Federal Register Vol. 83, No.200,

I. Background A. Community Support Regulation Established Under the Bank Act

Section 10(g) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) requires FHFA to adopt regulations establishing standards of community investment or service for members of Banks to maintain access to long-term Bank advances. 12 U.S.C. 1430(g). Section 10(g) states that such regulations “shall take into account factors such as a member's performance under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA) and the member's record of lending to first-time homebuyers.”

FHFA's current community support regulation implements section 10(g). 12 CFR part 1290. The regulation details the CRA and first-time homebuyer standards that have been established pursuant to section 10(g). Each Bank member, except as provided in the regulation, must meet these standards in order to maintain access to long-term Bank advances.1 A long-term advance is defined as an advance with a term to maturity greater than one year. 12 CFR 1290.1. The regulation sets forth the process that FHFA follows in reviewing, evaluating, and communicating each member's community support performance. The regulation also requires each Bank to establish and maintain a community support program that includes providing technical assistance to its members.

Under the current community support regulation, each Bank member subject to community support review must submit to FHFA a completed Community Support Statement once every two years. The regulation establishes December 31 of each odd-numbered year as the submission deadline. FHFA provides instructions to the Banks each review cycle with detailed requirements for submissions, including the start date for the submission period. 12 CFR 1290.2(b)(1). For the 2017 review cycle, the instructions indicated that FHFA would begin accepting submissions on April 1, 2017.

The regulation also establishes two notice obligations for the Banks. Each Bank is required to provide notice to each of its members subject to community support review of the member's obligation to submit a Community Support Statement. Each Bank is also required to provide notice to its Advisory Council and other interested parties of the opportunity to submit comments on the activities of Bank members subject to community support review. The Banks are required to provide these notices by March 31 of each odd-numbered year.

Under the current community support regulation, each Bank member subject to community support review must submit its completed Community Support Statement by December 31 of the applicable review year. 12 CFR 1290.2(b)(1). Many members submit their Community Support Statements close to the end of the calendar year. In the 2017 review, for example, 2,584 of the 6,690 Community Support Statements submitted by December 31 were submitted on or after November 1. This influx of submissions comes when both the Banks and FHFA face holiday-related staffing shortages and multiple end-of-year obligations, including those related to community support review. For example, the Banks must provide requested technical assistance to members in completing the Community Support Statements. 12 CFR 1290.2(a). FHFA must review each submitted Community Support Statement and notify the Bank of its determination, and the Bank must then promptly notify each member of FHFA's determination. 12 CFR 1290.4.

FHFA expects that many Bank members subject to community support review are likely to continue to submit their Community Support Statements near the submission deadline. Moving the submission deadline away from the year-end holidays will reduce the burden on FHFA and the Banks. However, the most appropriate deadline for future review cycles may change based on FHFA's experience and based on feedback from the Banks and Bank members. Codifying a specific date in the regulation would unnecessarily limit FHFA's flexibility. Therefore, the final rule replaces the December 31 Community Support Statement submission deadline with a requirement that FHFA establish the submission deadline for each biennial community support review by written notice to the Banks. The final rule does not change the requirement that members subject to community support review be reviewed once every two years.

The current regulation establishes March 31 of each odd-numbered year as the date by which each Bank must provide written notice to each of its members subject to community support review of the member's obligation to submit a Community Support Statement by the submission deadline. 12 CFR 1290.2(a). Because this date establishes the beginning of the biennial review cycle, retaining it in the regulation would limit FHFA's ability to provide an appropriate amount of time for members to submit their Community Support Statements. Therefore, the final rule replaces the March 31 date with a requirement that FHFA establish, via written notice to the Banks, the date by which each Bank must provide written notice to each of its members subject to community support review of the member's obligation to submit a Community Support Statement by the submission deadline.

The current regulation also establishes March 31 of each odd-numbered year as the date by which each Bank must provide notice to its Advisory Council and other interested parties of the opportunity to submit comments on the activities of Bank members subject to community support review. 12 CFR 1290.2(c)(1). This date need not coincide with the deadline for the Banks to notify their members. However, these two dates currently coincide, and FHFA would like to retain the ability to continue this practice in future review cycles. Therefore, the final rule replaces this date with a requirement that the deadline for notice to Advisory Councils and other interested parties also be established by FHFA via written notice to the Banks.

The current regulation does not provide a date by which FHFA will begin accepting Community Support Statements for a particular biennial review cycle. For the 2017 community support review, FHFA began accepting Community Support Statements on April 1, 2017. While members that are on probation or restriction may submit a Community Support Statement at any time to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the regulation, most members will submit only one Community Support Statement in each biennial review cycle. Proper administration of the community support review process requires the establishment of a starting point for each biennial review. Otherwise, submission at the discretion of the submitting members would effectively dictate the review schedule. Therefore, FHFA will continue to establish a date by which it will begin accepting Community Support Statements for review for each review cycle. The final rule requires that members submit their Community Support Statements in accordance with the submission dates designated by FHFA in the written notice to the Banks establishing the submission and notice deadlines.

While the final rule provides substantial flexibility for FHFA to establish appropriate deadlines for each step in the community support review process, FHFA recognizes that the Banks and Bank members will need adequate advance notice to allow them to prepare to meet their respective obligations under the regulation. To ensure that the Banks and members continue to have adequate time to prepare for the submission period, the final rule requires that FHFA notify the Banks of the applicable dates for the review period at least 90 days before the deadline for the Banks to notify their members.

For the 2019 biennial community support review, FHFA will issue the written notice establishing the applicable deadlines concurrently with or shortly after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. FHFA intends to establish April 1, 2019 as the date on which FHFA will begin accepting Community Support Statements submitted for the 2019 review period. FHFA intends to establish October 31, 2019 as the date by which each member subject to community support review must submit a completed Community Support Statement for the 2019 review period. FHFA intends to establish March 29, 2019 as the date by which each Bank must notify each of its members subject to community support review of its obligation to submit a completed Community Support Statement by the submission deadline. Finally, March 29, 2019 would also be the date by which each Bank must provide notice to its Advisory Council and other interested parties of the opportunity to submit comments on the activities of Bank members subject to community support review.

The final rule makes certain clarifying revisions to the community support regulation and removes outdated text.

The current regulation provides that the Banks must provide a blank Community Support Statement form to each member, and that FHFA will maintain a blank copy of the form on its website. 12 CFR 1290.2(a). Starting with the 2017 review cycle, FHFA has established an online process for submission of the Community Support Statements. Members are strongly encouraged to use the online submission system for submitting their Community Support Statements, although FHFA will accept hard copy submissions from members experiencing technical difficulties in submitting via the online process. The final rule amends the regulation to remove the outdated requirement to provide blank forms to each member, and to require instead that Banks provide a copy of the blank form upon request. In addition, FHFA maintains an informational version of the form on its website, but it is overlaid with explanatory text and therefore not a blank version of the form which any member could complete and submit. The blank form referenced in the regulation is transmitted directly by FHFA to the Banks. The final rule amends the regulation to align with this practice.

The final rule removes an outdated transition provision in § 1290.2 that clarified the community support review obligations for the 2014-2015 review cycle of members who had already been selected for community support review during that review cycle. 12 CFR 1290.2(b)(2). The final rule also updates a cross-reference in § 1290.5 to reflect the revised paragraph numbering in § 1290.2.

The final rule removes all references to specific dates in paragraph (a) and provides that the applicable deadline will be established pursuant to new paragraph (f). The final rule removes the reference to FHFA's website, providing instead that the referenced blank Community Support Statement form will be provided by FHFA to the Banks. The final rule also removes the requirement that each Bank provide a blank copy of the Community Support Statement form to its members, replacing it with a requirement that each Bank provide the form upon request.

The final rule removes all references to specific dates in paragraph (b)(1) and provides that the applicable deadline will be established pursuant to new paragraph (f). The final rule removes paragraph (b)(2) and redesignates paragraph (b)(1) as paragraph (b).

The final rule removes all references to specific dates in paragraph (c)(1) and provides that the applicable deadline will be established pursuant to new paragraph (f).

The final rule adds new paragraph (f), which provides that FHFA will designate applicable dates for each biennial community support review via written notice to the Banks. Paragraph (f) provides that this notice will designate the dates referenced in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)(1), and will be issued at least 90 days before the date by which each Bank must notify members of their community support review obligations under paragraph (a).

Section 553(b)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that when a regulation involves matters of agency organization, procedure, or practice, the agency may publish the regulation in final form without prior public notice and comment. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). This final rule involves matters of agency procedure and practice. The final rule does not make any change to the substantive standards for compliance with the community support regulation. The changes in the final rule are limited to administrative changes in the process that FHFA uses to evaluate members. As a result, the final rule is exempt from the public notice and comment provisions of section 553.

Section 1313(f) of the Safety and Soundness Act requires the FHFA Director, when promulgating regulations “of general applicability and future effect” relating to the Banks, to consider the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises as they may relate to the Banks' cooperative ownership structure, mission of providing liquidity to members, affordable housing and community development mission, capital structure, and joint and several liability. In preparing this final rule, the Director considered the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises as they relate to these factors. The rule would apply only to the Banks. There is no direct Enterprise-specific analog to the Banks' community support requirements. Under the existing community support regulation, it is possible that a Bank member's access to long-term advances may be restricted as a result of a failure to meet the community support standards. While such restrictions may affect an individual member's access through the Bank to liquidity for home mortgage financing, they do not fundamentally change the role of the Banks in providing such liquidity, and the restriction is mandated by the Bank Act in such a case. See 12 U.S.C. 1430(g). In any case, the final rule would not make any substantive change to these provisions governing member restriction. Consequently, the Director has determined the rule to be appropriate.

FHFA currently collects information from Bank members regarding their compliance with the community support requirements under existing part 1290. Existing part 1290 also permits Bank members whose access to long-term advances has been restricted for failure to meet the community support requirements to apply directly to FHFA to remove the restriction under certain circumstances. The current collection of information has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the control number, OMB No. 2590-0005, will expire on March 31, 2020. The final rule amends the community support provisions in part 1290 but does not substantively or materially modify the approved information collection with respect to the members' information collection burden.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires that a regulation that has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, small businesses or small organizations must include an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing the regulation's impact on small entities. Such an analysis need not be undertaken if the agency has certified that the regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 605(b). FHFA has considered the impact of this final rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. FHFA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities because the regulation is applicable only to the Banks, which are not small entities for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

FHFA has determined that this regulatory action does not qualify as a “rule” under the Congressional Review Act. See 5 U.S.C. 804(3).

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, FHFA is amending title 12, chapter XII, part 1290, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 25, 2108 (83 FR 24248). The NPRM was prompted by a report of uncommanded deployment of the ground spoilers when the power levers were advanced for takeoff, which was caused by faulty switches in the power lever module. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable.

We are issuing this AD to address faulty switches in the power lever module, which could result in uncommanded deployment of the ground spoilers and a possible runway excursion.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2017-35, dated November 29, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

Required actions include revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable. 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-2018-0449.

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.

Horizon Air requested that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD be revised to refer to Bombardier Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR) Task 276000-110 of Q400 Dash 8 (Bombardier) TR ALI-0185, dated March 19, 2018. Horizon Air noted that TR ALI-0185, replaced TR ALI-0173, dated March 14, 2017, which was specified in the proposed AD.

Horizon Air also requested that we include a statement that, “When this temporary revision has been included in general revisions of the PSM [product support manual], the general revisions may be inserted in the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, provided the relevant information in the general revision is identical to that in [Q400 Dash 8] (Bombardier) TR ALI-0185 [, dated March 19, 2018].”

We agree to clarify. Paragraph (g) of this AD requires operators to incorporate “the information specified in” CMR Task 276000-110 of Q400 Dash 8 (Bombardier) TR ALI-0173, dated March 14, 2017. Task 27600-110 is the same in both TR ALI-0173, dated March 14, 2017; and TR ALI-0185, dated March 19, 2018. Therefore, if operators incorporate TR ALI-0185, dated March 19, 2018, into the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, they are in compliance with paragraph (g) of this AD (i.e., since the information specified in TR ALI-0185, dated March 19, 2018, contains the same information as TR ALI-0173, dated March 14, 2017, by incorporating TR ALI-0185, dated March 19, 2018, the operator is complying with the requirement to incorporate the information specified in TR ALI-0173, dated March 14, 2017). Similarly, if operators incorporate the PSM into the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, they are in compliance with paragraph (g) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

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.

Bombardier has issued Q400 Dash 8 (Bombardier) Temporary Revision ALI-0173, dated March 14, 2017. This service information describes CMR Task 276000-110, “Operational Check of the Ground Spoiler Switches in the Power Lever Module.” 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 86 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:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variants) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 22, 2018 (83 FR 29061). The NPRM was prompted by reports of floodlight lamps found burned and the corresponding circuit breaker tripped as a result of fluid entering the cockpit floodlight fixtures. The NPRM proposed to require installation of new gasket seals on floodlight fixtures.

We are issuing this AD to address fluid entering the cockpit floodlight fixtures, which could cause short circuits and damage to electrical components, which may result in a fire in the cockpit.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2016-40, dated December 15, 2016; and Canadian AD CF-2018-06, dated February 19, 2018; to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variants) airplanes. Canadian AD CF-2016-40 and Canadian AD CF-2018-06 are referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI.”

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.

Bombardier has issued the following service information:

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-33-007, Revision 02, dated October 2, 2017.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-33-005, Revision 02, dated October 2, 2017.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-33-001, Revision 03, dated October 2, 2017.

The service information describes procedures to install new gasket seals on floodlight fixtures. These documents are distinct since they apply to different configurations of the same airplane model. 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 123 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-500 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2018 (83 FR 20748). 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 and/or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations.

We are issuing this AD to address 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 Airworthiness Directive 2017-0222R1, dated December 15, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-500 airplanes. The MCAI states:

The required actions include revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new and/or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. The unsafe condition is reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0366.

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 that comment.

Empire Airlines requested that paragraphs (g) and (h) of the proposed AD be revised to refer to ATR ATR42-400/-500 Time Limits Temporary Revision TR02/17, dated October 2, 2017 (“TR02/17”) instead of ATR ATR42-400/-500 Time Limits Temporary Revision TR01/17, dated May 3, 2017 (“TR01/17”). The commenter stated that TR02/17 includes the information in TR01/17.

We do not agree with the commenter's request; however, we do acknowledge that TR02/17 has been issued. The intent of TR02/17 is to incorporate changes due to ATR42 Modification 7474, which relates to upgraded avionics and is not related to the requirements of this AD. The intent of TR01/17 is to incorporate missing certification maintenance requirements related to the air distribution system and cabin pressure and control monitoring. We have not changed this AD in regard to this issue.

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.

ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional has issued ATR42-400/-500, Time Limits Document (TL), Revision 11, dated May 5, 2015. This service information describes life limits and maintenance requirements for the affected airplanes.

ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional has also issued ATR42-400/-500 Time Limits Temporary Revision TR01/17, dated May 3, 2017, to the ATR ATR42-400/-500 Time Limits Document (TL). This service information describes changes to life limits and maintenance requirements of certain tasks for the affected airplanes.

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

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

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 this figure 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:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2017-16-07, Amendment 39-18984 (82 FR 41874, September 5, 2017) (“AD 2017-16-07”). AD 2017-16-07 applied certain Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, A330-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes; and Model A340-313 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2018 (83 FR 31499). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that only airplanes having certain MSNs are affected by TSA/CAA surface treatment in the door fitting attachment holes, and that airplanes having certain MSNs were excluded. The NPRM was intended to complete certain mandated programs intended to support the airplane reaching its LOV of the engineering data that support the established structural maintenance program. The NPRM proposed to require new inspections of certain attachment holes for residual surface treatment and cracking, and corrective action if necessary; and to provide an optional terminating action for the inspections. The NPRM also proposed to revise the applicability to add certain airplanes and remove others. We are issuing this AD to address fatigue cracks in the bulk cargo door frames, caused by TSA/CAA surface treatment in certain bulk cargo door frame holes. Cracks in the bulk cargo door frames can cause the in-flight loss of a bulk cargo door, damage to the airplane, and subsequent reduced control of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0005, dated January 10, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, and A330-300 series airplanes, and Airbus SAS Model A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

The optional modification involves related investigative actions of eddy current rotating probe testing for cracks of the support fittings and the frame holes at frame (FR) 67 and FR 69. 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-2018-0583.

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 A330-53-3275, dated September 8, 2017.

• Service Bulletin A330-53-3278, dated August 22, 2017.

• Service Bulletin A340-53-4238, dated September 8, 2017.

• Service Bulletin A340-53-4239, dated September 5, 2017.

Airbus Service Bulletins A330-53-3278 and A340-53-4239 describe procedures for rototest, HFEC/ultrasonic and detailed inspections for residual surface treatment and cracking of the upper and lower right-hand fuselage bulk cargo door support fitting attachment holes at FR 67 and FR 69 and the right-hand fuselage bulk cargo door latch fitting attachment holes at FR 69. Airbus Service Bulletins A330-53-3275 and A340-53-4238 describe procedures for a modification, which includes eddy current rotating probe testing for cracks of the support fittings and the frame holes at FR 67 and FR 69, and removal of TSA or CAA in the final holes of the bulk door frames FR 67 and FR 69. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 102 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

This AD 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.

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2015-09-07, Amendment 39-18153 (80 FR 24789, May 1, 2015) (“AD 2015-09-07”). AD 2015-09-07 applied to all The Boeing Company Model 787 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2017 (82 FR 38629). The NPRM was prompted by the determination that a Model 787 airplane that has been powered continuously for 248 days can lose all AC electrical power due to the GCUs simultaneously going into failsafe mode. This condition is caused by a software counter internal to the GCUs that will overflow after 248 days of continuous power. The NPRM proposed to require installing the new GCU software developed to address the software counter overflow anomaly. The NPRM also proposed to remove certain airplanes from the applicability. We are issuing this AD to address loss of all AC electrical power, which could result in loss of control of the airplane.

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

The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) and American Airlines indicated their support for the NPRM.

Boeing requested that we update the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD to state that “55 airplanes of U.S. registry” are affected. Boeing noted that its records show 55 N-registered airplanes, not 47 as stated in the proposed AD.

We agree with the commenter's request for the reason provided. We have updated the Costs of Compliance section of this AD accordingly.

Boeing requested that we revise the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD to state that warranty remedies are not available for Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB240063-00, Issue 002, dated June 7, 2016. Boeing noted that Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB240063-00, Issue 002, dated June 7, 2016, states “Boeing warranty remedies are not available for the configuration changes set forth in this service bulletin. Notwithstanding, Boeing will provide the supplier software referenced in this service bulletin at no charge. This offer will expire eight years from the original issue date of this service bulletin.”

We acknowledge the commenter's request and agree to clarify. The warranty information in the Costs of Compliance section of this AD is meant to be informational, and is included when the manufacturer's service information states warranty coverage may be available. We do not control warranty coverage and operators must work with the manufacturer to determine if they are eligible for a warranty. We have revised the warranty information in the Costs of Compliance section of this AD to note that some of the software costs may be covered under warranty.

Boeing requested that we clarify or confirm that requiring operators to concurrently install new software as specified in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD will not require operators to request alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) for installing later-approved software revisions in accordance with future service bulletins. Boeing noted that Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB420006-00 includes instructions to install several software part numbers that will bring airplanes up to common interface control document (ICD) 9.3 configuration, which is not a safety-related project. Boeing further noted that several other service bulletins call out common ICD 9.3 as a concurrent requirement.

Based on the commenter's request, we have changed paragraphs (h), (i)(1)(i), (i)(1)(ii), and (i)(2) of this AD to allow operators to install later-approved software versions, provided those later-approved versions meet certain conditions. Therefore, operators will not be required to obtain AMOCs to install newer versions of the software required by paragraph (i) of this AD. Similarly, operators will not be required to obtain AMOCs to install newer versions of the software required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

Boeing and United Airlines (UAL) requested that we provide credit for certain actions done in accordance with Issue 002 of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB420006-00. Boeing also requested that we provide credit for certain actions done in accordance with Issue 001 of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB420006-00. UAL noted that it had accomplished Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB420006-00, Issue 002, dated February 13, 2015, on its fleet. UAL added that Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB420006-00, Issue 003, dated October 15, 2015, was issued to correct software part numbers for certain groups of airplanes, and none of those airplanes are in its fleet. Boeing noted that Issue 002 and Issue 003 of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB420006-00 were issued to provide clarification and to provide additional required work for a limited group of airplanes. Boeing suggested that we revise paragraph (j) of the proposed AD to provide credit for the earlier service bulletin revisions for certain airplanes and provide credit for the earlier revisions for certain other airplanes provided that additional work is done on those airplanes.

We agree with the commenters' requests for the reasons provided. We have changed paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD and added paragraph (j)(3) to this AD to provide credit for actions required by paragraphs (i)(1)(ii) and (i)(2) of this AD for certain airplanes.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for 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 AD.

We reviewed the following service information.

• Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB240063-00, Issue 002, dated June 7, 2016, which describes procedures for installing operational program software (OPS) into each of the six GCUs and doing a software check. This service information specifies to concurrently accomplish the following two service bulletins.

• Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB280018-00, Issue 001, dated April 17, 2014, which describes procedures for installing fuel quantity management program software and doing a software check.

• Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB420006-00, Issue 003, dated October 15, 2015, which describes procedures for installing common interface control document 9.3 software and doing a software check.

• Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-15-0248-01B, dated April 19, 2015; and Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-15-0248-01B(R1), dated April 20, 2015. This service information describes procedures for electrical power deactivation of Model 787 airplanes. These documents are distinct due to editorial revisions.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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 The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 25, 2018 (83 FR 24242). The NPRM was prompted by the results of a fleet survey that revealed cracking in the bulkhead frame web at a certain body station. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the bulkhead frame web at a certain station, and repair if necessary.

We are issuing this AD to address cracking in the station (STA) 259.5 bulkhead frame web from the first stiffener above stringer S-10 to S-13. Such cracking could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

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

Boeing requested that the Summary section and Related Service Information paragraph in the NPRM be revised to clarify that the corrective actions include more than just repairs. Boeing stated that the service information does not describe defined repairs but indicates that if any crack is found, contact Boeing for repair instructions and do the repair and repeat the instructions.

We agree with the commenter's request for the reasons provided by the commenter. We have revised the Summary section of this final rule by changing “repair if necessary” to “applicable on-condition actions.” We have revised the “Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51” paragraph of this final rule by clarifying the description of the service information to “. . . low frequency eddy current inspections of the STA 259.5 bulkhead frame web from the first stiffener above stringer S-10 to S-13, on the left and right sides of the airplane and applicable on-condition actions.”

Boeing requested that Group 1 airplanes, as specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1369 RB, dated October 12, 2017, be addressed in the body of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that this change would allow operators with airplanes that are not subject to the limit of validity a means to comply with the requirements specified in the proposed AD.

We agree with the commenter's request for the reasons provided by the commenter. Group 1 airplanes are those having line numbers 1 through 291 that have accumulated flight cycles beyond the limit of validity of the maintenance program. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to address Group 1 airplanes, added paragraph (h) of this AD to address Group 2 and 3 airplanes, and redesignated the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions specified in the NPRM.

We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as (c)(1) and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this final rule. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for 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.

We reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1369 RB, dated October 12, 2017. The service information describes procedures for repetitive high frequency eddy current inspections and low frequency eddy current inspections of the STA 259.5 bulkhead frame web from the first stiffener above stringer S-10 to S-13, on the left and right sides of the airplane and applicable on-condition actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 411 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

This AD 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 DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

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

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2012-22-10, Amendment 39-17246 (77 FR 67267, November 9, 2012) (“AD 2012-22-10”). AD 2012-22-10 applied to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 9, 2018 (83 FR 31705). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that additional nuts of the forward keel beam attachment joint should be inspected, and that repetitive inspections of certain wing-to-fuselage attachment joints are not necessary. The NPRM proposed to retain the initial inspection of the wing-to-fuselage attachment joints, and remove the repetitive inspections of all but the forward keel beam attachment joint. The NPRM also proposed to change the repetitive inspection interval for the forward keel beam attachment joint. We are issuing this AD to address loss of the wing-to-fuselage attachment joints, which could result in loss of the wing, and consequent reduced, or complete loss of, controllability of the airplane.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2012-10R1, dated January 22, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) 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-2018-0587.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We have considered the comment received. The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) reviewed and expressed support for the NPRM.

We have removed paragraph (j)(2) of the proposed AD and redesignated paragraph (j)(1) of the proposed AD as paragraph (j) of this AD because the airplanes identified in paragraph (j)(2) of the proposed AD are included in paragraph (j)(1) of the proposed AD. We have also clarified in paragraph (j) of this AD that any previous inspection done using earlier revisions of the service information is acceptable.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for 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.

Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-53-042, Revision B, dated October 20, 2017. This service information describes procedures for detailed inspections of the wing-to-fuselage attachment joints, and of the attachment nuts at the forward keel beam attachment joint for missing or failed cotter pins. 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 274 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2018 (83 FR 20745). The NPRM was prompted by a report of cracking at the fastener holes of the left-hand-side support bracket of the elevator bell crank for the control linkage in the vertical stabilizer. The NPRM proposed to require an eddy current inspection on certain support brackets of the elevator bell crank for any cracking at the fastener holes, a measurement to confirm that the fastener hole diameters are within tolerance, and replacement with a new support bracket of the elevator bell crank if necessary.

We are issuing this AD to address any cracking in the support bracket of the elevator bell crank, which could lead to detachment of the bracket and loss of functionality of the elevator on the affected side, and result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Failure of both brackets could result in loss of pitch control of the airplane.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2017-32, dated October 10, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 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-2018-0397.

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

Bombardier requested that we revise the NPRM to incorporate the latest service information. Bombardier stated that Service Bulletin 700-27-5009, Revision 02, dated June 15, 2018, corrects a typographical error made to the affected airplane serial number listing. Bombardier also requested that we add Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-5009, Revision 01, dated July 18, 2017, to the “Credit for Previous Actions” paragraph.

We agree with the commenter's request. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to incorporate Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-5009, Revision 02, dated June 15, 2018, for accomplishing the actions in this AD. Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-5009, Revision 02, dated June 15, 2018, revises the effectivity to include an airplane already included in the applicability of this AD, and includes minor edits that do not affect the scope of this AD. We have also revised paragraph (h) of this AD to include Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-5009, Revision 01, dated July 18, 2017.

NetJets requested that we clarify the omission of a certain serial number in the service information. NetJets commented that serial number 9732 is specified in the applicability paragraph of the NPRM, but it is not specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-5009, Revision 01, dated July 18, 2017; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-6009, Revision 01, dated July 18, 2017.

We agree to provide clarification for the commenter. Serial number 9732 is not specified in the effectivity of Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-5009, Revision 01, dated July 18, 2017; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-6009, Revision 01, dated July 18, 2017, but Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-5009, Revision 02, dated June 15, 2018, adds serial number 9732 to the effectivity. As we stated previously, we have revised this AD to include Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-5009, Revision 02, dated June 15, 2018, for accomplishing the actions in this AD. Serial number 9732 was previously included in paragraph (c) of this AD, and the applicability of an AD takes precedence over the effectivity listed in any service information. Therefore, the actions in this AD is required for the airplane having serial number 9732, regardless of what service information is specified in this AD. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for 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.

Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 700-27-5009, Revision 02, dated June 15, 2018; and Service Bulletin 700-27-6009, Revision 01, dated July 18, 2017. This service information describes an eddy current inspection on certain support brackets of the elevator bell crank for any cracking at the fastener holes, a measurement to confirm that the fastener hole diameters are within tolerance, and replacement with a new support bracket of the elevator bell crank. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 109 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:

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

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

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

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:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2006-07-26, Amendment 39-14553 (71 FR 18205, April 11, 2006) (“AD 2006-07-26”). AD 2006-07-26 applied to all ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 1, 2018 (83 FR 25419).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0244, dated December 7, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42 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-2018-0494.

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.

Empire Airlines stated that paragraphs (g) and (i) of the proposed AD refer to ATR Service Bulletin ATR42-57-0074, dated October 19, 2017. Empire Airlines also stated that service bulletin has been revised.

We infer that Empire Airlines requested that the references in paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD be revised to refer to ATR Service Bulletin ATR42-57-0074, Revision 01, dated January 8, 2018. We agree to refer to the latest revision of the service information since the changes introduced in this revision do not affect the AD requirements. We have revised paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD accordingly. We have also added paragraph (k) to this AD to provide credit for accomplishing ATR Service Bulletin ATR42-57-0074, dated October 19, 2017.

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

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

ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional has issued ATR Service Bulletin ATR42-57-0074, Revision 01, dated January 8, 2018. This service information describes procedures for inspecting the outer wing box upper skin and upper rib feet, on the left-hand and right-hand wings, for discrepancies. 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 37 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 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 makes a clerical correction to the headers and descriptions of Lancaster Airport, Lancaster, PA, and Williamsport Regional Airport, Williamsport, PA.

The FAA Aeronautical Information Services branch found the Class E surface airspace descriptors for Lancaster Airport, Lancaster, PA, and Williamsport Regional Airport, Williamsport, PA required clarification as published in FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points. The headers of Class E surface area airspace were incorrect in the Order. Also, a clerical amendment in the legal description also is made to the airspace designation, by adding verbiage to the description, for clarity.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002, and 6004, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11C dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 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 action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by correcting the headers and descriptors of Class E surface airspace of Lancaster Airport, Lancaster, PA, and Williamsport Regional Airport, Williamsport, PA. The Lancaster VORTAC is removed from Lancaster, PA header, and the Williamsport Regional Airport ILS localizer is removed from the Williamsport, PA, header, as neither are used in the descriptors. Also, “That airspace extending from the surface” is added to the Class E surface airspace descriptor of both airports, and “to a 7-mile radius of the airport “is added to the Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area of Williamsport Regional Airport's descriptor.

This is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

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. Therefore, this regulation: (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.

The owner of the bridge, the New York City Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation to facilitate punch list work involving the Borden Avenue Bridge control house roof repairs. The Borden Avenue Bridge across Dutch Kills, Queens, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 4 feet at mean high water and 9 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.801(c).

This temporary deviation allows the Borden Avenue Bridge to stay in the closed position from 12:01 a.m. on September 28, 2018 to 11:59 p.m. on November 17, 2018. At no time can the bridge open to marine traffic. No one has signaled to request that this bridge open to marine traffic since December 15, 2014. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass.

The Coast Guard will 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 vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

On February 24, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which established a Federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people. Section 3(a) of the Executive order directed each Federal agency to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force, the duty of which is to evaluate existing regulations and “make recommendations to the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification.” Section 3(d)(ii) of the Executive order specifically instructs the Task Force to identify regulations that are “are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective.” The Department is undertaking this regulatory action consistent with that objective.

The TQE and PT3 programs are no longer authorized by the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). Pursuant to the Higher Education Opportunity Act (Pub. L. 110-315) enacted in 2008, these programs were replaced. The TQE program was replaced with the Teacher Quality Partnership program, and the PT3 program was replaced with the Preparing Teachers for Digital Age Learners program. Neither new program uses the regulations from the replaced programs. Accordingly, the Secretary removes 34 CFR parts 611 and 614 because they are obsolete. The Secretary also removes parts 636, 649, 680, 693, and 695-699, which had been reserved, to streamline the Department's regulations.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) (APA) the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, the APA provides that an agency is not required to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking when the agency, for good cause, finds that the requirement is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3)). There is good cause to waive rulemaking in this case because these final regulations have become obsolete. This regulatory action adopts no new regulations and does not establish or affect substantive policy. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Secretary has determined that obtaining public comment on the removal of the regulations is unnecessary.

The APA also generally requires that regulations be published at least 30 days before their effective date, unless the agency has good cause to implement its regulations sooner (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). Again, because this final regulatory action merely removes outdated regulations, the Secretary is also waiving the 30-day delay in the effective date of these regulatory changes under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement 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 stated in the Executive order.

This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two deregulatory actions. For FY 2018, any new incremental costs associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions, unless required by law or approved in writing by the Director of the OMB. Because this final rule is not a significant regulatory action, the requirement to offset new regulations in Executive Order 13771 does not apply.

We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing this final regulatory action only on a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that these final regulations are consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. Because the rescinded regulations are obsolete, we do not believe that this action will result in any additional costs or benefits.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(2), the Regulatory Flexibility Act applies only to rules for which an agency publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking. The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rulemaking because there is good cause to waive notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553.

These regulations do not contain any information collection requirements.

These programs are subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and under the authority at 20 U.S.C. 3474 and 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, the Secretary amends chapter VI of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

I. Background

On October 11, 2018, the president signed into law the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act, H.R. 1551 (“MMA”). Title II of the MMA, the Classics Protection and Access Act, created chapter 14 of the copyright law, title 17, United States Code, which, among other things, extends remedies for copyright infringement to owners of sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972 (“Pre-1972 Sound Recordings”). Under the provision, rights owners may be eligible to recover statutory damages and/or attorneys' fees for the unauthorized use of their Pre-1972 Sound Recordings if certain requirements are met.

Specifically, to be eligible for these remedies, rights owners must typically file schedules listing their Pre-1972 Sound Recordings (“Pre-1972 Schedules”) with the U.S. Copyright Office (the “Office”), which are then indexed into the Office's public records.1 The remedies are only available for unauthorized uses of a recording that have occurred more than 90 days after indexing.2 Pre-1972 Schedules must include the name of the rights owner, title, and featured artist for each recording listed, and “such other information, as practicable, that the Register of Copyrights prescribes by regulation.” 3 The filing requirement “is designed to operate in place of a formal registration requirement that normally applies to claims involving statutory damages.” 4 In addition, the Pre-1972 Schedules are important to the Act's new exemption for noncommercial uses of Pre-1972 Sound Recordings that are not being commercially exploited.5 Under that provision, persons seeking to use the exemption are exempt from liability for unauthorized use if they make a “good faith, reasonable search for” a given sound recording in the Office's records of Pre-1972 Schedules before determining that the recording is not being commercially exploited.6 In establishing a filing mechanism for Pre-1972 Schedules, the Office must also provide a means for individuals to request and receive timely notification when such filings are indexed into the Office's public record.7

In addition, rights owners must provide specific notice of unauthorized use to certain entities that were previously transmitting Pre-1972 Sound Recordings, before pursuing certain remedies against them. To be entitled to receive direct notice of unauthorized activity from a rights owner, an entity must have been publicly performing a Pre-1972 Sound Recording by means of digital audio transmission at the time of enactment of section 1401 and must file its contact information with the Copyright Office within 180 days of enactment, that is, by April 9, 2019.8 Where a valid notice of contact information has been filed, the rights owner may be eligible to obtain statutory damages and/or attorneys' fees only after sending the transmitting entity a notice stating that it is not legally authorized to use the Pre-1972 Sound Recording, and identifying the Pre-1972 Sound Recording in a schedule conforming to the requirements by the Office for filing Pre-1972 Schedules.9 In addition, the unauthorized use must have occurred 90 days after the entity receives the notice.10 After April 9, 2019, the Office cannot accept any new filings of contact information by transmitting entities.11 For any eligible transmitting entity that does not file its contact information by April 9, 2019, rights owners are not obligated to send it a direct notice of unauthorized use prior to becoming eligible for statutory damages and/or attorneys' fees.12 Rather, as described above, rights owners would file Pre-1972 Schedules with the Copyright Office, and they would become eligible for these remedies for unauthorized uses of a recording occurring more than 90 days after indexing of the schedules.13

The Office promulgates the following interim rule to establish and govern the filing of Pre-1972 Schedules, the filing of contact information by entities publicly performing Pre-1972 Sound Recordings by means of digital audio transmission at the time of enactment of section 1401 (“Notice of Contact Information”), and the means by which individuals may request and receive timely notification when Pre-1972 Schedules are indexed into the Office's public records.

Under the interim rule, rights owners may file Pre-1972 Schedules with the Office using a form provided on the Office's website. At present, the form is an Excel spreadsheet template. This format is required so that the Office can timely ingest the Pre-1972 Schedules and index them into a searchable database available to prospective users, including persons who may otherwise wish to make noncommercial uses of these works, and the general public. The database of Pre-1972 Schedules is available on the Office's website at https://copyright.gov/music-modernization/pre1972-soundrecordings/search-soundrecordings.html.

For each sound recording, the Pre-1972 Schedule must include the rights owner's name, the sound recording title, and the featured artist. Rights owners may also include additional optional information pursuant to the instructions on the form and the Office's website. For example, the Pre-1972 Schedule may include, for each sound recording, album title information, any alternate sound recording title(s), the publication date, the label name, and the rights owner's contact information. A rights owner may elect to include this optional information on a recording-by-recording basis. In addition, the individual submitting the Pre-1972 Schedule must certify that she has appropriate authority to submit the schedule and that all information submitted to the Office is true, accurate, and complete to the best of the individual's knowledge, and is made in good faith. The Office may reject any Pre-1972 Schedule that fails to comply with these requirements or any additional requirements provided on the Office's website or the form itself.

As noted above, for a rights owner to be eligible to recover statutory damages and/or attorneys' fees for the unauthorized use of a Pre-1972 Sound Recording, the use must occur at least 90 days after a Pre-1972 Schedule that includes the recording is “indexed into the public records of the Copyright Office” 14 (or 90 days after a transmitting entity receives direct notice of unauthorized use, if applicable 15 ). Under the interim rule, a Pre-1972 Schedule will be considered “indexed” once it is made publicly available through the Office's online database of Pre-1972 Schedules.

In this Order, the Commission adopts a final rule concerning mail preparation changes. The final rule partially rescinds an existing Commission rule and is located at 39 CFR part 3010. The rule as adopted removes reference to procedures relying on the existence of a substantive standard for mail preparation changes in response to the recent decision in United States Postal Serv. v. Postal Reg. Comm'n, 886 F.3d 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2018).

In Order No. 3047, the Commission developed a substantive standard to determine when a mail preparation change would constitute a “change in rates” under 39 U.S.C. 3622.1 The standard established by the Commission in Order No. 3047 provided that mail preparation changes could have rate effects when they resulted in the deletion or redefinition of a rate cell as set forth by § 3010.23(d)(2).

In conjunction with Order No. 3047, the Commission initiated a rulemaking proceeding to develop procedures to ensure that the Postal Service properly applies the Commission's standard when making a determination of whether a mail preparation change has a rate effect.2 The final rule created a process that required the Postal Service to: (1) Provide public notice of all mail preparation changes in a single source; (2) affirmatively designate whether or not a change to a mail preparation requirement implicates the price cap; and (3) show by a preponderance of the evidence, if the designation is challenged, that the price cap does not apply to the change.3 The Postal Service filed petitions for review challenging the Commission's standard in Order No. 3047 and the final rule in Order No. 4393.

Shortly after the Commission adopted the final rule in this docket, the Court issued its decision in United States Postal Serv. v. Postal Reg. Comm'n, 886 F.3d 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2018) vacating the Commission's standard in Order No. 3047. In response to the Court's decision, the Commission and the Postal Service filed a joint motion to remand the petition for review of the final rule back to the Commission for further proceedings.4

On August 9, 2018, the Commission issued the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), setting forth a proposed rescission to the rule set forth in § 3010.23(d)(5) that created procedures concerning mail preparation changes.5 The NPR also provided an opportunity for public comment. Order No. 4751 at 5. The Commission proposed removing the components of the rule that require existence of a standard in order to be enforced, specifically: (1) The affirmative designation requirement; and (2) the evidentiary standard. Id. at 4. As explained in the NPR, both the affirmative designation and evidentiary burden parts of the rule were predicated on the existence of a substantive standard. Id. As that standard was vacated and a new standard does not yet exist, the proposed rule removed the affirmative designation requirement and evidentiary burden component from paragraph (d)(5) of this section. In the NPR, the Commission proposed to retain the publication requirement of the rule as it would remain independent of any standard. Id.

On September 13, 2018, the Commission received comments in response to the NPR from the Association for Postal Commerce (PostCom), the Postal Service, and the Public Representative.6

PostCom Comments. PostCom supports the premise behind partial rescission of the rule, acknowledging that the rule referencing a standard “cannot be enforced in the absence of a standard.” PostCom Comments at 1. However, PostCom does not support rescission of the rule at this time. Id. Instead, PostCom suggests the Commission “temporarily suspend enforcement of the portion of the rule that the Commission is proposing to eliminate.” Id.

To support its request for the Commission to temporarily suspend enforcement of the rule as opposed to rescission through rulemaking, PostCom points to the Commission's intention to develop an appropriate standard in a separate rulemaking.7 PostCom submits that elimination of the portion of the rule relying on a substantive standard is unnecessary because the current procedures “will apply equally well to the final standard established by the Commission.” PostCom Comments at 2. PostCom states that the procedures only rely on the “existence of” a substantive standard and not the contents of that substantive standard. Id. at 3. PostCom points to the fact that the Commission itself indicated the separation between the substantive standard and the applicability of the final procedural rule, noting that the Commission stated that the Court's disagreement with the substantive standard would not affect the final rule. Id. As a result, PostCom submits that it is “imprudent to eliminate these procedures at this time” and that elimination of the rule now will only require more rulemaking in the future should the Commission set a new standard. Id.

Postal Service Comments. The Postal Service supports partial rescission of the rule that relies on existence of a substantive standard. Postal Service Comments at 1-3. In the Postal Service's view, “compliance with the procedural rule necessarily would require application of the substantive standard” for mail preparation changes. Id. at 2. The Postal Service agrees with the Commission's proposal to rescind the portion of the rule that “requires the Postal Service affirmatively to designate whether a given mail preparation change requires compliance with the price cap rules” and the portion concerning the evidentiary burden. Id.

The Postal Service also indicates that it has already complied with the publication requirement that the Commission proposes to retain in the rule. Id. at 3.

Public Representative Comments. The Public Representative supports the Commission's proposal to rescind portions of the procedural rule concerning mail preparation changes “subject to reinstatement depending upon the outcome of the Commission's review of the applicable standard for determining whether a rate increase is in compliance with § 3010.23(d)(2).” PR Comments at 1-2.

He notes that it would be futile to require the Postal Service to affirmatively designate whether a change requires compliance with § 3010.23(d)(2) when there is no standard to measure compliance. Id. at 7. With respect to the evidentiary portion of the rule, requiring the Postal Service to provide by a preponderance of the evidence that a mail preparation change does not require compliance with § 3010.23(d)(2), he contends that compliance with this provision would be “a very difficult proposition without any standard to serve as a target.” Id. at 8. Further, parties would be “unable to determine the information needed to rebut the Postal Service's determination” without an operative standard. Id.

The Public Representative also supports the Commission's retention of the single source reporting requirement. Id. at 5-6.

The comments reflect general support for the removal of portions of the procedural rule concerning mail preparation changes that rely on the existence of a substantive standard. PostCom suggests an alternative procedure to temporarily suspend enforcement of the rule as opposed to formally rescinding portions of this rulemaking.

When promulgating the final rule concerning mail preparation changes, the Commission intended for it to apply regardless of how the Court modified the standard. Order No. 4393 at 14. However, the Court did not modify the standard, it vacated it in its entirety. The components of the procedural rule in § 3010.23(d)(5) requiring the Postal Service to provide an affirmative designation of compliance and setting an evidentiary burden require the existence of a standard. While the Commission has initiated an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to gather proposals for a new standard, the Commission cannot predict the outcome of those proceedings. See Order No. 4750.

Although PostCom may be correct that a temporary suspension of a procedural rule is within the Commission's authority, a rulemaking is more appropriate for the present situation. As this procedural rule was promulgated via notice and comment rulemaking, the Commission will use the same process to rescind a major portion of the rule.8

Accordingly, the Commission adopts a final rule that rescinds two components of the rule requiring an affirmative designation and evidentiary burden. For the affirmative designation portion of the rule, the Postal Service would be unable to designate whether a particular mail preparation change requires compliance with § 3010.23(d)(2) because it no longer has a standard to apply to determine compliance. Similarly, the Postal Service could not show it made a correct determination by a preponderance of the evidence without having a standard. Parties would also be unable to rebut the Postal Service's determination with information absent a standard. For these reasons, removing those portions of the rule is appropriate.

The remaining part of the rule requires the Postal Service to provide published notice of all mail preparation changes in a single source. The Commission retains this portion of the rule because it provides notice and transparency for all mail preparation changes and does not rely on existence of a standard.9 As noted in the NPR, the Postal Service has complied with this requirement and the Postal Service states in its comments that it will continue to comply with this portion of the rule. Accordingly, the Commission revises § 3010.23(d)(5) to require the Postal Service to publish notice of all mail preparation changes in a single, publically available source.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires federal agencies, in promulgating rules, to consider the impact of those rules on small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (1980). If the proposed or final rules will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head of the agency may certify that the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

The Commission's primary responsibility is in the regulatory oversight of the United States Postal Service. The rules that are the subject of this rulemaking have an impact on participation in Commission proceedings, but impose no further financial obligation upon any entity. For entities other than the United Stated Postal Service, participation is strictly voluntary. Based on these findings, the Chairman of the Commission certifies that the rules that are the subject of this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

It is ordered:

1. Part 3010 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 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:

I. What are the errors being corrected?

This rule corrects errors in the regulatory text designating certain areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS as provided in the designation rules signed by the EPA Administrator on November 6, 2017 (November 16, 2017; 82 FR 54232), and on April 30, 2018 (June 4, 2018; 83 FR 25776). The EPA is correcting the errors consistent with the rulemaking record. The affected areas are located in California, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The corrections for each state are discussed below and the corrected regulatory text is provided at the end of this action.

The EPA is correcting two errors in the regulatory table for California for designations promulgated in the April 30, 2018, ozone designations rule. The EPA is moving the entry for the “Butte County, CA” nonattainment area so that the area will be listed in alphabetical order and, thus, will be listed before the entry for the “Calaveras County, CA” nonattainment area. The EPA is also correcting a typographical error in the entry for the “Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation” nonattainment area by revising “Pu'eskaMountain” to read “Pu'eska Mountain.”

The EPA is correcting the regulatory table for Illinois to include McHenry County and Monroe County as attainment/unclassifiable areas. The EPA is adding those counties to the regulatory table, consistent with the rulemaking record for the April 30, 2018, ozone designations rule. The EPA is also moving the entry for “Bond County” so that it will be listed in alphabetical order and, thus, will be listed before the entry for “Boone County.”

McHenry County, Illinois, is part of the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin (IL-IN-WI), Combined Statistical Area (CSA).1 The EPA's final Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area states that, “EPA's area of analysis is the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA, which includes the following 19 counties: Bureau, Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy, Kane, Kankakee, Kendall, Lake, LaSalle, McHenry, Putnam, and Will in Illinois, Jasper, Lake, LaPorte, Newton, and Porter in Indiana, and Kenosha in Wisconsin. The EPA applied the five factors recommended in its guidance to the area of analysis to determine the nonattainment boundary.” In the TSD section, “Conclusion for the Chicago, IL-IN-WI Area,” the EPA identified the portions of Illinois that were being designated as part of the nonattainment area and stated, “All remaining Illinois portions of the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA are designated consistent with the Illinois' recommendations as attainment/unclassifiable for the 2015 ozone NAAQS: Bureau, DeKalb, Kankakee, LaSalle, McHenry, and Putnam Counties.* * *” The EPA's final TSD for the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area is located in the docket for the April 30, 2018, designations rule (document number EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0548-0418) and is the key document setting forth the designations for the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA.

Monroe County, Illinois, is part of the St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois (MO-IL) Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA). The EPA's final TSD for the St. Louis, MO-IL nonattainment area states, “The EPA believes that using the CBSA 2 is an appropriate starting point for the contribution analysis for the St. Louis area to ensure that the nearby areas most likely to contribute to a violating area are evaluated. The area-specific analyses may support nonattainment boundaries that are smaller or larger than the CBSA. The St. Louis CBSA includes the counties of Franklin, Jefferson, Lincoln, St. Charles, and St. Louis, Warren, and the City of St. Louis, in Missouri as well as the counties of Bond, Calhoun, Clinton, Jersey, Macoupin, Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair in Illinois.” In the TSD section, “Conclusion for the St. Louis MO-IL Area,” the EPA identified the portions of Illinois that were being designated as part of the nonattainment area and stated, “The EPA is designating the remaining Franklin County, excluding Boles Township, Jefferson, Lincoln and Warren Counties in Missouri and Bond, Calhoun, Clinton, Jersey, Macoupin and Monroe Counties in Illinois as attainment/unclassifiable for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.” The EPA's final TSD for the St. Louis MO-IL Area nonattainment area is located in the docket for the April 30, 2018, designations rule (document number EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0548-0416) and is the key document setting forth the designations for the St. Louis CBSA.

The EPA is correcting the regulatory table for Indiana to include Scott County, Union County, and Washington County as attainment/unclassifiable areas. The EPA is adding those counties to the regulatory table, consistent with the rulemaking record for the April 30, 2018, ozone designation rule.

Scott County, Indiana, and Washington County, Indiana, are part of the Louisville/Jefferson County—Elizabethtown—Madison, Kentucky-Indiana (KY-IN) CSA. The EPA's final TSD for the Louisville, KY-IN nonattainment area states that, “The area of analysis for the Louisville, KY-IN area included the Louisville/Jefferson County—Elizabethtown—Madison, KY-IN CSA. The Louisville/Jefferson County—Elizabethtown—Madison, KY-IN CSA is comprised of the following counties: Bullitt County (KY); Hardin County (KY); Henry County (KY); Jefferson County (KY); Larue County (KY); Meade County (KY); Nelson County (KY); Oldham County (KY); Shelby County (KY); Spencer County (KY); Trimble County (KY); Clark County (IN); Floyd County (IN); Harrison County (IN); Jefferson County (IN); Scott County (IN); and Washington County (IN). The EPA applied the five factors recommended in its guidance to the area of analysis to determine the nonattainment area boundary.” In the TSD section, “Conclusion for Louisville, KY-IN Area,” the EPA identified the portions of Indiana that were being designated as part of the nonattainment area and stated, “The EPA is not including the remaining analyzed counties within the nonattainment boundary of the Louisville, KY-IN nonattainment area.” The EPA's final TSD for the Louisville, KY-IN nonattainment area is located in the docket for the April 30, 2018, designations rule (document number EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0548-0396) and is the key document setting forth the designations for the Indiana counties in the Louisville/Jefferson County—Elizabethtown—Madison, KY-IN CSA.

Union County, Indiana is part of the Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana (OH-KY-IN) CSA. The EPA's final TSD for Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN area states that, “For the Cincinnati area, the starting point for the analysis (the area of analysis), is the Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OH-KY-IN CSA. . . . The Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OH-KY-IN CSA includes the following counties: Dearborn County (IN), Ohio County (IN), Union County (IN), Boone County (KY), Bracken County (KY), Campbell County (KY), Gallatin County (KY), Grant County (KY), Kenton County (KY), Mason County (KY), Pendleton County (KY), Brown County (OH), Butler County (OH), Clermont County (OH), Clinton County (OH), Hamilton County (OH), and Warren County (OH). The EPA applied the five factors recommended in its guidance to the area of analysis to determine the nonattainment boundary.” In the TSD section, “Conclusion for the Cincinnati Area,” the EPA stated, “The EPA is not modifying the states' recommendations for nonattainment boundaries. Based on the assessment of factors described previously, the EPA has concluded that the following counties or portions of counties meet the CAA criteria for inclusion in the Cincinnati nonattainment area: Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren in Ohio and the parts of Boone, Campbell and Kenton Counties in Kentucky identified in Kentucky's recommendation.” No Indiana counties were included in the Cincinnati nonattainment area. The EPA's final TSD for the Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN nonattainment area is located in the docket for the April 30, 2018, designations rule (document number EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0548-0397) and is the key document setting forth the designations for the Indiana counties in the Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OH-KY-IN CSA.

In a letter from the EPA Administrator to the governor of Indiana, sent at the same time the April 30, 2018, rule was signed, the EPA identified the counties the EPA was designating as nonattainment as part of the Chicago, IL-IN-WI and Louisville, KY-IN nonattainment areas and stated that the remaining portions of Indiana, which includes Scott County, Union County and Washington County, were being designated as attainment/unclassifiable.

The EPA is correcting two errors in the regulatory table for Kentucky designations promulgated in the April 30, 2018, ozone designations rule. The EPA is moving the entry for “Mason County” so that it will be listed in alphabetical order and, thus, will be listed before the entry for “Meade County.” The EPA is also correcting a typographical error by revising “Larue County” to read “LaRue County.”

The EPA is correcting three errors in the regulatory table for Michigan for designations promulgated in the April 30, 2018, ozone designations rule. In the regulatory table for Michigan, the EPA is correcting a typographical error in the boundary description for the partial Allegan County, Michigan, nonattainment area by revising “Manlus Township” to read “Manlius Township.” The EPA is moving the entry for “Alger County” so that it will be listed in alphabetical order and, thus, will be listed before the entry for “Allegan County (part) remainder.” The EPA is moving the entry for “Sanilac County” so that it will be listed in alphabetical order and, thus, will be listed before the entry for “Schoolcraft County.”

In the November 6, 2017, designations rule, the EPA regulatory table identified all the counties in Montana as a single statewide attainment/unclassifiable area. The state of Montana subsequently notified the EPA that on September 21, 2016, it had recommended the designations to be on a county-by-county basis rather than as a statewide area. In the preamble for the November 6, 2017, designations rule, the EPA stated, “The EPA is promulgating these designations for 2,649 counties including Indian Country located in those counties, two separate areas of Indian Country, and five territories without notice-and-comment, because we believe that the designations pursuant to this final action are noncontroversial and the designations are consistent with the recommendations of the states and tribes in which these counties and tribal lands are located.” The EPA is correcting the regulatory table for Montana to list each county separately with a designation of attainment/unclassifiable, consistent with Montana's September 21, 2016, recommendation.

The EPA is correcting the regulatory table for Ohio to include Carroll County as an attainment/unclassifiable area. The EPA is adding the county to the regulatory table, consistent with the rulemaking record for the April 30, 2018, ozone designation rule.

Carroll County, Ohio, is part of the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, Ohio CSA. The EPA's final TSD for Ohio states that, “For the Cleveland area, the starting point for the area of analysis is the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, Ohio CSA which includes the following counties: Erie, Huron, Lorain, Medina, Summit, Stark, Carroll, Cuyahoga, Lake, Geauga, Portage, Ashtabula, and Tuscarawas.” In the TSD section, “Conclusion for the Cleveland Area,” the EPA stated, “After evaluating the five factors, the EPA is not modifying the State's recommendation and is designating Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, and Summit Counties as the Cleveland nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.” The EPA's final TSD for Ohio is located in the docket for the April 30, 2018, designations rule (document number EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0548-0381) and is the key document setting forth the designations for the counties in Ohio.

In a letter from the EPA Administrator to the governor of Ohio, sent at the same time the April 30, 2018, rule was signed, the EPA identified the counties the EPA was designating as nonattainment as part of the Cincinnati, OH-KY, Cleveland, Ohio, and Columbus, Ohio nonattainment areas and provided that the remaining portions of Ohio, which includes Carroll County, were being designated as attainment/unclassifiable.

In the April 30, 2018, designations rule, the EPA did not include Carbon, Lehigh, Monroe, Northampton and Pike Counties in the designation regulatory table for Pennsylvania. The EPA is adding those counties to the table consistent with the rulemaking record. These five counties are part of the New York-Newark, New York-New Jersey-Connecticut-Pennsylvania (NY-NJ-CT-PA) CSA. The EPA's final TSD for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area states that the area of analysis is the CSA, with the additional county of Middlesex in Connecticut. The nonattainment area is also referred to as the New York Metro Nonattainment Area. In the final TSD section “Conclusion for The New York Metro Area,” the EPA states, “The counties of Dutchess, Orange, Putnam and Ulster in New York; Carbon, Lehigh, Monroe, Northampton and Pike in Pennsylvania are being excluded from the New York Metro nonattainment area. . . . .” The EPA's final TSD for New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area is located in the docket for April 30, 2018, designation rule (document number EPA-HQ-OAR-0548-0411).

In a letter from the EPA Administrator to the governor of Pennsylvania, sent at the same time the April 30, 2018, rule was signed, the EPA summarized the portions of Pennsylvania that the agency was designating. The EPA identified the counties in Pennsylvania that were being designated as nonattainment as part of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area and provided that the remaining portions of the state, which includes Carbon, Lehigh, Monroe, Northampton and Pike Counties, were being designated as attainment/unclassifiable.

In the April 30, 2018, designation rule, the EPA listed two areas out of order in the designation regulatory table for Virginia. To correct the formatting error, the EPA is moving the entries for the “Fredericksburg City” and “Winchester City” attainment/unclassifiable areas to list them alphabetically with the other independent cities that are designated as attainment/unclassifiable. Thus, the “Fredericksburg City” attainment/unclassifiable area will be listed after the entry for “Franklin City” attainment/unclassifiable area and the “Winchester City” attainment/unclassifiable area will be listed after the entry for “Williamsburg City” attainment/unclassifiable area.

This action is exempt from review by the OMB because it responds to the CAA requirement to promulgate air quality designations after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.

This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because actions such as air quality designations associated with a new or revised NAAQS are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. In this action, the EPA is correcting errors in the regulatory text regarding the designation of certain areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS consistent with the rulemaking record. This action does not contain any information collection activities.

This designation action under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d) is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. Section 107(d)(2)(B) of the CAA explicitly provides that designations are exempt from the notice-and-comment provisions of the APA. In addition, designations under CAA section 107(d) are not among the list of actions that are subject to the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements of CAA section 307(d).

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The division of responsibility between the federal government and the states for purposes of implementing the NAAQS is established under the CAA.

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action corrects errors in the regulatory tables in the ozone designation rules signed by the EPA Administrator on November 6, 2017, and April 30, 2018. The corrections are consistent with the rulemaking record. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

This action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This action corrects errors in the regulatory text regarding the designation of certain areas in for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The corrections are consistent with the rulemaking record for the designation rules signed by the EPA Administrator on November 6, 2017, and April 30, 2018.

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the U.S. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 81 is corrected as follows:

No one is affected by the final action contained in this document. This final action would merely serve to withdraw certain Federal water quality criteria that have been applicable to California and are no longer needed in light of the EPA-approved state water quality criteria. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person identified in the preceding section entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

On May 18, 2000, the EPA promulgated a final rule known as the “California Toxics Rule” (“CTR”) at 40 CFR 131.38. The CTR final rule established numeric water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California, because the State had not complied fully with Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (65 FR 31682).

Consistent with the basic tenet of the CWA, the EPA developed its water quality standards program emphasizing State primacy. Although in the CTR the EPA promulgated toxic criteria for California, the Agency prefers that states maintain primacy, revise their own standards, and achieve full compliance (see 57 FR 60860, December 22, 1992). As described in the preamble to the final CTR (see 65 FR 31682 (May 18, 2000)), when California adopts, and the EPA approves, water quality criteria that meet the requirements of the CWA, the Agency will issue a rule amending the CTR to withdraw the Federal criteria applicable to California.

On December 11, 2017, the EPA proposed the withdrawal of certain freshwater aquatic life (acute and chronic) water quality criteria and certain federally promulgated human health (water and organisms) water quality criteria, applicable in California (see 82 FR 58156, December 11, 2017). The EPA received comments on the proposed rule and a listing of the comments, and the Agency's responses, are contained in the document “Response to Comments for Water Quality Standards; Withdrawal of Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria Applicable to California: Lead, Chlorodibromomethane and Dichlorobromomethane,” which can be accessed at OW docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0303. Today, the EPA is taking final action on its proposal. The withdrawal of the federally promulgated criteria will enable California to implement its EPA-approved water quality criteria for these parameters.

As discussed in the proposal (see 82 FR 58156, December 11, 2017), this final rule amends the Federal regulations in the CTR to withdraw the following criteria: freshwater acute and chronic aquatic life criteria for lead for the Los Angeles River and its tributaries; and human health (water & organisms) criteria for chlorodibromomethane and dichlorobromomethane for a segment of New Alamo Creek and a segment of Ulatis Creek. The EPA approved the State's criteria for lead and for chlorodibromomethane and dichlorobromomethane for these waters because the Agency determined that the State's criteria were scientifically sound and protective of the designated uses for these certain waters and met the requirements of the CWA and the Agency's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131. The State calls these criteria site-specific water quality objectives or site-specific objectives. More information on the EPA's actions which approved the California's site-specific objectives can be accessed at OW docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0303.

This final rule will result in the withdrawal of the federally promulgated criteria for these certain waters under the CTR. However, the criteria for lead, chlorodibromomethane, and dichlorobromomethane for other waters in California that are currently part of the CTR remain in the Federal promulgation.

No changes to this final rule were made in response to the comments received on the proposed rule. The EPA received nine comments on the proposed rule through the public docket which are described in more detail in this section. Two anonymous comments and one environmental group opposed the proposed rule to withdraw certain Federal criteria because California's criteria are higher numerically than the Federal criteria. Regarding the State's aquatic life criteria for lead, the EPA indicated that the State has provided analyses that show the criteria are protective of aquatic life, and that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed that the criteria would not likely adversely affect any listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. Regarding the State's human health criteria for chlorodibromomethane and dichlorobromomethane, the EPA indicated in its response that, as described in Agency's Record of Decision supporting the approval of the state's criteria, states and authorized tribes have the flexibility to adopt water quality criteria that result in a risk level higher than 10−6, up to the 10−5 level. That flexibility is constrained, however, by the need for careful consideration of the associated exposure parameter assumptions, and whether the resulting criteria would expose sensitive subpopulations consuming fish at higher rates to no more than a 10−4 cancer risk. The EPA determined that these certain state criteria assure that cancer risk to the most highly exposed population would not exceed a 10−4 cancer risk level. In addition, the consumption of the water and fish/shellfish from the affected waterbody segments does not currently occur, nor is it expected to occur in the future. The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County supported the proposed rule. Four comments were outside the scope of the proposed rule; and, one comment's position was not clear. Two emails were sent directly to the EPA after the comment period closed for the proposed rule, inquiring about how water quality criteria under the CWA are determined compared to the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); the Agency's response, also included in the docket, stated that the CWA does not allow for consideration of costs and technological feasibility in the calculation of CWA water quality criteria, unlike SDWA MCLs. The EPA's “Response to Comments for Water Quality Standards; Withdrawal of Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria Applicable to California: Lead, Chlorodibromomethane and Dichlorobromomethane” can be accessed at OW docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0303.

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

This action is a deregulatory action under Executive Order 13771. This rule is expected to provide meaningful burden reduction by withdrawal of certain federally promulgated criteria in certain waters of California.

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA because it is administratively withdrawing Federal requirements that are no longer needed in California. It does not include any information collection, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements. The OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations at 40 CFR part 131 and has assigned OMB control number 2040-0286.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As this action withdraws certain federally promulgated criteria, the action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This rule imposes no regulatory requirements or costs on any state or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA policy to promote communications between the Agency and state and local governments, the Agency specifically solicited comment on this action from state and local officials.

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule imposes no regulatory requirements or costs on any tribal government. It does not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, the relationship between the Federal Government and tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The EPA has previously determined, based on the most current science and the Agency's CWA Section 304(a) recommended criteria, that California's adopted and the Agency-approved criteria are protective of human health.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. 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). This rule will be effective November 15, 2018.

For the reasons set out in the preamble title 40, chapter I, part 131 of the Code of Federal Regulation is amended as follows:

Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) governing the harvest of BFT by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27 subdivides the U.S. BFT quota recommended by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and as implemented by the United States among the various domestic fishing categories, per the allocations established in the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (2006 Consolidated HMS FMP) (71 FR 58058, October 2, 2006), as amended by Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (Amendment 7) (79 FR 71510, December 2, 2014). NMFS is required under ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide U.S. fishing vessels with a reasonable opportunity to harvest the ICCAT-recommended quota.

NMFS recently published a final rule (i.e., the “quota rule” (83 FR 51391, October 11, 2018)) that increased the baseline U.S. bluefin tuna quota from 1,058.79 mt to 1,247.86 mt and accordingly increased the subquotas for 2018, including an increase in the General category October through November period subquota from 60.7 mt to 70.2 mt, consistent with the annual bluefin tuna quota calculation process. On October 4, 2018, NMFS transferred 55 mt to the General category and closed the General category fishery effective October 5, 2018, based on projections that landings would meet or exceed the adjusted October through November subquota of 127.2 mt by that date (83 FR 50857, October 10, 2018).

As of October 11, 2018, reports show that the General category landed 81.8 mt before closing. This represents 64 percent of the adjusted October through November subquota of 127.2 mt. Based on early October landings rates, NMFS has determined that reopening the General category fishery for two days is appropriate given the amount of unused October through November subquota (i.e., 45.4 mt).

Therefore, the General category fishery will reopen at 12:30 a.m., October 15, 2018, and close at 11:30 p.m., October 16, 2018. The General category daily retention limit during this reopening remains the same as prior to closing: one large medium or giant bluefin tuna per vessel per day/trip. This action applies to those vessels permitted in the General category, as well as to those HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels with a commercial sale endorsement when fishing commercially for BFT. Retaining, possessing, or landing large medium or giant BFT by persons aboard vessels permitted in the General and HMS Charter/Headboat categories must cease at 11:30 p.m. local time on October 16, 2018.

The General category will reopen automatically on December 1, 2018, for the December 2018 subquota period at the default one-fish level. In December 2017, NMFS adjusted the General category base subquota for the December 2018 period to 10 mt (82 FR 60680, December 22, 2017), although this amount increased to 14.6 mt with finalization of the quota rule. Based on quota availability in the Reserve, NMFS may consider transferring additional quota to the December subquota period, as appropriate.

Fishermen may catch and release (or tag and release) BFT of all sizes, subject to the requirements of the catch-and-release and tag-and-release programs at § 635.26. All BFT that are released must be handled in a manner that will maximize their survival, and without removing the fish from the water, consistent with requirements at § 635.21(a)(1). For additional information on safe handling, see the “Careful Catch and Release” brochure available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/.

NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fishery closely. Dealers are required to submit landing reports within 24 hours of a dealer receiving BFT. Late reporting by dealers compromises NMFS' ability to timely implement actions such as quota and retention limit adjustment, as well as closures, and may result in enforcement actions. Additionally, and separate from the dealer reporting requirement, General and HMS Charter/Headboat category vessel owners are required to report the catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing hmspermits.noaa.gov, using the HMS Catch Reporting app, or calling (888) 872-8862 (Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.).

Depending on the level of fishing effort and catch rates of BFT, NMFS may determine that additional adjustments are necessary to ensure available subquotas are not exceeded or to enhance scientific data collection from, and fishing opportunities in, all geographic areas. If needed, subsequent adjustments will be published in the Federal Register. In addition, fishermen may call the Atlantic Tunas Information Line at (978) 281-9260, or access hmspermits.noaa.gov, for updates on quota monitoring and inseason adjustments.

The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons:

The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments provide for inseason actions to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. Affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment to implement the fishery reopening is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The General category recently closed, but based on available BFT quotas, fishery performance in recent weeks, and the availability of BFT on the fishing grounds, responsive reopening of the fishery is warranted to allow fishermen to take advantage of availability of fish and of quota. NMFS could not have proposed this action earlier, as it needed to consider and respond to updated data and information about fishery conditions and this year's landings. If NMFS was to offer a public comment period now, after having appropriately considered that data, it would preclude fishermen from harvesting BFT that are legally available. Therefore, the AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment. For all of the above reasons, there also is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.

This action is being taken under § 635.27(a)(1), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.