Federal Register Vol. 83, No.226,

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The Agency has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of the Executive Order. In addition, all state and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule and, in accordance with section 212(e) of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6912(e)), administrative appeal procedures must be exhausted before an action against the Department or its agencies may be initiated.

This final rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review,” as implemented under USDA's regulations at 2 CFR part 415, subpart C, because this rule provides general guidance on NEPA and related environmental reviews of applicants' proposals. Applications for Agency programs will be reviewed individually under Executive Order 12372 as required by program procedures.

The Agency has determined that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq.), given that the amendment is only an administrative, procedural change on the government's part with respect to obligation of funds.

In this final rule, the Agency proposes to create limited flexibility for the timing of obligation of funds relative to the completion of environmental review. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) does not direct agencies to prepare a NEPA analysis before establishing agency procedures that supplement the CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA. The requirements for establishing agency NEPA procedures are set forth at 40 CFR 1505.1 and 1507.3. The determination that establishing agency NEPA procedures does not require NEPA analysis and documentation has been upheld in Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 73 F. Supp. 2d 962, 972-73 (S.D. III. 1999), aff'd, 230 F.3d 947, 954- 55 (7th Cir. 2000).

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) numbers assigned to the RD Programs affected by this rulemaking are as follows:

All active CFDA programs can be found at www.cfda.gov. The Catalog is available on the internet at http://www.cfda.gov and the General Services Administration's (GSA's) free CFDA website at http://www.cfda.gov. The CFDA website also contains a PDF file version of the Catalog that, when printed, has the same layout as the printed document that the Government Publishing Office (GPO) provides. GPO prints and sells the CFDA to interested buyers. For information about purchasing the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance from GPO, call the Superintendent of Documents at 202-512-1800 or toll free at 866-512-1800, or access GPO's online bookstore at http://bookstore.thefederalregister.org.

Rural Development infrastructure programs not listed in this section nor on the CFDA website, but which are enacted pursuant to the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, 7 U.S.C. 901 et seq., the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972, 7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq., or any other Congressional act for Rural Development, will be covered by the requirements of this action when enacted.

This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995) for state, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of §§ 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

The Agency is committed to the E-Government Act, which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible.

The policies contained in this final rule do not have any substantial direct effect on 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. Nor does this final rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the states is not required.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. The latest revision of the Agency's Environmental Policies and Procedures in 2016 involved Tribal consultation via comment period and webinar as a baseline for future consultation on individual program actions. The creation of limited flexibility for the timing of obligation of funds relative to the completion of environmental review is only an administrative, procedural change on the government's part and in no way abridges or alters that agreement. Therefore, no further consultation is necessary on this rule change. The policies contained in this final rule do not have Tribal implications that preempt Tribal law. The Agency will continue to work directly with Tribes and Tribal applicants to improve access to Agency programs. This includes providing focused outreach to Tribes regarding implementation of this rule change. Additionally, the Agency will respond in a timely and meaningful manner to all Tribal government requests for consultation concerning this rule. For further information on the Agency's Tribal consultation efforts, please contact Rural Development's Native American Coordinator at (720) 544-2911 or [email protected].

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the paperwork burden associated with this final rule has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the currently approved OMB Control Number 0575-0197. The Agency has determined that changes contained in this regulatory action do not substantially change current data collection that would require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development (RD) programs provide loans, grants and loan guarantees to support investment in rural infrastructure to spur rural economic development, create jobs, improve the quality of life, and address the health and safety needs of rural residents. Infrastructure investment is an important national policy priority. As directed by E.O. 13807 in 2017, USDA as a member of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council has reviewed its NEPA implementing regulations and policies to identify impediments to efficient and effective environmental reviews and authorizations for infrastructure projects. This final rule is part of that effort to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of RD's environmental reviews and authorizations for infrastructure projects in rural America.

On April 25, 2017, the President created the Interagency Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity (Task Force) through E.O. 13790 and appointed the Secretary of Agriculture as the Task Force's Chair. Among the purposes and functions of the Task Force was to,

This rulemaking fulfills the mandate of E.O. 13807 as well as the goals of the President's Interagency Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity by identifying regulatory changes that promote economic development and improve the quality of life in rural America. The RD infrastructure projects impacted by this rule are often critical to the health and safety and quality of life in rural communities. In some cases, funding decisions made by Rural Development are the first step upon which a much larger process of community economic development depends. This amendment to existing regulation will allow the Agency to obligate funding conditioned upon the full and satisfactory completion of environmental review for infrastructure projects. This change will give applicants, and often the distressed communities they represent, some comfort to proceed with an economic development strategy, including the planning process associated with NEPA, without fear that funds may be rescinded before the NEPA process is completed. With this change in place, RD can more fully meet the government's goals of speeding up the initiation of infrastructure projects, encouraging planned community economic development, and leveraging investment without additional cost to taxpayers or any change in environmental review requirements. Infrastructure projects covered by this final rule include those, such as broadband, telecommunications, electric, energy efficiency, smart grid, water, sewer, transportation, and energy capital investments in physical plant and equipment.

Nothing in this final rule reduces RD's obligation to complete the NEPA planning process prior to foreclosing reasonable alternatives to the federal action. The current regulation at 7 CFR 1970.6 (“Financial assistance”) states that the Agency defines the major decision point for completion of NEPA as the approval of financial assistance. Similarly, 7 CFR 1970.11(b) identifies Agency obligation as the point by which the environmental review must be concluded. As amended by this final rule, 7 CFR 1970.11(b) will now provide RD Administrators limited flexibility to obligate funds for infrastructure projects prior to the completion of the environmental review process where the assurance that funds will be available is important for community health, safety, or economic development. As a result, the environmental review process must be completed prior to disbursement of any RD funds, or any other action that would have adverse environmental impact or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives. The conditions of obligation will be defined in the documentation of the agreement approving the financial assistance between the Agency and the applicant. If, however, the conditions of obligation are not met, or the agency chooses not to proceed with the project after considering the results of the NEPA process, the Agency will rescind the obligated funds. With these conditions, the Agency retains control of the final decision to authorize construction and release funds based on the satisfactory completion of the environmental review. Note, this final rule will not, and does not, change any of the requirements for environmental reviews. Should an applicant choose to commence a project and thus foreclose reasonable alternatives, such action would result in de-obligation of federal funding, thereby eliminating any federal action for NEPA purposes on the part of Rural Development. Until the Agency concludes the environmental review and decides to proceed with the project, the obligated funds will be reserved for the infrastructure project and less susceptible to Congressional rescission.

Accordingly, for reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter XVII, of subtitle B, title 7, Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

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

The OCC's, Board's, and Bureau's regulations,6 and their accompanying interpretations,7 provide that the exemption threshold for smaller loans will be adjusted effective January 1 of each year based on any annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) that was in effect on the preceding June 1. Any increase in the threshold amount will be rounded to the nearest $100 increment. For example, if the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W would result in a $950 increase in the threshold amount, the threshold amount will be increased by $1,000. However, if the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W would result in a $949 increase in the threshold amount, the threshold amount will be increased by $900. If there is no annual percentage increase in the CPI-W, the OCC, the Board, and the Bureau will not adjust the threshold amounts from the prior year.8

On November 30, 2016, the OCC, the Board, and the Bureau published a final rule in the Federal Register to memorialize the calculation method used by the agencies each year to adjust the exemption threshold to ensure that, as contemplated in the December 2013 Supplemental Final Rule (HPML Small Dollar Adjustment Calculation Rule), the values for the exemption threshold keep pace with the CPI-W.9 The HPML Small Dollar Adjustment Calculation Rule memorialized the policy that, if there is no annual percentage increase in the CPI-W, the OCC, the Board, and Bureau will not adjust the exemption threshold from the prior year. The HPML Small Dollar Adjustment Calculation Rule also provided that, in years following a year in which the exemption threshold was not adjusted because there was a decrease in the CPI-W from the previous year, the threshold is calculated by applying the annual percentage change in the CPI-W to the dollar amount that would have resulted, after rounding, if the decreases and any subsequent increases in the CPI-W had been taken into account. If the resulting amount calculated, after rounding, is greater than the current threshold, then the threshold effective January 1 the following year will increase accordingly; if the resulting amount calculated, after rounding, is equal to or less than the current threshold, then the threshold effective January 1 the following year will not change, but future increases will be calculated based on the amount that would have resulted, after rounding.

Effective January 1, 2019, the exemption threshold amount is increased from $26,000 to $26,700. This is based on the CPI-W in effect on June 1, 2018, which was reported on May 10, 2018. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes consumer-based indices monthly, but does not report a CPI change on June 1; adjustments are reported in the middle of the prior month. The CPI-W is a subset of the CPI-U index (based on all urban consumers) and represents approximately 29 percent of the U.S. population. The CPI-W reported on May 10, 2018, reflects a 2.6 percent increase in the CPI-W from April 2017 to April 2018. Accordingly, the 2.6 percent increase in the CPI-W from April 2017 to April 2018 results in an exemption threshold amount of $26,700. The OCC, the Board, and the Bureau are revising the commentaries to their respective regulations to add new comments as follows:

• Comment 203(b)(2)-3.vi to 12 CFR part 34, Appendix C to Subpart G (OCC);

• Comment 43(b)(2)-3.vi to Supplement I of 12 CFR part 226 (Board); and

• Comment 35(c)(2)(ii)-3.vi to Supplement I of 12 CFR part 1026 (Bureau).

These new comments state that, from January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, the threshold amount is $26,700. These revisions are effective January 1, 2019.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if an agency finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.10 The amendments in this rule are technical and apply the method previously set forth in the 2013 Supplemental Proposed Rule 11 and the HPML Small Dollar Adjustment Calculation Rule. For these reasons, the OCC, the Board, and the Bureau have determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, the amendments are adopted in final form.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required.12 As noted previously, the agencies have determined that it is unnecessary to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this joint final rule. Accordingly, the RFA's requirements relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,13 the agencies reviewed this final rule. No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.

The OCC analyzes proposed rules for the factors listed in Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, before promulgating a final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published.14 As discussed above, the OCC has determined that the publication of a general notice of proposed rulemaking is unnecessary.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Bureau 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 the rule taking effect. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has designated this rule as not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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

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

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

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act) increased the threshold in the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA) for exempt consumer leases, and the threshold in the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) for exempt consumer credit transactions,1 from $25,000 to $50,000, effective July 21, 2011.2 In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires that, on and after December 31, 2011, these thresholds be adjusted annually for inflation by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In April 2011, the Board issued a final rule amending Regulation M (which implements the CLA) consistent with these provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, along with a similar final rule amending Regulation Z (which implements TILA) (collectively, the Board Final Threshold Rules).3

Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred rulemaking authority for a number of consumer financial protection laws from the Board to the Bureau, effective July 21, 2011. In connection with this transfer of rulemaking authority, the Bureau issued its own Regulation M implementing the CLA, 12 CFR part 1013, substantially duplicating the Board's Regulation M.4 Although the Bureau has the authority to issue rules to implement the CLA for most entities, the Board retains authority to issue rules under the CLA for certain motor vehicle dealers covered by section 1029(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, and the Board's Regulation M continues to apply to those entities.5

The Board's and the Bureau's regulations,6 and their accompanying commentaries, provide that the exemption threshold will be adjusted annually effective January 1 of each year based on any annual percentage increase in the CPI-W that was in effect on the preceding June 1. They further provide that any increase in the threshold amount will be rounded to the nearest $100 increment. For example, if the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W would result in a $950 increase in the threshold amount, the threshold amount will be increased by $1,000. However, if the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W would result in a $949 increase in the threshold amount, the threshold amount will be increased by $900.7 Since 2011, the Board and the Bureau have adjusted the Regulation M exemption threshold annually, in accordance with these rules.

On November 30, 2016, the Board and the Bureau published a final rule in the Federal Register to memorialize the calculation method used by the agencies each year to adjust the exemption threshold to ensure that, as contemplated by section 1100E(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act, the values for the exemption threshold keep pace with the CPI-W (Regulation M Adjustment Calculation Rule).8 The Regulation M Adjustment Calculation Rule memorialized the policy that, if there is no annual percentage increase in the CPI-W, the Board and Bureau will not adjust the exemption threshold from the prior year. The Regulation M Adjustment Calculation Rule also provided that, in years following a year in which the exemption threshold was not adjusted because there was a decrease in the CPI-W from the previous year, the threshold is calculated by applying the annual percentage change in the CPI-W to the dollar amount that would have resulted, after rounding, if the decreases and any subsequent increases in the CPI-W had been taken into account. If the resulting amount calculated, after rounding, is greater than the current threshold, then the threshold effective January 1 the following year will increase accordingly; if the resulting amount calculated, after rounding, is equal to or less than the current threshold, then the threshold effective January 1 the following year will not change, but future increases will be calculated based on the amount that would have resulted, after rounding.

Effective January 1, 2019, the exemption threshold amount is increased from $55,800 to $57,200. This is based on the CPI-W in effect on June 1, 2018, which was reported on May 10, 2018. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes consumer-based indices monthly, but does not report a CPI change on June 1; adjustments are reported in the middle of the prior month. The CPI-W is a subset of the CPI-U index (based on all urban consumers) and represents approximately 29 percent of the U.S. population. The CPI-W reported on May 10, 2018 reflects a 2.6 percent increase in the CPI-W from April 2017 to April 2018. Accordingly, the 2.6 percent increase in the CPI-W from April 2017 to April 2018 results in an exemption threshold amount of $57,200. The Board and the Bureau are revising the commentaries to their respective regulations to add new comment 2(e)-11.x to state that, from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019, the threshold amount is $57,200. These revisions are effective January 1, 2019.

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

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

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

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Bureau 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 the rule taking effect. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has designated this rule as not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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

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

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act) increased the threshold in the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) for exempt consumer credit transactions,1 and the threshold in the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA) for exempt consumer leases, from $25,000 to $50,000, effective July 21, 2011.2 In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires that, on and after December 31, 2011, these thresholds be adjusted annually for inflation by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In April 2011, the Board issued a final rule amending Regulation Z (which implements TILA) consistent with these provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, along with a similar final rule amending Regulation M (which implements the CLA) (collectively, the Board Final Threshold Rules).3

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

The Board's and the Bureau's regulations,6 and their accompanying commentaries, provide that the exemption threshold will be adjusted annually effective January 1 of each year based on any annual percentage increase in the CPI-W that was in effect on the preceding June 1. They further provide that any increase in the threshold amount will be rounded to the nearest $100 increment. For example, if the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W would result in a $950 increase in the threshold amount, the threshold amount will be increased by $1,000. However, if the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W would result in a $949 increase in the threshold amount, the threshold amount will be increased by $900.7 Since 2011, the Board and the Bureau have adjusted the Regulation Z exemption threshold annually, in accordance with these rules.

On November 30, 2016, the Board and the Bureau published a final rule in the Federal Register to memorialize the calculation method used by the agencies each year to adjust the exemption threshold to ensure that, as contemplated by section 1100E(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act, the values for the exemption threshold keep pace with the CPI-W (Regulation Z Adjustment Calculation Rule).8 The Regulation Z Adjustment Calculation Rule memorialized the policy that, if there is no annual percentage increase in the CPI-W, the Board and Bureau will not adjust the exemption threshold from the prior year. The Regulation Z Adjustment Calculation Rule also provided that, in years following a year in which the exemption threshold was not adjusted because there was a decrease in the CPI-W from the previous year, the threshold is calculated by applying the annual percentage change in the CPI-W to the dollar amount that would have resulted, after rounding, if the decreases and any subsequent increases in the CPI-W had been taken into account. If the resulting amount calculated, after rounding, is greater than the current threshold, then the threshold effective January 1 the following year will increase accordingly; if the resulting amount calculated, after rounding, is equal to or less than the current threshold, then the threshold effective January 1 the following year will not change, but future increases will be calculated based on the amount that would have resulted, after rounding.

Effective January 1, 2019, the exemption threshold amount is increased from $55,800 to $57,200. This is based on the CPI-W in effect on June 1, 2018, which was reported on May 10, 2018. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes consumer-based indices monthly, but does not report a CPI change on June 1; adjustments are reported in the middle of the prior month. The CPI-W is a subset of the CPI-U index (based on all urban consumers) and represents approximately 29 percent of the U.S. population. The CPI-W reported on May 10, 2018 reflects a 2.6 percent increase in the CPI-W from April 2017 to April 2018. Accordingly, the 2.6 percent increase in the CPI-W from April 2017 to April 2018 results in an exemption threshold amount of $57,200. The Board and the Bureau are revising the commentaries to their respective regulations to add new comment 3(b)-3.x to state that, from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019, the threshold amount is $57,200. These revisions are effective January 1, 2019.

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

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

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

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Bureau 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 the rule taking effect. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has designated this rule as not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, A320-212, A320-214, A320-216, A320-231, A320-232, and A320-233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, A321-112, A321-131, A321-211, A321-212, A321-213, A321-231, and A321-232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 16, 2018 (83 FR 16251). The NPRM was prompted by reports of missing assembly hardware on the THSA. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections and checks of the lower and upper THSA attachments and applicable related investigative and corrective actions; a one-time inspection of the THSA lower attachment and replacement as applicable; and, for certain airplanes, activation of the ELSD and concurrent modifications.

We are issuing this AD to address uncontrolled movement of the horizontal stabilizer as a result of the latent (undetected) failure of the THSA's primary load path and consequent loss of 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 Airworthiness Directive 2017-0237, dated December 4, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, A320-212, A320-214, A320-216, A320-231, A320-232, A320-233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, A321-112, A321-131, A321-211, A321-212, A321-213, A321-231, and A321-232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

The unsafe condition is uncontrolled movement of the horizontal stabilizer as a result of the latent (undetected) failure of the THSA's primary load path and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

The required actions include repetitive inspections and checks of the lower and upper THSA attachments and applicable related investigative and corrective actions; a one-time inspection of the THSA lower attachment and replacement as applicable; and, for certain airplanes, activation of the ELSD and concurrent modifications.

Related investigative actions include an inspection of the upper THSA attachment, an inspection of the lower attachment, and a check of the upper and lower clearance between the secondary nut trunnion and the junction plate. Corrective actions include replacement of the THSA and repair.

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-2018-0298.

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.

The Air Line Pilots Association, International, stated its support for the NPRM. United Airlines stated that it has no objection to the NPRM.

Delta Air Lines (DAL) requested that the proposed AD allow operators the opportunity to utilize the latest data and instructions available without the need to request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC). DAL proposed that after each reference made to service information in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (m)(1), and (m)(2) of the proposed AD, the following statement is included:

DAL noted that the service information has been revised multiple times or has been revised within a short period of time. DAL observed that the statement quoted above is based on language used in paragraph (g) of AD 2018-03-12, Amendment 39-19185 (83 FR 5906, February 12, 2018) (“AD 2018-03-12”), and should be considered as standard wording for future ADs, as applicable.

We disagree with the commenter's request. We infer that the commenter is requesting a way for operators to comply with the requirements of an AD by using service information revisions that are issued after an AD is published without having to request an AMOC. We may not refer to any document that does not yet exist. In general terms, we are required by Office of the Federal Register (OFR) regulations for approval of materials “incorporated by reference,” as specified in 1 CFR 51.1(f), to either publish the service document contents as part of the actual AD language; or submit the service document to the OFR for approval as “referenced” material, in which case we may only refer to such material in the text of an AD. The AD may refer to the service document only if the OFR approved it for “incorporation by reference.” See 1 CFR part 51. To allow operators to use later revisions of the referenced document (issued after publication of the AD), either we must revise the AD to reference specific later revisions, or operators must request approval to use later revisions as an AMOC with this AD. However, we may consider approving global AMOCs to allow operators to use future revisions of the service information. We reserve the use of the wording requested by the commenter for situations where no service information is available or a service document, such as an aircraft maintenance manual, cannot be incorporated by reference in an AD. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard.

DAL requested that paragraph (k) of the proposed AD specify only paragraphs 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A27N010-17, Revision 01, dated October 17, 2017, including AOT Appendix_A27N010-17, because, as a whole, the service information contains data that are unrelated to the inspection process. Paragraphs 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 of the service information provide the inspection activities and corrective actions.

We agree with the commenter that the primary instructions for inspection and corrective actions are contained in paragraphs 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 of Airbus AOT A27N010-17, Revision 01, dated October 17, 2017, including AOT Appendix_A27N010-17. We have revised paragraph (k) of this AD to require only paragraphs 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 of Airbus AOT A27N010-17, Revision 01, dated October 17, 2017, including AOT Appendix_A27N010-17. Note that there is relevant information outside of those two paragraphs, such as references to part numbers, aircraft maintenance manual procedures, and an appendix. Procedures outside of paragraphs 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 can be deviated from, using accepted methods provided in an operator's maintenance or inspection program, provided the required AD actions can be done and the airplane can be put back in service in an airworthy condition.

DAL noted that paragraph (o) of the proposed AD provides exceptions to two Airbus service information documents—Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1164, Revision 13, dated August 8, 2016; and Airbus AOT A27N010-17, Revision 01, dated October 17, 2017, including AOT Appendix_A27N010-17, with respect to contacting the manufacturer. DAL proposed that this paragraph be rewritten to state:

We acknowledge the commenter's request to clarify paragraph (o) of this AD. When specifying exceptions to required service information, we are unable to generalize the required documents by stating “any approved method,” as requested by the commenter. We must identify the specific service information. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard.

DAL observed that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1245, Revision 00, dated March 6, 2017, indicates multiple configurations for certain aircraft. As an example, DAL pointed out that aircraft manufacturer serial number (MSN) 118 is shown as both configuration 078 and configuration 082. DAL stated the service information does not provide clear guidance on determining if both or only one set of material/instructions is applicable. DAL requested that the service bulletin be revised to clarify the intent of the multiple configurations and how to address them.

We disagree with the commenter's request to revise the service information; however, we agree to clarify. The referenced service information is adequate because different aircraft configurations can be determined based on the type of placard installed. Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1245, Revision 00, dated March 6, 2017, provides airplane configuration definitions in paragraph 1.A.(5), “Configuration Definition,” of the “Planning Information” section. According to the configuration definition, configuration 078 has placard 33LM PN D11311117A00 installed and configuration 082 has placard 33LM PN 002051-09 installed. Once the placard installation is determined, an operator can follow the instructions based on each respective configuration. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

DAL noted that the Model A319, A320, and A321 THSA system has had a continually complicated maintenance and regulatory history. The THSA system has been subject to numerous ADs throughout the years that address numerous individual shortcomings. The proposed AD encompasses several different aspects (inspections and alterations), yet there are still other regulatory actions such as the replacement of No-Back Brake components or overhaul restrictions, which complicate the operators' maintenance activities. DAL requested that future regulatory actions related to the system be reviewed with a goal of providing a singular, coordinated over-arching regulatory and maintenance requirement.

We agree that there have been several ADs issued on the THSA system addressed in this AD, and we acknowledge the commenter's concerns. We understand that the EASA and the airplane manufacturer are making an effort to combine as many THSA issues as possible into a single rulemaking action to simplify the THSA requirements. In response to their efforts, we may consider additional rulemaking in the future to simplify the THSA requirements. However, at this time, we are issuing this final rule AD to address the specified unsafe condition. No change has been made to this AD in this regard.

Airbus noted that two of the service bulletins referred to in the NPRM were revised and requested that the revised service bulletins be referred to in the final rule. The current revision levels are Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1164, Revision 14, dated January 16, 2018; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1248, Revision 01, dated April 16, 2018.

We agree with the commenter's request. In the NPRM we referred to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1164, Revision 13, dated August 8, 2016; and Service Bulletin A320-27-1248, Revision 00, dated March 6, 2017. Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1164, Revision 14, dated January 16, 2018, includes clarifications regarding reporting inspection results but does not change the proposed reporting requirements of the NPRM and otherwise adds no substantive changes compared with the previous version. Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1248, Revision 01, dated April 16, 2018, clarifies the instructions, but adds no substantive changes compared with the previous version. We have therefore revised the “Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51” paragraph in this final rule to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1164, Revision 14, dated January 16, 2018; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1248, Revision 01, dated April 16, 2018. We have also revised paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), and (o)(1) of this AD to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1164, Revision 14, dated January 16, 2018. In addition, we revised paragraph (m) of this AD to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1248, Revision 01, dated April 16, 2018.

Furthermore, we revised paragraph (s), “Credit for Previous Actions,” of this AD to include Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1164, Revision 13, dated August 8, 2016; and Service Bulletin A320-27-1248, Revision 00, dated March 6, 2017. Specifically, we revised paragraph (s)(1) to provide credit for actions done before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1164, Revision 10, dated March 27, 2014; Revision 11, dated December 15, 2014; Revision 12, dated March 23, 2016; or Revision 13, dated August 8, 2016. We also added paragraph (s)(3) to this AD to provide credit for actions required by paragraph (m)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1248, Revision 00, dated March 6, 2017. We redesignated subsequent paragraphs of this AD accordingly.

Airbus requested that the FAA consider aligning with EASA's decision of superseding affected ADs instead of keeping the obsolete ADs active. We infer that Airbus is requesting that we supersede AD 2007-06-02 and AD 2008-09-16 instead of issuing this stand-alone AD that terminates the requirements of AD 2007-06-02 and AD 2008-09-16.

We acknowledge the commenter's request. Although paragraph (u) of this AD states “Accomplishing the initial actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, and accomplishing the applicable actions required by paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD, terminates all requirements of AD 2007-06-02 and AD 2008-09-16,” it does not supersede those ADs. The purpose of issuing stand-alone AD actions is to reduce the complexity involved with superseding certain ADs. After certain compliance times in this AD have passed, we may consider rescinding AD 2007-06-02 and AD 2008-09-16 since they are terminated by certain actions in this AD. In addition, if we converted this AD to a supersedure, we would need to issue another notice for public comment, which would further delay issuance of this final rule. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this 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.

Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A27N010-17, Revision 01, dated October 17, 2017, including AOT Appendix_A27N010-17. This service information describes the procedure for a one-time general visual inspection of the THSA lower attachment to measure the gap between the THSA lower attachment tab washer and attachment plates and replacement of the THSA lower attachment if the measured gap is less than 0.5 mm. The replacement includes doing an inspection of the THSA parts to confirm the bushing is missing and applicable corrective actions (i.e., repair).

Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A320-27-1164, Revision 14, dated January 16, 2018. This service information describes procedures for a general visual inspection of the upper THSA attachment for correct installation, cracks, damage and metallic particles; a general visual inspection of the lower and upper THSA attachments for correct installation; a check of the clearance between secondary nut trunnions and junction plates and correct installation of the lower THSA attachment; a general visual inspection of the THSA ball screw to check for the absence of dents; and applicable related investigative and corrective actions.

In addition, Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-27-1245, Revision 00, dated March 6, 2017. This service information describes the procedure to modify the wiring provisions for the ELSD.

Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A320-27-1246, Revision 01, dated November 4, 2016. This service information describes the procedures to adapt the wiring provision of the ELSD and THSA to accommodate the correct installation of the ELSD.

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-27-1247, Revision 00, dated March 6, 2017. This service information describes the procedure to modify the upper attachment secondary load path of the THSA to accommodate the correct installation of the ELSD.

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-27-1248, Revision 01, dated April 16, 2018. This service information describes the procedure to activate the ELSD.

UTAS has issued United Technologies Corporation (UTC) Aerospace Systems Repair Instructions RF-DSC-1361-17, Version 00, including Appendix A, dated May 24, 2017. This service information describes the repair instructions to follow if the bushing is missing, as specified in AOT A27N010-17, Revision 01, dated October 17, 2017.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 1,180 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition repairs 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 31, 2018 (83 FR 44514). The NPRM was prompted by defects found during production tests of RAT units; investigation revealed that the defects were due to certain RAT hydraulic pumps having an alternative manufacturing process of the pump pistons. The NPRM proposed to require replacing any defective RAT hydraulic pump with a serviceable part and re-identifying the RAT module part number. We are issuing this AD to address low performance of the pump, which, following a total engine flame-out, or during a total loss of normal electrical power generation, could result in reduced control of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0062, dated March 20, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0764.

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 indicated its support for the NPRM.

We received UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin ERPS06M-29-22, Revision 2, dated May 24, 2018. We referred to UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletins ERPS06M-29-22, dated March 17, 2017; and Revision 1, dated June 27, 2017; as the appropriate sources of service information for identifying certain affected serial numbers and parts therein. Revision 2 of the service information adds Hamilton Sundstrand and Parker hydraulic pump part number (P/N) 5917648 (Parker P/N 4207905) and alternate Hamilton Sundstrand and Parker hydraulic pump P/N 5916485 (Parker P/N 4207903) to table 3 and table 6 for clarification.

We have added UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin ERPS06M-29-22, Revision 2, dated May 24, 2018, to the Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51 section of this AD as an appropriate source of service information. We have also added Revision 2 of the service information to the definitions specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

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.

Airbus SAS has issued Service Bulletins A330-29-3130 and A340-29-4098, both dated May 3, 2017. This service information describes procedures for replacing any affected RAT hydraulic pump with a serviceable part and re-identifying the RAT module part number. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

UTC Aerospace Systems has issued Service Bulletins ERPS06M-29-22, dated March 17, 2017; Revision 1, dated June 27, 2017; and Revision 2, dated May 24, 2018. This service information identifies affected part and serial numbers for the RAT hydraulic pump. These documents are distinct since each one applies to different hydraulic pump part numbers.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 103 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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 certain Zodiac Seats France 536 Series Cabin Attendant Seats. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 22, 2017 (82 FR 60690). The NPRM was prompted by cracks found in a highly concentrated stress area of the seat pan hinges. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the affected cabin attendant seats and, depending on findings, replacement of the seat pan. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2017-0001, dated January 6, 2017 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”) to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0632.

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.

We reviewed Zodiac Seats France Service Bulletin (SB) No. 536-25-003, Rev. 3, dated June 2, 2017. The SB describes procedures for inspection, modification, or replacement of the seat pan of certain model seats known to be installed on ATR 42 and ATR 72 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 55 seat assemblies installed on, but not limited to, ATR 42 and ATR 72 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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 engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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 Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems (also known as Air Cruisers Company) fusible plugs installed on emergency evacuation equipment for various transport category airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2016 (81 FR 81709). The NPRM was prompted by reports indicating that affected fusible plugs activated (vented gas) below the rated temperature. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection of the fusible plugs to determine the part number and lot number, and replacement of all affected fusible plugs.

We subsequently issued a supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) that was published in the Federal Register on January 24, 2018 (83 FR 3283). The SNPRM proposed to extend the compliance time, clarify the applicability, and clarify certain requirements.

We are issuing this AD to address fusible plugs that might activate below the rated temperature and render the evacuation system unusable.

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

Airlines for America (A4A), on behalf of its members, requested that we extend the compliance time specified in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM). A4A stated that the extended compliance time of 42 months after the effective date (in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM)) had an unintended consequence in the re-worded compliance paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM). A4A noted that while the allowance for maintenance records inspection was added, the words “[b]efore further flight” remained. A4A concluded that the current version means that either a planeside finding or a maintenance records discovery will each require action before further flight. A4A stated that while a finding by direct inspection will happen only in a shop and not affect operation of any aircraft, the accommodation for records review could immediately ground an in-service aircraft. A4A requested that we allow 42 months for the replacement if a records review was done.

We agree to revise the compliance time in paragraph (h) of this AD because we have determined that a compliance time of 42 months to replace the affected part addresses the unsafe condition and provides an acceptable level of safety. We have revised paragraph (h) of the AD to specify a 42-month compliance time for the replacement.

All Nippon Airways (ANA) requested that we revise paragraph (c) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) to refer to service information that specifies the serial numbers and not only the part numbers of the affected emergency equipment. ANA stated that identifying affected [parts] by only the part number means that even after expiration of the compliance time specified in the proposed AD, the inspection must be continued every time the affected emergency equipment is purchased. ANA stated that the serial number of the affected emergency equipment should be specified in the service information listed in paragraph (c) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) in order to prevent endless inspections.

We do not agree because specific serial numbers for the affected emergency equipment have not been identified. In addition, since the fusible plugs are rotable we cannot limit the applicability to only the known emergency equipment on which the fusible plugs were initially installed. Therefore, in order to address the identified unsafe condition, all fusible plugs installed on emergency evacuation equipment identified in the service information specified in paragraph (c) of this AD must be inspected as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD. When installing new equipment on an airplane, operators must ensure the newly installed part is not one of the affected parts by complying with the parts installation prohibition specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Southwest Airlines (SWA) and A4A, on behalf of its members, requested that we refer to service information for accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM). SWA stated that the Air Cruisers service bulletins listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(16) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) have steps to inspect for the affected fusible plugs and to remove fusible plugs that are stamped with Lot PA-21 or PA-22. SWA noted that the service bulletins have been incorporated into the various Air Cruisers component maintenance manuals (CMMs). A4A stated that the service bulletins and CMMs specify an inspection for the suspect fusible plug lot numbers and replacement if found.

A4A and SWA also stated that maintenance records would not indicate the level of detail of the fusible plug part numbers and lot numbers installed. SWA stated that the revision of the CMM used to make the components serviceable is noted on FAA Form 8130-3. A4A also stated that access to the fusible plug part number and lot number is not achievable planeside, and noted that the equipment manufacturer recommends the system to be unpacked and inspected in the slide shop. SWA and A4A requested that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) be revised to specify accomplishing the inspection in accordance with the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(16) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) and/or the applicable component maintenance manuals.

We do not agree with revising paragraph (g) of this AD to mandate service information because this AD does not require operators to accomplish the inspection using a specific method. However, we do agree that operators should be aware of the service information that can be used to do the inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD. Therefore, we have added Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD to specify service bulletins and CMMs that provide guidance for performing the inspection. We have redesignated subsequent notes in this AD accordingly.

We also acknowledge the commenters' statement that the records review might not be conclusive. As stated in paragraph (g) of this AD, the records review is allowed only if operators can conclusively determine the part number and lot number. For operators that do not have records that can conclusively determine the part number and lot number, the inspection must be done.

SWA requested that we remove paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM). SWA stated that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) would require immediate removal of the emergency equipment if an inspection or a records review determines an affected part is installed. SWA suggested that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) be deleted because it is unnecessary. SWA stated the emergency equipment must be removed from the aircraft in order to inspect for the affected fusible plug. SWA noted the component maintenance documents do not provide the level of detail of the fusible plug part numbers and lot numbers installed.

We do not agree with removing paragraph (h) of this AD because in order to address the unsafe condition the affected fusible plug must not only be removed but must also be replaced as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard. However, as stated previously, we have revised the compliance time in paragraph (h) of this AD to specify replacing within 42 months instead of requiring immediate action.

SWA requested that we give credit for inspections of the affected fusible plugs previously done per Air Cruisers service bulletins and/or CMMs incorporating the requirements of the Air Cruisers service bulletins.

We agree to clarify. We have not mandated specific service information for accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD; therefore, it is not necessary to give credit for using specific service information. For operators that have already accomplished the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, credit is given as specified in paragraph (f) of this AD, which states to accomplish the required actions within the compliance times specified, “unless already done.” Therefore, if operators have accomplished the actions required for compliance with paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD before the effective date of this AD, no further action is necessary.

A4A, on behalf of its members, requested that we revise paragraph (i) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) to specify that no person may install on any airplane any slide, slide/raft, or off-wing escape system unless the inspection of the fusible plug has been done per the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(16) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) and/or the applicable CMM listed in Air Cruisers Service Information Letter (SIL) 25-246, Rev. No. 2, dated January 24, 2017. A4A stated that paragraph (i) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) does not sufficiently close the door on direct inspection of the plug, which can only be accomplished by unpacking slides and complete disassembly. A4A stated that only the inspection of records (including service bulletin accomplishment information directly stamped on the slide) can reasonably accomplish the intention of the proposed AD in a practical manner.

We do not agree because we have not mandated the service information specified by the commenter. In order to comply with paragraph (i) of this AD, operators must prevent the installation of an affected part on an airplane. Paragraph (i) of this AD does not mandate a specific method for operators to follow to ensure the affected part is not installed. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

A4A, on behalf of its members, requested that we revise the cost estimate. A4A stated that the NPRM assumes one hour of labor per aircraft. A4A noted that because the actions need to be done at an appropriate facility (off wing and often not the operator's own shop), the cost should be per system, and include all facets from uninstalling through reinstallation. A4A stated the operator's actions will consume closer to 4 hours per slide (at $85/hour), with the addition of $500 each way shipping, and the vendor cost (Zodiac's typical billing is $2,900 per slide).

We agree with revising the cost estimate because operators that cannot do a records review will need to remove the affected emergency equipment to accomplish the inspection. We disagree with including the shipping and vendor costs because not all operators will need to ship the equipment in order to do the inspection or records review. We have revised the Costs of Compliance section in this final rule to specify up to 4 work-hours for the inspection.

In paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM), we specified to replace the fusible plug with a new part that does not have P/N B13984-3, stamped with Lot PA-21 or PA-22. However, we have determined that it is not necessary for the replacement part to be a new part. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (h) of this AD to specify to replace the fusible plug with a serviceable fusible plug P/N B13984-3 that is not stamped with Lot PA-21 or PA-22.

We have reviewed Air Cruisers Service Information Letter (SIL) 25-246, Rev. No. 2, dated January 24, 2017, which indicates additional fusible plugs might be affected by the identified unsafe condition. We have determined that to delay this action in order to allow the public to comment on the merits of inspecting the additional fusible plugs would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that inspections must be conducted to ensure continued safety. We are considering additional rulemaking to address additional fusible plugs.

In the Summary of the SNPRM, we noted that Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems was formerly known as Air Cruisers. However, Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems is also known as Air Cruisers Company. For clarity, we have referred to the manufacturer as Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems (also known as Air Cruisers Company) throughout this final rule.

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 SNPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

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

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 the following Air Cruisers service information. The service information identifies the affected fusible plugs. In addition, it describes procedures for inspecting and replacing affected fusible plugs. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models or configurations.

• Air Cruisers Service Bulletin 737 103-25-50, dated August 27, 2010.

• Air Cruisers Service Bulletin 757 105-25-80, dated August 27, 2010.

• Air Cruisers Service Bulletin 757 105-25-81, dated August 27, 2010.

• Air Cruisers Service Bulletin 767 106-25-10, Rev. No. 1, dated October 15, 2010.

• Air Cruisers Service Bulletin 777 107-25-29, Rev. No. 1, dated July 8, 2011.

• Air Cruisers Service Bulletin A300/A310 001-25-19, dated August 27, 2010.

• Air Cruisers Service Bulletin A300/A310 003-25-33, dated August 27, 2010.

• Air Cruisers Service Bulletin A310 002-25-08, dated August 27, 2010.

• Air Cruisers Service Bulletin A320 004-25-87, Rev. No. 2, dated January 7, 2011.

• Air Cruisers Service Bulletin A321 005-25-21, dated August 27, 2010.

• Air Cruisers Service Bulletin BAe 146 201-25-23, dated December 10, 2010.

• Air Cruisers Service Bulletin F28 352-25-02, dated December 10, 2010.

• Air Cruisers Service Bulletin F100 351-25-07, dated December 10, 2010.

• Air Cruisers Service Bulletin Liferaft 35-25-79, dated August 27, 2010.

• Air Cruisers Service Bulletin MD11 305-25-35, dated August 27, 2010.

• Air Cruisers Service Bulletin MD80/90/717 304-25-45, dated August 27, 2010.

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 3,384 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs per slide to do any necessary replacement of the fusible plug that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:

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

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:

1. In this Policy Statement, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) states its policy regarding the treatment of Accumulated Deferred Income Taxes (ADIT) for both accounting and ratemaking purposes as to Commission-jurisdictional public utilities, natural gas pipelines, and oil pipelines, in light of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.1 The Commission also addresses the accounting and ratemaking treatment of ADIT following the sale or retirement of an asset.

2. On December 22, 2017, the President signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, among other things, reduced the federal corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, effective January 1, 2018.2 This means that, beginning January 1, 2018, companies subject to the Commission's jurisdiction will compute income taxes owed to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) based on a 21 percent tax rate. The tax rate reduction will result in less corporate income tax expense going forward.

3. Importantly, the tax rate reduction will also result in a reduction in ADIT liabilities and ADIT assets on the books of rate-regulated companies. ADIT balances are accumulated on the regulated books and records of such regulated companies based on the requirements of the Uniform System of Accounts (USofA).3 ADIT arises from timing differences between the method of computing taxable income for reporting to the IRS and the method of computing income for regulatory accounting and ratemaking purposes.4 As a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reducing the federal corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, a portion of an ADIT liability that was collected from customers will no longer be due from public utilities, natural gas pipelines and oil pipelines to the IRS and is considered excess ADIT.

4. The purpose of tax normalization is to match the tax effects of costs and revenues with the recovery in rates of those same costs and revenues.5 As noted above, timing differences may exist between the method of computing taxable income for reporting to the IRS and the method of computing income for regulatory accounting and ratemaking purposes. The tax effects of these differences are placed in a deferred tax account to be used in later periods when the differences reverse.6

5. The Commission established this policy of tax normalization in Order No. 144 where it required use of “the provision for deferred taxes [(i.e., ADIT)] as a mechanism for setting the tax allowance at the level of current tax cost.” 7 In keeping with this normalization policy, and as relevant to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act's reduction of the federal corporate income tax rate, the Commission in Order No. 144 also required adjustments in the ADIT of public utilities' cost of service when excessive or deficient ADIT has been created as a result of changes in tax rates.8 Furthermore, the Commission required “a rate applicant to compute the income tax component in its cost of service by making provision for any excess or deficiency in its deferred tax reserves resulting . . . from tax rate changes.” 9 The Commission required that such provision be consistent with a Commission-approved ratemaking method made specifically applicable to the rate applicant.10 Where no ratemaking method has been made specifically applicable, the Commission required the rate applicant to advance some method in its next rate case.11 The Commission stated that it would determine the appropriateness of any proposed method on a case-by-case basis, but as the issue is resolved in a number of cases, a method with wide applicability may be adopted.12 The Commission codified the requirements of Order No. 144 in its regulations in 18 CFR 35.24.13

6. Originally promulgated in Order No. 144, the Commission's regulations in 18 CFR 35.24 provide requirements for the proper ratemaking treatment of the tax effects of all transactions for which there are timing differences.14 Under this section, a public utility must account for excess or deficient ADIT when computing the income tax component of its cost of service.15 Additionally, in accounting for this excess or deficient ADIT, a public utility is required to apply the ratemaking method that has been specifically approved by the Commission for that public utility.16 Where no such ratemaking method exists, a public utility may choose which ratemaking method to apply and the reasonableness of that ratemaking method will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the Commission.17

7. Order No. 144 also promulgated the Commission's regulations regarding tax normalization for natural gas pipelines which were originally located in part 2 of the regulations as section 2.202.18 Order No. 144-A redesignated the tax normalization regulations for natural gas pipelines by removing them from part 2 of the Commission's regulations and placing them in part 154.19 Subsequently, Order No. 582 redesignated the regulatory text in that part with respect to natural gas pipelines to its current designation in section 154.305, and made various revisions in that section.20 The section requires a natural gas pipeline making a rate filing under the Natural Gas Act to compute the income tax component of its cost of service by using tax normalization for all transactions.21 More specifically, the section requires natural gas pipelines to reduce rate base by the balances that are properly recordable in USofA Account 281 (Accumulated deferred income taxes—accelerated amortization property), Account 282 (Accumulated deferred income taxes—other property), and Account 283 (Accumulated deferred income taxes—other).22 Conversely, rate base must be increased by balances that are properly recordable in Account 190 (Accumulated deferred income taxes).23 The section also requires natural gas pipelines to compute the income tax component in its cost of service by including a provision for amortizing excess or deficiency in deferred taxes. This is done by applying a Commission-approved ratemaking method made specifically applicable to the natural gas pipeline for determining the cost-of-service provision: (1) If the natural gas pipeline has not provided deferred taxes in the same amount that would have accrued had tax normalization always been applied or (2) if, as a result of changes in tax rates, the accumulated provision for deferred taxes becomes deficient in, or in excess of, amounts necessary to meet future tax liabilities.24 Similar to the tax normalization regulations for public utilities, if the Commission has not approved a specific ratemaking method specifically applicable to the natural gas pipeline, then the natural gas pipeline must use a previously approved ratemaking method.25 The Commission will determine whether such method is appropriate on a case-by-case basis.26

8. Unlike the Commission's regulations applicable to public utilities and natural gas pipelines, there is no tax normalization section under the Commission's regulations for oil pipelines. Instead, the Commission's regulations for oil pipelines under the USofA General Instructions, 1-12 Accounting for Income Taxes, require that when income tax rates are changed, oil pipelines reduce or increase their ADIT balances immediately by the full amount of the excess or deficient tax reserve.27 Specifically, section (b) requires oil pipelines to apply the enacted tax rate in determining the amount of deferred taxes and adjust their deferred tax liabilities and assets for the effect of the change in tax law or rates in the period that the change is enacted.28 The section further requires the adjustment to be recorded in the appropriate deferred tax balance sheet accounts based on the nature of the temporary difference and the related classification requirements of the account.29

9. In Docket No. AI93-5-000, the Chief Accountant issued accounting guidance on the proper accounting for income taxes.30 Among other matters, the accounting guidance directed public utilities and natural gas companies to adjust their deferred tax liabilities and assets for the effect of the change in tax law or rates in the period that the change is enacted.31 The guidance stated that adjustments should be recorded in the appropriate deferred tax balance sheet accounts (Accounts 190, 281, 282 and 283) based on the nature of the temporary difference and the related classification requirements of the accounts.32 Further, if as a result of action by a regulator, it is probable that the future increase or decrease in taxes payable due to the change in tax law or rates will be recovered from or returned to customers through future rates, an asset or liability should be recognized in Account 182.3 (Other Regulatory Assets), or Account 254 (Other Regulatory Liabilities), as appropriate, for that probable future revenue or reduction in future revenue.33

10. Following the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry seeking comments on, among other things, whether, and if so, how, the Commission should address the effects on ADIT of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.34 The Commission noted that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act's reduction to the federal corporate income tax rate would potentially create excess or deficient ADIT on the books of public utilities.35 As relevant to the guidance provided in this Policy Statement, the Commission sought comments on the treatment of ADIT for assets sold or retired after December 31, 2017, and the amortization of excess and deficient ADIT.36

11. This Policy Statement states our requirements regarding the treatment of ADIT in light of the tax rate reduction implemented in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Specifically, we provide guidance regarding: (1) The accounts in which public utilities, natural gas pipelines, and oil companies should record the amortization of excess and/or deficient ADIT for accounting purposes and ratemaking purposes and (2) whether, and if so how, such entities should address excess and/or deficient ADIT that is recorded on the books of public utilities, natural gas pipelines, and oil companies after December 31, 2017, as a result of assets being sold or retired for both accounting and ratemaking purposes.

12. First, we clarify that for both accounting purposes and ratemaking purposes, public utilities and natural gas companies should record the amortization of the excess and/or deficient ADIT recorded in Account 254 (Other Regulatory Liabilities) and/or Account 182.3 (Other Regulatory Assets) by recording the offsetting entries to Account 410.1 (Provision for Deferred Income Taxes, Utility Operating Income) or Account 411.1 (Provision for Deferred Income Taxes—Credit, Utility Operating Income), as required by the USofA. We further clarify that for accounting purposes oil pipelines should adjust their ADIT balances to reflect the change in federal income tax rates with offsetting entries to the appropriate income statement account, as required by the USofA. Accordingly, oil pipeline companies will not record excess or deficient ADIT for accounting purposes. As detailed below, we also clarify that oil pipelines should provide additional disclosures in the Notes that accompany their FERC Form No. 6, Annual Report of Oil Pipeline Companies (Form No. 6).

13. Second, for accounting purposes, we reiterate that public utilities and natural gas pipelines must continue to follow the accounting guidance issued by the Chief Accountant in Docket No. AI93-5-000 with respect to changes in tax law or rates. To ensure transparency in the accounting adjustments to the deferred tax accounts, we clarify that entities should provide additional disclosures in their 2018 FERC annual financial filing within the Notes to the Financial Statements as detailed below.

14. With respect to ratemaking, for a public utility or natural gas pipeline that continues to have an income tax allowance, any excess or deficient ADIT associated with an asset must continue to be amortized in rates even after the sale or retirement of that asset. This excess or deficient ADIT will continue to be refunded to or recovered from ratepayers based on the schedule that was initially established. Similarly, for ratemaking purposes oil pipelines should keep records of excess and deficient ADIT.

15. In the NOI, the Commission sought comment on whether a public utility or natural gas pipeline should record the amortization by recording a reduction to the regulatory asset or regulatory liability account and recording an offsetting entry to Account 407.3 (Regulatory Debits) or Account 407.4 (Regulatory Credits).37 For oil pipelines, the Commission sought comment on whether this information should be recorded in Account 665 (Unusual or Infrequent Items (Debit)) or Account 645 (Unusual or Infrequent Items (Credit)).38

16. Ameren takes issue with the premise of the Commission's question that a separate regulatory liability or asset account is necessary to record excess or deficient ADIT, respectively, arguing that the excess or deficient ADIT should remain in the accounts where they were originally recorded.39 APPA and AMP, along with Indicated Customers, argue that it would be both appropriate and transparent to record the excess ADIT in the same ADIT accounts (e.g., Accounts 190, 282 and 283) where the original entries for the ADIT assets and ADIT liabilities were established, but believe separate regulatory liability and/or asset accounts would also be appropriate.40

On Thursday, November 3, 2016 (81 FR 76325-76330), the Department of Defense (DoD) published a proposed rule titled, “DoD Identity Management” for a 60-day public comment period. When the comment period ended on January 3, 2017, no comments were received.

While in final internal review, it was discovered, based on existing DoD instructions, that only certain retired DoD civilians should be included among the populations eligible for the DS Logon credential as identified in DoD Instruction 1330.17, “DoD Commissary Program,” and DoD Instruction 1330.21, “Armed Services Exchange Regulations.” Only those retired DoD civilians who are eligible for DoD commissary and exchange benefits are eligible for the DS Logon credential. Compliance with existing DoD policy and current instructions required modification of § 221.6(b)(1)(ii) of the final rule, which was amended to read “Eligible retired DoD civilian employees in accordance with DoD Instruction 1330.17, “DoD Commissary Program” (available at http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/133017p.pdf) and DoD Instruction 1330.21, “Armed Services Exchange Regulations” (available at http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/133021p.pdf).” This amendment was made to reflect current Department policy and clarifies that only certain retired DoD civilians (not all retired DoD civlians) are eligible for access to these programs.

This final rule establishes implementation guidelines for DS Logon and describes procedures for obtaining a DS Logon credential. All active duty, National Guard and Reserve, and Commissioned Corps members of the uniformed services must obtain a DS Logon credential when separating from active duty or from the uniformed service. The DS Logon credential is also available to all beneficiaries that are eligible for DoD-related benefits or entitlements to facilitate secure authentication to critical websites, to include members of the uniformed services, veterans with a continuing affiliation to the DoD, spouses, dependent children aged 18 and over, certain retired DoD civilians, surrogates and other eligible individuals. It discusses how credential holders may maintain and update their credentials and manage their personal settings. Finally, it discusses the permissions credential holders have to access their information, who has access to view and edit their information, and who is eligible to act on their behalf.

DoD collects and maintains information on Service members, beneficiaries, DoD employees, and other individuals affiliated with the DoD in order to issue DoD identification (ID) cards that facilitate access to DoD benefits, DoD installations, and DoD information systems. This action formally establishes DoD policy requirements for DS Logon credentials that are used to facilitate logical access to self-service websites. This regulatory action will update the CFR for DoD Manual (DoDM) 1341.02, Volume 1, “DoD Identity Management: DoD Self-Service (DS) Logon Program and Credential.”

The DoD Personal Identity Protection (PIP) Program uses emerging technologies to support the protection of individual identity and to assist with safeguarding DoD physical assets, networks, and systems from unauthorized access based on fraudulent or fraudulently obtained credentials. DEERS is the authoritative data source for identity and verification of affiliation with the DoD in accordance with the DoD PIP Program. Specific authorities are listed below.

• Title 10 U.S.C. 1044a. This section establishes the authority for a Judge Advocate, other members of the armed forces designated by law and regulations, or other eligible persons to have the powers to act as a notary. The persons identified in Title 10 U.S.C. 1044a subsection (b) have the general power of a notary and may notarize a completed and signed DD Form 3005, “Application for Surrogate Association for DoD Self-Service (DS) Logon.”

• DoD Instruction 1000.25, “DoD Personnel Identity Protection (PIP) Program” (available at http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/100025p.pdf). This issuance establishes minimum acceptable criteria for the establishment and confirmation of personal identity and for the issuance of DoD personnel identity verification credentials.

• DoD Instruction 1341.2, “Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) Procedures” (available at http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/134102p.pdf). This issuance establishes DEERS as the authoritative data source for identity and verification of affiliation with the DoD, and benefit eligibility to include medical, dental, and pharmacy.

• Office of Management and Budget M-04-04, “E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies” (available at https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/memoranda/fy04/m04-04.pdf). This memorandum requires agencies to review new and existing electronic transactions to ensure that authentication processes provide the appropriate level of assurance, establishing and describing four levels of identity assurance for electronic transactions requiring authentication.

• 32 CFR part 310. This CFR part established the DoD Privacy Program in accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, and prescribes uniform procedures for the implementation of and compliance with the DoD Privacy Program.

The annual operating costs for the DS Logon program are approximately $1,700,000.00. Based on 6.8 million active users, the cost to the Department per user is about $0.25. This rule is not anticipated to change the population of individuals able to receive a DS Logon account. As part of the proposed rule, DoD requested comments on a new information collection request for this program. No public comment was received. Additional information on the collection can be found in the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this rule.

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. It has been determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. The rule does not: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a section of the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in these Executive Orders.

This final rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2014, that threshold is approximately $141 million. This final rule would not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal governments, nor will it affect private sector costs.

The Department of Defense certifies that this final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

It has been certified that 32 CFR part 221 does impose reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. These requirements have been approved by OMB and assigned OMB Control Number 0704-0559, Application for Surrogate Association for DoD Self-Service (DS) Logon.

Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the National Government and the states, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This final rule will not impose such substantial direct effects.

The California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the California Route 160 Drawbridge over Three Mile Slough, mile 0.1, near Rio Vista, CA The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 12 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw opens on signal as required by 33 CFR 117.5. Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.

The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 7 a.m. on November 26, 2018, through 4 p.m. on November 27, 2018, to allow the bridge owner to perform necessary preventative maintenance and non-destructive testing on the bridge's lift span gear box. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies. The Sacramento River and San Joaquin River can be used as alternate routes for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this safety zone by November 19, 2018, and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule. On November 1, 2018, Reynolds Construction, LLC notified Marine Safety Detachment Nashville that their underwater pipeline construction operations at mile marker 465.2 of the Tennessee River would be ready to commence on November 19, 2018. Reynolds Construction estimates that the work will take 10 weeks, excluding November 22-25, December 8-9, December 22-25, and December 29-January 1.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to respond to potential safety hazards associated with the underwater pipeline construction.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the underwater blasting and pipeline construction will be a safety concern for anyone on a one-mile stretch of the Tennessee River. This rule is necessary to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment during the construction operations.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from mile marker (MM) 465 to MM 466 on the Tennessee River in Chattanooga, TN from 6:30 a.m. on November 19, 2018, through 7:30 p.m. on January 25, 2019. The safety zone will be enforced from 6:30 a.m. through 7:30 p.m. each day, excluding November 22-25, December 8-9, December 22-25, and December 29-January 1. A safety vessel will coordinate all vessel traffic during the enforcement periods. The COTP may terminate enforcement of this rule if the work is finished earlier. The duration of the safety zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment during the construction operations.

No vessel or person is permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of Sector Ohio Valley, U.S. Coast Guard. They may be contacted on VHF Channel 13 or 16, or at 1-800-253-7465. All persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and dates for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. This safety zone prohibits transit on a one-mile stretch of the Tennessee River for about 13 hours, on workdays only, during a ten-week period. The rule also allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule prohibits transit on a one-mile stretch of the Tennessee River for about 13 hours on workdays only during a ten-week period. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone located in 33 CFR 165.845 for the fireworks display from 8:15 p.m. through 9:15 p.m. on December 29, 2018. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Eighth Coast Guard District, § 165.845, specifies the location of the regulated area between mile markers 94 and 95 above Head of Passes on the Lower Mississippi River. If you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the local notice to mariners and marine information broadcasts.

Throughout this document “we,” means the EPA.

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the level of the 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), lowering the primary and secondary standards from the 1997 standard of 65 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 35 µg/m3. On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), the EPA designated three nonattainment areas in Utah for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 µg/m3. These are the Salt Lake City, Utah (UT); Provo, UT; and Logan, UT-Idaho (ID) nonattainment areas. The State of Utah submitted the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 state implementation plan (SIP) on December 16, 2014, to address the requirements under part D of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the Logan UT-ID PM2.5 nonattainment area.

On December 4, 2017 (82 FR 57183), the EPA proposed to approve portions of the December 16, 2014 Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 SIP submittal. Specifically, we proposed to approve:

• The 2010 base year and 2015 projection year emissions inventories;

• The modeled attainment demonstration;

• The RACM/RACT and additional reasonable measure determinations for on-road mobile, including the Cache County I/M Program, off-road mobile, and major stationary sources; and

• The direct PM2.5, nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compound (VOC) MVEBs for 2015 and the MVEB trading mechanism.

Our proposal provides details on the EPA's evaluation of these portions of the State's submittal.

The EPA received seven public comments on the proposed action. After reviewing the comments received, the EPA has determined that the comments, with the exception of a portion of one comment, fall outside the scope of our proposed action or fail to identify any material issue necessitating a response.

A portion of one comment (EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0585-0017) generally alleges that the EPA lacks actual measurements of what agriculture emits in the form of PM2.5, and that agriculture is not a major emitter of PM2.5. The comment states that the data used to develop “the inventory” was based on erroneous emission factors published by “CPA” 1 for cattle feed yards, feed mills, grain elevators, and dust from farmers' field operations; however, according to the comment, there “has never been any actual PM-2.5 emission data taken on agricultural tillage equipment using EPA approved PM-2.5 samplers.” The comment also alleges that “wildfire emissions were not added to the data.”

Assuming that the comment is intended to refer to the emissions inventories that Utah prepared and submitted for the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 SIP and that the EPA proposed to approve, we respond as follows. The comment alleges the use of “erroneous” emission factors without identifying any specific error in the emission factors. Under the SIP Requirements Rule, Utah was not required to run tests on agricultural tillage equipment to develop emissions inventories; instead the requirements for emissions inventories are set forth in 40 CFR 51.1008. See Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements, 81 FR 58010, 58027-33 (Aug. 24, 2016). The comment does not indicate any way in which the inventories fail to meet those requirements. Finally, for the purposes of PM2.5 nonattainment areas such as the Logan, UT-ID area, wildfire emissions are generally accounted for through the EPA's Exceptional Events Rule,2 not through emissions inventories.

For the reasons stated in our proposal, the EPA is finalizing approval of portions of Utah's SIP found at R307-110-10, Section IX Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part A, Fine Particulate Matter for the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area and at SIP Subsection IX.A.23: Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Fine Particulate Matter for the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area. Specifically, we are approving the following portions of the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 SIP submitted by the State on December 16, 2014:

• The 2010 base year and 2015 projection year emissions inventories;

• The modeled attainment demonstration;

• The RACM/RACT and additional reasonable measure demonstrations for on-road mobile, including the Cache County I/M Program, off-road mobile and major stationary sources; and

• The direct PM2.5, nitrogen oxides (NOX) and VOC MVEBs for 2015 and the MVEB trading mechanism.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the approval of portions of the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 Moderate SIP submitted by the State of Utah as discussed in the proposed rule. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the state implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 22, 2019. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: