236-83 are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been assigned OMB control number 2900-0422. However, this information collection was submitted to OMB to revise the title and to redesignate and renumber the two clauses currently numbered as sections 852.236-82, Payments Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts (Without NAS), and 852.236-83, Payments Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts (Including NAS). Accordingly, they will reflect the new designation and revised titles as set forth in the amendatory language of the rule to read: 852.232-70, Payments Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts (Without NAS-CPM), and 852.232-71, Payments Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts (Including NAS-CPM), respectively, under the associated OMB control number 2900-0422. The references to the old numbers—852.236-82 and 852.236-83, are accordingly removed. There is no change in the information collection burden that is associated with this action. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (at 44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), VA has submitted these information collection amendments to OMB for its review. Notice of OMB approval for this information collection was published on Reginfo.gov on May 15, 2018.

This final rule imposes the following amended information collection requirements to one of the six existing information collection approval numbers associated with this rule. Although this action contains provisions constituting collections of information at 48 CFR 852.211-70, Service Data Manuals, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), no new proposed information collection is associated with this clause. The information collection requirement for 48 CFR 852.211-70 is currently approved by OMB and has been assigned OMB control number 2900-0587. However, this information collection has been submitted to OMB to revise the title from “Service Data Manuals,” to read, “Equipment Operation and Maintenance Manuals.” The information collection request reflects the revised title for this clause to read: 852.211-70, Equipment Operation and Maintenance Manuals, under the associated OMB control number 2900-0587. By revising the clause and removing the requirement to develop Government-specified service manuals, VA has eliminated an unnecessary burden on the public by making use of commercial operation and maintenance manuals consistent with the general public and established commercial practices, thereby reducing by half the estimated annual hourly burden which is now estimated at 311 hours, a reduction of 310 annual hours. Notice of OMB approval for this information collection will be published in a future Federal Register document.

This final rule removes two of the six existing information collection requirements associated with this action at 48 CFR 852.211-71, Special Notice, and 48 CFR 852.211-73, Brand Name or Equal. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), it discontinues the associated corresponding approved OMB control numbers, 2900-0588 and 2900-0585, respectively. For 48 CFR 852.211-71, Special Notice, and its corresponding OMB control number 2900-0588, this results in a removal of 875 estimated annual burden hours. For 48 CFR 852.211-73, Brand Name or Equal, and its corresponding OMB control number 2900-0585, this results in a removal of 1,125 estimated annual burden hours. Notice of OMB approval for the information collection requests will be published in a future Federal Register document.

This final rule also contains two other provisions constituting a collection of information at 48 CFR 852.211-72, Technical Industry Standards, and 48 CFR 832.202-4, Security for Government financing, which remain unchanged. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), no new or proposed revised collection of information is associated with these provisions as a part of this rule. The information collection requests for 48 CFR 852.211-72 and 48 CFR 832.202-4 are currently approved by OMB and have been assigned OMB control numbers 2900-0586 and 2900-0688, respectively. The burden of these information collections remains unchanged. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), OMB has approved the reporting or recordkeeping provisions that are included in the clause and the text under section 832.202-4 cited above and has given the VA the following approval numbers: OMB 2900-0586 and OMB 2900-0688, respectively.

This final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This final rule will generally be small business neutral. The rule text does not change VA's policy regarding small businesses. Therefore, the rule does not have a significant economic impact on substantial number of small entities. There are no increased and/or decreased costs to small entities. The overall impact of this final rule will be of benefit to small businesses owned by Veterans or service-disabled Veterans as the VAAR is being updated to remove extraneous procedural information that applies only to VA's internal operating procedures. VA is merely adding existing and current regulatory requirements to the VAAR and removing any guidance that is applicable only to VA's internal operation processes or procedures. VA estimates no cost impact to individual business resulting from these rule updates. This rulemaking does not change VA's policy regarding small businesses, does not have an economic impact to individual businesses, and there are no increased or decreased costs to small business entities. On this basis, this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review defines “significant regulatory action” to mean any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: “(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive order.”

VA has examined the economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 because it does not raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.

VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's website at http://www.va.gov/orpm by following the link for VA Regulations Published from FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to Date. This final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on August 24, 2018, for publication.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA amends 48 CFR parts 801, 811, 832, 852, and 870 as follows: