Federal Register Vol. 83, No.48,

On August 4, 2016, the Bureau issued the Amendments to the 2013 Mortgage Rules Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) and the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) (2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule) amending certain of the Bureau's mortgage servicing rules.1 The Bureau learned, through its outreach in support of industry's implementation of the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, that certain technical aspects of the rule relating to the timing for servicers to transition to providing modified or unmodified periodic statements and coupon books in connection with a consumer's bankruptcy case may create unintended challenges in implementation. To alleviate any unintended challenges, the Bureau issued a proposed rule on October 4, 2017, to address the timing provisions.2 The Bureau is now finalizing the proposed amendments without revision.

Among other things, the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule addresses Regulation Z's periodic statement and coupon book requirements when a person is a debtor in bankruptcy.3 It includes a single-billing-cycle exemption from the requirement to provide a periodic statement or coupon book in certain circumstances after one of several specific triggering events occurs resulting in a servicer needing to transition to or from providing bankruptcy-specific disclosures. The single-billing-cycle exemption applies only if the payment due date for that billing cycle is no more than 14 days after the triggering event. The 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule also includes specific timing requirements for servicers to provide the next modified or unmodified statement or coupon book after the single-billing-cycle exemption has ended.

Based on feedback received regarding implementation of the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, the Bureau understands that certain aspects of the single-billing-cycle exemption and timing requirements may be more complex and operationally challenging than the Bureau realized, and that the relevant provisions may be subject to different interpretations, as discussed more below. The Bureau is therefore issuing this final rule revising § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(B) and (C) and related commentary to replace the single-billing-cycle exemption with a single-statement exemption. This final rule provides a single-statement exemption for the next periodic statement or coupon book that a servicer would otherwise have to provide, regardless of when in the billing cycle the triggering event occurs. The Bureau is adding new comments 41(e)(5)(iv)(B)-1 through -3 to clarify the operation of the single-statement exemption. The Bureau is also removing § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(C) and its related commentary, as they are no longer necessary in light of the changes to § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(B) and its related commentary.

The Bureau believes this final rule provides a clearer and more straightforward standard than the timing requirement adopted in the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, offering greater certainty for implementation and compliance, without unnecessarily disadvantaging consumers.

In August 2016, the Bureau issued the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, which amends certain of the Bureau's mortgage servicing rules in Regulations X and Z.4 Most of these amendments became effective October 19, 2017. Provisions relating to bankruptcy periodic statements and successors in interest become effective April 19, 2018.5

Under existing § 1026.41(a)(2) in Regulation Z, a servicer generally must provide a consumer, for each billing cycle, a periodic statement meeting certain requirements. Existing § 1026.41(e)(5) provides a blanket exemption from § 1026.41 for a mortgage loan while a consumer is a debtor in bankruptcy under title 11 of the United States Code. The 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, however, generally limits this exemption to only certain consumers in bankruptcy.6 When a consumer either is a debtor in bankruptcy under title 11 of the United States Code or has discharged personal liability for the mortgage loan pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 727, 1141, 1228, or 1328, so long as an exemption under § 1026.41(e) does not otherwise apply, the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule requires a servicer to provide a periodic statement or coupon book with certain bankruptcy-specific modifications. In these circumstances, once a consumer enters bankruptcy, a servicer must transition from providing unmodified periodic statements or coupon books to providing periodic statements or coupon books with bankruptcy modifications. Similarly, when a consumer exits bankruptcy, a servicer generally must transition back to providing unmodified periodic statements or coupon books.

To allow servicers time to make this transition in their systems, the Bureau finalized a single-billing-cycle exemption in the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule.7 Section 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(B) in the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule provides that a servicer is exempt from the requirements of § 1026.41 with respect to a single billing cycle when the payment due date for that billing cycle is no more than 14 days after the date on which one of the three triggering events listed under § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(A) occurs: (1) A mortgage loan becomes subject to the requirement to provide a modified periodic statement; (2) a mortgage loan ceases to be subject to the requirement to provide a modified periodic statement; or (3) the servicer ceases to qualify for an exemption pursuant to § 1026.41(e)(5)(i). Section 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(C) sets forth the timeframe within which a servicer must provide the next periodic statement after an event listed in § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(A) occurs.8

Since issuing the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, the Bureau received questions indicating that the single-billing-cycle exemption may be more complex and operationally challenging than the Bureau realized, and that the provisions setting forth the exemption and transition timing requirements may be subject to different interpretations. The Bureau therefore proposed to replace the single-billing-cycle exemption with a single-statement exemption, which the Bureau believed would be a clearer and more straightforward standard.

The Bureau has supported implementation of the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule by providing an updated compliance guide, other implementation aids, a technical corrections final rule,9 an interim final rule related to timing for certain early intervention notices,10 policy guidance regarding early compliance,11 and informal guidance in response to regulatory inquiries. Information regarding the Bureau's implementation support initiative and available implementation resources can be found on the Bureau's regulatory implementation website at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/guidance/implementation-guidance/mortserv/. The Bureau continues to facilitate industry's implementation progress, including by responding to informal guidance inquiries and publishing additional implementation materials, as appropriate. Based on its ongoing outreach, the Bureau believes that industry has made substantial implementation progress regarding the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule.

The Bureau also learned, through its outreach in support of industry's implementation of the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, that certain technical aspects of the rule relating to the timing for servicers to transition to providing modified or unmodified periodic statements and coupon books in connection with a consumer's bankruptcy case may create unintended challenges in implementation. As a result, and to alleviate any unintended challenges, the Bureau issued a proposed rule on October 4, 2017, published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2017, to address the timing provisions.12 The comment period on the proposed rule ended on November 17, 2017. The Bureau received ten comments, including seven from industry trade associations, two from individual consumers, and one from consumer advocacy groups. As discussed in more detail below, the Bureau has considered these comments in adopting this final rule.

The Bureau is finalizing this rule pursuant to its authority under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) 13 and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act),14 including the authorities discussed below. In general, the provisions in this final rule amend certain provisions previously adopted by the Bureau in the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule. In doing so, the Bureau relied on one or more of the authorities discussed below, as well as other authority. The Bureau is issuing this final rule in reliance on the same authority and for the same reasons relied on in adopting the relevant provisions of the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, as discussed in detail in the Legal Authority and Section-by-Section Analysis parts of the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule.

Section 105(a) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1604(a), authorizes the Bureau to prescribe regulations to carry out the purposes of TILA. Under section 105(a), such regulations may contain such additional requirements, classifications, differentiations, or other provisions, and may provide for such adjustments and exceptions for all or any class of transactions, as in the judgment of the Bureau are necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of TILA, to prevent circumvention or evasion thereof, or to facilitate compliance therewith. Under section 102(a), 15 U.S.C. 1601(a), the purposes of TILA are to assure a meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various available credit terms and avoid the uninformed use of credit and to protect the consumer against inaccurate and unfair credit billing practices. For the reasons discussed in this document, the Bureau is adopting these amendments to Regulation Z to carry out TILA's purposes and such additional requirements, adjustments, and exceptions as, in the Bureau's judgment, are necessary and proper to carry out the purposes of TILA, prevent circumvention or evasion thereof, or to facilitate compliance therewith.

Section 105(f) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1604(f), authorizes the Bureau to exempt from all or part of TILA any class of transactions if the Bureau determines that TILA coverage does not provide a meaningful benefit to consumers in the form of useful information or protection. For the reasons discussed herein, the Bureau is finalizing the amendments relating to exemptions for certain transactions from the requirements of TILA pursuant to its authority under section 105(f) of TILA.

This final rule also includes amendments to the official Bureau commentary in Regulation Z. Good faith compliance with the interpretations would afford protection from liability under section 130(f) of TILA.

Section 1022(b)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(1), authorizes the Bureau to prescribe rules “as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer financial laws, and to prevent evasions thereof.” TILA and title X of the Dodd-Frank Act are Federal consumer financial laws.

Section 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5532(a), provides that the Bureau “may prescribe rules to ensure that the features of any consumer financial product or service, both initially and over the term of the product or service, are fully, accurately, and effectively disclosed to consumers in a manner that permits consumers to understand the costs, benefits, and risks associated with the product or service, in light of the facts and circumstances.” The authority granted to the Bureau in section 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act is broad and empowers the Bureau to prescribe rules regarding the disclosure of the “features” of consumer financial products and services generally. Accordingly, the Bureau may prescribe rules containing disclosure requirements even if other Federal consumer financial laws do not specifically require disclosure of such features.

Section 1032(c) of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5532(c), provides that, in prescribing rules pursuant to section 1032 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau “shall consider available evidence about consumer awareness, understanding of, and responses to disclosures or communications about the risks, costs, and benefits of consumer financial products or services.” Accordingly, in proposing to amend provisions authorized under section 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau has considered available studies, reports, and other evidence about consumer awareness, understanding of, and responses to disclosures or communications about the risks, costs, and benefits of consumer financial products or services.

As finalized in the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(B) set forth a single-billing-cycle exemption from the requirement to provide a periodic statement or coupon book in certain circumstances after one of several specific triggering events occurs; and § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(C) established timing requirements for resuming compliance after that exemption. The Bureau proposed to revise § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(B) and related commentary, and to remove § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(C) and related commentary. Instead of a single-billing-cycle exemption, proposed § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(B) would have provided a single-statement exemption for the next periodic statement or coupon book that a servicer would otherwise have to provide following a triggering event, regardless of when in the billing cycle the triggering event occurs. Proposed comments 41(e)(5)(iv)(B)-1 through -3 would have clarified how the single-statement exemption would operate in specific circumstances. For the reasons discussed below, the Bureau is finalizing § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(B) and related commentary as proposed, and is removing § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(C) and related commentary, as proposed.

The Bureau received ten comments on the proposal, including seven from industry trade associations, two from individual consumers, and one from consumer advocacy groups. All comments addressing the substance of the proposal supported replacing the single-billing-cycle exemption with the proposed single-statement exemption. Several industry trade association commenters stated that the proposed changes would simplify implementation or improve compliance. They stated, for example, that the proposed single-statement exemption was clearer and more straightforward than the single-billing-cycle exemption, or that the proposed single-statement exemption would vastly reduce the complexity of compliance. The consumer advocacy groups and two consumer commenters also expressed general support for the proposal. One industry trade association supporting the proposal also suggested that the Bureau clarify in commentary that a servicer would not violate proposed § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(B) by providing a periodic statement or coupon book while the single-statement exemption applies, and that the servicer would not be required to correct such a statement. The Bureau also received several comments from industry trade associations that requested amendments to aspects of the periodic statement requirements other than the timing requirements addressed in the proposal, as discussed further below.

The Bureau is adopting § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(B) and related commentary as proposed. As finalized, § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(B) provides that, as of the date on which one of the triggering events listed in § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(A) occurs, a servicer is exempt from the requirements of § 1026.41 with respect to the next periodic statement or coupon book that would otherwise be required but thereafter must provide modified or unmodified periodic statements or coupon books that comply with the requirements of this section. Comments 41(e)(5)(iv)(B)-1 through -3 describe how the single-statement exemption operates in specific circumstances. Comment 41(e)(5)(iv)(B)-1 explains that the exemption applies with respect to a single periodic statement or coupon book following an event listed in § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(A) and provides two examples illustrating the timing. Both examples assume that a mortgage loan has a monthly billing cycle, each payment due date is on the first day of the month following its respective billing cycle, and each payment due date has a 15-day courtesy period.

Comment 41(e)(5)(iv)(B)-1.i explains that, if an event listed in § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(A) occurs on October 6, before the end of the 15-day courtesy period provided for the October 1 payment due date, and the servicer has not yet provided a periodic statement or coupon book for the billing cycle with a November 1 payment due date, the servicer is exempt from providing a periodic statement or coupon book for that billing cycle. The servicer is required thereafter to resume providing periodic statements or coupon books that comply with the requirements of § 1026.41 by providing a modified or unmodified periodic statement or coupon book for the billing cycle with a December 1 payment due date within a reasonably prompt time after November 1 or the end of the 15-day courtesy period provided for the November 1 payment due date.

Comment 41(e)(5)(iv)(B)-1.ii provides an example for when a servicer already timely provided a periodic statement or coupon book for a billing cycle in which an event listed in § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(A) occurs. It provides that, if an event listed in § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(A) occurs on October 20, after the end of the 15-day courtesy period provided for the October 1 payment due date, and the servicer timely provided a periodic statement or coupon book for the billing cycle with a November 1 payment due date, the servicer is not required to correct the periodic statement or coupon book already provided and is exempt from providing the next periodic statement or coupon book, which is the one that would otherwise be required for the billing cycle with a December 1 payment due date. The servicer is required thereafter to resume providing periodic statements or coupon books that comply with the requirements of § 1026.41 by providing a modified or unmodified periodic statement or coupon book for the billing cycle with a January 1 payment due date within a reasonably prompt time after December 1 or the end of the 15-day courtesy period provided for the December 1 payment due date.

Because comments 41(e)(5)(iv)(B)-1.i and -1.ii describe when a servicer must provide periodic statements or coupon books following the exemption, § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(C) and related commentary are unnecessary. The Bureau is removing § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(C) and related commentary.

The Bureau is also adopting as proposed comments 41(e)(5)(iv)(B)-2 and -3 to clarify how the single-statement exemption would operate in additional specific circumstances. Comment 41(e)(5)(iv)(B)-2 states that, if a servicer provides a coupon book instead of a periodic statement under § 1026.41(e)(3), § 1026.41 requires the servicer to provide a new coupon book after one of the events listed in § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(A) occurs only to the extent the servicer has not previously provided the consumer with a coupon book that covers the upcoming billing cycle. Comment 41(e)(5)(iv)(B)-3 clarifies that the single-statement exemption in § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(B) might apply more than once over the life of a loan. For example, assume the exemption applies beginning on April 14 because the consumer files for bankruptcy on that date and the bankruptcy plan provides that the consumer will surrender the dwelling, such that the mortgage loan becomes subject to the requirements of § 1026.41(f). If the consumer later exits bankruptcy on November 2 and has not discharged personal liability for the mortgage loan pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 727, 1141, 1228, or 1328, such that the mortgage loan ceases to be subject to the requirements of § 1026.41(f), the single-statement exemption would apply again beginning on November 2.

The Bureau believes that these amendments will provide a clearer and more straightforward standard than the timing requirement finalized in the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule. The Bureau anticipates that the amendments will offer greater certainty for implementation and compliance, without unnecessarily disadvantaging consumers.

The Bureau declines to adopt one commenter's recommendation to clarify in commentary that a servicer does not violate § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(B) by providing a periodic statement or coupon book while the single-statement exemption applies. This clarification is unnecessary because Regulation Z does not prohibit a servicer from providing a periodic statement or coupon book while the single-statement exemption applies. The Bureau notes, however, that servicers choosing to provide a periodic statement or coupon book while an exemption applies should provide accurate disclosures and comply with other applicable laws. The Bureau also notes that § 1026.41 does not prohibit servicers from adding language to a periodic statement or coupon book that may be helpful in limiting any potential liability.

As stated above, the Bureau also received several comments from industry trade associations that requested amendments to aspects of the periodic statement requirements other than the timing requirements addressed in the proposal. For example, one industry trade association recommended expanding the small servicer exemption set forth in § 1024.41(e)(4). Another suggested that, when a consumer files a chapter 12 or 13 bankruptcy case, the servicer should be exempt from providing bankruptcy-specific periodic statements or coupon books under § 1026.41(f) until the consumer's bankruptcy plan is confirmed. The Bureau's proposal did not address the small servicer exemption, nor did it raise the question whether the periodic-statement requirement should apply only after a plan is confirmed in chapter 12 or 13 bankruptcies. Because these comments are beyond the scope of the proposal, the Bureau declines to adopt their recommendations.

One industry trade association also requested that the Bureau include language in the final rule that could help insulate a servicer that is unable to suppress a periodic statement when an exemption applies. The commenter stated that events triggering an exemption sometimes occur near-in-time to when a servicer is scheduled to provide the periodic statement. The commenter indicated that, because servicers sometimes do not learn of the triggering events in real-time, a servicer might provide a periodic statement containing inaccurate information. The commenter stated that this could be particularly problematic if the servicer provides a standard periodic statement to a consumer who has recently filed for bankruptcy, instead of a periodic statement containing bankruptcy-specific disclosures and disclaimers under § 1026.41.

This recommendation broaches issues beyond the narrow timing requirements addressed in the proposal, and the Bureau is not adopting it. To the extent servicers are concerned about exposure to liability for providing a periodic statement that becomes inaccurate before it reaches the consumer, the Bureau notes that Regulation Z does not prohibit a servicer from adding language that may be helpful in limiting any potential liability. Further, the Bureau learned during outreach before issuing the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Rule that servicers often learn of new bankruptcy filings, important case activity, and case closings quickly, usually within approximately a day.15 Although some servicers may manually review bankruptcy filings,16 which may take longer, the Bureau believes that a servicer would typically learn of a consumer's bankruptcy filing with enough time to suppress periodic statements and make use of the single-statement exemption.

Regulation Z § 1026.41(e)(5), as amended by the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, becomes effective April 19, 2018, along with the rest of the Regulation Z bankruptcy-specific periodic statement requirements. Thus, the Bureau proposed an April 19, 2018, effective date for the proposed revisions to § 1024.41(e)(5)(iv).

One commenter requested that the Bureau postpone the effective date of all the provisions relating to bankruptcy periodic statements in both the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule and this final rule.17 This comment is beyond the scope of the proposal, and the Bureau did not receive any comments requesting that the Bureau extend the effective date of only the proposed revisions to § 1024.41(e)(5)(iv).

The Bureau is adopting, as proposed, an April 19, 2018, effective date for this final rule and believes that there is no need to delay the effective date of this final rule. The Bureau believes that the revisions to § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv) would not require substantial reprogramming of systems by industry. The Bureau also believes it is issuing this final rule with sufficient time before the April 19, 2018, effective date to enable servicers to meet the requirements of the final rule.

In developing this final rule, the Bureau considered the potential benefits, costs, and impacts as required by section 1022(b)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act. Specifically, section 1022(b)(2) calls for the Bureau to consider the potential benefits and costs of a regulation to consumers and covered persons, including the potential reduction of consumer access to consumer financial products or services, the impact on depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets as described in section 1026 of the Dodd-Frank Act, and the impact on consumers in rural areas. In addition, 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(2)(B) directs the Bureau to consult, before and during the rulemaking, with appropriate prudential regulators or other Federal agencies, regarding consistency with the objectives those agencies administer. The Bureau consulted, or offered to consult with, the prudential regulators, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the HUD Office of Inspector General, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, including regarding consistency with any prudential, market, or systemic objectives administered by these agencies.

The Bureau previously considered the benefits, costs, and impacts of the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule's major provisions.18 The baseline 19 for this discussion is the mortgage servicing market as it would exist “but for” this final rule; that is, the Bureau considered the benefits, costs, and impacts of this final rule on consumers and covered persons relative to the baseline established by the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule.

In considering the relevant potential benefits, costs, and impacts of this final rule, the Bureau reviewed the comments received and has applied its knowledge and expertise concerning consumer financial markets. The discussion below of these potential costs, benefits, and impacts is qualitative, reflecting both the specialized nature of the final amendments and the fact that the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, which establishes the baseline for the Bureau's analysis, is not yet in effect.

The Bureau requested comment on the discussion of costs, benefits, and impacts in the preamble to the proposed rule as well as the submission of data or other information that could inform the Bureau's consideration of the potential benefits, costs, and impacts of this final rule. The Bureau did not receive any such comments, data, or other information.

This final rule seeks to decrease burden incurred by industry participants by clarifying the timing requirements for certain disclosures required under the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule. As is described in more detail below, the Bureau does not believe that these changes will have a significant enough impact on consumers or covered persons to affect consumer access to consumer financial products and services.

A mortgage servicer generally must provide a consumer, for each billing cycle, a periodic statement or coupon book meeting certain requirements. Under the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, servicers generally must provide a modified periodic statement or coupon book to certain consumers who are debtors in bankruptcy or who have discharged personal liability for the mortgage loan. The Bureau is amending § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv), as proposed, to provide that, when a servicer must transition to sending either modified periodic statements or to sending unmodified periodic statements, the servicer is exempt from the requirements of § 1026.41 with respect to the next periodic statement or coupon book that would otherwise be required but thereafter must provide modified or unmodified periodic statements or coupon books that comply with the requirements of § 1026.41. This single-statement exemption replaces the single-billing-cycle exemption in the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule.

The Bureau expects that these changes will reduce the cost to servicers of providing periodic statements. The Bureau understands, based on comments received in response to the proposed rule and through other industry outreach that implementing the single-billing-cycle exemption provided under the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Rule might have proved more complex and operationally challenging for servicers than the Bureau realized and believes that a single-statement exemption will be clearer and operationally easier to implement. In addition, the single-billing-cycle exemption would have applied only when the payment due date falls no more than 14 days after the event that triggers the transition to or from modified periodic statements, whereas the final single-statement exemption will apply to these transitions regardless of when during the billing cycle the triggering event occurs. The Bureau believes that servicers will benefit from the more straightforward single-statement exemption standard and from the additional time afforded for some transitions.

Relative to the baseline established by the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, the final rule could sometimes afford servicers a longer exemption than the standard provided in the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule. As a result, the final rule might extend the period of time some consumers go without receiving any periodic statement or coupon book, which could disadvantage those consumers. However, any such delay would generally be at most one billing cycle, and servicers generally are required to provide consumers the information in periodic statements on request. Thus, the Bureau does not expect that the overall effect on consumers will be significant, and there is no basis to believe that these changes will have a significant enough impact on consumers or covered persons to affect consumer access to consumer financial products and services.

Potential specific impacts of the final rule. The Bureau believes that a large fraction of depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets that are engaged in servicing mortgage loans qualify as “small servicers” for purposes of the mortgage servicing rules because they service 5,000 or fewer loans, all of which they or an affiliate own or originated. The Bureau has estimated that 96 percent of insured depositories and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets service 5,000 mortgage loans or fewer.20 Small servicers are not subject to Regulation Z § 1026.41, and so are not affected by the amendments in this final rule.

With respect to servicers that are not small servicers as defined in § 1026.41(e)(4), the Bureau believes that the consideration of benefits and costs of covered persons presented above provides an accurate analysis of the impacts of the final rule on depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets that are engaged in servicing mortgage loans.

The Bureau requested comment regarding the impact of the proposed provisions in rural areas and how those impacts may differ from those experienced by consumers generally. After careful consideration of the comments received and based on the Bureau's knowledge and expertise concerning consumer financial markets, the Bureau has no reason to believe that the additional timing flexibility offered to covered persons by this final rule will differentially impact consumers in rural areas.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act,21 as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,22 (RFA) requires each agency to consider the potential impact of its regulations on small entities, including small businesses, small governmental units, and small not-for-profit organizations.23 The RFA defines a “small business” as a business that meets the size standard developed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) pursuant to the Small Business Act.24

The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of any rule subject to notice-and- comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.25 The Bureau also is subject to certain additional procedures under the RFA involving the convening of a panel to consult with small entity representatives prior to proposing a rule for which an IRFA is required.26

As discussed above, the final rule amends certain Regulation Z mortgage servicing rules issued in 2016 relating to the timing for servicers to transition to providing modified or unmodified periodic statements and coupon books under Regulation Z in connection with a consumer's bankruptcy case.

When the Bureau issued the proposed rule that was finalized as the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, it concluded that those provisions would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and that an IRFA was therefore not required.27 That conclusion remained unchanged for the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule.28

Similarly, when the Bureau issued the proposed rule in this rulemaking, it concluded that the proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and that an IRFA was therefore not required.29 For the same reasons, the Bureau concludes that this final rule, as adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and therefore a FRFA is not required. As discussed above, the Bureau expects that this final rule will reduce costs to servicers, including small entities, of providing periodic statements. In addition, the final amendments do not affect servicers that are “small servicers” for purposes of the mortgage servicing rules. Small servicers are exempt from the requirements that the final rule would amend, and the Bureau believes that a large fraction of small entities that are engaged in servicing mortgage loans qualify as small servicers because they service 5,000 or fewer loans, all of which they or an affiliate own or originated. Therefore, a FRFA is not required for this final rule.

Accordingly, the undersigned certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),30 Federal agencies are generally required to seek Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for information collection requirements prior to implementation. Further, the Bureau may not conduct or sponsor an information collection unless the OMB approves the collection under the PRA and the information collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information if the collection instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control number. The collections of information related to the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule have been reviewed and approved by OMB previously in accordance with the PRA and assigned OMB Control Numbers 3170-0016 (Regulation X) and 3170-0015 (Regulation Z).

The Bureau has determined that this final rule will provide firms with additional flexibility and clarity with respect to what must be disclosed under the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule. It does not materially change the underlying information collections in terms of who is responding or when they must provide the disclosures. Additionally the Bureau believes this will have de minimis impact on the reported PRA burden for this collection.

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's published effective date. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated this rule as not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The substance of these special conditions previously has been published in the Federal Register for public comment. These special conditions have been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary, and finds that, for the same reason, good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register.

The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above. We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

On August 19, 2009, Mitsubishi applied for a type certificate for their new Model MRJ-200 airplane. The Model MRJ-200 airplane is a low-wing, conventional-tail design with two wing-mounted turbofan engines. The airplane is equipped with an electronic flight-control system, has seating for 96 passengers and a maximum takeoff weight of 98,800 lbs.

Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Mitsubishi must show that the Model MRJ-200 airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-141; part 36, as amended by Amendments 36-1 through 36-30; and part 34, as amended by Amendments 34-1 through the amendment effective at the time of design approval.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model MRJ-200 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model MRJ-200 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17.

The Model MRJ-200 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

Electronic flight-control systems and stability-augmentation systems that may affect the structural performance of the airplane.

The MRJ-200 airplane is equipped with systems that directly or as a result of failure or malfunction, affect its structural performance. Current regulations do not take into account the effects of systems on structural performance including normal operation and failure conditions. Special conditions are needed to account for these features. These special conditions define criteria to be used in the assessment of the effects of these systems on structures. The general approach of accounting for the effect of system failures on structural performance is extended to include any system in which partial or complete failure, alone or in combination with other system partial or complete failures, would affect structural performance.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

These special conditions are similar to those previously applied to other airplane models.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to Model MRJ-200 airplanes. Should Mitsubishi apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Mitsubishi Model MRJ-200 airplanes.

For airplanes equipped with systems that affect structural performance, either directly or as a result of a failure or malfunction, the influence of these systems and their failure conditions must be taken into account when showing compliance with the requirements of 14 CFR part 25, subparts C and D.

The following criteria must be used for showing compliance with these special conditions for airplanes equipped with flight-control systems, autopilots, stability-augmentation systems, load-alleviation systems, flutter-control systems, fuel-management systems, and other systems that either directly, or as a result of failure or malfunction, affect structural performance. If these special conditions are used for other systems, it may be necessary to adapt the criteria to the specific system.

1. The criteria defined herein only address the direct structural consequences of the system responses and performance. They cannot be considered in isolation, but should be included in the overall safety evaluation of the airplane. These criteria may, in some instances, duplicate standards already established for this evaluation. These criteria are only applicable to structure the failure of which could prevent continued safe flight and landing. Specific criteria that define acceptable limits on handling characteristics or stability requirements, when operating in the system degraded or inoperative mode, are not provided in these special conditions.

2. Depending upon the specific characteristics of the airplane, additional studies that go beyond the criteria provided in these special conditions may be required to demonstrate the airplane's capability to meet other realistic conditions, such as alternative gust or maneuver descriptions for an airplane equipped with a load-alleviation system.

3. The following definitions are applicable to these special conditions.

a. Structural performance: Capability of the airplane to meet the structural requirements of 14 CFR part 25.

b. Flight limitations: Limitations that can be applied to the airplane flight conditions following an in-flight occurrence, and that are included in the airplane flight manual (e.g., speed limitations, avoidance of severe weather conditions, etc.).

c. Operational limitations: Limitations, including flight limitations, that can be applied to the airplane operating conditions before dispatch (e.g., fuel, payload and master minimum-equipment list limitations).

d. Probabilistic terms: Terms such as probable, improbable, and extremely improbable, as used in these special conditions, are the same as those used in § 25.1309.

e. Failure condition: This term is the same as that used in § 25.1309. However, these special conditions apply only to system-failure conditions that affect the structural performance of the airplane (e.g., system-failure conditions that induce loads, change the response of the airplane to inputs such as gusts or pilot actions, or lower flutter margins).

The following criteria will be used in determining the influence of a system and its failure conditions on the airplane structure.

1. System fully operative. With the system fully operative, the following apply:

a. Limit loads must be derived in all normal operating configurations of the system from all the limit conditions specified in 14 CFR part 25, subpart C (or defined by special conditions or equivalent level of safety in lieu of those specified in subpart C), taking into account any special behavior of such a system or associated functions, or any effect on the structural performance of the airplane that may occur up to the limit loads. In particular, any significant nonlinearity (rate of displacement of control surface, thresholds, or any other system nonlinearities) must be accounted for in a realistic or conservative way when deriving limit loads from limit conditions.

b. The airplane must meet the strength requirements of 14 CFR part 25 (static strength, residual strength), using the specified factors to derive ultimate loads from the limit loads defined above. The effect of nonlinearities must be investigated beyond limit conditions to ensure that the behavior of the system presents no anomaly compared to the behavior below limit conditions. However, conditions beyond limit conditions need not be considered when it can be shown that the airplane has design features that will not allow it to exceed those limit conditions.

c. The airplane must meet the aeroelastic stability requirements of § 25.629.

2. System in the failure condition. For any system-failure condition not shown to be extremely improbable, the following apply:

a. At the time of occurrence. Starting from 1g level flight conditions, a realistic scenario, including pilot corrective actions, must be established to determine the loads occurring at the time of failure and immediately after the failure.

i. For static-strength substantiation, these loads, multiplied by an appropriate factor of safety that is related to the probability of occurrence of the failure, are ultimate loads to be considered for design. The factor of safety is defined in Figure 1, below.

ii. For residual-strength substantiation, the airplane must be able to withstand two-thirds of the ultimate loads defined in special condition 2.a.i. For pressurized cabins, these loads must be combined with the normal operating differential pressure.

iii. Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to the speeds defined in § 25.629(b)(2). For failure conditions that result in speeds beyond VC/MC, freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown to increased speeds, so that the margins intended by § 25.629(b)(2) are maintained.

iv. Failures of the system that result in forced structural vibrations (oscillatory failures) must not produce loads that could result in detrimental deformation of primary structure.

b. For the continuation of the flight. For the airplane in the system-failed state, and considering any appropriate reconfiguration and flight limitations, the following apply:

i. The loads derived from the following conditions (or used in lieu of the following conditions) at speeds up to VC/MC (or the speed limitation prescribed for the remainder of the flight) must be determined:

1. The limit symmetrical maneuvering conditions specified in §§ 25.331 and 25.345.

2. the limit gust and turbulence conditions specified in §§ 25.341 and 25.345.

3. the limit rolling conditions specified in § 25.349, and the limit unsymmetrical conditions specified in §§ 25.367, and 25.427(b) and (c).

4. the limit yaw-maneuvering conditions specified in § 25.351.

5. the limit ground-loading conditions specified in §§ 25.473 and 25.491.

ii. For static-strength substantiation, each part of the structure must be able to withstand the loads in special condition 2.b.i., multiplied by a factor of safety depending on the probability of being in this failure state. The factor of safety is defined in Figure 2, below.

iii. For residual-strength substantiation, the airplane must be able to withstand two-thirds of the ultimate loads defined in special condition 2.b.ii. For pressurized cabins, these loads must be combined with the normal operating differential pressure.

iv. If the loads induced by the failure condition have a significant effect on fatigue or damage tolerance, then their effects must be taken into account.

v. Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to a speed determined from Figure 3, below. Flutter clearance speeds V′ and V″ may be based on the speed limitation specified for the remainder of the flight using the margins defined by § 25.629(b).

vi. Freedom from aeroelastic instability must also be shown up to V′ in Figure 3, above, for any probable system-failure condition, combined with any damage required or selected for investigation by § 25.571(b).

c. Consideration of certain failure conditions may be required by other sections of 14 CFR part 25 regardless of calculated system reliability. Where analysis shows the probability of these failure conditions to be less than 10−9 per flight hour, criteria other than those specified in this paragraph may be used for structural substantiation to show continued safe flight and landing.

3. Failure indications. For system-failure detection and indication, the following apply:

a. The system must be checked for failure conditions, not extremely improbable, that degrade the structural capability below the level required by part 25, or that significantly reduce the reliability of the remaining system. As far as reasonably practicable, the flightcrew must be made aware of these failures before flight. Certain elements of the control system, such as mechanical and hydraulic components, may use special periodic inspections, and electronic components may use daily checks, in lieu of detection and indication systems, to achieve the objective of this requirement. These certification-maintenance requirements must be limited to components that are not readily detectable by normal detection-and-indication systems, and where service history shows that inspections will provide an adequate level of safety.

b. The existence of any failure condition, not extremely improbable, during flight, that could significantly affect the structural capability of the airplane, and for which the associated reduction in airworthiness can be minimized by suitable flight limitations, must be signaled to the flightcrew. For example, failure conditions that result in a factor of safety between the airplane strength and the loads of part 25, subpart C, below 1.25, or flutter margins below V″, must be signaled to the crew during flight.

4. Dispatch with known failure conditions. If the airplane is to be dispatched in a known system-failure condition that affects structural performance, or that affects the reliability of the remaining system to maintain structural performance, then the provisions of these special conditions must be met, including the provisions of special condition 1, “System Fully Operative” for the dispatched condition, and special condition 2, “System in the Failure Condition” for subsequent failures. Expected operational limitations may be taken into account in establishing Pj as the probability of failure occurrence for determining the safety margin in Figure 1. Flight limitations and expected operational limitations may be taken into account in establishing Qj as the combined probability of being in the dispatched failure condition and the subsequent failure condition for the safety margins in Figures 2 and 3. These limitations must be such that the probability of being in this combined failure state, and then subsequently encountering limit load conditions, is extremely improbable. No reduction in these safety margins is allowed if the subsequent system-failure rate is greater than 10− 3 per flight hour.

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued AD No. 2016-0054, dated March 14, 2016, to correct an unsafe condition for Finmeccanica S.p.A. (previously Agusta) Model AB412 and AB412 EP helicopters. EASA advises that a design review resulted in the determination that some passenger seat installations allow the use of comfort clips on flight crew and passenger shoulder harness seat belts to increase comfort to the occupant by locking the seat belt position. These comfort clips could prevent the seat belt inertia reel from retracting the shoulder harness during an emergency landing. The EASA AD further advises that this could result in injury to the seat occupant. To prevent this unsafe condition, the EASA AD requires removal of all comfort clips from service and inspecting the seat belt for wear from the comfort clip.

The FAA is in the process of updating Agusta's name change to Finmeccanica, and then to Leonardo Helicopters, on its FAA type certificate. Because this name change is not yet effective, this AD specifies Agusta.

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

Finmeccanica has issued Bollettino Tecnico No. 412-145, dated March 8, 2016, which specifies procedures for removing each comfort clip from the crew and passenger shoulder harness seat belts and for inspecting the seat belts for wear.

This AD requires, within 50 hours time-in-service, removing from service any comfort clip installed on a crew or passenger shoulder harness seat belt and inspecting the shoulder harness seat belt for rips or abrasions. If there is a rip or any abrasion, the AD requires replacing the seat belt. This AD also prohibits installing a comfort clip on any shoulder harness seat belt.

There are no costs of compliance with this AD because there are no helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry.

There are no helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

On November 2, 2017, at 82 FR 50849, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Agusta Model AW189 helicopters with certain part-numbered and serial-numbered EFS float assemblies installed. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting each float bag for punctures, replacing the pressure relief/topping (PRT) valve O-ring part number (P/N) P-G10025 with a PRT valve gasket P/N 316683A, and replacing the inflate/deflate protection P/N 304694A with inflate/deflate protection P/N 304694B. The NPRM also proposed to require repairing the float bag if there are any cuts, tears, punctures, or abrasion on a float bag. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent a punctured EFS float bag, which could result in loss of buoyancy of an EFS float bag while being used in an emergency water ditching and subsequent injury to helicopter occupants.

The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2016-0263-E, dated December 22, 2016 (AD 2016-0263-E), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters (previously Agusta) Model AW189 helicopters. EASA advises that during the first scheduled maintenance of an EFS kit, float bags were found punctured due to protruding parts of the pressure relief/topping valves that were not adequately protected. EASA further states that this condition could result in a partial loss of buoyancy of the EFS float bags, possibly resulting in injury to the helicopter's occupants in a ditching event. To prevent this unsafe condition, EASA AD 2016-0263-E requires a one-time inspection of the EFS, repair of any discrepancies found, replacing the pressure relief/topping valve O-ring with a gasket, and replacing the inflate/deflate protection with a new design inflate/deflate protection.

The FAA is in the process of updating Agusta's name change to Leonardo Helicopters on its type certificate. Because this name change is not yet effective, this AD specifies Agusta.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM.

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

The EASA AD requires compliance within 15 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 10 days for helicopters flying overwater above sea state 4 or within 120 hours or 60 days for helicopters operating overwater up to sea state 4. This AD requires compliance within 120 hours TIS regardless of sea state conditions.

We reviewed Leonardo Helicopters Bollettino Tecnico No. 189-135, dated December 20, 2016 (BT 189-135), and Aero Sekur Service Bulletin No. SB-189-25-003, dated November 30, 2016 (SB-189-25-003), which is attached to BT 189-135 as Annex A. BT 189-135 specifies following the procedures in SB-189-25-003 to inspect and modify certain EFS kits installed on Model AW189 helicopters.

We estimate that this AD affects two helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators will incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Inspecting each float bag, replacing the PRT valve gasket, and replacing the inflate/deflate protection require about 40 work-hours, and required parts cost about $500, for a cost per helicopter of $3,900 and a cost of $7,800 for the U.S. fleet. If required, repairing a float bag will require about 2 work-hours, and required parts cost about $90, for a cost per float bag of $260.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On December 13, 2016, the FAA published a final rule entitled, “Revisions to Operational Requirements for the Use of Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to Pilot Compartment View Requirements for Vision Systems.” 1 Prior to that final rule, the operating rules for EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE were contained in § 91.175(l) and (m). In the EFVS final rule, which became effective, in part, on March 13, 2017, the FAA created new 14 CFR 91.176 to contain the operating rules for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout and for EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE.

As explained in the preamble to the final rule, the FAA provided an adequate transition period for operators and pilots conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation.2 During this transition period, which concludes on March 13, 2018, a pilot may comply with either § 91.175(l) and (m) or § 91.176(b). Beginning on March 13, 2018, persons conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE must comply with § 91.176(b).

Section 91.175(e)(1) included a cross-reference to § 91.175(l) prior to the final rule. To accommodate the transition period, the FAA made a conforming amendment to § 91.175(e)(1), effective March 13, 2017, by adding a cross-reference to § 91.176. Additionally, to conform with the conclusion of the transition period, the FAA included instructions to amend § 91.175(e)(1), effective March 13, 2018, by removing the cross-reference to § 91.175(l).

Prior to the EFVS final rule, § 91.175(e)(1) allowed a pilot operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, to immediately execute an appropriate missed approach procedure whenever operating under § 91.175(c) or (l) and the requirements of that paragraph are not met at either of the following times: (i) When the aircraft is being operated below MDA; or (ii) upon arrival at the missed approach point, including a DA/DH where a DA/DH is specified and its use is required, and at any time after that until touchdown.

In amending § 91.175(e)(1), the FAA did not intend to remove paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii), which identify the following times referred to in paragraph (e)(1). However, the amendatory instruction advised the Office of the Federal Register to revise § 91.175(e)(1) and the regulatory text that accompanied the amendatory instruction failed to include paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii). As a result, paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii) were inadvertently removed from § 91.175. This error also occurs in amendatory instruction 18, which will amend § 91.175(e)(1) effective March 13, 2018.

The FAA intended only to update the cross references in § 91.175(e)(1) to coincide with the transition period and did not intend to remove paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii). The FAA is therefore revising § 91.175(e)(1) by reinstating paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii) accordingly. Additionally, in amendatory instruction 18 of the EFVS final rule,3 the FAA corrects the revisions to § 91.175(e)(1) by including the text of paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii). These corrections ensure the paragraphs are retained when the cross-reference to § 91.175(l) is removed on March 13, 2018.

Because this amendment results in no substantive change, the FAA finds that the notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary. For the same reason, the FAA finds good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make the amendments effective in less than 30 days.

Effective March 13, 2018, in rule document 2016-28714 at 81 FR 90126 in the issue of December 13, 2016, on page 90172, in the third column, in amendatory instruction 18, paragraph (e)(1) is corrected to read as follows:

(e) * * *

(1) Whenever operating an aircraft pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section or § 91.176 of this part, and the requirements of that paragraph or section are not met at either of the following times:

(i) When the aircraft is being operated below MDA; or

(ii) Upon arrival at the missed approach point, including a DA/DH where a DA/DH is specified and its use is required, and at any time after that until touchdown.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Section 11.2 of the Commission's regulations provides a method for computing reasonable annual charges for recompensing the United States for the use, occupancy, and enjoyment of its lands by hydropower licensees.1 Annual charges for the use of government lands are payable in advance, and are based on an annual schedule of per-acre rental fees published in Appendix A to Part 11 of the Commission's regulations.2 This notice updates the fee schedule in Appendix A to Part 11 for fiscal year 2018 (October 1, 2017, through September 30, 2018).

This Final Rule is effective March 12, 2018. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 804, regarding Congressional review of final rules, do not apply to this Final Rule because the rule concerns agency procedure and practice and will not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. This Final Rule merely updates the fee schedule published in the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect scheduled adjustments, as provided for in section 11.2 of the Commission's regulations.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 11, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows.