Table of Contents I. Synopsis of the Final Determination II. Introduction A. Authority B. Background 1. Current Standards 2. History of Standards Rulemaking for UFHWSTs III. General Discussion A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage B. Test Procedure C. Technological Feasibility 1. General 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels D. Energy Savings 1. Determination of Savings 2. Significance of Savings E. Economic Justification 1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers 2. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) 3. Energy Savings 4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment 5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 6. Need for National Energy Conservation 7. Other Factors IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments A. Market and Technology Assessment 1. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes 2. Technology Options B. Screening Analysis 1. Screened-Out Technologies 2. Remaining Technologies C. Engineering Analysis 1. Efficiency Analysis 2. Representative Equipment for Analysis 3. Cost Analysis D. Energy Use Analysis 1. Tank Thermal Loss Model a. Tank Surface Area ( A i, j ) b. Tank Internal Water Temperature ( T i ) c. Tank Ambient Temperature ( T amb, z ) d. R-value of Insulation ( R i, j ) 2. Annual Energy Use Due to UFHWST Losses 3. Additional Sources of Uncertainty E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 1. Installation Cost 2. Annual Energy Consumption F. Shipments Analysis 1. Stock Estimates a. Residential Stock b. Commercial Stock c. Industrial Stock 2. Shipments for Replacement 3. Shipments for New Construction 4. Estimated Shipments 5. Additional Sources of Uncertainty G. National Impact Analysis 1. National Energy Savings 2. Product Lifetime 3. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case 4. Hot Water Supply Boiler Efficiency Trend V. Analytical Results and Conclusions A. National Impact Analysis 1. Significance of Energy Savings 2. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits B. Final Determination 1. Technological Feasibility 2. Significant Conservation of Energy 3. Economic Justification 4. Summary VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review M. Congressional Notification VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Synopsis of the Final Determination

Title III, Part C  1 of EPCA, 2 established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) This equipment includes UFHWSTs, the subject of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(K))

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE is triggered to consider amending the energy efficiency standards for certain types of commercial and industrial equipment, including the equipment at issue in this document, whenever the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (“ASHRAE”) amends the standard levels or design requirements prescribed in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, “Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings,” (“ASHRAE Standard 90.1”). Under a separate provision of EPCA, DOE is required to review the existing energy conservation standards for those types of covered equipment subject to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 every 6 years to determine whether those standards need to be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)-(C)) DOE is publishing this final determination regarding the energy conservation standards for UFHWSTs under EPCA's 6-year-lookback authority. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C))

For this final determination, DOE analyzed UFHWSTs subject to standards as specified in the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) at 10 CFR 431.110. DOE first analyzed the technological feasibility of more-efficient UFHWSTs. For those UFHWSTs for which DOE determined higher standards to be technologically feasible, DOE estimated energy savings that would result from potential amended energy conservation standards. DOE also considered whether potential energy conservation standards would be economically justified. As discussed in the following sections, DOE has determined that it lacks clear and convincing evidence that amended energy conservation standards for UFHWSTs would result in significant additional conservation of energy or be economically justified.

Based on the results of these analyses, summarized in section V of this document, DOE has determined that current energy conservation standards for UFHWSTs do not need to be amended.

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this final determination, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of energy conservation standards for UFHWSTs.

EPCA, Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified), among other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part C of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment includes UFHWSTs, the subject of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(K))

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).

Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption in limited circumstances for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))

Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314) Specifically, EPCA requires that if a test procedure referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is updated, DOE must update its test procedure to be consistent with the amended test procedure in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless DOE determines, by rule, published in the Federal Register and supported by clear and convincing evidence, that the amended test procedure is not reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated operating costs of the covered ASHRAE equipment during a representative average use cycle. In addition, DOE must determine that the amended test procedure is not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (4)) In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures in the Federal Register and offer the public an opportunity (of not less than 45 days duration) to present oral and written comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)) In contrast, if DOE determines that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE must publish in the Federal Register its determination not to amend the test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii))

Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the Federal test procedures as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6296), and (2) making representations about the energy use or efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE uses these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. It is noted that DOE does not prescribe a test procedure for UFHWSTs, as the current Federal standard is an insulation design requirement of a minimum R-value of R-12.5. 10 CFR 431.110.

EPCA contains mandatory energy conservation standards for commercial heating, air-conditioning, and water heating equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)) Specifically, the statute sets standards for small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps, warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage water heaters, instantaneous water heaters, and UFHWSTs. Id. In doing so, EPCA established Federal energy conservation standards that generally corresponded to the levels in the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 in effect on October 24, 1992 ( i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989).

If ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended with respect to the standard levels or design requirements applicable under that standard for certain commercial equipment, including UFHWSTs, not later than 180 days after the amendment of the standard, DOE must publish in the Federal Register for public comment an analysis of the energy savings potential of amended energy efficiency standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) DOE must adopt amended energy conservation standards at the new efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless clear and convincing evidence supports a determination that adoption of a more-stringent efficiency level as a national standard would produce significant additional energy savings and be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii))

To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors:

(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of products subject to the standard;

(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered equipment that are likely to result from the standard;

(3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the standard;

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered product likely to result from the standard;

(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;

(6) The need for national energy conservation; and

(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy considers relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII) and (C)(i); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i))

If DOE adopts as a national standard the efficiency levels specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must establish such a standard not later than 18 months after publication of the amended industry standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) If DOE determines that a more-stringent standard is appropriate under the statutory criteria, DOE must establish the more-stringent standard not later than 30 months after publication of the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(i))

EPCA also requires that every 6 years DOE shall evaluate the energy conservation standards for each class of certain covered commercial equipment, including UFHWSTs, and publish either a notice of determination that the standards do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) that includes new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) EPCA further provides that, not later than 3 years after the issuance of a final determination not to amend standards, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(iii)(II)) DOE must make the analysis on which the determination is based publicly available and provide an opportunity for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(ii)) Further, a determination that more-stringent standards would: (1) Result in significant additional conservation of energy and (2) be both technologically feasible and economically justified must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i); 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) DOE is publishing this final determination in satisfaction of the 6-year-lookback review requirement in EPCA, having determined that DOE lacks clear and convincing evidence that amended standards for UFHWSTs would result in significant additional conservation of energy and be economically justified.

The initial Federal standards for UFHWSTs, established by EPCA, corresponded to the efficiency levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989. On January 12, 2001, DOE amended the standards for UFHWSTs to be equivalent to the efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 as revised in October 1999. 66 FR 3336 (“January 2001 final rule”). The January 2001 final rule established an insulation design requirement of a minimum R-value of R-12.5 for all UFHWSTs. 66 FR 3336, 3356 (Jan. 12, 2001). This remains the current Federal standard (and the standard level specified in the most recent version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1). The current standard is codified at 10 CFR 431.110.

As noted previously, the standards for UFHWSTs were most recently amended in the January 2001 final rule. EPCA requires DOE to evaluate the applicable energy conservation standard for UFHWSTs every 6 years to determine whether it needs to be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) Thus, DOE published a request for information (“RFI”) in the Federal Register on August 9, 2019, which identified various issues and sought to collect data and information to inform its determination, consistent with its obligations under EPCA, as to whether the UFHWST standards need to be amended (the “August 2019 RFI”). 84 FR 39220. DOE subsequently published a notice of proposed determination (“NOPD”) in the Federal Register on June 10, 2021 (“June 2021 NOPD”), wherein DOE tentatively determined that the energy conservation standards for UFHWSTs do not need to be amended.

DOE received six comments in response to the June 2021 NOPD from the interested parties listed in Table II.1.

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2017-18-14, Amendment 39-19023 (82 FR 42443, September 8, 2017), (AD 2017-18-14). AD 2017-18-14 applied to certain RRC 250-C20, -C20B, -C20F, -C20J, -C20R, -C20R/1, -C20R/2, -C20R/4, -C20W, -C300/A1, and -C300/B1 turboshaft engines with either a 3rd-stage turbine wheel, part number (P/N) 23065818, or a 4th-stage turbine wheel, P/N 23055944 or RR30000240, installed. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2022 (87 FR 2365). The NPRM was prompted by in-service turbine blade failures that resulted in the loss of power and engine in-flight shutdowns. Since the FAA issued AD 2017-18-14, the manufacturer redesigned the 3rd-stage turbine wheel. The manufacturer published Rolls-Royce Alert Commercial Engine Bulletin (CEB) CEB A-1428/CEB A-72-4111 (single document), which describes procedures for replacement of the 3rd-stage turbine wheel, P/N 23065818, with the new increased blade fillet 3rd-stage turbine wheel, P/N M250-10473. Additionally, the FAA determined that the RRC 250-C20C (T63-A-720) model turboshaft engine is also susceptible to the unsafe condition. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacement of the 3rd-stage and 4th-stage turbine wheels. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received comments from two commenters. The commenters were an anonymous commenter and RRC. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

The anonymous commenter stated that RRC does not have the inventory to supply engine shops with the 3rd-stage and 4th-stage turbine wheels proposed for replacement in the NPRM. The commenter requested that RRC provide credit to its customers for unused time on 3rd-stage and 4th-stage turbine wheels and reasoned that customers paid for the full life of the 3rd-stage and 4th-stage turbine wheels, not a partial life, which now requires replacement at full price. The commenter also stated that the part cost estimates in the NPRM for the 3rd-stage and 4th-stage turbine wheels are inaccurate and should indicate an estimated cost of $22,929.15 and $18,926.59 to reflect Aviall and Boeing's prices, respectively. The commenter noted that they have found performing FPIs on the 3rd-stage and 4th-stage turbine wheels result in serviceable conditions compared to the previous configurations that were beyond serviceable. The commenter expressed that the proposed requirements in the NPRM would be a financial burden on RRC's customers, considering the current market instability.

The FAA disagrees that the manufacturer will not have sufficient inventory, which would prevent compliance with this AD. Prior to publishing the NPRM, the FAA confirmed with RRC that there would be adequate inventory for operators to replace the 3rd-stage and 4th-stage turbine wheels. In response to this comment, the FAA confirmed with RRC that the 3rd-stage and 4th-stage turbine wheels are available at a 50% discounted price. Additionally, RRC indicated that suppliers will also provide the discounted price. The FPI of 3rd-stage turbine wheels was an interim action until redesigned parts became available. While FPI reduces the risk of a blade failure, the unsafe condition is addressed by replacing the 3rd-stage turbine wheel with the revised design. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of the comments.

RRC requested that the FAA revise the Related Service Information paragraph of this AD to reference Rolls-Royce Alert CEB CEB A-1428/CEB A-72-4111 (single document), Revision 2, dated December 8, 2021. RRC reasoned that since the three Rolls-Royce bulletins were submitted to the FAA in support of the NPRM, Rolls-Royce has published Revision 2 of Rolls-Royce Alert CEB CEB A-1428/CEB A-72-4111 (single document).

The FAA agrees. The FAA has updated the Related Service Information paragraph of this AD to reference Rolls-Royce Alert CEB CEB A-1428/CEB A-72-4111 (single document), Revision 2, dated December 8, 2021.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting the AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Rolls-Royce Alert CEB CEB A-1428/CEB A-72-4111 (single document), Revision 2, dated December 8, 2021. This Alert CEB describes procedures for replacing the 3rd-stage turbine wheel, P/N 23065818, with the new increased blade fillet 3rd-stage turbine wheel, P/N M250-10473.

The FAA reviewed Rolls-Royce Alert CEB CEB-A-1422/CEB-A-72-4108 (single document), Original Issue, dated September 13, 2017. This Alert CEB describes procedures for replacing 4th-stage turbine wheel, P/N 23055944, with the new increased blade fillet 4th-stage turbine wheel, P/N M250-10445.

The FAA also reviewed Rolls-Royce Alert Service Bulletin (SB) RR300-A-72-024, Original Issue, dated September 13, 2017. This Alert SB describes procedures for replacing the 4th-stage turbine wheel, P/N RR30000240, with the new increased blade fillet 4th-stage turbine wheel, P/N RR30000494.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 3,769 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates that 3,041 3rd-stage turbine wheels and 3,769 4th-stage turbine wheels will require replacement.

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

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) 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:

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2002-03-01, Amendment 39-12642 (67 FR 6857, February 14, 2002), (AD 2002-03-01). AD 2002-03-01 applied to Honeywell (formerly AlliedSignal, Inc. and Textron Lycoming) T5311A, T5311B, T5313B, T5317A, T5317B, and former military T53-L-11, T53-L-11A, T53-L-11B, T53-L-11C, T53-L-11D, T53-L-11AS/SA, T53-L-13B, T53-L-13B S/SA, T53-L-13B S/SB, and T53-L-703 model turboshaft engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 24, 2022 (87 FR 3470). The NPRM was prompted by reports indicating that Honeywell T5317A-1 and T5317BCV model turboshaft engines are subject to the same unsafe condition identified in AD 2002-03-01, tachometer drive spur gear failures due to vibration loads. These model turboshaft engines were not included in the applicability of AD 2002-03-01. The FAA and Honeywell determined that the Honeywell T5317A-1 engine model was inadvertently left out of the applicability of AD 2002-03-01 and the Honeywell T5317BCV engine model was introduced into production after the publication of AD 2002-03-01. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require initial and repetitive special vibration tests of the engine and, depending on the results, replacement of either the reduction gearbox assembly or the engine. In the NPRM, the FAA also proposed to expand the applicability to include Honeywell T5317A-1 and T5317BCV model turboshaft engines.

The FAA received comments from an individual commenter. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

An individual commenter commented that both the NPRM and the AD being superseded [AD 2002-03-01] are redundant based on the service bulletins Honeywell published addressing the unsafe condition. The commenter suggested that if a new AD is published, the AD should include language allowing operators already in compliance to remain in compliance until the next due time. The commenter added that the changes in the NPRM seem more appropriate for an AD revision than that of publishing a new AD since the reference material and unsafe condition remain unchanged. Additionally, the commenter suggested that the justification for the NPRM, based on the introduction of Honeywell T5317A-1 and T5317BCV model turboshaft engines, is inaccurate as both series are already included in the Honeywell service bulletins.

The FAA disagrees with withdrawing the NPRM. Issuance of this AD is necessary in order to mandate the required actions on the affected engines to address the unsafe condition. Service information incorporated by reference under 1 CFR part 51 in AD 2002-03-01 is also incorporated by reference in this AD. The required actions for certain engine models continue to be required by this AD. As a result, operators who accomplished the required actions in AD 2002-03-01 before the effective date of this AD, are in compliance with paragraph (g)(1) of this AD based on paragraph (f) Compliance, which requires operators to comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. Therefore, for operators that already complied with paragraph (g)(1) of this AD prior to the effective date, the next repetitive special vibration test of the engine must be accomplished before exceeding the specified flight hours in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD. Since the effective date of AD 2002-03-01, Honeywell published Honeywell Service Bulletin (SB) T53-0147, dated May 29, 2007, and Honeywell Maintenance Manual Temporary Revision (TR) No. 165, dated July 29, 2020, which specify procedures for performing the initial and repetitive special vibration tests on Honeywell T5317A-1 and T5317BCV model turboshaft engines. Regarding the request to revise AD 2002-03-01 instead of issuing this superseding AD, the method to revise AD 2002-03-01 is through superseding it, which this AD does.

Since the NPRM published, the FAA determined the need to remove the Definitions paragraph from this AD and instead, revise the required actions in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to define a “reduction gearbox assembly eligible for installation” as a new, zero hour reduction gearbox assembly or an overhauled reduction gearbox assembly with tachometer drive spur gear P/N 1-070-062-04 or P/N 1-070-062-06 that does not exceed the 0.2 IPS limit for any peak within the RPM/frequency bands during the administered special vibration test. In the NPRM, the FAA also proposed to define an “engine eligible for installation” as an engine with tachometer drive spur gear P/N 1-070-062-04 or P/N 1-070-062-06 that does not exceed the 0.2 IPS limit for any peak within the RPM/frequency bands during the administered special vibration test. Both of these proposed definitions would have required operators to first perform a special vibration test on the engine or reduction gearbox assembly before further flight after installation. In lieu of these definitions, the FAA revised paragraph (g)(1) of this AD to require a special vibration test before further flight for a newly installed engine or newly installed reduction gearbox assembly. The FAA also revised the proposed action in paragraph (g)(3) by removing reference to those previously defined terms in the proposal and removing the proposed actions in paragraphs (g)(4) and (5) of the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting the AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed AlliedSignal, Inc. SB T5311A/B-0100, dated January 20, 2000. This SB specifies procedures for performing a special vibration check on Honeywell T5311A and T5311B model turboshaft engines.

The FAA reviewed AlliedSignal, Inc. SB T5313B/17-0100, dated November 19, 1999. This SB specifies procedures for performing a special vibration check on Honeywell T5313B, T5317A, and T5317B model turboshaft engines.

The FAA reviewed Honeywell SB T53-0147, dated May 29, 2007. This SB specifies procedures for performing a special vibration check on Honeywell T5317A-1 model turboshaft engines.

The FAA reviewed Honeywell Maintenance Manual TR No. 165, dated July 29, 2020. This TR specifies procedures for performing a special vibration check on Honeywell T5313B, T5317A, T5317A-1, T5317B, and T5317BCV model turboshaft engines.

The FAA reviewed AlliedSignal, Inc. SB T53-L-11-0100, Revision 2, dated January 20, 2000. This SB specifies procedures for performing a special vibration check on Honeywell T53-L-11, -11A, -11B, -11C, -11D, and -11A S/SA model turboshaft engines.

The FAA reviewed AlliedSignal, Inc. SB T53-L-13B-0100, Revision 2, dated May 11, 1999. This SB specifies procedures for performing a special vibration check on Honeywell T53-L-13B, -13B S/SA, and -13B S/SB model turboshaft engines.

The FAA reviewed AlliedSignal, Inc. SB T53-L-703-0100, Revision 2, dated May 11, 1999. This SB specifies procedures for performing a special vibration check on Honeywell T53-L-703 model turboshaft engines.

The Director of the Federal Register approved AlliedSignal, Inc. SB T5313B/17-0100, dated November 19, 1999; AlliedSignal, Inc. SB T53-L-13B-0100, Revision 2, dated May 11, 1999; AlliedSignal, Inc. SB T53-L-703-0100, Revision 2, dated May 11, 1999; AlliedSignal, Inc. SB T5311A/B-0100, dated January 20, 2000; and AlliedSignal, Inc. SB T53-L-11-0100, Revision 2, dated January 20, 2000, for incorporation by reference as of March 21, 2002 (67 FR 6857, February 14, 2002). 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 ADDRESSES .

The FAA reviewed AlliedSignal, Inc. SB T5311/T53-L-11-0103, dated January 20, 2000. This SB specifies procedures for replacing the reduction gearbox assembly on Honeywell T5311A and T5311B model turboshaft engines and Honeywell T53-L-11, -11A, -11B, -11C, -11D, and -11AS/SA model turboshaft engines.

The FAA reviewed AlliedSignal, Inc. SB T5313B/17-0103, dated November 19, 1999. This SB specifies procedures for replacing the reduction gearbox assembly on Honeywell T5313B, T5317A, and T5317B model turboshaft engines.

The FAA reviewed AlliedSignal, Inc. SB T53-L-13B-0103, Revision 4, dated November 2, 1999. This SB specifies procedures for replacing the reduction gearbox assembly on Honeywell T53-L-13B, -13B S/SA, and -13B S/SB model turboshaft engines.

The FAA reviewed AlliedSignal, Inc. SB T53-L-703-0103, Revision 4, dated November 2, 1999. This SB specifies procedures for replacing the reduction gearbox assembly on Honeywell T53-L-703 model turboshaft engines.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 150 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry.

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

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacement that would be required based on the results of the special vibration test. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Title 49, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Chapter 401, Section 40113 (prescribing general authority of the Administrator of the FAA, with respect to aviation safety duties and powers, to prescribe regulations); and Subpart III, Chapter 447, Sections 44701 (general authority of the Administrator to prescribe regulations and minimum standards in the interest of safety for inspecting, servicing, and overhauling aircraft, engines, propellers, and appliances, including for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce); 44702 (authority of the Administrator to issue air agency certificates); 44703 (authority of the Administrator to issue airman certificates); 44707 (authority of the Administrator to examine and rate air agencies, including civilian schools giving instruction in repairing, altering, and maintaining aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances, on the adequacy of instruction, the suitability and airworthiness of equipment, and the competency of instructors); and 44709 (authority of the Administrator to amend, modify, suspend, and revoke air agency and other FAA-issued certificates).

This rule is further promulgated under Section 135 of the Aircraft Certification, Safety, and Accountability Act in Public Law 116-260, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. Section 135, titled “Promoting Aviation Regulations for Technical Training,” provides the requirements and terms of this rule.

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the rulemaking.

The FAA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because such procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. On December 27, 2020, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 116-260), which includes the Aircraft Certification, Safety, and Accountability Act (the “Act”). In Section 135 of the Act, titled “Promoting Aviation Regulations for Technical Training,” Congress directed the FAA to issue interim final regulations to establish requirements for issuing aviation maintenance technician school (AMTS) certificates and associated ratings and the general operating rules for the holders of those certificates and ratings. Section 135(a)(1) of the Act expressly requires the FAA to issue the interim final regulations in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 135. In this interim final rule, the FAA is simply adopting the statutory language and implementing that language directly into the regulations. 1 Accordingly, the FAA finds it unnecessary to provide notice and an opportunity to comment prior to issuing this final rule.

The FAA further finds that delaying implementation of this rule to allow for notice and comment would be contrary to the public interest. Because the interim final rule must implement the statutory requirements of Section 135 of the Act, the FAA does not have discretion to propose requirements that are contrary to, or that exceed the bounds of, the statute. Similarly, the FAA does not have the discretion to change the statutory requirements based on public comments received. Therefore, delaying issuance of this final rule would merely delay the new requirements that Congress sought to provide the AMTS industry.

Affected parties are not required to comply with the information collection requirements in §§ 147.5, 147.15, 147.17, 147.21, 147.23, and 147.31, until the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approves the revised collection 2120-0040 under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The FAA will publish in the Federal Register a notice of approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for these information collection requirements.

Consistent with the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979), which provide that, to the maximum extent possible, operating administrations for the DOT should provide an opportunity for public comment on regulations issued without prior notice, the FAA requests comment on this interim final rule. The FAA encourages persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments containing relevant information, data, or views. The FAA also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting this final rule. The FAA will consider comments received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will also consider late filed comments to the extent practicable. This interim final rule may be amended based on comments received.

See section VI., titled “How to Obtain Additional Information,” for information on how to comment on this interim final rule and how the FAA will handle comments received. This section also contains related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of proprietary or confidential business information. In addition, there is information on obtaining copies of related rulemaking documents.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 116-260), which includes the Act, was enacted on December 27, 2020. Section 135 of the Act, titled “Promoting Aviation Regulations for Technician Training,” directed the FAA to “issue interim final regulations to establish requirements for issuing [AMTS] certificates and associated ratings and the general operating rules for the holders of those certificates and ratings in accordance with the requirements of [Section 135].” Additionally, Section 135 of the Act states that current part 147 shall have no force or effect on or after the effective date of the interim final regulations.

This interim final rule replaces the current regulations in part 147 with new regulations that conform to the legislation. In the preamble to this interim final rule, the FAA reiterates the provisions of Section 135 of the Act and explains how it is implementing those provisions in the regulations. Additionally, the FAA is making conforming amendments to parts 43 and 65 to effectuate the legislation.

Part 147 prescribes the requirements for the certification and operation of FAA-certificated AMTS, including the curriculum requirements. Part 147 originated as Civil Air Regulations (CAR) part 53 in 1940. 2 As a result of the recodification of the CARs in 1962, CAR part 53 became 14 CFR part 147. 3 In 1970, the FAA issued a final rule that changed the name of “mechanic schools” to “aviation maintenance technician schools,” provided more specific guidelines for the certification and operation of schools, increased the required core curriculum hours from 1,500 to 1,900, and further defined teaching guidelines and subject content to reflect technological advancements in the aviation industry. 4 In 1992, the FAA revised part 147 by adding a definition in Appendix A for “teaching materials and equipment” to include the use of computers in the training environment. The FAA also revised the headings of several subjects in Appendices B, C, and D to better reflect course content, added course content items within several subject areas, and added two new subject headings with related course content items for “Unducted Fans” and “Auxiliary Power Units”. 5 Subsequently, in 1992, the FAA made a minor amendment to § 147.21 as part of another rulemaking. 6 Specifically, the FAA added a provision to § 147.21 that allowed AMTSs to apply for and receive approval of special courses in the performance of inspection and maintenance on primary category aircraft, and authorized the school to issue certificates of competency to persons successfully completing such courses. 7 There have been no further revisions to part 147.

On October 2, 2015, the FAA published an NPRM titled “Aviation Maintenance Technician Schools.”  8 In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend the regulations governing the curriculum and operation of FAA-certificated AMTSs. The FAA proposed to modernize and reorganize the required curriculum subjects found in the appendices of the current regulation, remove the course content items from the appendices and relocate them to each school's OpSpecs, and revise the curriculum requirements to include an option for schools to use a credit hour curriculum. The comment period for the NPRM closed on December 31, 2015, which was subsequently extended to February 1, 2016, based on a joint request for extension from several industry groups. 9

After considering the comments to the NPRM, and the potential benefits to industry, the FAA decided to expand the scope of the rulemaking by issuing an SNPRM, published on April 16, 2019. 10 The SNPRM proposed (1) to allow curriculum based training (CBT) programs as a curriculum delivery, (2) to allow the establishment of satellite training locations, and (3) to remove the national passing norm requirements in § 147.37 and replace them with a standard pass rate. The comment period closed on June 17, 2019.

While the FAA was in the process of completing the final rule, which would have responded to all significant comments received on the NPRM and SNPRM, Congress passed the Act which required the FAA to replace part 147, as in effect on the date of enactment of Section 135, with new regulations that conform to the statutory requirements. Congress directed the FAA to issue interim final regulations, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Act, to establish requirements for issuing aviation maintenance technician school certificates and associated ratings and the general operating rules for the holders of those certificates and ratings.

Pursuant to Section 135(a)(1) of the Act, the FAA must issue the interim final regulations in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 135, including requirements addressing:

• When an AMTS certificate is required;

• Applications for AMTS certificates and associated ratings, additional ratings, and changes to certificates;

• Operations specifications and the contents thereof;

• The duration of a certificate or rating issued under part 147;

• The ratings that an AMTS may obtain under part 147;

• AMTS facilities, equipment, and material;

• Training provided at another location;

• AMTS training and curricula;

• Instructors;

• Certificates of completion;

• Quality control systems;

• The minimum passage rate each school must maintain;

• FAA inspections;

• The display of part 147 certificates; and

• A student's ability to take the FAA's general written test prior to satisfying the experience requirements of § 65.77, provided certain conditions are met.

Additionally, the statute states that the current part 147 regulations and any regulations issued under § 624 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, shall have no force or effect on or after the effective date of the interim final rule. As a result, this interim final rule repeals and replaces current part 147.

Upon review of Section 135, the FAA determined that the proposed requirements in the NPRM and SNPRM were inconsistent with the statutory mandate. Therefore, to comply with Section 135, the FAA is publishing a Federal Register Notice withdrawing the NPRM (Notice No. 15-10) and SNPRM (Notice No. 19-02) concurrent with this interim final rule. Instead of finalizing those proposals, the FAA is issuing this interim final rule to establish requirements for certificated AMTSs in accordance with Section 135 of the Act.

Section 135(b) through (f) of the Act contain several requirements that govern the certification and operation of AMTSs. The following sections reiterate the provisions of Section 135 and describe how the FAA is implementing each provision into new part 147. Additionally, section III.g. of this preamble, titled “Part 147 Rule Organization and Numbering,” provides tables to show which sections of current part 147 will be repealed and not replaced, which sections will be replaced and renumbered, and the organization and numbering of new part 147.

Section 135(a)(1) requires the FAA to establish requirements for issuing AMTS certificates and associated ratings and the general operating rules for the holders of those certificates and ratings in accordance with the legislation. Based on this statutory provision, the applicability outlined in Section 135 is consistent with the current applicability provision in § 147.1. 11 Current part 147, including the applicability provision, will be repealed in its entirety on the effective date of this interim final rule, pursuant to Section 135(a)(2). However, consistent with Section 135(a)(1), new part 147 will continue to prescribe the requirements for issuing AMTS certificates and associated ratings and the general operating rules for the holders of those certificates and ratings. 12 The FAA is implementing the applicability language of Section 135(a)(1) in new § 147.1 to specify the applicability of new part 147.

Upon the effective date of this interim final rule, a currently certificated AMTS may not continue to operate unless it meets all of the applicable requirements of new part 147. A certificated AMTS will not be able to use previous part 147 regulations because current part 147 shall have no force or effect on or after the effective date of the interim final regulations. As such, it is essential for certificated AMTSs to take the necessary steps to comply with new part 147 by the effective date of the regulation. 13

Further, many certificated AMTSs hold exemptions to existing part 147 and related part 65 regulations. Because current part 147 is wholly repealed and replaced upon the effective date of the interim final rule, these exemptions, which are specified and discussed herein, as relevant, will terminate upon the effective date of this interim final rule. However, the FAA notes that the vast majority of the grounds for requested relief will be cured upon the effective date of this interim final rule by new part 147.

Section 135(b) states that no person may operate an AMTS without, or in violation of, an AMTS certificate and the OpSpecs issued under the interim final regulations required under Section 135(a)(1), the requirements of Section 135, or in a manner that is inconsistent with information in the school's OpSpecs under Section 135(c)(5). This statutory requirement is similar to current § 147.3, but extends the requirement to OpSpecs in addition to AMTS certificates.

The FAA is implementing the requirements of Section 135(b) in new § 147.3, which will state that no person may operate an AMTS without, or in violation of, an AMTS certificate and the OpSpecs “issued under [part 147].” The FAA determined that it is unnecessary for § 147.3 to expressly state that a person may not operate in violation of the requirements of Section 135, which will be implemented in part 147, because a certificated AMTS must comply with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements irrespective of whether the FAA expressly prohibits non-compliance in § 147.3. Furthermore, the FAA is not codifying the portion of Section 135(b) that prohibits a school from acting in a manner inconsistent with its OpSpecs because this prohibition is redundant to the statement that prohibits schools from operating in violation of their OpSpecs.

Section 135(b) states, in pertinent part, that no person may operate an AMTS in violation of the requirements of Section 135. This would appear to indicate that the Administrator does not have the authority to grant exemptions  14 from new part 147 because the inherent nature of an exemption would act as a departure from the requirements of Section 135. However, within the legislation, Section 135(c) states that a certificated AMTS shall operate in accordance with operations specifications that include, among other information, any regulatory exemption granted to the school by the Administrator. Additionally, the language in Section 135(b) echoes this sentiment of compliance with regulatory exemptions, stating that no person may operate an AMTS in a manner that is inconsistent with information in the school's operations specifications under Section 135(c)(5), which, as stated, includes regulatory exemptions. Therefore, the contemplation of and requirements of compliance with regulatory exemptions in the legislation demonstrates that Congress intended that the FAA retain the authority to issue exemptions from part 147, as warranted under the Administrator's authority and 14 CFR part 11.

Section 135(c)(1) through (5) of the Act contain several requirements that govern applications for certificates and ratings under part 147, the duration of those certificates and ratings, the types of ratings that may be issued on a certificate, and the content of OpSpecs. The FAA is implementing the application, duration, and rating requirements in subpart A of part 147, which is titled “General.” For the reasons discussed herein, the FAA is not codifying the content requirements of OpSpecs in the regulations. The following sections discuss the statutory requirements and the FAA's implementation of those requirements in more detail.

Section 135(c)(1)(A) requires an application for a certificate or rating to operate an AMTS to include three descriptions. First, the application must describe the facilities, including the physical address of the certificate holder's primary location for operation of the school, any additional fixed locations where training will be provided, and the equipment and materials to be used at each location. 15 Second, the application must describe the manner in which the school's curriculum will ensure the student has the knowledge and skills necessary for attaining a mechanic certificate and associated ratings under subpart D of part 65. 16 Third, the application must describe the manner in which the school will ensure it provides the necessary qualified instructors to meet the requirements of Section 135(d)(4). 17 Upon issuance of the school's certificate or rating, Section 135(c)(1)(B) requires these descriptions to be documented in the school's OpSpecs.

Section 135 also contains requirements for a school seeking to add a rating or amend a certificate. Specifically, Section 135(c)(2)(A) requires an application for an additional rating or amended certificate to include only the information necessary to substantiate the reason for the requested additional rating or change. Section 135(c)(2)(B) requires any approved changes to be documented in the school's OpSpecs.

The FAA is implementing the application requirements of Section 135(c)(1) and (2) in new § 147.5. Section 147.5(b) will contain the requirements for an application for an initial certificate and rating. Section 147.5(c) will contain the requirements for an application for an additional rating or amended certificate. The language in § 147.5(b) and (c) mirrors the statute except for one editorial change and two minor terminology changes. First, in § 147.5(b), the FAA is making clear that the application requirements for initial certification apply to an application for “a certificate and rating” rather than “a certificate or rating.” When a person applies for an air agency certificate under part 147, that person must also apply for at least one rating. Section 147.11 prescribes the ratings that a school may obtain under part 147. The FAA may not issue a certificate independent of a rating. Nor may the FAA issue a rating without an underlying certificate. It is therefore accurate to state “certificate and rating” in § 147.5(b). 18 Second, in § 147.5(b)(1), the FAA finds that the term “applicant” is appropriate rather than “certificate holder” because an applicant under § 147.5(b)(1) is applying for its initial AMTS certificate and rating. As such, the applicant does not yet hold an air agency certificate under part 147. Lastly, in § 147.5(c), which applies to current certificate holders seeking to add a rating or amend their certificate, the FAA is adding a cross-reference to the information listed in § 147.5(b) for clarity and is using the word “sought” rather than “requested.” These minor modifications from the statutory language do not alter the meaning or affect the implementation of the statutory requirements.

In codifying the statutory requirements of Section 135(c) in new § 147.5, the FAA discovered that Section 135 lacks an eligibility standard for the issuance of an AMTS certificate. Under Section 44702 of Title 49 of the United States Code, the FAA has statutory authority to issue air agency certificates. A certificate issued under part 147 is one of the air agency certificates issued by the FAA under 49 U.S.C. 44707. Section 135(c) prescribes only the content that must be included in an application for a certificate and rating, or for an additional rating or amended certificate. Section 135(c) is silent, however, with respect to the eligibility standard an applicant must meet to be issued a part 147 certificate. For example, merely providing descriptions of the applicant's facilities, equipment, and materials on the application for a certificate is not sufficient basis for the FAA to issue a certificate. Those facilities, equipment, and materials must meet the substantive requirements in Section 135 that require a school's facilities, equipment, and materials to be “appropriate” to the ratings held and the number of students taught. The FAA's decision to issue a certificate should not be based solely on the fact that descriptions were provided but rather on whether the descriptions in the application demonstrate that the applicant is eligible to operate as a certificated AMTS.

The FAA reviewed Section 135 in its entirety to determine whether another statutory provision contains the eligibility standard for issuing a part 147 certificate. While the statute does not expressly state what makes an applicant eligible for a certificate and rating, Section 135(b) provides context for making the determination. Section 135(b) prohibits a person from operating as an AMTS in violation of the requirements of Section 135. As discussed throughout this preamble, the FAA is implementing the requirements of Section 135 in part 147. Therefore, consistent with Section 135(b), a person may not operate as an AMTS in violation of the requirements of part 147.

Because an applicant seeking an AMTS certificate may not operate as a certificated AMTS in violation of the requirements of part 147, the FAA finds it reasonable to require the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of part 147 to be issued a certificate or rating under part 147. If the FAA does not assess whether an applicant complies with the appropriate requirements of part 147 at the application stage, the FAA could exercise its inspection authority to determine compliance with the requirements of part 147 immediately upon issuing the certificate or rating to the school. 19 The FAA has determined, however, that it is reasonable to require the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the applicable requirements as a means of determining eligibility for the issuance of a part 147 air agency certificate. 20 The FAA is codifying this standard in new § 147.5(a) by expressly stating that, to be issued a certificate, an applicant must demonstrate compliance with the requirements of part 147.

To demonstrate compliance with certain requirements of part 147 pursuant to new § 147.5(a), the applicant may be required to present certain information to the FAA. To effectuate this, the FAA is adding new § 147.5(b)(4) to the application requirements. New § 147.5(b)(4) requires the application to include any additional information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of part 147. This additional requirement is supported by the plain language of the statute, which states that an application for a certificate or rating to operate an AMTS shall “include” the information listed in Section 135(c)(1)(A)(i) through (iii). In the statutory context, the term “include” has been construed to provide an illustration of the general concept, not an all-inclusive and exhaustive list. 21 As such, the application for a certificate or rating must include the items prescribed by the statute; however, the FAA is not limited to prescribing only those items.

As previously stated, the FAA is codifying the requirements of Section 135(c)(2), which apply to applications for an additional rating or amended certificate, in new § 147.5(c). Consistent with the statute, new § 147.5(c) will require an application for an additional rating or amended certificate to include only the information required by § 147.5(b) that is necessary to substantiate the reason for the additional rating or change sought. An amended certificate would be required if any of the information on the air agency certificate had changed, such as the name of the certificate holder, the principal address of the certificate holder, or the removal of a rating. The FAA notes that adding a rating would also require an amendment to the air agency certificate, however, the statute expressly states “additional rating or amended certificate.” The implementing regulation reflects the statutory terminology.

Section 135(c)(1)(B) and (2)(B) require certain content to be included in OpSpecs: The descriptions required for an application and any approved changes for an additional rating or amended certificate, respectively. However, the FAA finds that these requirements do not belong in the regulations because they govern the conduct of the FAA rather than the regulated community. As a result, the FAA will not codify these requirements in part 147. Instead, the FAA will include guidance to its inspectors in FAA Order 8900.1 to ensure FAA's compliance with these statutory requirements that govern the content of OpSpecs.

Section 135(c)(3) states that an AMTS certificate or rating issued under the interim final regulations shall be effective from the date of issue until the certificate or rating is surrendered, suspended, or revoked. This statutory requirement is largely consistent with the FAA's current duration requirement in § 147.7(a). However, unlike current § 147.7(b), the statute does not require the holder of a certificate that is surrendered, suspended, or revoked to return it to the Administrator.

The FAA is implementing the requirements of Section 135(c)(3) in new § 147.7. Thus, § 147.7 states that an AMTS certificate or rating issued under part 147 is effective from the date of issue until the certificate or rating is surrendered, suspended, or revoked. Because the statute requires the FAA to establish interim final regulations in accordance with the requirements of Section 135, § 147.7 will no longer include a requirement for the return of an AMTS certificate that has been surrendered, suspended or revoked. However, the FAA notes that a school that does not return its certificate may not continue to operate simply because it has the physical paper certificate. A school whose certificate has been surrendered, suspended, or revoked may not advertise, hold out, or otherwise act as an AMTS.

Section 135(c)(4) states that an AMTS certificate shall specify which of following ratings are held by the AMTS: (A) Airframe, (B) Powerplant, and/or (C) Airframe and Powerplant.

An AMTS certificate has always identified which rating or ratings the AMTS holds. Because the FAA is responsible for issuing the certificate, it follows that the FAA is responsible for specifying on the certificate which rating or ratings the AMTS is issued under part 147. By mandating what the AMTS certificate must specify, Section 135(c)(4) governs the conduct of the FAA rather than the regulated community. The FAA finds it necessary to codify the ratings that may be placed on a certificate in accordance with Section 135(c)(4); however, the FAA's regulations in part 147 apply to persons seeking AMTS certificates and to AMTS certificate holders. Therefore, in implementing Section 135(c)(4) in new § 147.11, the FAA is slightly revising the statutory language to allocate applicability to the regulated community instead of the FAA itself. Accordingly, new § 147.11 states which ratings may be issued under part 147, and that the FAA issues AMTS certificates that specify the rating or ratings held in compliance with the statute.

Section 135(c)(5) requires a certificated AMTS to operate in accordance with OpSpecs that include: (A) The certificate holder's name; (B) the certificate holder's air agency certificate number; (C) the name and contact information of the certificate holder's primary point of contact; (D) the physical address of the certificate holder's primary location;  22 (E) the physical address of any additional location of the certificate holder;  23 (F) the ratings held;  24 and (G) any regulatory exemption granted to the school by the Administrator.

To the extent Section 135(c)(5) requires a certificated AMTS to operate in accordance with OpSpecs, the FAA finds that this requirement is already covered by Section 135(b), which prohibits a person from operating an AMTS in violation of their OpSpecs. The requirements of Section 135(b) are implemented in new § 147.3.

To the extent Section 135(c)(5) contains a list of content that must be included in OpSpecs, the FAA finds that these requirements do not belong in the regulations because they govern the conduct of the FAA rather than the regulated community. 25 As a result, the FAA is not codifying these requirements in part 147. 26 To ensure FAA's compliance with these statutory requirements, the FAA will include guidance to its inspectors in FAA Order 8900.1.

As a result of this interim final rule, the FAA has drafted new operations specification paragraph templates for AMTS, which reflect the new and/or changed requirements of part 147. Accordingly, all OpSpecs paragraphs issued to AMTS prior to this interim final rule, with the exception of A003, Ratings, will cease to be effective upon the effective date of the interim final rule. Because an AMTS may not operate without, or in violation of, AMTS OpSpecs, as stated in new § 147.3, each AMTS must ensure it has demonstrated compliance with the provisions required by this interim final rule by providing the applicable information to the AMTS's responsible Flight Standards office. For additional information on submitting this information, refer to Advisory Circular (AC) 147-3, Certification and Operation of Aviation Maintenance Technician Schools. After the FAA receives and reviews the requisite information, the FAA will issue the corresponding OpSpecs in order to allow the AMTS to operate under part 147.

Section 135(d)(1) through (5) of the Act contain requirements that govern the operations of certificated AMTSs, including requirements for the facilities, equipment, and material provided by schools; training locations; curricula; instructors; and certificates of completion. The FAA is implementing those requirements in subpart B of part 147, which is titled “Certification and Operating Requirements.” The following sections reiterate the statutory requirements and explain how the FAA is implementing the requirements in new part 147.

Section 135(d)(1) states that each certificated AMTS shall provide and maintain the facilities, equipment, and materials that are appropriate to the one or more ratings held by the school and the number of students taught. This statutory requirement is similar to current § 147.13, which requires that schools provide facilities, equipment, and materials appropriate to their ratings. The statute, however, does not include the same specificity regarding facilities, equipment, and materials specified in current §§ 147.15 through 147.19. 27 Section 135(d)(1) retains the requirement from these sections that such facilities, equipment, and materials be appropriate to the number of students taught. The FAA is implementing the requirements of Section 135(d)(1) in new § 147.13(a). Thus, § 147.13(a) will state that each certificated AMTS must provide and maintain the facilities, equipment, and materials that are appropriate to the rating or ratings held by the school and the number of students taught.

In developing the interim final rule, the FAA identified a potential unintended burden on an AMTS in the implementation of Section 135(d)(1) in new § 147.13(a) as it applies to additional training locations. As discussed in the next section, Section 135(d)(2) requires additional training locations to independently meet the requirements of part 147. The FAA recognizes that an AMTS may utilize additional training locations to teach all or part of its part 147 curriculum. If an AMTS utilizes additional fixed locations other than its primary location to provide part 147 training, the facilities, equipment, and materials used at that additional location need only be appropriate to the curriculum and number of students to be taught at that location.

To alleviate an unintended burden that would have resulted from additional locations independently meeting part 147, the FAA is adding § 147.13(b) to require that additional locations be appropriate only to the curriculum or portion of the curriculum, and the number of students being taught, at that location. By adopting this language in new § 147.13(b), the FAA alleviates an overly prescriptive burden on a school to outfit all additional training locations with facilities, equipment, and materials appropriate to the number of students to be taught and the ratings held, which would include the entirety of the school's curriculum. As a result, a school using additional training locations must identify the portion of its curriculum and number of students to be taught at each such location. Because the provision in new § 147.13(b) is merely a subset of the overarching requirement of § 147.13(a), the FAA finds that the requirement is consistent with the statute.

Pursuant to § 147.5, an AMTS must submit information demonstrating compliance with § 147.13 in its application. Section 147.5(b)(1) requires applicants to describe the facilities, including the physical address of the school's primary location for operation and any additional fixed training locations, and the equipment and materials to be used at each location. Section 147.5(b)(4) further requires that applicants submit information needed to determine compliance with each of the requirements of part 147, which includes § 147.13. As such, in addition to describing the facilities, equipment, and materials to be used at each location, an AMTS must demonstrate to the FAA that those facilities, equipment, and materials are appropriate to both the school's rating or ratings, and the number of students to be taught. If the AMTS uses additional training locations, the school must demonstrate that the facilities, equipment, and materials used at that location are appropriate to the curriculum, or portion of the curriculum, and number of students to be taught there. The FAA's process for determining the appropriateness of facilities, equipment, and materials to the ratings held and number of students to be taught will not change from the current regulation, in that the FAA will continue to assess appropriateness to ratings through the lens of the school's training program. That is, in determining the appropriateness of facilities, equipment, and materials for a given rating, the FAA will look to the curriculum that the school intends to use. 28

Section 135(d)(2) allows a certificated AMTS to provide training at any additional location that meets the requirements of the interim final regulations and is listed in the certificate holder's OpSpecs.

The FAA is implementing the requirements of Section 135(d)(2) in new § 147.15. This new regulation states that a certificated AMTS may provide training at any fixed location other than its primary location, provided the additional training location meets the requirements of part 147 and is listed in the certificate holder's OpSpecs. For clarity, the FAA is adopting rule language that slightly differs from the statutory language. Specifically, rather than stating that training may be provided at “any additional location,” new § 147.15 states that training may be provided at “any fixed location other than its primary location.” This change in terminology is intended to clarify what is meant by the term “additional location” in Section 135(d)(2). To ascertain the meaning of “additional location,” the FAA read Section 135(d)(2) in the context of Section 135(c)(1)(A)(i), which refers to the certificate holder's primary location for operation of the school and any additional fixed locations where training will be provided. Based on Section 135(c)(1)(A)(i), the FAA determined that “additional location” in Section 135(d)(2) refers to any fixed locations other than the primary location of the school. 29

Additionally, the legislation states that an AMTS may provide training at any additional location that meets the requirements of the interim final regulations, required under Section 135(a)(1). The interim final regulations required under Section 135(a)(1) are implemented as part 147. Therefore, the FAA is implementing the legislation to require that the additional training location must meet the requirements in part 147. Consequently, schools should expect the FAA to verify that each location meets the requirements of part 147 prior to the FAA listing the location on the AMTS OpSpecs.

There is nothing in the statute that prohibits foreign training locations nor is the FAA aware of any other prohibition concerning the foreign location of part 147 schools. 30 Therefore, based on the broad statutory provision in Section 135(d)(2), the FAA finds additional training locations may be located outside the United States, provided the additional location meets the requirements of part 147 and is listed in the certificate holder's OpSpecs. 31 For the same reasons, the FAA finds that certificated AMTSs may be located outside of the United States. The FAA is updating its guidance to reflect the allowance of foreign locations under part 147. 32

Section 135(d)(3) requires each certificated AMTS to establish, maintain, and utilize a curriculum designed to continually align with mechanic airman certification standards as appropriate for the ratings held, provide training of a quality that meets the requirements of subsection (f)(1), 33 and ensure students have the knowledge and skills necessary to be eligible to test for a mechanic certificate and associated ratings under subpart D of part 65.

The FAA is implementing Section 135(d)(3) in new § 147.17. Additionally, to effectuate the legislation, the FAA is making conforming amendments to part 65. The following sections discuss the training requirements set forth in the statute and the FAA's implementation of those requirements in more detail.

Incorporation by reference is a mechanism that allows Federal agencies to comply with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)  34 to publish rules in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations by referring to material published elsewhere. 35 Material that is incorporated by reference has the same legal status as if it were published in full in the Federal Register . Because 5 U.S.C. 552(a) requires the Director of the Federal Register to approve material to be incorporated by reference, incorporation by reference is governed by the Office of the Federal Register and as promulgated in its regulations: 1 CFR part 51. Specifically, 1 CFR part 51 provides certain requirements that a regulatory incorporation by reference must contain.

To receive a mechanic certificate or rating under subpart D of part 65, an applicant must pass a written, oral, and practical test. 36 Currently, the standards for the oral and practical tests are contained in the Mechanic Practical Test Standards (PTS). 37 The Mechanic PTS contains knowledge and skill subject areas that an applicant must demonstrate to pass the oral and practical test for a certificate or rating. Additionally, the questions on the written test align with the subject areas presented in the Mechanic PTS. Specifically, the Mechanic PTS contains subject areas, under which objectives define the general performance expectations of the elements within the subject areas. Currently, FAA inspectors and designated mechanic examiners (DMEs) conduct tests in accordance with the Mechanic PTS; however, the Mechanic PTS is not a regulatory standard for the written, oral, or practical tests. 38

The FAA has initiated a process to transition from using the Mechanic PTS as the testing standard to obtain a mechanic certificate. 39 As a part of this process, the FAA developed the Mechanic Airman Certification Standards (ACS), which adds task-specific knowledge and risk management elements to the standards, resulting in a comprehensive presentation that integrates the standards for what an applicant must demonstrate to pass the written, oral, and practical tests for a certificate or rating, respectively. Specifically, the Mechanic ACS contains several high-level subjects that will be assessed on the FAA tests as appropriate to the rating sought. 40 For each subject, the ACS specifies the aeronautical knowledge, risk management, and skill standards that an FAA inspector or a DME may evaluate for mechanic certification.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, 41 the FAA makes the Mechanic PTS and ACS reasonably available to interested parties by providing free online public access to view on the FAA Airman Certification Standards website at: www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs. Additionally, the Mechanic PTS and Mechanic ACS are available for download, free of charge, at the provided web address. In addition to the free online material available on the FAA's website, hard copies and printable versions are available from the FAA.

Consistent with Section 135(d)(3)(A), § 147.17(a)(1) will require each certificated AMTS to establish, maintain, and utilize a curriculum designed to continually align with the mechanic airmen certification standards as appropriate to the ratings held. The phrase “mechanic airman certification standards” in Section 135(d)(3)(A) refers to the standards that an applicant for a mechanic certificate or rating must demonstrate for certification.

Prior to this interim final rule, as previously stated, the FAA had not taken the necessary steps to make the testing standards regulatory. Because the legislation requires an AMTS curriculum to align with the testing standards, an AMTS is incapable of complying with the implementing regulation in § 147.17(a)(1) without referring to the testing standards contained in the Mechanic ACS. Because the implementing regulation requires an AMTS to use the Mechanic ACS, which is not already published in the Code of Federal Regulations or another location that carries the full force and effect of the law, the FAA is incorporating the Mechanic ACS by reference. Therefore, consistent with the statute, § 147.17(a)(1) requires each certificated AMTS to establish, maintain, and utilize a curriculum  42 designed to continually align with the mechanic airmen certification standards as appropriate to the ratings held. The mechanic airman certification standards are contained in the Mechanic ACS, which is a document that exists outside the regulations; therefore, to effectuate the requirement, the FAA is incorporating it by reference as previously discussed. Section 147.17(b) contains the proper language of incorporation set forth by the Office of the Federal Register  43 and includes document identification and location information, thereby enabling AMTS to comply with § 147.17(a)(1).

As previously discussed, the Mechanic ACS includes high-level subjects ( e.g., Fundamentals of Electricity and Electronics, Aircraft Drawings), which are broken down into components that include knowledge, risk management, and skill elements relevant to that subject. The knowledge, risk management, and skill elements set forth the standards for certification. Because the statute requires a curriculum to align with the Mechanic ACS, the curriculum must align with the standards set forth under the high-level subjects. For example, a curriculum would not meet the statutory requirement in Section 135(d)(3)(A) if it aligned only with the subjects in the Mechanic ACS because the high-level subjects are not the certification standards. 44 Nor would a curriculum suffice if it did not align with the knowledge and skill elements contained in the Mechanic ACS, because those are the knowledge and skill standards that the FAA will evaluate in testing applicants for a mechanic certificate under part 65.

While a curriculum must align with the high-level subjects and the standards set forth under those subjects, an AMTS need not duplicate the entire Mechanic ACS verbatim into its curriculum. Rather, the intent is to provide a more flexible, performance-based standard that enables an AMTS to develop a curriculum suited to the particular AMTS and that aligns with the Mechanic ACS. The FAA finds that an AMTS will be in compliance with § 147.17(a)(1)  45 if the school designs its curriculum to include: (1) The high-level subjects that are listed in the Mechanic ACS; and (2) broader course content items, concepts, and practical projects under each high-level subject, which may encompass several of the more detailed knowledge, risk management, and skill elements listed in the Mechanic ACS. For example, one broad course content item in the curriculum may encompass several knowledge elements listed in the Mechanic ACS, while still aligning with the Mechanic ACS. The FAA notes that the requirement to align the curriculum with the Mechanic ACS will not preclude an AMTS from including additional course content beyond that provided in the Mechanic ACS.

New § 147.17 replaces the curriculum requirements set forth in current § 147.21 (General curriculum requirements). New § 147.17 omits certain requirements in current § 147.21, including prescriptive requirements for curriculum hours and inclusion of subjects currently found in the appendices of part 147. Additionally, while the FAA will review curriculum as part of its oversight responsibilities, the FAA will no longer approve AMTS curriculum. For this reason, exemptions previously issued to provide relief from current § 147.21 will no longer be needed and will terminate upon the effective date of this interim final rule. 46

The FAA's implementation of new § 147.17 and incorporation by reference of the Mechanic ACS into part 147 necessitates conforming revisions to part 65. While part 147 addresses the training of mechanics through a certificated AMTS, subpart D of part 65 contains the eligibility requirements for all applicants seeking a mechanic certificate or rating, including the requirements to pass a written, oral, and practical test, respectively, within a period of 24 months. 47 That is, mechanic applicants who do not graduate from a certificated AMTS may test for a mechanic certificate by obtaining certain thresholds of practical experience rather than by graduating from a certificated AMTS. 48 The eligibility requirements and testing standards in subpart D of part 65 are applicable to students trained by an AMTS, as well as those who meet the practical experience requirements found in § 65.77(b).

The training of mechanics at an AMTS must therefore correspond to the testing standards required for certification under part 65, as evidenced by Section 135(d)(3)(C) of the Act, which requires an AMTS to ensure students have the knowledge and skills necessary to test for a mechanic certificate and associated ratings under part 65 and to align its curriculum with the Mechanic ACS. If the FAA did not require compliance with the Mechanic ACS in part 65, it would result in a disconnect between the training provided to AMTS students and the testing standards that an applicant must demonstrate on an FAA test for mechanic certification. This disconnect would adversely affect AMTS students if tested on knowledge and skill that the students were not trained on and would be inconsistent with Section 135(d)(3)(C). As evidenced from this statutory requirement, as well as the requirement for a curriculum to align with the mechanic airman certification standards ( i.e., the testing standards), the FAA has concluded that Congress did not intend to create a discrepancy between the training a student receives from an AMTS and the testing standard that a student is evaluated on for mechanic certification. Accordingly, to effectuate the legislation, the FAA finds it necessary to incorporate the Mechanic ACS by reference into part 65.

However, as previously discussed, the FAA has not yet transitioned to the Mechanic ACS as the testing standard and currently uses the Mechanic PTS to test applicants for a mechanic certificate or rating in accordance with subpart D of part 65. Because the Mechanic ACS added knowledge and skill standards, the FAA recognizes that applicants who have been trained by an AMTS prior to this interim final rule may not have received training on certain aspects of aircraft maintenance included in the Mechanic ACS. 49 Should the FAA implement the Mechanic ACS as the testing standard upon the effective date of this interim final rule, students who have been trained by an AMTS under the contents of the current part 147, appendices B, C, and D, would be placed at an immediate disadvantage when testing. Therefore, in order to allow for each AMTS to train its students under the curriculum aligned with the Mechanic ACS, as required by new § 147.17(a)(1), the FAA is delaying the implementation of the Mechanic ACS as the testing standard in part 65. Further, the FAA finds that one year is a sufficient time frame for current AMTS students to gain the knowledge required to take a knowledge, practical, and oral test based on the Mechanic ACS standards. 50 Therefore, the FAA will use the Mechanic PTS as the testing standard until July 31, 2023. After July 31, 2023, the FAA will use the Mechanic ACS to conduct mechanic tests.

To enforce both the Mechanic PTS and Mechanic ACS in part 65, the FAA must incorporate these standards by reference, as done for part 147, to ensure the testing standards are legally enforceable and consistent with the standards required by part 147. To require compliance with the testing standards set forth in the Mechanic PTS and Mechanic ACS, the FAA adds a new regulation to subpart A of part 65, designated as § 65.23, and amends the requirements in §§ 65.75 and 65.79, which require an applicant for a mechanic certificate or rating to pass a knowledge, oral and practical test, respectively. Rather than restate the language required by 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 51.9(b) to incorporate a document by reference in multiple part 65 sections, the FAA has created a new centralized incorporation by reference section as § 65.23 that incorporates the Mechanic PTS and Mechanic ACS. Centralizing the incorporation of the Mechanic ACS and Mechanic PTS under one section will streamline the regulatory text and avoid repetitive information in the regulations. Subsequent part 65 sections that require compliance with these respective standards ( i.e., §§ 65.75 and 65.79) refer to § 65.23 for identification information and the incorporation by reference language required by 1 CFR part 51.

Prior to this interim final rule, § 65.75 required the applicant to pass a written test that covered certain knowledge areas. 51 However, the FAA and an industry working group developed the Mechanic ACS to contain knowledge elements that an applicant must know to pass the written test. Thus, the Mechanic ACS contains the intended testing standards for the written test. To make these knowledge testing standards mandatory, the FAA is revising § 65.75 by incorporating by reference the Mechanic ACS in the section. However, as previously discussed, an immediate effectivity of the Mechanic ACS as the testing standard would put students who have trained at an AMTS whose curriculum has not incorporated some Mechanic ACS subject areas at a disadvantage. Therefore, the FAA will test mechanic applicants using the Mechanic PTS. The FAA will not test part 65 applicants on the subject areas contained in the Mechanic ACS until AMTSs have had an opportunity to deliver their revised curriculum in accordance with new § 147.17 ( i.e., aligned with the Mechanic ACS as appropriate for the ratings held).

As such, the FAA is revising § 65.75(a) to require that each applicant for a mechanic certificate or rating must, after meeting the applicable experience requirements of § 65.77, pass a written test, appropriate to the rating sought, which includes the subject areas contained in the applicable Mechanic PTS, appropriate to the rating sought, until July 31, 2023. After July 31, 2023, new § 65.75(a) requires part 65 applicants, after meeting the applicable experience requirements of § 65.77, to pass a written test, appropriate to the rating sought, which includes the aeronautical knowledge subject areas contained in the Mechanic ACS, appropriate to the rating sought.

The FAA is retaining the requirement in § 65.75(b) that the applicant must pass each section of the test before applying for the oral and practical tests prescribed by § 65.79, 52 and that a report of the written test is sent to the applicant. The FAA notes that consistent with Section 135(f)(4) of the statute, the FAA is adding a provision to § 65.75 to allow AMTS students to take the general written test prior to meeting the experience requirements of § 65.77 if they can provide an authenticated document from a certificated AMTS demonstrating satisfactory completion of the general portion of the school's curriculum. Section III.e.4. of this preamble, titled “Early Testing,” discusses § 65.75(c) in detail.

Similarly, the FAA is revising § 65.79, which contains the oral and practical test requirements for applicants seeking a mechanic certificate or rating, by incorporating by reference both the Mechanic PTS and the Mechanic ACS, respectively, in the section with the same effectivity dates as promulgated by § 65.75. Prior to this final rule, § 65.79 required each applicant to pass an oral test and a practical test appropriate to the rating sought. Section 65.79 required the tests to cover the applicant's basic skill in performing practical projects on the subjects covered by the written test for the rating sought. Additionally, § 65.79 required an applicant for a powerplant rating to show their ability to make satisfactory minor repairs to, and minor alternations of, propellers. To make the testing standards mandatory, the FAA is requiring in new § 65.79(a) that each applicant for a mechanic certificate or rating must pass an oral test and a practical test, as appropriate to the rating sought, by demonstrating the prescribed proficiency  53 in the assigned objectives for the subject areas contained in the applicable Mechanic PTS until July 31, 2023. After July 31, 2023, new § 65.79(b) requires each applicant for a mechanic certificate or rating to pass an oral test and practical test, as appropriate to the rating sought, by demonstrating satisfactory understanding of the knowledge, risk management, and skill element for each subject contained in the Mechanic ACS. 54

The FAA is implementing the remaining training requirements of Section 135(d)(3)(B) and (C) in new § 147.17(a)(2) and (3). Section 147.17(a)(2) requires each AMTS to provide training of a quality that meets the requirements of § 147.25, 55 which contains the minimum passage rate requirements that a school must maintain. Section 147.17(a)(2) implements the statutory requirement of Section 135(d)(3)(B) without change. Section 147.17(a)(3) requires each AMTS to ensure that its students have the knowledge and skills necessary to be prepared to test for a mechanic certificate and associated ratings under subpart D of part 65. 56 Section 147.17(a)(3) implements the statutory requirement of Section 135(d)(3)(C) with one minor change in terminology for accuracy. As previously discussed, subpart D of part 65 contains the eligibility and certification requirements for persons seeking a mechanic certificate or rating. Part 65 does not require a student to have knowledge and skill “to be eligible” to test for a mechanic certificate or rating. Rather, §§ 65.75 and 65.79 require an applicant to pass a written, oral, and practical test by demonstrating certain knowledge and skills. It is, therefore, accurate to state that a student must have the knowledge and skills necessary “to be prepared” to test for a mechanic certificate and associated ratings under subpart D of part 65. Section 147.17(a)(3) contains this change in terminology for purposes of alignment with the requirements of part 65.

Section 135(d)(4) states that each certificated AMTS shall (A) provide qualified instructors to teach in a manner that ensures positive educational outcomes are achieved; (B) ensure instructors hold a mechanic certificate with one or more appropriate ratings (or, with respect to instructors who are not certificated mechanics, ensure instructors are otherwise specifically qualified to teach their assigned content); and (C) ensure the student-to-instructor ratio does not exceed 25:1 for any shop class.

The statutory requirement preserves the requirement in current § 147.23 that instructors either hold a mechanic certificate or be otherwise specially qualified to teach certain curriculum content. The requirement also retains the student-to-instructor ratio prescribed for shop classes in current § 147.23 but removes the requirement that the one instructor in that ratio be FAA certificated. “Mechanic certificate” will continue to refer to an FAA mechanic certificate issued under part 65. The FAA interprets “specifically qualified” to mean an instructor is demonstrably qualified by reason other than an FAA mechanic certificate ( e.g., education or relevant experience) to teach a certain portion of the school's curriculum.

The statute adds the requirement that qualified instructors teach in a manner that ensures achievement of positive educational outcomes. The FAA interprets positive educational outcomes to refer to the training standards set forth in Section 135(d)(3) (implemented in new § 147.17), which are geared toward ensuring the AMTS provides training of a quality that satisfies the pass rate requirement specified in § 147.25 and equips students with the knowledge and skills needed to be prepared to test for a mechanic certificate and associated ratings under part 65. This means that instructors qualified in accordance with Section 135(d)(4)(B) must teach in a manner that ensures achievement of the training requirements in new § 147.17(a)(2) and (3). That is, instructors must teach in a manner that ensures the AMTS provides training of a quality that meets the minimum pass rate requirement specified in § 147.25. 57 Additionally, instructors must teach in a manner that ensures students have the knowledge and skills necessary to be prepared to test for a mechanic certificate and associated ratings under subpart D of part 65. 58

The FAA is implementing the requirement of Section 135(d)(4) in new § 147.19 with one minor change. The FAA is dividing Section 135(d)(4)(B), which is implemented in new § 147.19(b), into two subsections that distinguish the requirements for instructors who hold a mechanic certificate versus instructors who are otherwise specifically qualified.

An AMTS must submit information demonstrating compliance with § 147.19 in its application. Section 147.5(b)(3) requires applicants to describe the manner in which the school will ensure it provides the necessary qualified instructors to meet the requirements of § 147.19. Section 147.5(b)(4) further requires that applicants submit information needed to determine compliance with each of the requirements of part 147, which includes § 147.19. As such, in addition to describing the manner in which the school will ensure it provides the instructors required by § 147.19, the school must submit information demonstrating compliance with the requirements to (a) provide qualified instructors to teach in a manner that ensures positive educational outcomes; (b) ensure instructors are either certificated mechanics or otherwise specifically qualified; and (c) ensure the student-to-instructor ratio does not exceed 25:1 for any shop class.

To demonstrate compliance with § 147.19(a), an AMTS must submit evidence that it is able to provide qualified instructors (as defined in § 147.19(b)) to ensure the achievement of the training requirements in § 147.17(a)(2) and (a)(3). An AMTS should be prepared to describe the manner by which the school will ensure that its instructors can provide training of a quality that meets the requirements of § 147.25 and equip students with the knowledge and skills necessary to be prepared to test for a mechanic certificate and associated ratings under subpart D of part 65.

To demonstrate compliance with § 147.19(b), an AMTS must submit information demonstrating that any certificated instructors hold FAA mechanic certificates and appropriate ratings. For any non-certificated instructors, the school must identify the portion of its curriculum to which the instructor will be assigned and submit information demonstrating that the instructor is specifically qualified to teach their assigned content.

Section 135(d)(5), titled “Certificate of completion,” states that each certificated AMTS shall provide authenticated documentation to each graduating student, indicating the student's date of graduation and curriculum completed, as described in Section 135(d)(3)(A), which contains the training requirements for AMTSs.

The FAA is implementing the requirements of Section 135(d)(5) in new § 147.21 by stating that each certificated AMTS must provide an authenticated document to each graduating student, indicating the student's date of graduation and curriculum completed. Because the statute requires the FAA to establish interim final regulations in accordance with Section 135, new § 147.21 will not require an AMTS to provide an authenticated transcript of a student's grades to each student who is graduated from the school or who leaves it before graduating as current § 147.35 (Transcripts and graduation certificates) requires. The language in new § 147.21 mirrors the statute except for two minor changes.

First, the FAA finds it unnecessary to codify the statutory provision that states “the curriculum as described in Section 135(d)(3)(A).” As previously discussed, Section 135(d)(3)(A), which contains the curriculum requirements, is implemented in new § 147.17(a). It is apparent that the curriculum referenced in new § 147.21 refers to the curriculum required by § 147.17(a), as that is the only curriculum referenced in, and required by, new part 147. As such, the FAA is not adopting language that states “the curriculum as described in § 147.17(a).”

Second, the FAA is using the term “authenticated document” instead of “authenticated documentation.” Under the FAA's regulations, the purpose of issuing an authenticated document to a student who graduates from a certificated AMTS is to enable that student to demonstrate compliance with the experience requirements of § 65.77. The FAA finds that the term “authenticated document”, rather than “authenticated documentation,” accurately captures the documents intended to be presented under § 65.77. The FAA is concerned that the term “authenticated documentation” is vague and may be broadly interpreted to include numerous pages of extensive documentation. When a student presents a document to demonstrate compliance with § 65.77, that student presents the document to a knowledge testing center to show that the student is eligible to take the written test or tests. A knowledge testing center is a private company designated by the FAA to administer written airman knowledge tests, with FAA oversight to ensure compliance with FAA requirements. As a private company, a knowledge testing center is not the appropriate entity to review extensive documentation and make a determination about the student's eligibility under the regulations. Instead, the student must present a single document to the knowledge testing center that unambiguously demonstrates the student's eligibility to take the written tests. The term “authenticated document” is, therefore, more appropriate for an AMTS to provide to its graduates.

Furthermore, if the authenticated document is issued under § 147.21 for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with § 65.77, the FAA finds it necessary for the authenticated document to include the school's name and air agency certificate number to enable the knowledge testing center to identify the school as a certificated AMTS. Because schools may share the same name, an air agency certificate number is the only means for the FAA and knowledge testing centers to distinguish between AMTSs and to ensure the student graduated from a certificated AMTS. 59

In order to ensure consistency in the regulations, the FAA finds the need to make two conforming amendments to § 65.77. For purposes of effectuating the legislation in harmony with part 65, the FAA is replacing the reference in § 65.77 of “a graduation certificate or certificate of completion” with “authenticated document.” Additionally, § 65.77 presents two alternatives in lieu of graduating from a certificated AMTS in order to meet the experience required in § 65.75 to take the written test, provided the applicant provides documentary evidence satisfactory to the Administrator of such. The FAA finds that it is necessary to reformat § 65.77 in order to communicate that an applicant for a mechanic certificate or rating may present either an authenticated document from an AMTS or documentary evidence of one of the two practical experience alternatives.

Section 135(e) establishes new requirements for certificated AMTSs based on whether the AMTS is accredited by the Department of Education. The following sections reiterate the statutory requirements and explain how the FAA is implementing them in new part 147.

Section 135(e)(1) states that an AMTS must be accredited as meeting the definition of an institution of higher education provided for in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001) or establish and maintain a quality control system that meets the requirements specified in Section 135(e)(2), FAA-approved quality control system, and is approved by the Administrator.

The FAA is implementing the requirements of Section 135(e)(1) in new § 147.23(a), with two minor revisions. First, the FAA adds the word “certificated” before “aviation maintenance technician school” to clarify the applicability of the requirements of § 147.23(a).

Second, the FAA revises the requirement to state that a school must “be accredited within the meaning of 20 U.S.C. 1001(a)(5).” Although the statute specified a school would need to be “accredited as meeting the definition of an institution of higher education,” this language incorrectly suggests that a school is accredited if it meets the Department of Education's definition of “institution of higher education.” To the contrary, accreditation is one of five criteria that a school must meet in order to be deemed an “institution of higher education” under 20 U.S.C. 1001(a). Schools become accredited by seeking recognition from one of the accrediting agencies governed by the Department of Education. Section 1001(a) requires that schools be “accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association.” Pursuant to Section 1001(c), the Secretary of Education publishes a list of all nationally recognized accrediting agencies or associations determined to be reliable authority as to the quality of the education or training offered. Given that the subsequent section, Section 135(e)(2), refers only to accreditation, and not the definition of “institution of higher education,” the FAA believes the statute intends to require that schools be “accredited,” as that term is used in 20 U.S.C. 1001(a)(5), rather than requiring schools to meet all five criteria of the Department of Education's definition, which would appear to well exceed the scope of part 147 certification.

For this reason, the FAA requires in § 147.23(a) that each certificated AMTS either (1) be accredited within the meaning of 20 U.S.C. 1001(a)(5)—meaning they are accredited by an accrediting agency or association recognized by the Department of Education pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 1001(c); or (2) establish and maintain a quality control system that meets the requirements in § 147.23(b).

The requirement to “maintain” the quality control system under § 147.23(a)(2) means that a school must continue to implement the procedures described in its quality control system after it is approved by the FAA. If the school makes changes to its FAA-approved quality control system, then the school must notify the FAA since the basis for the FAA's approval would have changed. The FAA will provide a means of compliance for a quality control system and outline procedures that have proven successful for AMTSs in the past in AC 147-3 (as revised). The means of compliance set forth in the AC are not the only means of satisfying § 147.23; schools may use alternative means of compliance.

The FAA notes that the Department of Education's recognition of accrediting agencies is limited by statute to accreditation activities within the United States. 60 To be accredited within the meaning of 20 U.S.C. 1001(a)(5), an AMTS must have its primary location within the United States. The FAA would consider an AMTS's accreditation to extend to any additional training locations, whether located within or outside the United States. An AMTS whose primary location is outside of the United States cannot satisfy § 147.23(a)(1) and must instead establish and maintain a quality control system pursuant to § 147.23(b).

An AMTS must submit information demonstrating compliance with § 147.23(a) in its application. Section 147.5(b)(4) requires that applicants submit information needed to determine compliance with each of the requirements of part 147, which includes § 147.23. As such, an AMTS must either demonstrate that it is accredited within the meaning of 20 U.S.C. 1001(a)(5) or submit for FAA approval a quality control system that satisfies § 147.23(b). To demonstrate accreditation under § 147.23(a), a school should provide documentation that shows the school's current accreditation status and its accrediting agency.

As previously discussed, Section 135(e)(1)(B) requires a non-accredited AMTS to establish and maintain a quality control system that meets the requirements of Section 135(e)(2) and is approved by the Administrator. In the case of a non-accredited AMTS, Section 135(e)(2) requires the Administrator to approve a quality control system that provides procedures for record-keeping, assessment, issuing credit, issuing of final course grades, attendance, ensuring sufficient number of instructors, granting of graduation documentation, and corrective action for addressing deficiencies.

The FAA is implementing the requirements of Section 135(e)(2) in new § 147.23(b) with two minor changes. First, the statutory language in Section 135(e)(2) states that the FAA-approved system requirements apply in the case of an AMTS that is not accredited as set forth in paragraph (1), which is implemented as § 147.23(a). Because § 147.23(a) states that an AMTS must either be accredited within the meaning of 20 U.S.C. 1001(a)(5) or establish and maintain a quality control system, the FAA finds it repetitive to state that § 147.23(b) specifically applies to those AMTSs that are not accredited as set forth in § 147.23(a). Rather, the regulatory language has been simplified to state that the required procedures apply to the quality control system in § 147.23(a)(2).

Pertaining to the second minor change, the statutory provision requires the FAA to approve a quality control system that meets the requirements of the provision. Because the FAA's regulations apply to the regulated community rather than the FAA itself, the FAA is slightly revising the wording of Section 135(e)(2) to make it applicable to certificated AMTSs. Accordingly, new § 147.23(b) requires the quality control system specified in § 147.23(a)(2) to provide procedures for recordkeeping, assessment, issuing credit, issuing of final course grades, attendance, ensuring sufficient number of instructors, granting of graduation documentation, and corrective action for addressing deficiencies. As such, unless an AMTS is accredited within the meaning of 20 U.S.C. 1001(a)(5), the school will need to establish and maintain a quality control system that includes procedures for each of the items in § 147.23(b). Pursuant to § 147.23(a)(2), this quality control system must be approved by the Administrator.

In order to satisfy § 147.23(b), the quality control system submitted to the FAA for approval must clearly describe the school's procedures for each of the items listed in § 147.23(b). The FAA interprets “recordkeeping” to refer to procedures for producing and retaining records related to the AMTS's operation and students' completion of the school's curriculum. Similarly, the FAA interprets “assessment” to refer to procedures for evaluation of students' completion of the school's curriculum requirements. The FAA interprets procedures for “issuing credit” to refer to procedures describing how and when the school will credit a student with completion of the school's curriculum (or portions thereof), including if, when, and how the school will credit prior instruction or experience. Similarly, “attendance” procedures should describe how the AMTS will keep track of student attendance related to any school requirements for curriculum completion. Procedures for granting graduation documentation should describe the basis upon which the school will issue graduation documentation and the format of the documentation to be issued. These procedures should include documentation issued under § 147.31, early testing. Lastly, the FAA interprets “deficiencies” within the context of the statute to refer to deficiencies or defects within the school's quality control system, which may arise following FAA approval.

As previously stated, an AMTS must submit information demonstrating compliance with § 147.23 in its application pursuant to § 147.5(b)(4). As such, unless an AMTS submits information demonstrating that it is accredited in accordance with § 147.23(a)(1), the school must submit for FAA approval a quality control system that meets the requirements of § 147.23(b). Additionally, for those currently certificated AMTSs, Section 135 of the Act repeals and replaces current part 147 upon the effective date of the interim final rule; therefore, schools must ensure they are either accredited or have an FAA-approved quality control system in place and demonstrated to the FAA in order to comply with new part 147 and continue operations as a certificated AMTS. For additional information on submission of this information, refer to AC 147-3.

Section 135(f)(1) through (4) contain additional requirements for certificated AMTSs, including a pass rate requirement to ensure schools provide quality training, an FAA inspection requirement, a requirement for schools to display their AMTS certificates, and a requirement allowing students to take the general written test required under part 65 early, provided certain conditions are met. Because those requirements pertain to the operations of certificated ATMSs, the FAA is implementing them in subpart B of part 147, “Certification and Operating Requirements.” The following sections specify the statutory requirements and discuss the FAA's implementation of those requirements in more detail.

Section 135(f)(1) states that a certificated AMTS “shall maintain a pass rate of at least 70 percent of students who took a written, oral, or practical (or any combination thereof) FAA mechanic tests within 60 days of graduation for the most recent 3-year period.” Section 135(d)(3)(B), which contains the training requirements for AMTSs, requires each school to provide training of a quality that satisfies the minimum passage rate required by Section 135(f)(1). The training requirements are implemented in § 147.17 and discussed in section III.d.3. of this preamble, titled “Training Requirements.” This section discusses the implementation of the pass rate requirement in § 147.25.

In implementing Section 135(f)(1), the FAA encountered two ambiguous phrases in the statute that would have caused confusion in industry. 61 The first ambiguous phrase is “within 60 days of graduation.” The FAA finds that a person could interpret this phrase several ways. It could mean that a school must determine its pass rate by using students who take a test (or combination of tests) within 60 days before graduation. Alternatively, it could mean that a school must determine its pass rate by using students who take a test (or combination of tests) within 60 days after graduation. Furthermore, a person could interpret “within 60 days of graduation” to mean that a school must determine its pass rate by using students who take a test (or combination of tests) within the 60 days before or the 60 days after graduation, thereby creating a 120-day window as opposed to a 60-day window.

Currently, the FAA does not have a minimum passage rate requirement. However, in the FAA's supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) for part 147, which was published on April 16, 2019, 62 the FAA proposed to revise the quality of instruction requirements by replacing the national passing norms with a minimum passage rate requirement. 63 The FAA's proposed rule would have required each certificated AMTS to provide instruction of sufficient quality such that, in the prior 24 calendar months, 64 at least 70 percent of its graduates passed on the first attempt within 60 days of graduation each written test leading to a certificate or rating. Commenters asked the FAA to add oral and practical tests to the provision as well as a lookback period of 3 years rather than 24-calendar months. 65 Section 135(f)(1) includes the commenters' desired changes. Because Section 135(f)(1) appears to have stemmed from the FAA's proposed rule change in the SNPRM, the FAA is interpreting “within 60 days of graduation” consistent with the FAA's proposal. Accordingly, “within 60 days of graduation” means “60 days after graduation.”  66 The FAA notes that the 60-day window excludes students who test beyond 60 days after graduation from the pass rate calculation. The FAA proposed the 60-day window in the SNPRM because knowledge acquired through an AMTS's curriculum may be perishable if not applied within a reasonable time after graduation.

The second ambiguous phrase includes the list of tests that are used to determine the pass rate specified in the statute. Specifically, Section 135(f)(1) requires a pass rate of at least 70 percent of students who take “a written, oral, or practical (or any combination thereof) FAA mechanic tests” within 60 days of graduation. Part 65 contains the eligibility requirements for persons seeking an FAA mechanic certificate. 67 To be eligible for an FAA mechanic certificate issued under part 65, a person must pass all of the prescribed tests within a period of 24 months. 68 The prescribed tests for an FAA mechanic certificate include written tests, 69 oral tests, and practical tests. 70 Under the statute, for students who take one of these tests or any combination thereof within 60 days after graduation, the school must maintain a pass rate of at least 70 percent of students. The statute is unambiguous with respect to when a student takes only one test within 60 days after graduation and passes that test; the school may count that student towards the 70 percent pass rate. Furthermore, because the statute does not require the student to pass the test on the first attempt, 71 the FAA finds that the statute is also unambiguous with respect to a student who passes a test on a subsequent attempt within the 60 days following graduation; the school may also count that student towards the 70 percent pass rate. It is unclear from the statute, however, how Congress intended the “any combination thereof” language to apply.

The phrase “any combination thereof” refers to a combination of the tests prescribed by part 65 ( e.g., any combination of the written, oral, and practical tests). When a student takes a combination of tests, however, the FAA finds that the number of tests the student must pass to be counted towards the school's pass rate is subject to interpretation under Section 135(f)(1). A person could interpret Section 135(f)(1) to mean that a person who takes a combination of tests must pass all tests taken to be considered a passing student for purposes of determining the school's pass rate. Alternatively, a person could interpret Section 135(f)(1) to mean that a person who takes a combination of tests must pass only one test to be counted towards the school's pass rate.

To ascertain the meaning of the phrase “any combination thereof” in Section 135(f)(1), the FAA finds it necessary to read the phrase in the context of Section 135(f)(1) in its entirety. In addition, the FAA should construe statutory text so that no word or clause is rendered superfluous, void, or insignificant. 72 Section 135(f)(1) expressly requires schools to maintain a pass rate of at least 70 percent of students  73 who take one of the tests specified in paragraph (f)(1) or any combination of those tests. In other words, 70 percent of students who take one of the tests or any combination thereof must pass. Therefore, if a student takes a combination of tests within the 60 days following graduation, the FAA interprets the statute to mean the student must pass all tests taken to be counted as a passing student towards the school's pass rate. The FAA finds that this is the most reasonable interpretation when read in the context of the 70 percent pass rate because a student who passes one test but fails another would not be a “passing” student based on the totality of the student's test results. Additionally, the FAA's interpretation of Section 135(f)(1) gives meaning to the phrase “any combination thereof.”

If the FAA were to interpret Section 135(f)(1) to the contrary—to mean that a student who takes a combination of tests is required to pass only one test to be considered a passing student—the phrase “any combination thereof” would be rendered superfluous. For example, before a student may take an oral or practical test, the student must pass the written test (except if testing under § 65.80, as previously discussed). 74 If a student passes the written test but subsequently fails the oral and practical tests within the 60 days following graduation, the school would count the student as a passing student under this interpretation. Additionally, if a student passes the written test and subsequently passes the oral and practical tests within the 60-day window, the school would count the student as a passing student. As these examples illustrate, the only test that would matter under this interpretation would be the first test taken ( e.g., the written test under the examples). 75 Therefore, interpreting Section 135(f)(1) to mean that a student who takes any combination of tests is required to pass only one of the tests ( e.g., the written test) to be counted towards the school's pass rate would render the phrase “any combination thereof” meaningless.

Accordingly, the FAA is adopting rule language in § 147.25 that implements Section 135(f)(1) consistent with the FAA's aforementioned interpretation of the statutory provision. To facilitate readability and minimize confusion, the FAA is implementing Section 135(f)(1) by adopting three paragraphs in § 147.25. 76 Section 147.25(a) requires each certificated AMTS to maintain the pass rate specified in § 147.25(b) for the most recent 3-year period.

Section 147.25(b) contains the pass rate required by the statute. For students who take an FAA mechanic test under part 65 within 60 days after graduation, at least 70 percent of students must pass the test (or any combination thereof). These tests are listed in § 147.25(b)(1) through (3).

Lastly, to minimize confusion, the FAA is adopting § 147.25(c) to make clear that a student who takes a combination of tests within the 60 days following graduation must pass each test taken within the 60-day window to be considered a passing student for purposes of determining the school's pass rate. For example, if the student passes the written test(s) and oral test but subsequently fails the practical test within the 60 days following graduation, the school must count the failure on the practical test as a student failure for purposes of determining the pass rate. 77 Table 1 contains a hypothetical in an effort to provide clarity with respect to applying new § 147.25.

In Table 1, the AMTS has 10 students who took one or more FAA mechanic tests within the 60 days following graduation. For the school to meet the pass rate, 70 percent of these students must have passed. The AMTS would count the following students as passing students for purposes of determining the pass rate: Students 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The school must count Students 2 and 4 as student failures because the students took a combination of tests and failed two of the three tests ( e.g., the oral and practical tests). The school must also count Student 10 as a student failure because the student failed both attempts at the written test. Despite the student failures, the school had 7 out of 10 students pass the tests taken within the 60-day window. As such, the school met the 70 percent pass rate. 79

The FAA will collect pass/fail data on written, oral, and practical tests taken by graduates of an AMTS. The FAA's data will control for purposes of determining whether a certificated AMTS meets the minimum pass rate requirement in new § 147.25. The FAA notes that it currently does not collect pass/fail data on the oral and practical tests taken by AMTS graduates. The FAA will begin collecting this data when new part 147 goes into effect. However, because of the 3-year lookback period in the statute and the absence of current data, the FAA will not be able to determine compliance with § 147.25 for at least 3 years. Similarly, the 3-year lookback period will affect any newly certificated AMTSs on and after the effective date of the final rule because a new school will not have pass rate data for the most recent 3-year period. The FAA's inability to determine compliance with § 147.25 for a period of time does not mean that quality of instruction will be ignored. Rather, the FAA will issue reports containing the pass/fail data, which will allow the FAA and certificated AMTSs to monitor their pass rates and assess their quality of instruction. However, current schools (for the first three years following the effective date of the interim final rule) and newly certificated schools will not be in violation of § 147.25, even with a pass rate lower than 70 percent, because the pass rate would not be based on the 3-year period of data.

Table 2 shows which FAA written tests an AMTS student may take based on the curriculum the student completed. Table 3 illustrates the different components of the oral and practical tests that are administered to an applicant seeking a mechanic certificate and/or rating under part 65. The FAA notes that, for students graduating from a certificated AMTS, the results of these tests, within the 60-day timeframe, will be used to determine whether the school meets the minimum pass rate.

Section 135(f)(2) states that a certificated AMTS shall allow the Administrator such access as the Administrator determines necessary to inspect the 1 or more locations of the school for purposes of determining: (1) The school's compliance with the interim final regulations required under Section 135(a)(1); (2) the procedures and information outlined in the school's OpSpecs according to Section 135(c)(5); and (3) the AMTS certificate issued for the school. The FAA believes that the latter two areas of compliance are inherently incorporated into the first enumerated area of compliance, which assesses compliance with the requirements of part 147. An AMTS's OpSpecs and the school's certificate are issued under the requirements of part 147. Therefore, the ability to inspect an AMTS to determine its compliance with part 147 includes inspecting its compliance with its OpSpecs and its certificate.

The statutory requirement is largely consistent with current § 147.43, which allows the Administrator to inspect an AMTS at any time to determine its compliance with part 147. The FAA is implementing this requirement in new § 147.27. As a result of Section 135(a)(2), which repeals the current regulations in part 147, the FAA notes that current § 147.43 is repealed upon the effective date of this interim final rule. Therefore, the language found in current § 147.43 that a school will be notified, in writing, of any deficiencies found during the inspection is repealed. However, AMTSs will continue to receive written notifications of negative findings after inspections pursuant to the FAA's guidance to inspectors found in FAA Order 8900.1.

Section 135(f)(3) requires a certificated AMTS to display its AMTS certificate at a location in the school that is visible by and normally accessible to the public. The FAA finds that the term “school” in Section 135(f)(3) is ambiguous in light of the statutory provision that allows a certificated AMTS to provide training at additional fixed locations. 80 For example, Section 135(f)(3) could be interpreted to mean that the part 147 certificate must be displayed only at the primary location of the school. Alternatively, Section 135(f)(3) could be interpreted to mean that the part 147 certificate must be displayed at the primary location and any additional fixed locations of the school. To ascertain the meaning of the term “school” in Section 135(f)(3), the FAA finds it necessary to read Section 135(f)(3) in the context of the statute in its entirety. 81 Section 135(d)(2) states that a certificated AMTS may provide training at any additional location that meets the interim final regulations, which are required under Section 135(a)(1), and is listed in the certificate holder's OpSpecs. Additionally, Section 135(c)(1)(A)(i) contains an application requirement that applies to any additional fixed locations where training will be provided. As a result, a “school” may have a primary location and additional fixed locations. When read in the context of Section 135 in its entirety, the FAA finds it reasonable to interpret the broad term “school” in Section 135(f)(3) as including each location of the school ( i.e., primary location and additional fixed locations). Furthermore, the statute uses the term “primary location” throughout the legislation, 82 but does not use the term in Section 135(f)(3). Instead, Section 135(f)(3) states that the certificate must be displayed “at a location in the school.” This meaningful variation in terminology further supports the FAA's interpretation that the term “school” in Section 135(f)(3) means primary location and any additional fixed locations of the school. 83

For these reasons, the FAA interprets Section 135(f)(3) to mean that a certificated AMTS must display its certificate at a place in each location of the school, including the primary location and any additional fixed locations, that is visible by and normally accessible to the public. The FAA is implementing this requirement in new § 147.29. The AMTS may display a copy of the Air Agency certificate at any location. The FAA notes that it is using the term “place” in the regulation rather than “location” to avoid confusion because the statute (and thus, the implementing regulations) already use the term “location” with respect to “primary location” and “additional fixed locations.”  84

Section 135(f)(4) states that a certificated AMTS “may issue authenticated documentation demonstrating a student's satisfactory progress, completion of corresponding portions of the curriculum, and preparedness to take the aviation mechanic written general knowledge test, even if the student has not met the experience requirements of [§ ] 65.77 of [14 CFR].” Section 135(f)(4) requires any such documentation to specify the curriculum the student completed and the completion date.

The FAA is implementing Section 135(f)(4) in part 147 by adding new § 147.31, which allows a school to issue an authenticated document to a student when that student satisfactorily completes the general portion of a school's curriculum. The authenticated document will demonstrate the student's preparedness to take the aviation mechanic general written test prior to meeting the experience requirements specified in § 65.77. To facilitate readability and ensure effective implementation of Section 135(f)(4), the FAA is codifying rule language in § 147.31 that slightly differs from the statutory language of Section 135(f)(4). Despite the different phrasing and terminology, however, the FAA emphasizes that the provisions share the same meaning and achieve the same objective. The differences are discussed in detail herein.

Section 135(f)(4) uses the term “aviation mechanic written general knowledge test.” The FAA finds, however, that using the terms “written” and “knowledge” when referring to the aviation mechanic general written test would be unnecessary and inconsistent with FAA regulations. 85 Subpart D of part 65, which contains the eligibility requirements for an applicant seeking a mechanic certificate, uses the term “written test.” Because subpart D of part 65 applies to AMTS students seeking to obtain a mechanic certificate, the FAA has decided to use the term “written test” in § 147.31 to ensure consistency between the parts.

Section 135(f)(4) allows an AMTS to issue authenticated documentation demonstrating “a student's satisfactory progress, completion of corresponding portions of the curriculum, and preparedness to take the aviation mechanic written general knowledge test.” The student's satisfactory progress and preparedness to take the aviation mechanic general written test is based wholly on whether the student satisfactorily completed the corresponding portion of the curriculum. The portion of the curriculum that directly corresponds to the student's preparedness to take the aviation mechanic general written test is the portion of the curriculum that contains the general curriculum subjects. After reviewing the statutory provision, the FAA determined that Section 135(f)(4) appears to contain unnecessary and redundant phraseology. To reduce confusion and facilitate comprehension, the FAA is codifying the statutory requirement in a more concise and simplistic manner.

New § 147.31 will allow a certificated AMTS to issue an authenticated document to a student when that student satisfactorily completes the general portion of a school's curriculum. The authenticated document will demonstrate the student's preparedness to take the aviation mechanic general written test prior to meeting the experience requirements of § 65.77. Specifically, the authenticated document will demonstrate that the student is prepared to take the aviation mechanic general written test by showing that the student satisfactorily completed the general portion of the curriculum.

For the reasons discussed herein, the FAA is making a conforming amendment to § 65.75 to effectuate the statutory requirement. Because of the conforming amendment, the FAA is adopting a cross-reference to § 65.75 to simplify the rule language in § 147.31 and avoid redundancy in the regulations. Additionally, the FAA explains why the regulatory text uses “authenticated document” rather than “authenticated documentation” in this section.

Section 135(f)(4) also requires the authenticated documentation to specify the curriculum the student completed and the completion date. As evident by the first sentence in Section 135(f)(4), a student is not required to complete an entire curriculum— i.e., either an airframe curriculum, a powerplant curriculum, or an airframe and powerplant curriculum—in order to demonstrate eligibility to take the aviation mechanic general written test early. Rather, the student must satisfactorily complete the general portion of that curriculum. Therefore, requiring the authenticated documentation to specify the curriculum completed is inconsistent with the first sentence in Section 135(f)(4). Requiring the student to complete an entire curriculum would also frustrate the implementation of Section 135(f)(4) in the AMTS industry because not all schools administer a general curriculum independent from the airframe or powerplant curriculum. 86 In some cases, a school may administer the general curriculum subjects as part of the airframe or powerplant curriculum.

To achieve the intent of Section 135(f)(4), the FAA finds it necessary to adopt rule language that is consistent with the first sentence of Section 135(f)(4). Accordingly, the regulations will require an authenticated document to show that the student has satisfactorily completed the general portion of the curriculum and the completion date. The FAA is codifying this requirement in new § 65.75(c), which is subsequently discussed, rather than § 147.31, because subpart D of part 65 contains the eligibility requirements for a person seeking a mechanic certificate and the FAA considers the authenticated document necessary to take the written test early to be an eligibility requirement for taking that written test.

Furthermore, upon review of Section 135(f)(4), the FAA determined that an amendment to § 65.75(a) is necessary to achieve the intent of the legislation. Part 147 prescribes the requirements for issuing AMTS certificates and associated ratings, and the operating rules for those certificate holders. 87 The students of an AMTS, however, must comply with subpart D of part 65, which prescribes the requirements for issuing mechanic certificates and associated ratings. Currently, § 65.75(a) requires each applicant for a mechanic certificate or rating to meet the applicable experience requirements of § 65.77 prior to passing a written test. Students of an AMTS are, therefore, required to satisfy the experience requirements of § 65.77 before they may take the aviation mechanic general written test. Numerous schools have obtained exemptions from § 65.75(a) to enable their students to take the aviation mechanic general written test immediately following the students' successful completion of the general curriculum subjects. 88 Section 135(f)(4) is intended to allow students who have successfully completed the general portion of the curriculum to take the aviation mechanic general written test even if the student has not met the applicable experience requirements of § 65.77. Thus, the legislation is intended to eliminate the need for schools to obtain exemptions from § 65.75(a) to enable early testing.

Upon review of the exemptions from § 65.75(a), however, the FAA recognizes that it cannot achieve the intent of the legislation by amending only part 147. If not amended, students would continue to be required by § 65.75(a) to meet the applicable experience requirements of § 65.77 prior to taking the aviation mechanic general written test. Thus, the new requirement in § 147.31 would create an inconsistency with § 65.75(a) rather than eliminating the need for exemptions from § 65.75(a).

Accordingly, to achieve the intent of the legislation, the FAA finds it necessary to make a conforming amendment to § 65.75. The FAA is adding an exception to the requirement in § 65.75(a) that will allow an applicant for a mechanic certificate or rating to take the general written test prior to meeting the experience requirements of § 65.77, provided the applicant presents an authenticated document from a certificated AMTS that demonstrates satisfactory completion of the general portion of the curriculum. This exception is contained in new § 65.75(c). As a result, the new § 65.75(c) will eliminate the need for exemptions from § 65.75(a), and exemptions from this regulation will terminate upon the effective date of this interim final rule.

The FAA creates the mechanic written tests that are required under part 65. These written tests, however, are administered to applicants by knowledge testing centers. A knowledge testing center is a private company designated by the FAA to administer written airman knowledge tests, with FAA oversight to ensure compliance with FAA requirements.

The FAA recognizes that Section 135(f)(4) allows a school to issue “authenticated documentation” that demonstrates a student's eligibility to take a general written test prior to meeting the experience requirements of § 65.77. For the same reasons discussed in section III.d.5., the FAA finds it necessary to use the term “authenticated document” rather than “authenticated documentation.” By using the term “authenticated document,” the FAA emphasizes the need for schools to issue a single document that effectively demonstrates the student's eligibility to take the written test early, without additional FAA involvement. 89 The term “authenticated document” will achieve the intent of the legislation by allowing schools to determine what type of document they wish to issue rather than mandating a particular document, such as “certificate of completion.”

The purpose of an authenticated document under new § 147.31 is to provide proof that the student has, in fact, satisfactorily completed the general portion of the certificated AMTS's curriculum and is prepared to take the general written test early in accordance with new § 65.75(c). As a result, the FAA finds it necessary for the authenticated document to include the school's name and air agency certificate number to enable the knowledge testing center to identify the school as a certificated AMTS. A school's name is insufficient alone because schools may share the same name. Thus, the air agency certificate number is the only means for the FAA and the knowledge testing center to clearly distinguish between AMTSs and to ensure the student completed the general portion of the curriculum at a certificated AMTS.

Upon implementing the statutory requirements of Section 135 into new part 147, the FAA recognized that the new requirements would have created inconsistencies in two provisions that exist outside part 147, namely appendix A to part 43 and § 65.80. As a result, the FAA finds it necessary to make conforming amendments to those provisions. The following sections explain the conforming amendments in detail.

Current § 147.21(e) contains the requirements governing the approval of special inspection and preventive maintenance courses for primary category aircraft type certificated under § 21.24. 90 Section 135(a)(1) requires the FAA to issue interim final regulations in accordance with the requirements of Section 135. Additionally, Section 135(a)(2) repeals all current regulations upon the effective date of the interim final rule. Because Section 135 of the statute does not contain a provision governing the approval of special inspection and preventive maintenance courses for primary category aircraft type certificated under § 21.24, the FAA is not issuing an interim final regulation governing such courses. Additionally, current § 147.21(e) is repealed on the effective date of this interim final rule.

Appendix A to part 43, which describes the circumstances under which an owner of a primary category aircraft may complete the preventive maintenance tasks specified in appendix A, contains a cross-reference to § 147.21(e). Because § 147.21(e) is repealed upon the effective date of this interim final rule, the FAA is making a conforming amendment to appendix A of part 43, paragraph (c)(30)(i), by removing the reference to certificates of competency for the affected aircraft “issued by a school approved under § 147.21(e) of this chapter.” Therefore, appendix A of part 43, paragraph (c)(30)(i) will refer only to certificates of competency that are issued by (1) the holder of the production certificate for that primary category aircraft that has a special training program approved under § 21.24 or (2) another entity that has a course approved by the Administrator. As a result, an AMTS that requests an approval, or an AMTS that currently holds an approval originally issued under § 147.21(e), of special courses in the performance of special inspection and preventive maintenance programs for a primary category aircraft, may issue a certificate of competency as “another entity that has a course approved by the Administrator” in accordance with new paragraph (c)(30)(i)(2).

Section 65.80 allows AMTS students to take the oral and practical tests prescribed by § 65.79 before meeting the applicable experience requirements of § 65.77, and before the student passes each section of the written test prescribed by § 65.75. The school must show an FAA inspector the student has made satisfactory progress at the school and is prepared to take the oral and practical tests. Additionally, § 65.75 states the student may take the tests prescribed by § 65.79 during the final subjects of the student's training in the approved curriculum. The reference to “approved curriculum” in § 65.80 refers to a certificated AMTS's approved curriculum, which was required under § 147.21 as it existed prior to this interim final rule. 91

In accordance with Section 135 of the statute, AMTS curriculums under part 147 will no longer require FAA approval, as reflected in new § 147.17. As a result, the FAA is making a conforming amendment to § 65.80 by removing reference to an AMTS's “approved” curriculum. This amendment will allow AMTS students to continue testing under § 65.80.

Further, § 65.80 permits students to take the oral and practical test prescribed by § 65.79 during the final subjects of the student's training in the part 147 curriculum before the applicable experience requirements of § 65.77 are met and before the student passes each section of the written test required by § 65.75 when the AMTS shows the student's satisfactory progress to an FAA inspector. In the interest of regulatory standardization, the FAA is revising the language from “an FAA inspector” to “the Administrator.” Additionally, the FAA is removing gender references within the regulatory text.

Section 135(a)(1) requires the FAA to issue interim final regulations in accordance with the requirements of Section 135. Additionally, Section 135(a)(2) repeals all current regulations upon the effective date of the interim final rule. As a result, some sections of part 147 will retain their section number and heading but contain new requirements in accordance with the statute. Several sections will be repealed and not replaced. Other sections will be renumbered and replaced with new requirements in accordance with the statute. The following table shows the current regulatory sections of part 147 and how they are affected under this interim final rule.

Section 135 also requires the FAA to issue new requirements, which have not previously existed in part 147. The following table shows which sections contain these new requirements.

Federal agencies consider impacts of regulatory actions under a variety of executive orders and other requirements. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify the costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $158,000,000, using the most current (2020) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. The FAA has provided a detailed Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) in the docket for this rulemaking. This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this rule.

In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this rule: Will result in benefits that justify costs; is not an economically “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866; will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector.

This interim final rule establishes regulations that conform to the Act, which sets forth statutory requirements to promote aviation regulations for technician training. Consistent with the statute, this interim final rule adopts new requirements for issuing AMTS certificates and associated ratings and the general operating rules for the holders of those certificates and ratings.

Among other changes that reduce administrative burden and streamline the process to apply for and maintain an AMTS certification, under the interim final rule, an AMTS would need to align their curriculum to the Mechanic ACS rather than the appendices to part 147, which aligned with the Mechanic PTS. The FAA will no longer approve curriculums, but rather will ensure that AMTS curriculums align with the Mechanic ACS through routine surveillance. The interim final rule also requires that an AMTS either be accredited within the meaning of 20 U.S.C. 1001(a)(5) or establish and maintain an FAA-approved quality control system. As the majority of AMTSs are accredited, this change will result in alleviating such AMTSs from the current requirement of FAA approval of grading and attendance policies. Further, the interim final rule (IFR) repeals the prohibition on an AMTS operating at a satellite facility, which potentially expands access to additional training locations. Lastly, another key change in this IFR includes the replacement of the national passing norms with a minimum passage rate requirement; this will create a standard that does not vary over time and does not depend on the performance of other AMTSs.

While the effects of this IFR on overall AMTS training quality and accessibility are unquantified, the FAA expects that this rule will be less burdensome to AMTSs as a whole and will allow for greater flexibility for an AMTS to keep current with industry standards and technological changes in aviation maintenance. Also, although the Mechanic ACS is less prescriptive, it is a more comprehensive set of standards than those previously provided in the part 147 appendices. Therefore, there would be incremental costs to FAA in implementing this interim final rule as the initial development to ensure alignment is expected to take additional time when compared to current curriculum development. Table 4 shows the summary of estimated present value and annualized costs, cost savings, and the net savings using both 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates.

The Delaware River Basin Commission (“DRBC” or “Commission”) is a Federal-interstate compact agency charged with managing the water resources of the Delaware River Basin on a regional basis without regard to political boundaries. Its members are the governors of the four basin states—Delaware, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania—and on behalf of the federal government, the North Atlantic Division Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

In accordance with 18 CFR 401.43(c), on July 1 of every year, the Commission's regulatory program fees as set forth in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of that section are subject to an annual adjustment, commensurate with any increase in the annual April 12-month Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Philadelphia published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics during that year. Pursuant to 18 CFR 420.41(c), the same indexed adjustment applies to the Commission's schedule of water charges for consumptive and non-consumptive withdrawals of surface water within the basin. The referenced April 12-month CPI for 2022 showed an increase of 8.38%. Commensurate adjustments are thus required.

This notification is made in accordance with 18 CFR 401.43(c) and 18 CFR 420.41(c), which provide that a revised fee schedule will be published in the Federal Register by July 1. The revised fees also may be obtained by contacting the Commission during business hours or by checking the Commission's website.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Delaware River Basin Commission amends parts 401 and 420 of title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety and security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain local regulations. Safety zones may be established for safety or environmental purposes. A safety zone may be stationary and described by fixed limits or it may be described as a zone around a vessel in motion. Security zones limit access to prevent injury or damage to vessels, ports, or waterfront facilities. Special local regulations are issued to enhance the safety of participants and spectators at regattas and other marine events.

Timely publication of these rules in the Federal Register may be precluded when a rule responds to an emergency, or when an event occurs without sufficient advance notice. The affected public is, however, often informed of these rules through Local Notices to Mariners, press releases, and other means. Moreover, actual notification is provided by Coast Guard patrol vessels enforcing the restrictions imposed by the rule. Because Federal Register publication was not possible before the end of the effective period, mariners were personally notified of the contents of these safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas, or drawbridge operation regulations by Coast Guard officials on-scene prior to any enforcement action. However, the Coast Guard, by law, must publish in the Federal Register notice of substantive rules adopted. To meet this obligation without imposing undue expense on the public, the Coast Guard periodically publishes a list of these temporary safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas, and drawbridge operation regulations. Permanent rules are not included in this list because they are published in their entirety in the Federal Register . Temporary rules are also published in their entirety if sufficient time is available to do so before they are placed in effect or terminated.

The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily during the period between April 2020 and June 2020 unless otherwise indicated. To view copies of these rules, visit www.regulations.gov and search by the docket number indicated in the following table.

Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety and security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain local regulations. Safety zones may be established for safety or environmental purposes. A safety zone may be stationary and described by fixed limits or it may be described as a zone around a vessel in motion. Security zones limit access to prevent injury or damage to vessels, ports, or waterfront facilities. Special local regulations are issued to enhance the safety of participants and spectators at regattas and other marine events.

Timely publication of these rules in the Federal Register may be precluded when a rule responds to an emergency, or when an event occurs without sufficient advance notice. The affected public is, however, often informed of these rules through Local Notices to Mariners, press releases, and other means. Moreover, actual notification is provided by Coast Guard patrol vessels enforcing the restrictions imposed by the rule. Because Federal Register publication was not possible before the end of the effective period, mariners were personally notified of the contents of these safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas, or drawbridge operation regulations by Coast Guard officials on-scene prior to any enforcement action. However, the Coast Guard, by law, must publish in the Federal Register notice of substantive rules adopted. To meet this obligation without imposing undue expense on the public, the Coast Guard periodically publishes a list of these temporary safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas, and drawbridge operation regulations. Permanent rules are not included in this list because they are published in their entirety in the Federal Register . Temporary rules are also published in their entirety if sufficient time is available to do so before they are placed in effect or terminated.

The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily during the period between October 2020 and December 2020 unless otherwise indicated. To view copies of these rules, visit www.regulations.gov and search by the docket number indicated in the following table.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this safety zone on June 9, 2022, and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the CMA Festival Fireworks starting June 9, 2022, will be a safety concern for anyone within mile marker 189.7 to 191.1 on the Cumberland River. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the firework display.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 11:00 p.m. until 12:15 a.m. from June 9, 2022, through June 10, 2022. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters between Mile Marker (MM) 189.7 to 191.1 on the Cumberland River, extending the entire width of the river. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the fireworks display is occuring. No vessel or person will be 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 (USCG) assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Ohio Valley.

Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. To seek entry into the safety zone, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by telephone at 502-779-5422 or on VHF-FM channel 16.

Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.

The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) about this safety zone, enforcement period, as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement.

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. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the fireworks show being held for 1.25 hours during the evening hours and only impacting .4 Miles of the Cumberland River.

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

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

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

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, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only 1.25 hours that will prohibit entry between MM 189.7.0 to 191.1 on the Cumberland River for the fireworks display. 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. 1. Due to the emergency nature of this rulemaking, a Record of Environmental Consideration is not required.

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

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

I. Background

The Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act (“MMA”) substantially modified the compulsory “mechanical” license for making and distributing phonorecords of nondramatic musical works under 17 U.S.C. 115. 1 It did so by switching from a song-by-song licensing system to a blanket licensing regime that became available on January 1, 2021 (the “license availability date”), administered by a mechanical licensing collective (“MLC”) designated by the Copyright Office (the “Office”). 2 Digital music providers (“DMPs”) are able to obtain the new compulsory blanket license to make digital phonorecord deliveries of nondramatic musical works, including in the form of permanent downloads, limited downloads, or interactive streams (referred to in the statute as “covered activity” where such activity qualifies for a compulsory license), subject to compliance with various requirements, including reporting obligations. DMPs may also continue to engage in those activities solely through voluntary licensing with copyright owners, in which case the DMP may be considered a significant nonblanket licensee (“SNBL”) under the statute, 3 subject to separate reporting obligations.

On September 17, 2020, the Office issued an interim rule adopting regulations concerning certain types of reporting required under the statute after the license availability date: Notices of license and reports of usage by DMPs and notices of nonblanket activity and reports of usage by SNBLs (the “September 2020 rule”). 4 As relevant here, those interim regulations provide requirements governing annual reporting and the ability to make adjustments to monthly and annual reports and related royalty payments, including to correct errors and replace estimated inputs with finally determined figures. 5

Under the September 2020 rule, DMPs must deliver annual reports of usage (“AROUs”) and any related royalty payment to the MLC no later than the twentieth day of the sixth month following the end of the DMP's fiscal year covered by the AROU. 6 AROUs must contain cumulative information for the applicable fiscal year, broken down by month and by activity or offering, including the total royalty payable, the total sum paid, the total adjustments made, the total number of payable units, and to the extent applicable to calculating the royalties owed, total service provider revenue, total costs of content, total performance royalty deductions, and total subscribers. 7 In describing these requirements, the Office said that “[r]eceiving these totals and having them broken down this way seems beneficial to the MLC in confirming proper royalties, while not unreasonably burdening DMPs, who would not have to re-provide all of the information contained in the monthly reports covered by the annual reporting period.”  8

Under the September 2020 rule, DMPs have the ability to make adjustments to previously delivered monthly reports of usage (“MROUs”) and AROUs, including related royalty payments, by delivering reports of adjustment (“ROAs”) to the MLC. 9 An ROA adjusting one or more MROUs may, but need not, be combined with the AROU for the annual period covering the MROUs and related payments. 10 When an ROA and AROU are combined, the AROU is also considered an ROA, and the AROU must comply with the regulatory requirements applicable to both types of reports. 11 The deadlines to deliver ROAs and any related royalty payment to the MLC differ depending on whether the ROA is adjusting an MROU or AROU and whether the ROA is combined with an AROU. An ROA adjusting an MROU that is not combined with an AROU must be delivered after the date that the MROU being adjusted is delivered and before the date that the AROU covering that MROU is delivered. 12 If the ROA is combined with the AROU, then the due date for the AROU applies. 13

An ROA adjusting an AROU is only permitted in response to certain enumerated triggering events ( e.g., in exceptional circumstances, when making an adjustment to a previously estimated input, or in response to a change in applicable rates or terms set by the CRJs under the section 115 license). 14 Such an ROA is due no later than six months after the occurrence of such an event. 15

All ROAs must include detailed information, including about the specific changes being made and the reason(s) for the adjustment. 16 In response to comments from the DLC, the Office significantly modified these requirements between the Office's April 2020 notice of proposed rulemaking  17 and the September 2020 rule. As the Office explained in the September 2020 rule, the DLC proposed deleting two portions of the proposed rule addressing reports of adjustments. The first was the requirement for DMPs to include in the description of adjustment “the monetary amount of the adjustment” and second, the requirement to include “a detailed and step-by-step accounting of the calculation of the adjustment sufficient to allow the mechanical licensing collective to assess the manner in which the blanket licensee determined the adjustment and the accuracy of the adjustment.” As the DLC explained, “[a]lthough DMPs must provide inputs to the MLC, it is typically the MLC, not the providers, that will use those inputs to perform a `step-by-step accounting' and determine the `monetary amount[s]' due to be paid.” In response, the MLC confirmed its shared understanding it would verify this math and did not oppose the DLC's proposal. The MLC proposed additional language, modeled off language in the monthly usage reporting provisions found in § 210.27(d)(1)(ii) of the proposed rule to confirm “DMPs must always provide all necessary royalty pool calculation information.” As it found these changes reasonable, the Office adopted the DLC's proposal with the addition of the language proposed by the MLC. 18

In adopting these proposals, the Office also modified the due date for delivering any underpayment of royalties to the MLC. Instead of always being due contemporaneously with the ROA's delivery, as was originally proposed, the September 2020 rule provides that it may either be due then “or promptly after being notified by the mechanical licensing collective of the amount due.”  19

Separate from the requirements for ROAs and AROUs, the September 2020 rule contains processes through which DMPs may receive royalty invoices and response files from the MLC in connection with MROUs, including after delivering MROUs but before making royalty payments. 20 The Office explained that “[a]lthough the MMA does not explicitly address invoices and response files, the DLC has consistently articulated the importance of addressing requirements for each in Copyright Office regulations,”  21 and that accommodating invoices and response files “is intended to further the Office's longstanding policy objective that the compulsory license should be a realistic and practical alternative to voluntary licensing.”  22 Notably, the DLC did not request an invoice or response file process in connection with AROUs or ROAs.

After the adoption of these rules, which involved multiple rounds of public comments through a notification of inquiry, 23 notice of proposed rulemaking, 24 and an ex parte communications process, 25 the DLC raised a new concern regarding the applicability of certain reporting provisions to pass-through licenses for permanent downloads which the Office addressed through supplemental interim rules. 26 The DLC now raises another new concern, this time arising from “several operational and compliance challenges with the existing AROU and adjustment regulations.”  27

As the DLC describes it, “[t]he identified challenges stem principally from differences between the regulations governing AROUs and adjustments on the one hand, and the regulations governing monthly reporting under the blanket license that licensees and the MLC have now been successfully operating under for over a year.”  28 These “differences” appear to largely refer to the lack of an express back-and-forth process through which DMPs can obtain invoices and response files from the MLC in connection with AROUs and ROAs. 29 To address its concerns, the DLC essentially proposes to amend the content requirements and royalty payment timing for AROUs and create a response file process for ROAs. 30 The DLC further states that “[g]iven the time pressure for those services that are currently in the AROU process, we urge the Office to consider adopting an immediately effective interim rule.”  31 The DLC also suggests that an alternative solution could be for the Office to “postpon[e] the deadline for the 2021 annual reports of usage entirely until some period after the [CRJs] decide[] the Phonorecords III rate proceeding.”  32

The MLC opposes the DLC's proposal for reasons discussed below, which mostly concern the disruptive impact it would have on the MLC's core operations, e.g., processing monthly royalty distributions and historical unmatched royalties. 33 The MLC explains that its understanding is “that the interim status of the rule is not intended to enable new and onerous substantive requirements to be added without meaningful notice, comment and transition, as the DLC Letter now seems to propose.”  34 Nevertheless, the MLC states that “it intends to provide response files to DSPs in connection with ARoUs” and “can provide invoices in connection with ARoUs,” noting that it “will continue to work with DSPs on timing and coordination, as it has done since its inception.”  35

Having reviewed and considered all relevant comments, the Office concludes, based on the current record, that it is necessary and appropriate under its authority pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 115 and 702 to amend the regulations governing AROUs and ROAs to address the DLC's concerns. 36 Because of the short amount of time remaining before the June 20, 2022 deadline for many DMPs to deliver their AROUs, and the even shorter period of time that may remain for DMPs whose AROUs are due sooner, the Office finds there is good cause to adopt the supplemental interim rule without public notice and comment, and to make it effective immediately upon publication. 37 In doing so, the Office notes that, as discussed below, the aspects of the rule that impose new obligations on the MLC come with a nine-month transition period, which means that the Office can make modifications in response to public comments before the transition period expires. The Office solicits public comments on any aspect of the supplemental interim rule that stakeholders wish to address.

Based on the current record, the Office agrees with the DLC that it should amend the regulations governing AROUs and ROAs, but disagrees with much of the DLC's proposed regulatory approach. Each aspect is discussed in turn below.

Content of AROUs. The DLC proposes to strike § 210.27(f)(4)(i) and (iii), which respectively require DMPs to report the total royalty payable and total adjustments for the annual reporting period, calling them “unnecessary” and “redundant of each other.”  38 The DLC also proposes to amend § 210.27(f)(4)(ii), which requires DMPs to report the total sum paid for the annual reporting period including the amount of any adjustments, to instead “require reporting of the sum paid . . . prior to any adjustments being made.”  39 In the alternative, the DLC proposes adding language allowing DMPs to use estimates in calculating the amounts required to be reported under § 210.27(f)(4)(i)-(iii). 40 The DLC calls these provisions “a vestige of the old [pre-blanket license] annual statement of account regulations,” where “licensees were responsible for matching and calculating royalties owed to individual publishers and delivering annual statements directly to those publishers.”  41 The DLC explains that because “under the blanket license, the MLC is, on a month-to-month basis, responsible for matching usage, calculating the amount of royalties owed, and ultimately for confirming proper payment,” the lack of “a mechanism by which a service can request and obtain an invoice and/or response file” for AROUs “has created operational issues for services that depend on the MLC to engage in the calculations necessary to ensure the proper amounts are reported and paid.”  42 The DLC states that this issue “is not limited to services that have voluntary licenses for which MLC matching is required,” and says that while “[t]his issue might be of limited import if the AROU process were merely an exercise in adding together figures reported and paid as part of monthly reporting,” “the reality is that nearly every service engages in a process of adjustment as part of the year end process,” meaning that “most, if not all, DMPs will need to adjust previously reported information to the MLC as part of the AROU process and will need the MLC to calculate the amount of royalties owed.”  43

The MLC disagrees with the DLC's proposed changes, including its alternative proposal, stating that “DSPs are able to calculate their own royalty pools, and indeed many DSPs choose to calculate their royalty pools each month and pay that amount, which the MLC then verifies as part of processing.”  44 The MLC also notes that § 210.27(k)(3)(ii) already permits using estimates under certain circumstances. 45

The Office declines to adopt the specific amendments proposed by the DLC, but agrees that certain changes are warranted. With respect to AROUs that are not combined with ROAs, the Office continues to believe that the existing reporting requirements are reasonable and beneficial to the MLC without unduly burdening DMPs. The DLC has not presented evidence to the contrary. The Office disagrees that § 210.27(f)(4)(i) and (iii) are unnecessary and redundant (one is a subset of the other). In any event, the Office declines the DLC's apparent “invitation to revisit settled provisions or rehash arguments.”  46 As the Office emphasized when it decided to adopt the September 2020 rule on an interim basis, the intent was “to maintain flexibility to make necessary modifications in response to new evidence, unforeseen issues, or where something is otherwise not functioning as intended.”  47

In contrast, the Office agrees with the DLC that changes should be made with respect to the reporting requirements for AROUs that are combined with ROAs. In that context, the regulations do not appear to be functioning as intended. As discussed above, in response to a DLC proposal that the MLC did not oppose, the Office significantly modified some of the requirements for ROAs between the notice of proposed rulemaking and the September 2020 rule to provide that, rather than reporting information such as the monetary amount of the adjustment and a detailed accounting of the calculation of the adjustment, as was originally proposed, the reporting would instead include the information necessary for the MLC to compute the adjusted royalties payable by the DMP. 48 In making those changes, the Office recognized that DMPs may not necessarily be making the ultimate royalty calculations in connection with their ROAs; they may instead be dependent on the MLC to make such computations and then provide notice to them of the amount due (if there is an underpayment). 49

The current requirements in § 210.27(f)(4)(i) and (iii) to report certain royalty totals seem at odds with the Office's prior decision, at least where such totals are required in connection with an AROU that is combined with an ROA. Consequently, to resolve this tension, the Office is amending these provisions so that where an ROA is combined with an AROU, and the DMP is relying on the MLC to provide notice of the amount due with respect to the adjustment (which, as discussed below, will take the form of an invoice), the totals required to be reported in the AROU may exclude non-invoiced amounts related to the adjustment. 50 The Office believes this approach is more appropriate than the DLC's proposal to eliminate the reporting entirely. The Office declines to amend § 210.27(f)(4)(ii) because doing so seems unnecessary. To the extent the total sum paid must include the amount of any adjustment made in connection with the AROU, the provision is already limited to where the adjustment is delivered contemporaneously with the AROU. 51

Because the Office has decided to address this issue in the manner discussed, the Office declines to adopt the DLC's alternative proposal to broadly allow the use of estimates in reporting the AROU totals. The Office is, however, taking this opportunity to add language to clarify that information reported pursuant to § 210.27(f)(4) may be calculated using estimates as permitted by § 210.27(d)(2)(i). This is intended as a non-substantive clarification to merely recognize that certain relevant royalty inputs may be unable to be finally determined at the time the AROU is due. 52

Timing of royalty payments related to AROUs and ROAs. Under the September 2020 rule, the deadlines to deliver an AROU and any related royalty payment are the same. 53 The DLC proposes to change this by “[a]mend[ing] § 210.27(g)(3) to allow the delivery of any royalty payment either contemporaneously with the AROU or promptly after being notified by the MLC about the amount owed.”  54 The DLC is seeking this change for the same reasons as detailed above. 55 The MLC similarly opposes this aspect of the DLC's proposal for the same reasons as noted above, adding that it “does not see a reason to change DSP royalty payment deadlines.”  56

The Office agrees with the DLC that the timing provision should be changed. Similar to the content provisions discussed above, the timing provision in the September 2020 rule for royalty payments related to AROUs seems at odds with the Office's previous recognition that DMPs may be dependent on the MLC to make ultimate royalty calculations in connection with ROAs and then provide notice of the amount due (if there is an underpayment). Indeed, where an ROA is combined with an AROU, there appears to be a direct conflict between the AROU royalty payment deadline in § 210.27(g)(3) and the ROA royalty payment deadline in § 210.27(k)(4). The former provides that an AROU and related royalty payment have the same deadline which is fixed based on the end of the DMP's fiscal year, while the latter provides that they do not necessarily have the same deadline and that the royalty payment deadline may be connected to whenever the MLC provides notice of the amount due. 57

To resolve this issue, the Office is amending § 210.27(g)(3) to strike the language about related royalty payments, as the DLC proposes. The Office declines to adopt the DLC's proposed additional language because it appears to be unnecessary. Where an AROU is not combined with an ROA, there should not be any related royalty payment to deliver. Where an AROU is combined with an ROA, then the royalty payment timing provision for ROAs in § 210.27(k)(4) should govern because “such an annual report of usage shall also be considered a report of adjustment, and must satisfy the requirements of both paragraphs (f) and (k).”  58

Though not raised by the DLC, the same problem exists with § 210.27(g)(4), which provides that the deadlines to deliver an ROA and any related royalty payment are the same. 59 This provision appears to directly conflict with the royalty payment deadline for ROAs specified in § 210.27(k)(4). Therefore, the Office is making the same change to § 210.27(g)(4), to clarify that § 210.27(k)(4) should govern when royalty payments related to ROAs are due.

Invoices and response files for ROAs. The DLC proposes to add a new provision creating a response file process for ROAs. Specifically, the proposed provision would require the MLC to deliver a response file to a DMP, if requested, “within a reasonable period of time” after receiving the ROA, except that “if the digital music provider states that a response file is necessary to the digital music provider's ability to timely submit an annual report of usage, the MLC shall deliver an invoice and/or a response file to the digital music provider within 45 days.”  60 As the DLC explains:

The MLC opposes the DLC's proposal, detailing the disruptive impact that “add[ing] an accelerated 45-day deadline for the MLC to deliver ARoU response files to DSPs” would have on the MLC's core operations. 62 The MLC says that its “resources are fully dedicated to critical path statutory functions, and—even if it were feasible to accelerate ARoU processing or response files on the proposed timeline—the MLC cannot remove resources and delay such core functions as monthly royalty distributions and processing the substantial historical unmatched royalties in order to assist with these voluntary license administration concerns.”  63 As the MLC further explains:

The MLC also states that while it intends to provide invoices and response files in connection with AROUs, it is not in a position at this time to guarantee or estimate any particular turnaround time before receiving and reviewing the various AROUs. 65

The Office agrees with the DLC that an invoice and response file process should be established for ROAs (and by extension, AROUs that are combined with ROAs). With respect to invoices, there appears to perhaps be some ambiguity in the September 2020 rule, which allows a royalty payment to be delivered “promptly after being notified by the mechanical licensing collective of the amount due.”  66 In describing this provision, the DLC says it “ appear[s] to contemplate some process by which the MLC can inform a service of the amount of money owed after submission of the report of adjustment.”  67 To resolve any potential uncertainty about this provision, the Office takes this opportunity to amend § 210.27(k)(4) to clarify that the notice to be delivered by the MLC of the amount due in connection with an ROA should be an invoice containing information similar to what is required for MROU invoices. 68 Since invoices for MROUs and ROAs serve similar functions, it seems reasonable that their content be similar. The Office is also establishing a timeframe for the MLC to deliver such invoices (subject to the transition period discussed below). If the DMP is going to receive a response file in connection with the ROA, then the invoice must be delivered contemporaneously with the response file (see discussion below concerning response file timing); otherwise, the invoice must be delivered in a reasonably timely manner. This timing is similar to how the timing works for MROU invoices and response files and appears reasonable to adopt in the ROA context. 69

Regarding response files, the MLC does not seem to disagree with the DLC that they should be provided, but the MLC appears to be primarily concerned with the DLC's proposed turnaround time. These concerns echo those expressed by the MLC in connection with the adoption of the invoice and response file process for MROUs under the September 2020 rule. 70 As the Office said then, and believes now in the context of ROAs, “a rule would ultimately be valuable to build reliance that DMPs can obtain these items.”  71 Therefore, the Office is adopting a requirement for the MLC to provide DMPs with response files in connection with ROAs (and by extension, AROUs that are combined with ROAs) if requested by the DMP. Such a requirement naturally follows from the Office's above-discussed previous recognition that DMPs may be dependent on the MLC to make ultimate royalty calculations in connection with ROAs and then provide notice of the amount due (if there is an underpayment). 72

The Office believes, however, that the MLC's timing concerns have merit and should be accommodated. First, the supplemental interim rule provides two different deadlines for delivering response files to DMPs in connection with ROAs—45 days after receipt of the ROA, or 60 days after receipt of the AROU where the ROA is combined with it. By proposing a 45-day deadline where the DMP “states that a response file is necessary to the digital music provider's ability to timely submit an annual report of usage,”  73 the DLC seems to suggest that a 45-day deadline is a reasonable turnaround time for DMPs with respect to ROAs that are not combined with AROUs. Meanwhile, the MLC's comments appear to be primarily focused on AROUs, rather than uncombined ROAs. Given that 45 days is nearly double the 25-day timeline for the MLC to provide MROU response files, 74 and that ROAs that are not combined with AROUs will not necessarily be arriving mostly all at the same time like AROUs and likely will not cover the same volume of adjustments that AROUs are anticipated to cover, the Office believes that 45 days is reasonable based on the current record. Based on the MLC's comments, however, the Office believes that additional time is warranted for providing response files for ROAs that are combined with AROUs, and 60 days strikes the Office as a reasonable deadline to both provide the MLC with extra processing time while not unreasonably delaying delivery of response files to DMPs needing to rely on them for voluntary license administration or other purposes.

Second, the supplemental interim rule provides for a nine-month transition period during which the MLC is not required to deliver invoices or response files within the specified timeframes. In adopting the September 2020 rule on an interim basis, the Office said that “if any significant changes prove necessary, the Office intends, as the DLC requests, to provide adequate and appropriate transition periods.”  75 Just as the Office provided DMPs with transition periods for aspects of the September 2020 rule that required them to update their systems or develop new processes, the Office finds it reasonable to provide one to the MLC here to minimize any potential disruption on the MLC's current operations. 76 The Office understands that the adoption of a transition period may mean that certain DMPs may be unable to obtain response files from the MLC in time to meet certain near-term obligations that may exist under their voluntary licenses. While this is an unfortunate result, the MLC represents that, at this point, “even if an additional reasonable fee was paid,” it still would “not have the resources to complete an accelerated timetable” for processing AROUs and delivering response files to DMPs. 77 Consequently, while the supplemental interim rule is intended to address this issue going forward, DMPs affected by the MLC's current, though ultimately temporary, inability to provide response files for AROUs and ROAs may need to make other arrangements with respect to their voluntary licenses. 78

Based on the current record, the Office believes the supplemental interim rule “is a reasonable approach to ensuring that DMPs that need invoices and response files can get them, while providing the MLC the time it needs to generate them.”  79 The Office recognizes that because the MLC is still in the process of developing systems to process AROUs and has not yet reviewed the various AROUs yet to be delivered, the MLC may not be in a position to fully address the timing of the new response file requirement for several months—long after the comment period for the supplemental interim rule has expired. Consequently, the Office will continue to welcome updates from the MLC's operations advisory committee or the MLC or DLC separately if, after development is further along or after the process becomes operational and the MLC has reviewed the AROUs, the parties believe timing changes are necessary.

AROU deadline postponement. In light of the changes being made by the Office to the AROU and ROA regulations, the Office declines to adopt the DLC's alternative solution to “postpon[e] the deadline for the 2021 annual reports of usage entirely until some period after the [CRJs] decide[ ] the Phonorecords III rate proceeding.”  80 Moreover, it does not appear that delaying the deadline would necessarily provide meaningful relief to DMPs needing response files in the near-term. As the DLC explains, “for some services that have independent annual reporting obligations under voluntary licenses, those services may still require response files from the MLC to fulfill existing obligations,” “[b]ut presumably if all annual reporting to the MLC were postponed, the MLC would then have sufficient bandwidth to address the needs of those services.”  81 In response, the MLC makes clear that this is “not accurate,” as “the ARoU processing design and implementation needs to be completed before any ARoUs can be processed.”  82 Thus, it appears that postponing the deadline would not resolve the issue any more satisfactorily than the solution being adopted in the supplemental interim rule.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the U.S. Copyright Office amends 37 CFR part 210 as follows:

On August 16, 2017, Public Law 115-48, the Harry W. Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2017, was signed into law. Section 116 of this Act, codified at 38 U.S.C. 3001 note, requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot program (commonly known as VET TEC) for 5 years to provide eligible Veterans who are entitled to educational assistance under 38 U.S.C. chapter 30, 32, 33, 34, or 35, or 10 U.S.C. chapter 1606 or 1607, with the opportunity to enroll in high technology programs of education intended to provide training and skills sought by employers in a relevant field or industry. Under section 116(c)(2)(C) of Public Law 115-48, VA must pay 50% of the cost of providing a high technology program of education to qualified providers upon “employment” of a Veteran in a certain field of study. Also, under section 116(c)(5)(B), VA is required to give preference to a qualified provider that offers tuition reimbursement for students who do not find full-time “meaningful employment” in their field of study within 180 days after completing their program.

Based on a review of employment information since the initial roll-out of VET TEC, VA issued a policy advisory on January 19, 2022, titled Clarification Regarding Self-Employment in the Context of “Employment” for VET TEC Training Programs Established under section 116 of Public Law 115-48, to clarify how self-employment satisfies the meaning of “employment” for the purposes of determining whether VA must pay qualified providers for training provided to Veterans and selecting qualified providers. The advisory establishes objective standards for determining under what circumstances VA will consider self-employment to be employment and is intended to maximize economic outcomes for VET TEC participants. The advisory states generally that VA considers a person to be “employed” if that person performs services for another individual and is compensated for such services. It further states that the nature of the relationship may be that of an employee/employer or contractor/client. More specifically, the advisory states that “employment” includes the following:

• Establishing a new employee/employer relationship in a career supported by the completed program of study; or,

• Promotion in the Veteran's current employee/employer relationship in a career supported by the completed program of study; or,

• Self-employment in a career supported by the completed program of study.

With regard to clarifying the job certification requirements surrounding what is deemed as acceptable and reasonable for the reporting of employment, including self-employment ( i.e., the minimum standards for declaring a Veteran has obtained employment), the advisory provides as follows:

The following documentation is required for payment of employment certifications that claim any form of employment (both “employment” under section 116(c)(2)(C) and “meaningful employment” under section 116(c)(5)(B)):

• Contract Jobs. Reports of Contract Jobs must be at least 6 months in length.

• Salary or hourly wages.

• Hours worked per week. Employment must be full-time. There is a minimum 30 hours per week requirement for all employment claims.

• Promotion in current job. Must be a monetary promotion. A promotion is NOT simply a job title change without an increase in salary.

• Offer letter and/or first pay stub. Documentation must be official and display the official company letterhead.

VA supports self-employment and other entrepreneurial endeavors as viable paths to achieving meaningful employment. However, training providers should encourage students to explore all possible employment prospects and opportunities, and should not direct students towards self-employment as the primary option for employment. To ensure that individuals electing to pursue employment through self-employment are adequately equipped for success, the following documentation is required for payment of employment certifications that claim any form of self-employment:

• Proof of ownership of the business. These can include a Federal Tax ID Number; Articles of Organization, or Articles of Incorporation; copy of personal tax return with schedule C; a copy of the Doing Business As declarations, etc. It may also include a state tax ID Number or state business registration information.

• Copies of any valid personal licenses or certifications required for business operations.

• A bill and payment from a client to show proof of legitimate business transactions for the type of services being provided and/or products sold; and

• Other documents: VA may request additional documentation to support the claim if existing evidence provided is insufficient to make a determination.

To avoid a conflict of interest, neither the training provider, its subsidiaries, nor a parent company may become the client of the self-employed VET TEC student.

Implementation of the new policy began on February 1, 2022, and it is applicable to both VET TEC students and training providers, regardless of when the student began or graduated from their program. Compliance with the requirements specified in the new policy is part of the annual approval or reapproval process for training providers.

Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on May 11, 2022, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

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

On October 12, 2021, Idaho submitted updates to the SIP to incorporate the NAAQS and other Federal regulations by reference as of July 1, 2020. The SIP revision, State effective June 17, 2021, includes specific air quality regulations codified in the Idaho Rules for the Control of Air Pollution (IDAPA 58.01.01).

On March 22, 2022, the EPA proposed to approve the submitted SIP revision (87 FR 16131). The reasons for our proposed approval are included in the proposal and will not be restated here. The public comment period closed on April 21, 2022. We received no public comments. Therefore, we are finalizing the action as proposed.

The EPA is approving and incorporating by reference updates to the Idaho SIP submitted on October 12, 2021. Upon the effective date of this action, the Idaho SIP will include IDAPA 58.01.01.107.03, paragraphs a through e, State effective June 17, 2021.

In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of Idaho regulatory provisions described in Section II of this preamble and set forth below in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 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 SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the Clean Air Act as of the effective date of the final rule of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 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).

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 it 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 25, 2022. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

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

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

The EPA is taking final action to approve a SIP revision submitted by the State of Missouri on January 30, 2020. Missouri requested that the EPA approve revisions to their SIP by replacing the existing rule, Title 10, Division 10 of the Code of State Regulations (CSR), (10 CSR 10-6.140) “Restriction of Emissions Credit for Reduced Pollutant Concentrations from the Use of Dispersion Techniques”, with a revised restructured version of the same rule. The state has revised this rule in order to incorporate the provisions of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W-Guideline on Air Quality Models, add definitions specific to this rule, organize the rule into standard rule organizational format, and removes unnecessary words. After review and analysis of the revisions, the EPA concludes that these changes meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and do not have adverse effects on air quality. The full text of these changes can be found in the State's submission, which is included in the docket for this action. The EPA's analysis of the revisions can be found in the technical support document (TSD), also included in the docket.

The EPA proposed approval of the State's January 30, 2020, SIP revision in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on March 25, 2022. (87 FR 17050) The EPA received no comments on our proposed rulemaking.

The State's submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The State provided public notice on this SIP revision from June 3, 2019, to August 1, 2019, and received no comments. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the state submittal document and EPA's TSD, which is in the docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

The EPA proposed approval of the State's January 30, 2020, SIP revision in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on March 25, 2022. (87 FR 17050) During the public comment period, which opened on March 25, 2022 and closed on April 25, 2022, the EPA received no comments.

Therefore, the EPA is taking final action to amend the Missouri SIP by approving the State's request to revise 10 CSR 10-6.140 “Restriction of Emissions Credit for Reduced Pollutant Concentrations from the Use of Dispersion Techniques.” Approval of these revisions ensures consistency between state and federally approved rules. The EPA has determined that these changes meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and do not have a negative impact to air quality.

In this document, 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 Missouri Regulations described in Section I of this preamble and set forth below in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and

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

• In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where 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).

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

• Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 25, 2022. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

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

On January 12, 2021 (86 FR 2257), the Department issued amendments to and repromulgated portions of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, 45 CFR part 75. That rule repromulgated provisions of part 75 that were originally published late in 2016. It also made amendments to 45 CFR 75.300(c) and (d).

Specifically, the rule amended paragraph (c), which had stated, “It is a public policy requirement of HHS that no person otherwise eligible will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination in the administration of HHS programs and services based on non-merit factors such as age, disability, sex, race, color, national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Recipients must comply with this public policy requirement in the administration of programs supported by HHS awards. The rule amended paragraph (c) to state, “It is a public policy requirement of HHS that no person otherwise eligible will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination in the administration of HHS programs and services, to the extent doing so is prohibited by Federal statute.”

Additionally, the rule amended paragraph (d), which had stated, “In accordance with the Supreme Court decisions in United States v. Windsor and in Obergefell v. Hodges, all recipients must treat as valid the marriages of same-sex couples. This does not apply to registered domestic partnerships, civil unions or similar formal relationships recognized under state law as something other than a marriage.” The rule amended paragraph (d) to state, “HHS will follow all applicable Supreme Court decisions in administering its award programs.”

On February 2, 2021, the portions of rule-making amendments to § 75.300 (and a conforming amendment at § 75.101(f)) were challenged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Facing Foster Care et al. v. HHS, 21-cv-00308 (D.D.C. filed Feb. 2, 2021). On February 9, the court postponed, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 705, the effective date of the challenged portions of the rule by 180 days, until August 11, 2021. 1 On August 5, 2021, the court again postponed the effective date of the rule until November 9, 2021. 2 On November 3, 2021, the court further postponed the effective date of the rule until January 17, 2022. 3 On December 27, 2021, the court further postponed the effective date of the rule until April 18, 2022. 4 On April 15, 2022, the court further postponed the effective date of the rule until May 2, 2022. 5 On April 29, 2022, the court further postponed the effective date of the rule until June 1, 2022. 6 The Department is issuing this notice to apprise the public of the court's order.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Order, adopted May 11, 2022 and released May 13, 2022. The full text of this Commission decision is available online at https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. The Commission will not send a copy of the Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) because the adopted rule is a rule of particular applicability.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

The proposed rule was published at 87 FR 16158 on March 22, 2022. The Petitioner filed comments in support of the petition reaffirming its commitment to apply for channel 27. No other comments were filed.

According to the Petitioner, it has received many complaints from viewers unable to receive a reliable signal on VHF channel 13, and the Commission has recognized that VHF channels have certain characteristics that pose challenges for their use in providing digital television service. The proposed channel 27 contour would continue to reach virtually all of the population within the Station's current service area and an analysis using the Commission's TVStudy software tool indicates that KBZK's move from channel 13 to channel 27 is predicted to create a small area where 675 persons will lose service. The loss area, however, is partially overlapped by the noise limited contour of Scripps' owned television station KXLF-TV, Butte, Montana, which, like KBZK, is a CBS network affiliate. Taking KXLF-TV into consideration reduces the number who are predicted to lose CBS network service to less than 500 persons, a number which the Commission has found to be de minimis. In addition, viewers in the loss area would continue to have access to other major network programming.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 22-114; RM-11920; DA 22-539, adopted May 17, 2022, and released May 17, 2022. The full text of this document is available for download at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to this proceeding.

The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows: