In June 2020, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued two final rules (June 2020 EAD rules, collectively) titled, Removal of 30-Day Processing Provision for Asylum Applicant-Related Form I-765 Employment Authorization Applications (Timeline Repeal rule) and Asylum Application, Interview, and Employment Authorization for Applicants (Broader Asylum EAD rule), respectively. 1 The Timeline Repeal rule eliminated two regulatory provisions that required U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to adjudicate initial EAD applications filed by asylum applicants within 30 days of receipt and that renewal EAD applications from asylum applicants must be received by USCIS 90 days prior to the expiration of the employment authorization. The Timeline Repeal rule went into effect on August 21, 2020. The Broader Asylum EAD rule made a number of changes to DHS's regulations governing asylum applications, interviews, and eligibility for employment authorization based on a pending asylum application, including: extending the waiting period before asylum applicants may apply for an EAD from 180 days, not including delays caused or requested by an applicant, to 365 calendar days; requiring applicants for all initial or renewal applications for employment authorization to submit biometrics at a scheduled biometrics services appointment; and instituting bars to EAD eligibility for asylum applicants with certain criminal convictions, who failed to file for asylum within 1 year of entry into the United States, or who had entered or attempted to enter the United States at a place and time other than lawfully through a U.S. port of entry. The Broader Asylum EAD rule became effective on August 25, 2020. On September 11, 2020, in Casa de Md., Inc. v. Mayorkas, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued a partial preliminary injunction of both the Timeline Repeal rule and the Broader Asylum EAD rule with respect to members of plaintiff organizations Casa de Maryland, Inc. (CASA) and Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP). 2 On February 7, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia fully vacated both rules in Asylumworks v. Mayorkas, concluding that Chad Wolf was not lawfully serving as Acting DHS Secretary when the two rules were enacted, and that Secretary Mayorkas' ratification of the DHS Timeline Repeal Rule did not cure the defect that Chad Wolf's unlawful tenure created. 3 DHS did not seek further review on appeal. This final rule implements the vacatur of the Timeline Repeal rule and the Broader Asylum EAD rule. This rule removes from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) the regulatory text that DHS promulgated in the Timeline Repeal rule and the Broader Asylum EAD rule and restores the regulatory text to appear as it did prior to the effective dates of the June 2020 EAD rules in August 2020.

Because it implements the district court's vacatur of the Timeline Repeal rule and the Broader Asylum EAD rule and restores the regulatory text to correctly reflect the regulatory text that predated the June 2020 EAD rules, 4 DHS is not required to provide notice and comment or delay the effective date of this final rule. As a result of the rules being vacated, the changes made by the Timeline Repeal rule and the Broader Asylum EAD rule do not have any legal effect. Moreover, the good cause exception permits DHS to bypass otherwise applicable requirements of notice and comment and a delayed effective date. Notice and comment requirements and a delayed effective date are unnecessary for implementing the vacatur and would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in light of the agency's immediate need to implement the now-effective final judgment. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), (d). DHS has concluded that each of those three reasons—that notice and comment and a delayed effective date are unnecessary, impracticable, and contrary to the public interest—independently provides good cause to bypass any otherwise applicable requirements of notice and comment and a delayed effective date.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3512, DHS must submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval any reporting requirements inherent in a rule, unless they are exempt. Please see the accompanying PRA documentation for the full analysis. 5 Table 1 below lists all collections of information impacted by the vacatur. 6

To conform with the requirements set forth by the PRA, USCIS requested and received emergency approval from OMB to take the following actions on certain collections of information as required by the vacatur of the Broader Asylum EAD Rule. USCIS is updating the information collections in accordance with the vacatur of the Broader Asylum EAD rule.

(1) Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Employment Authorization; I-765 Worksheet.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I-765; I-765WS; USCIS.

(4) Affected public who were asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS uses Form I-765 to collect information needed to determine if a noncitizen is eligible for employment authorization and an initial EAD, a replacement EAD, or a renewal EAD upon the expiration of a previous EAD under the same eligibility category. Noncitizens in many immigration statuses are required to possess an EAD as evidence of employment authorization.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-765 paper filing is 2,178,820 and the estimated hour burden per response is 4.50 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-765 online filing is 107,180 and the estimated hour burden per response is 4 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-765WS is 302,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.5 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics submission is 302,535 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.17 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection passport photos is 2,286,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.5 hours.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 11,881,376 hours.

(7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $400,895,820.

(1) Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I-589; USCIS.

(4) Affected public who were asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS and Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) use the data collected on the Form I-589 in the course of adjudicating eligibility of persons applying for asylum and for withholding of removal. Under section 208(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), any noncitizen who is physically present in the United States, or at a land border or port of entry, may apply for asylum regardless of such noncitizen's status. In the first instance, USCIS asylum officers adjudicate applications filed by noncitizens who are not subject to removal proceedings, or who have not yet been placed in removal proceedings, in accordance with 8 CFR 208.2(a). EOIR immigration judges adjudicate asylum applications filed by noncitizens in removal proceedings, in accordance with 8 CFR 1208.2(b). The form serves the purpose of standardizing the application and ensuring that applicants provide the required information necessary for assessing eligibility.

USCIS also uses the Form I-589 to serve as an alternate application for evidence of employment authorization for individuals granted asylum, eliminating their need to file a separate Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization (OMB No. 1615-0040) with USCIS if, after being granted asylum, they wish to receive an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) containing both evidence of employment authorization and identity. The Form I-589 collects the same biographic information as that collected by the Form I-765. In cases where asylum is granted, the biographic information contained on the Form I-589 can also be used to generate the EAD.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-589 paper filing is 85,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 12 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-589 online filing is 28,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 11 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics submission is 110,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.17 hours.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 1,468,200 hours.

(7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $46,968,000.

Accordingly, DHS amends parts 208 and 274a of chapter I, subchapter B, of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 27, 2021 (86 FR 73194). The NPRM was prompted by reports of in-service findings of corrosion on the flange of the MLG lower spindle pin. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the left and right MLG lower spindle pins to detect corrosion, and applicable repair or replacement if necessary, as specified in TCCA AD CF-2021-22, issued July 5, 2021 (TCCA CF-2021-22).

Since the NPRM was published, TCCA issued AD CF-2021-22R1, issued May 13, 2022 (TCCA AD CF-2021-22R1) (also referred to as the MCAI). TCCA AD CF-2021-22R1 revises TCCA AD CF-2021-22 by extending the calendar-based compliance time from 36 to 48 months for the initial inspection. This extended compliance time was based on submissions from the reporting requirement in TCCA AD CF-2021-22, and further analysis of the MLG lower spindle pin. The FAA concurs that the extended compliance time provides an acceptable level of safety to address the identified unsafe condition. The FAA has revised this AD to refer to TCCA AD CF-2021-22R1 as the acceptable means of compliance for accomplishing the required actions. The FAA has determined that providing notice and seeking comment on this change is unnecessary as the reduced compliance time provides relief to operators. In addition, the FAA has given credit for accomplishing actions done using TCCA AD CF-2021-22 before the effective date of this AD in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address corrosion and subsequent cracking of the MLG lower spindle pin, which could result in failure of the pin, and consequent collapse of the MLG. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA received a comment from The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from Delta Air Lines (DAL). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

DAL noted that paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD specifies reporting requirements to report only positive findings of the first four inspections. DAL asked that the reporting requirement define what is to be reported, e.g., the fleet, the aircraft, or the spindle level.

DAL also requested that paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD, which requires reporting for inspections done before the effective date of the AD, be deleted. DAL stated that operators may not have the reporting information specified in the referenced service information since the findings may not have been tracked. DAL stated that the unsafe condition and corrective action were identified in TCCA AD CF-2021-22; and therefore, the reporting requirement is not necessary.

DAL also requested that paragraph (h)(2)(i) of the proposed AD, which requires reporting within 30 days, be deleted. DAL stated that showing the warranty claim itself is a positive finding; therefore, this reporting requirement would be redundant. DAL added that allowing 30 days to inspect, gather information from maintenance, and submit reporting is not feasible. DAL noted that 90 days is more practical for operators that operate a multitude of applicable aircraft.

The FAA infers that DAL is requesting that the FAA either remove the reporting requirement or, if not removed, revise certain aspects of the reporting requirement. The FAA acknowledges the commenter's requests and has determined that, for the reasons provided by the commenter, the reporting requirement is not necessary. Therefore, the FAA has removed paragraph (h)(2) and its sub-paragraphs from this AD. The FAA has also added a “No Reporting” paragraph to paragraph (i) of this AD to clarify reporting is not required by this AD.

DAL asked that the FAA clarify the tracking of MLG times versus spindle times because the affected part is the MLG spindle pin. DAL stated that paragraphs A. and B. of Part I, “Initial Inspection,” of TCCA AD CF-2021-22, start with “MLG having accumulated . . .” implying the time is on the MLG, not the spindle, would be tracked for the inspection threshold. DAL added that it tracks the MLG and the spindle and is taking the more accurate approach that the time on the spindle is the driver for the inspections. DAL noted that the time on the MLG and the spindles are currently the same since there have been no MLG or spindle removals since delivery of any aircraft up to this point. DAL stated that in the future if any spindles are replaced, the time tracking at the spindle level would ensure continued compliance with inspection intervals. Additionally, DAL noted that the repetitive inspection intervals should be tracked at the spindle level, not the MLG level.

The FAA agrees with the commenter that clarification of MLG times versus spindle times is necessary. Although the affected part in this AD is the MLG lower spindle pins, operators are not required to track the MLG and spindle pin times separately. The FAA concurs with the corrective actions section of TCCA AD CF-2021-22R1 that specifies operators must track the time on the MLG as the only metric relating to the spindle pin. Part 1 of TCCA AD CF-2021-22R1 indicates the compliance times vary depending on flight cycles on the MLG and the compliance time specified in paragraph B.1. of Part 1 states that the times are on the MLG; thus the MLG times are the metric that govern corrective actions. The FAA has determined that the compliance times specified in this AD will provide an acceptable level of safety for the identified unsafe condition. Therefore, the FAA has not changed this AD in regard to using spindle times.

Regarding the repetitive intervals, the compliance times are also on the MLG. Where Part II of TCCA AD CF-2021-22R1 specifies to repeat the inspection at intervals of 3,000 flight cycles or 24 months, whichever occurs first, those intervals are intended to be on the MLG, i.e., at intervals of 3,000 flight cycles on the MLG or 24 months on the MLG, whichever occurs first. The FAA confirmed with TCCA the compliance times are on the MLG.

DAL asked for clarification of the terminology “entry into service” used as part of the compliance time specified in paragraph B.1. of Part I, “Initial Inspection,” of TCCA AD CF-2021-22. DAL stated that this terminology is unclear because entry into service is not defined. DAL also stated that it assumes a spare landing gear in storage is not considered “in service.”

The FAA agrees to clarify the terminology “entry into service” as identified in TCCA AD CF-2021-22 and TCCA AD CF-2021-22R1. To clarify, the term “entry into service” is when the MLG is first put into service on an aircraft as noted by the text “Whichever occurs first on the MLG” at the beginning of paragraph B.1. of Part I, “Initial Inspection,” of TCCA AD CF-2021-22 and TCCA AD CF-2021-22R1. The FAA also notes that the time on the MLG accrues regardless if the airplane is in storage or not. The calendar compliance time is within 48 months after the MLG's first entry into service on an airplane. The Part I compliance times are in relation to the MLG entry into service on an airplane. The accumulated time is not dependent on if the MLG is continually in use on an airplane that is in service. The FAA has added this clarification to paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.

DAL stated that Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-321003, Issue 001, dated April 13, 2021, calls for an operational test after the spindle is reinstalled on the aircraft per maintenance program (AMP) Task BD500-A-J32-30-00-01AAA-320A-A, although in other sections it specifies a functional check. DAL noted that the spindle installation instructions in Task BD500-A-J32-11-17-01AAA-720A-A, call for a MLG functional test per Task BD500-AJ32-11-00-01AAA-340A-A. DAL asked for clarification of the correct terminology for the test to avoid confusion by operators.

The FAA agrees that the name of the test done after reinstallation of the MLG spindle should be consistent. Operational test is the correct term for the test of the landing gear extension and retraction done after reinstallation of the MLG spindle as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-321003, Issue 001, dated April 13, 2021. However, this term is not specified in this AD; therefore, the FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

DAL asked that the referenced service information be revised to ensure consistent use of the terminology “new or refurbished” or “repaired or refurbished” language if Liebherr is providing refurbished spindles to customers. DAL noted that using the term “overhauled” should be allowed as well.

The FAA agrees that clarification is necessary. The correct terminology is new or refurbished spindles as specified in the Liebherr instructions that are part of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-321003, Issue 001, dated April 13, 2021. The terminology “repaired” and “overhauled” are not used in the Liebherr instructions that are part of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-321003, Issue 001, dated April 13, 2021. That terminology is not used in this AD; therefore, the FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

DAL asked that the definitions for “visually inspect” and “thorough visual inspection” specified in Airbus Canada Service Bulletin BD500-321003, Issue 001, dated April 13, 2021, be provided to avoid confusion with other standard inspection terminology used in the aviation industry. DAL added that another option is that the inspection requirements could be changed to industry standard wording.

The FAA agrees with the commenter for the reason provided. The correct term for the “visually inspect” steps is “General Visual Inspection.” A general visual inspection is a visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.

The correct term for the “thorough visual inspection” steps is “Detailed Inspection.” A detailed inspection is an intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.

The inspection type is not specified in requirements of this AD; however, the FAA has revised the description of the procedures for TCCA AD CF 2021-22R1 in the “Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51” paragraph of this final rule.

DAL asked that the FAA provide guidance for the procedures specified in Airbus Canada Service Bulletin BD500-321003, Issue 001, dated April 13, 2021, and referenced in TCCA AD CF-2021-22, which should be revised to match the format using “Required for Compliance (RC)” designations. DAL stated that the procedures section of the Accomplishment Instructions of the referenced service information should define “RC” and what must be done to comply. DAL noted that the job set-up and close-up are recommended but can be deviated from, done as part of other actions, or done with accepted methods different from those given in the referenced service information, as long as the RC section can be done, and the aircraft put back into a serviceable condition. The referenced service information should use typical language when calling out procedures, and specify when a procedure must be done “in accordance with” versus “referring to” a procedure.

The FAA acknowledges the commenter's request; however, the FAA does not make changes to service information; such changes are implemented by the airplane manufacturer. The FAA agrees with the concept of minimizing AD requirements when appropriate. The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (AD ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement is a process for annotating which steps in the service information are “required for compliance” (RC) with an AD. Differentiating these steps from other tasks in the service information improves an owner's/operator's understanding of AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance.

In response to the AD Implementation ARC, the FAA released AC 20-176A, dated June 16, 2014 ( drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/979DDD1479E1EC6F86257CFC0052D4E9.0001 ); and Order 8110.117A, dated June 18, 2014 ( drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/D715CDFC08AC0DDC86257CFC00528297.0001 ), which include the concept of RC. The FAA implements this concept in ADs when we receive service information containing RC steps. While some design approval holders have implemented the RC concept, the implementation is voluntary. The FAA does not intend to develop or revise AD requirements to incorporate the RC concept if it is not included in the service information.

As always, if any operator prefers to address the unsafe condition by means other than those specified in the referenced service information, they may request approval for an alternative method of compliance and, if approved, may use it instead of the procedures specified in the service information.

The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

DAL asked that the FAA verify that using the installation procedures for the spindle in the component maintenance manual (CMM) or the AMP is an acceptable method of compliance for accomplishing the requirements in the proposed AD. DAL stated that the installation procedures in the referenced service information differ from the procedures in those manuals. DAL noted that using the procedures in the service information does not have the correct consumables, including the correct lockwire, called out and does not have the step to safety the nut to the spindle with a cable and ferrule. DAL also stated the service information does not have a step to safety wire the screw to the nut and does not have a step to seal the gap between the screw and nut.

The FAA agrees to clarify when using the CMM or AMP to accomplish the installation procedures specified in the service information referenced in TCCA AD CF-2021-22R1 is an acceptable method of compliance. For steps that specify actions and “refer to” the AMP or other documents, the “refer to” means that procedure or document may be followed to accomplish the action ( e.g., the design approval holder's procedure or document may be used, but an FAA-accepted procedure could also be used).

However, for steps in the service information that specify to do actions “in accordance with” the CMM, the “in accordance with” means that CMM must be followed. An operator must request an alternative method of compliance, as specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD to deviate from required actions.

Regarding the DAL comment about the service information not containing the correct lockwire, Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-321003, Issue 002, dated May 13, 2022, now specifics the correct and more efficient equipment to be used. In addition, Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-321003, Issue 001, dated April 13, 2021, specifies that operators can use approved alternatives.

Regarding the DAL comment that the service information does not have a the step to safety the nut to the spindle with a cable and ferrule, a step to safety wire the screw to the nut and a step to seal the gap between the screw and nut, the FAA acknowledges those specific steps are not included in Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-321003, Issue 001, dated April 13, 2021. However, Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-321003, Issue 002, dated May 13, 2022, does include those steps. In order to address the unsafe condition, operators are only required to do the actions in accordance with the service information referenced in TCCA AD CF 2021-22R1, which refers to Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-321003, Issue 001, dated April 13, 2021. Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-321003, Issue 002, dated May 13, 2022, identifies more efficient equipment to be used, missing installation steps, and consumable materials. For operators that used Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-321003, Issue 001, dated April 13, 2021, no further actions are required as that service bulletin adequately addresses the identified unsafe condition. The FAA has added paragraph (h)(3) to this AD to identify Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-321003, Issue 002, dated May 13, 2022, as the appropriate service information because it contains the most up-to-date instructions. In addition, the FAA added paragraph (j)(2) of this AD to provide credit for using Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-321003, Issue 001, dated April 13, 2021.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. 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. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

TCCA AD CF-2021-22R1 specifies procedures for repetitive inspections (including general visual inspections, detailed inspection, liquid penetrant inspections, and nondestructive tests) of the left and right MLG lower spindle pins for corrosion, and applicable repair or replacement of the MLG lower spindle pin. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA considers this AD interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 51 airplanes 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 on-condition actions that will be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

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

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

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

This AD 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:

The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2022-1169; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01068-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Manuel Hernandez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5256; email Manuel.F.Hernandez@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2022-0165, dated August 9, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0165) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A320-251N, -253N, and -271N airplanes; and Model A3210-251N, -253N, -271N, and -272N airplanes.

The MCAI states that during operation of a flight test aircraft, it was reported that during heating of several sensing elements of the OHDS loop sequentially, no ECAM warning was triggered. The same behavior was observed in all OHDS loops of the airplane. Investigation identified a missing electrical grounding of the OHDS sensing element up to the BMC connector, impairing the OHDS leak detection capability in all OHDS loops of the airplane. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to hot air bleed leakage undetected by the OHDS loops, possibly resulting in exposure of airplane structure and systems ( e.g., fuel and hydraulic) to high temperatures and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane, fire ignition, or systems malfunction.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1169.

EASA AD 2022-0165 specifies incorporating revised AFM operational procedures and an MMEL update for operating the airplane without functioning bleed leak detection; and modifying the electrical connections of the BMCs, which allows for the removal of the AFM operational procedures and the MMEL update. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI described above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2022-0165 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

EASA AD 2022-0165 requires operators to “inform all flight crews” of revisions to the AFM and MEL, and thereafter to “operate the aeroplane accordingly.” However, this AD does not specifically require those actions as those actions are already required by FAA regulations.

FAA regulations require operators furnish to pilots any changes to the AFM (for example, 14 CFR 121.137), and to ensure the pilots are familiar with the AFM (for example, 14 CFR 91.505). As with any other flightcrew training requirement, training on the updated AFM content is tracked by the operators and recorded in each pilot's training record, which is available for the FAA to review. FAA regulations also require pilots to follow the procedures in the existing AFM including all updates. 14 CFR 91.9 requires that any person operating a civil aircraft must comply with the operating limitations specified in the AFM.

FAA regulations (14 CFR 121.628 (a)(2)) require operators to provide pilots with access to all of the information contained in the operator's MEL. Furthermore, 14 CFR 121.628 (a)(5) requires airplanes to be operated under all applicable conditions and limitations contained in the operator's MEL.

Therefore, including a requirement in this AD to operate the airplane according to the revised AFM and MEL would be redundant and unnecessary.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, EASA AD 2022-0165 is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD requires compliance with EASA AD 2022-0165 through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2022-0165 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2022-0165. Service information required by EASA AD 2022-0165 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1169 after this AD is published.

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) 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 providing notice and seeking comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good cause.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because hot air bleed leakage undetected by the OHDS loops could result in exposure of airplane structure and systems ( e.g., fuel and hydraulic) to high temperatures and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane, fire ignition, or systems malfunction. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.

The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 290 airplanes of U.S. registry. 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 or all 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.

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, and

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0272, dated December 6, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0272) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2021-19-20, Amendment 39-21738 (86 FR 51604, September 16, 2021) (AD 2021-19-20). AD 2021-19-20 applied to all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2022 (87 FR 35122). The NPRM was prompted by reports of defects on the piston hole associated with the O 2 saver function that may prevent efficient deactivation of the O 2 saver function and a determination that the AFM amendment required by AD 2021-19-20 may not be sufficient to mitigate the risk of failed deactivation of the O 2 saver function. The NPRM proposed to retain the requirements of AD 2021-19-20 and require physical deactivation of the O 2 saver function, as specified in EASA AD 2021-0272. The NPRM also proposed to limit the installation of affected parts under certain conditions.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address defects that may prevent efficient deactivation of the O 2 saver function, which could result in an inadequate oxygen supply to the flightcrew in case of decompression of the airplane or smoke or fire in the flight deck. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. 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. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

EASA AD 2021-0272 specifies procedures for amending the existing AFM to incorporate a specific check to ensure that the O 2 saver function is not activated and an operating limitation to prevent use of the O 2 saver function; and for mechanically deactivating the O 2 saver function of the affected parts (Safran flightcrew oxygen masks having part number MLD40-45-005 and serial number B150451 through B172005 inclusive without the letter “R” after the serial number). EASA AD 2021-0272 also limits the installation of affected parts under certain conditions. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 20 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

This AD 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:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2016-26-08, Amendment 39-18766 (82 FR 1172, January 5, 2017; corrected February 16, 2017, 82 FR 10859) (AD 2016-26-08). AD 2016-26-08 applied to all Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. (Pilatus) Model PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47, and PC-12/47E airplanes. AD 2016-26-08 required incorporating revisions into the ALS of the existing FAA-approved maintenance program and inspecting the MLG attachment bolts for cracks and corrosion.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 14, 2022 (87 FR 14187). The NPRM was prompted by reports of failure of MLG actuator bottom attachment bolts, part number 532.10.12.218, identified with “VLG” on the bolt head. These parts are from a specific vendor and are subject to hydrogen embrittlement. Accordingly, EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, superseded its prior AD on this condition and issued EASA AD 2021-0005, dated January 7, 2021, corrected January 14, 2021, to require a new 5-year life limit for the MLG actuator bottom attachment bolt identified with “VLG.” Pilatus subsequently added new life limits for the rudder bellcrank. As a result, EASA superseded its AD again and issued AD 2021-0214, dated September 17, 2021 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”). The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI at regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0153.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require incorporating new revisions to the ALS of the existing AMM or ICA to establish a 5-year life limit for certain MLG actuator bottom attachment bolts and new life limits for the rudder bellcrank. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent MLG collapse during all phases of airplane operations, including take-off and landing, and also to prevent rudder bellcrank failure, which could lead to loss of airplane control.

The FAA received comments from four commenters. The commenters were the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), Pilatus, and two individuals. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

ALPA supported the NPRM without change.

Pilatus requested that the FAA change the proposed AD to reference the most recent AMM revisions, which were issued December 10, 2021. Pilatus stated that it updated the AMM, including the ALS, for editorial changes and that requiring incorporation of the later AMM revisions would not increase the public burden. An individual commenter requested the FAA change the proposed AD to allow operators to comply by incorporating later FAA-approved revisions of the ALS. The commenter stated that not including this statement restricts operators to using the ALS revision required by the AD, unless they obtain approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC).

The FAA partially agrees. The FAA agrees to allow incorporation of the latest revisions of the ALS, as requested by Pilatus, as an option for compliance with paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, and has updated this final rule accordingly. The FAA does not agree with allowing future revisions of the ALS as an option for compliance with paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. An AD may not refer to a document that does not exist at the time the AD is published. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) regulations for approval of materials “incorporated by reference” in rules require that service documents be submitted to the OFR for approval as “referenced material.” An AD may reference only the specific service document that was submitted and approved by the OFR for incorporation by reference. The individual commenter is correct that in order for operators to use later revisions of the referenced document (issued after the publication of the AD), either the FAA must revise the AD to reference the specific later revisions, or operators must request the approval of their use as an AMOC.

An individual commenter requested the FAA adjust the average labor rate to reflect the current economic burden. The individual stated that the average labor rate in the NPRM is too low.

The FAA disagrees. The FAA Office of Aviation Policy and Plans provides the labor rate of $85 per work-hour for the FAA to use when estimating the labor costs of complying with AD requirements. The FAA did not change this final rule based on this comment.

The FAA has revised the document citations for the service information required in this AD to adhere to OFR regulations for materials incorporated by reference.

These products have been approved by the aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for the 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 the following service information, which contains the new life limit for certain MLG actuator bottom attachment bolts and new life limits for the rudder bellcrank. These documents are distinct because they apply to different airplane models; the different revision levels include editorial updates.

• PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47 Structural, Component and Miscellaneous Limitations—AMM Document No. 02049—Airworthiness Limitations, Document Module Code 12-A-04-00-00-00A-000A-A, of the Pilatus Model type—PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47 MSN-101-888 Aircraft Maintenance Manual Document No. 02049, Revision 41, dated July 16, 2021.

• PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47 Structural, Component and Miscellaneous Limitations—AMM Document No. 02049—Airworthiness Limitations, Document Module Code 12-A-04-00-00-00A-000A-A, of the Pilatus Model type—PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47 MSN-101-888 Aircraft Maintenance Manual Document No. 02049, Revision 42, dated December 10, 2021.

• PC-12/47E Structural, Component and Miscellaneous Limitations—AMM Document No. 2300—Airworthiness Limitations, Document Module Code 12-B-04-00-00-00A-000A-A, of the Pilatus Model type—PC-12/47E MSN-545/1001-1719 and 1721-1942 Aircraft Maintenance Manual Document No. 02300, Revision 25, dated July 16, 2021.

• PC-12/47E Structural, Component and Miscellaneous Limitations—AMM Document No. 2300—Airworthiness Limitations, Document Module Code 12-B-04-00-00-00A-000A-A, of the Pilatus Model type—PC-12/47E MSN-1001-1942 (except MSN 1720) Aircraft Maintenance Manual Document No. 02300, Revision 26, dated December 10, 2021.

• PC-12/47E Structural, Component and Miscellaneous Limitations—AMM Document No. 02436—Airworthiness Limitations, Document Module Code 12-C-04-00-00-00A-000A-A, of the Pilatus Model type—PC-12/47E MSN 1720, 2001-Up Aircraft Maintenance Manual Document No. 02436, Revision 03, dated July 16, 2021.

• PC-12/47E Structural, Component and Miscellaneous Limitations—AMM Document No. 02436—Airworthiness Limitations, Document Module Code 12-C-04-00-00-00A-000A-A, of the Pilatus Model type—PC-12/47E MSN 1720, 2001-Up Aircraft Maintenance Manual Document No. 02436, Revision 04, dated December 10, 2021.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,030 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA also estimates that it will take 1 work-hour per airplane to incorporate the revised ALS into the AMM or ICA. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost on U.S. operators to be $87,550 or $85 per airplane.

In addition, the FAA estimates that replacing a MLG actuator bottom attachment bolt, if necessary, will take 1 work-hour and will require parts costing $2,140 for a cost of $2,225 per airplane.

Replacing the rudder bellcrank, if necessary, will take 3 work-hours and will require parts costing $550 for a cost of $805 per airplane.

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:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-2A12 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 16, 2022 (87 FR 36272). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2021-40, dated November 19, 2021, issued by Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada (referred to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that significant water accumulation was discovered in the oxygen service compartment access panels during production activities on multiple airplanes and that, if not corrected, the freeze/thaw cycle of accumulated water may damage oxygen connections inside the compartment, leading to oxygen leakage and risk of fire in the presence of an ignition source.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require modifying the oxygen service compartment door to introduce a means of water drainage. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-0681.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. 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 Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-7508, Revision 1, dated January 13, 2021. This service information specifies procedures for, among other actions not specified in this AD, modifying the oxygen service compartment door to introduce a means of water drainage. The modification also includes a general visual inspection for damage of the oxygen access panel placard, and replacement of a damaged placard.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 40 airplanes 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 on-condition action that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all 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.

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:

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0193, dated August 20, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0193) to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters (AH), formerly Eurocopter, Eurocopter France, and Aerospatiale, Model AS 355 E, AS 355 F, AS 355 F1, AS 355 F2, AS 355 N, and AS 355 NP helicopters, all serial numbers. EASA AD 2021-0193 requires accomplishment of the actions in the applicable Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) as defined in EASA AD 2021-0193.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Helicopters Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 30, 2022 (87 FR 39019). The NPRM was prompted by the identification of certain parts needing maintenance actions, including life limits and maintenance tasks. The NPRM proposed to require incorporating into maintenance records requirements (airworthiness limitations), as specified in EASA AD 2021-0193.

EASA AD 2021-0193 states that it takes over the requirements for Model AS 355 helicopters from EASA AD 2010-0006, dated January 7, 2010 (EASA AD 2010-0006) (which prompted FAA AD 2011-22-05 R1, Amendment 39-17765 (79 FR 14169, March 13, 2014) (AD 2011-22-05 R1)) and EASA AD 2015-0094, dated May 29, 2015 (EASA AD 2015-0094) (which prompted FAA AD 2016-25-20, Amendment 39-18746 (81 FR 94954, December 27, 2016) (AD 2016-25-20)). EASA AD 2021-0193 also notes that the requirements of EASA AD 2010-0006 and EASA AD 2015-0094 have been incorporated into the applicable ALS specified in EASA AD 2021-0193.

Accordingly, this final rule does not supersede AD 2011-22-05 R1 or AD 2016-25-20. Rather, the FAA has determined that a stand-alone AD is more appropriate to address the changes in EASA AD 2021-0193. Therefore, this AD requires incorporating into existing maintenance records requirements (airworthiness limitations), as specified in the applicable ALS, as defined in EASA AD 2021-0193. Accomplishment of the required actions terminates all of the requirements of AD 2011-22-05 R1 and AD 2016-25-20 for Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters only.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.

These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these helicopters. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

EASA AD 2021-0193 requires certain actions and associated thresholds and intervals, including life limits and maintenance tasks.

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

The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters AS 355 E Chapter 04 ALS Revision 010, dated September 14, 2020; Airbus Helicopters AS 355 F Chapter 04 ALS Revision 010, dated September 14, 2020; Airbus Helicopters AS 355 F1 Chapter 04 ALS Revision 010, dated September 14, 2020; Airbus Helicopters AS 355 F2 Chapter 04 ALS Revision 011, dated September 14, 2020; Airbus Helicopters AS 355 N Chapter 04 ALS, Revision 010, dated September 14, 2020; and Airbus Helicopters AS 355 NP Chapter 04 ALS Revision 009, dated February 4, 2019. This service information specifies procedures for mandatory actions for continued airworthiness.

The FAA has previously mandated airworthiness limitations by mandating each airworthiness limitation task ( e.g., inspections and replacements (life limits)) as an AD requirement or issuing ADs that require revising the ALS of the existing maintenance manual or instructions for continued airworthiness to incorporate new or revised inspections and life limits. This AD, however, requires operators to incorporate into maintenance records required by 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2) or 135.439(a)(2), as applicable for your helicopter, the requirements (airworthiness limitations) specified in a civil aviation authority AD. The FAA does not intend this as a substantive change. For these ADs, the ALS requirements for operators are the same but are complied with differently. Requiring the incorporation of the new ALS requirements into the existing maintenance records, rather than requiring individual ALS tasks ( e.g., repetitive inspections and replacements), requires operators to record AD compliance once after updating the maintenance records, rather than after every time the ALS task is completed.

In addition, paragraph (h) of this AD allows operators to incorporate later approved revisions of the ALS document as specified in the Ref. Publications section of EASA AD 2021-0193 without the need for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC).

Paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2021-0193 requires compliance with actions and associated thresholds and intervals, including life limits and maintenance tasks, from the effective date of EASA AD 2021-0193. Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2021-0193 requires incorporating the actions and associated thresholds and intervals, including life limits and maintenance tasks, into the approved maintenance program within 12 months after the effective date of EASA AD 2021-0193. This AD requires incorporating into existing maintenance records requirements (airworthiness limitations) within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 45 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

Incorporating into existing maintenance records, requirements (airworthiness limitations) takes about 2 work-hours for an estimated cost of $170 per helicopter and $7,650 for the U.S. fleet.

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

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

This AD 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 regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority since it adjusts the upper altitude limit of R-6501A, and the lower altitude limit of R-6501B, to enable more efficient use of airspace.

Restricted area R-6501A, Underhill, VT, extends from the surface to 4,000 feet MSL. The time of designation for the area is: “From 0700 to 2300 local time, Monday-Friday; 0000 Saturday to 2359 Sunday; and other times by NOTAM issued 24 hours in advance.”

Restricted area R-6501B directly overlies R-6501A and shares the same lateral boundaries. R-6501B extends from 4,000 feet MSL to 13,600 feet MSL. The time of designation is: “Intermittent by NOTAM 24 hours in advance.”

Currently, the altitude that separates the two areas is 4,000 feet MSL. The issue is that the 4,000 feet MSL ceiling of R-6501A is not sufficient to safely contain most activities being conducted. This requires that R-6501B also be activated along with R-6501A. However, the activation of R-6501B restricts the airspace all the way up to 13,600 feet MSL, even though the majority of R-6501B is not needed for certain operations. Raising the upper altitude limit of R-6501A from 4,000 feet MSL to “to but not including 4,900 feet MSL”; and the lower altitude limit of R-6501B from 4,000 feet MSL to “4,900 feet MSL” will eliminate the need to frequently activate R-6501B. This will make more airspace available for Air Traffic Control (ATC) and general aviation use.

To provide for more efficient use of airspace, the FAA and the using agency agreed to change the altitude that separates R-6501A and R-6501B from 4,000 feet MSL to 4,900 feet MSL. The new configuration enables activation of less restricted airspace to ensure containment of the majority of the using agency's training needs while maintaining the ability to activate additional restricted airspace for missions that require higher altitudes.

These changes will accommodate the using agency's requirements while releasing unneeded restricted airspace for access by other airspace users. With regard to the existing R-6501A and B, which abut, the lateral boundaries of the restricted airspace areas, the lowest and uppermost vertical limits of the airspace areas, and the activities conducted within the airspace are unchanged.

This action amends 14 CFR part 73 by changing the upper altitude limit of R-6501A and lower altitude limit of R-6501B to adjust the internal altitude that separates them and minimizes the need to activate R-6501B. The time of designation for R-6501A and R-6501B remains the same as currently designated. The activities conducted within the restricted areas are unchanged.

This change enhances the efficient use of the National Airspace System by providing for activation of the minimum amount of restricted airspace needed for the specific mission being conducted, thereby releasing unneeded restricted airspace for access by other users. This reduces the burden on the flying public. Further, the modification does not change the current lateral boundaries, overall lowest and highest designated altitude limits, time of designation, or activities conducted within the restricted areas. Therefore, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

The FAA has determined that this action only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This action of modifying restricted areas R-6501A and R-6501B, by amending the internal altitude limits that separate them, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points), and paragraph 5-6.5f, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review, actions that increase the altitude of special use airspace. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73, as follows:

In 2018, the FAA commissioned a study to assess the safety and economic impacts on general aviation owners and operators (from here on referred to as “the GA Community”) from the termination of Mode-S Traffic Information Service (TIS). The purpose of this study was to communicate information on the removal of Mode-S TIS from the National Airspace System (NAS) through user outreach and engaging with non-governmental organizations ( e.g., AEA, AOPA, EAA, and GAMA). The results of the study confirmed that removal of Mode-S TIS has no significant adverse safety or economic impacts on the GA Community. Therefore, beginning in 2024, Mode-S TIS will terminate at each radar location as current Mode-S radars are replaced by the Mode-S Beacon Replacement System (MSBRS) program, or as legacy terminal Mode-S radars are removed as part of other ongoing activities. The GA Community should no longer rely on reception of TIS information from Mode-S capable radars.

In 2000, FAA implemented Mode-S Traffic Information System (TIS) via Mode-S radar data-link functionality. Mode-S TIS has also been referred to informally as TIS-A by some in industry. Mode-S TIS was implemented by FAA in response to an NTSB recommendation suggesting improvement of situational awareness information for the general aviation (GA) community not equipped with a traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS).

In May 2010, the FAA published 14 CFR 91.225 and 91.227, requiring aircraft to be equipped with Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS-B) Out equipment by 1 January 2020 in order to operate in certain U.S. airspace. ADS-B was identified as the backbone for the future of the FAA's Next Generation (NextGen) programs. From 2010 through 2020, the FAA funded deployment of approximately 700 ADS-B radio stations across the U.S. to provide improved surveillance coverage across the NAS. Along with improving surveillance coverage, the FAA implemented functionality into ADS-B radio stations geared at providing appropriately equipped GA aircraft with enhanced situational awareness through both Traffic Information Services—Broadcast (TIS-B) and Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Rebroadcast (ADS-R). 1 In 2016, FAA funded the addition of Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Same Link Rebroadcast (ADS-SLR) service at the busiest U.S. airports with a surface surveillance system. 2

In 2017, MITRE issued a report on Mid-Air Collision (MAC) rates from 1990 to 2006. Upon the implementation of Mode-S TIS functionality into FAA terminal radars, the data showed a decline of approximately 50 percent in the GA MAC rate from 2000 to 2003—when Mode-S TIS avionics were first being installed in GA aircraft. This lower MAC rate stabilized after 2003 when Mode-S TIS installations were largely completed and stayed at the lower level until today. Reception of Mode-S TIS information was not a functionality that was required for Mode-S transponders. To this day, a very limited set of transponders are known to be capable of receiving and processing Mode-S TIS information from FAA terminal radars.

In the decades following the initial Mode-S TIS deployment, the FAA implemented improved systems for provisioning information on proximate aircraft to GA pilots through the use of TIS-B, ADS-R and ADS-SLR services. These new services expand beyond the currently provided Mode-S TIS. Now that the ADS-B mandate is in effect, and low-cost avionics systems for receiving and displaying ADS-B, ADS-R, ADS-SLR and TIS-B information are readily available, the GA community is able to obtain a heightened situational awareness of the traffic around them. This is especially true when flying around the terminal areas where significant ADS-B coverage is available today.

As of April 3, 2022, approximately 127,755 aircraft have been identified as being 1090ES, UAT, or Dual ADS-B In capable. The vast majority of these are General Aviation aircraft due to the number of portable ADS-B In devices or integrated ADS-B In/Out systems available to this market.

Many FAA Mode-S terminal radars are approaching the end of their useful lifecycle. Additionally, the FAA is facing an increased maintenance cost from the inability to purchase parts, due to parts obsolescence or part shortages, necessary to ensure continued operational availability. To mitigate this, the FAA has initiated a radar modernization effort called the Mode-S Beacon Replacement System (MSBRS) program. Under this program, the FAA will replace at least forty-six (46) aging Mode-S terminal radars starting in 2024. Starting in 2024 as the new MSBRS radars replace the existing terminal radars, the existing Mode-S TIS functionality will disappear at the location of each replaced terminal radar.

During this timeframe, the FAA will continue to provide Mode-S TIS through the existing terminal radars until the existing radar is replaced with a new MSBRS radar. This document is intended to provide time for GA aircraft owners and operators who have not yet equipped with an ADS-B receiver to acquire and install, if appropriate, an ADS-B In capable system.

Independent of the MSBRS program, FAA is also engaged in multiple activities aimed at improving existing surveillance systems. These activities are aimed at reducing FAA operating costs and/or reducing congestion on surveillance system RF frequencies. As these activities proceed, FAA may remove one or more Mode-S terminal radars from operation, which would eliminate Mode-S TIS at that location.

Using surveys and discussions with industry organizations, the FAA was able to obtain the necessary data required to understand the potential safety and economic impacts from removing Mode-S TIS functionality from the existing terminal radars. FAA conducted surveys, such as the General Aviation/Part 135 Air Taxi Activity Survey, to produce a set of comprehensive data on Part 91 and Part 135 aircraft and their operations. The FAA reviewed data from survey reports for 2010, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2019, and discussed these reports with industry association experts. The data from these reports were utilized to study the relevant surveillance equipage for all types of aircraft: Fixed Wing Piston, Fixed Wing turboprop single and multi-engine, turbojet, and rotorcraft.

The FAA worked with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) to develop a special survey of AOPA's members about the impacts of eliminating Mode-S TIS. The survey was sent to 50,000 AOPA members with 2,567 responses received by March 2021. A follow up survey was conducted in an attempt to increase the percentage of AOPA members' responses. The final number of respondents by May 2021 was 5,752—over 10% of the aircraft owners surveyed. After the final survey results were received, AOPA and FAA performed a joint review of the collected information. In addition to answering 31 specific questions about their aircraft, its relevant avionics, hours, operations, and locations, the GA community also submitted over 700 comments pertaining to the impact of terminating Mode-S TIS. More than 50% of the GA community stated that there would be no or little impact to their traffic awareness capability and safety due to the removal of Mode-S TIS.

Over the last 3 years, the FAA has conducted industry briefings and discussions with major avionics manufacturing companies on the MSBRS program and the associated planned removal of Mode-S TIS from terminal radars. These discussions assisted in gathering pertinent information on equipage and gaining insight into potential concerns.

Based on data obtained from the aviation community and feedback received through industry engagement, FAA has determined that the overall safety and economic impacts due to the removal of Mode-S TIS functionality will have little to no impact on the GA community.

Replacement of the existing terminal radars capable of providing Mode-S TIS under the MSBRS Program will provide an improvement in ATC capabilities, which will benefit military and civil aviation, including General Aviation. Installation of the new state-of-the-art Mode-S radars will improve system operational reliability and reduce system down time.

Removal of legacy terminal Mode-S radars may occur as part of other ongoing FAA activities to divest radars or which are being replaced with other modern cooperative surveillance systems. These activities are being pursued to lower FAA operating costs and/or reduce congestion on surveillance system RF frequencies.

Aircraft operating within ADS-B mandated airspace, specified under 14 CFR 91.225, have transitioned their avionics equipment to be compliant with the performance requirements of the regulation. If the ADS-B Out equipment is performing and configured properly, aircraft equipped with ADS-B In are capable of receiving ADS-R, ADS-SLR, and TIS-B services from the FAA ADS-B ground stations across the NAS. These low-cost ADS-B In avionics systems are widely available, and provide the GA community with a heightened situational awareness of the traffic around them which was not previously available using solely Mode-S TIS information. These services expand coverage and more than replace the information currently provided by Mode-S TIS.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: www.federalregister.gov or the Government Printing Office's website at: www.GovInfo.gov.

This rulemaking makes technical corrections to the regulations that govern the National Bridge Inspection Standards Program found at 23 CFR part 650. In the final rule published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2022 (87 FR 27396), FHWA provided an incorrect cross reference in § 650.313(h), and an incomplete reference to material incorporated by reference to be used for the load rating of bridges in § 650.313(k). This Final Rule corrects those references in § 650.313(h) and (k).

Section 650.313(h) incorrectly pointed readers to “paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (b)(1)(ii) of this section” (emphasis added) to describe the use of special inspections in lieu of complete routine and underwater inspections for bridges on reduced inspection intervals. The paragraphs listed do not appear within § 650.313, but rather § 650.311. The FHWA corrects this sentence to remove the incorrect cross reference and to read as follows: “(h) Special inspection. For special inspections used to monitor conditions described in § 650.311(a)(1)(ii) and (b)(1)(ii), develop and document procedures in accordance with Section 4.2, AASHTO Manual (incorporated by reference, see § 650.317).”

Section 650.313(k) included an incomplete reference to the appropriate sections of the AASHTO Manual, incorporated by reference in § 650.317, for load rating purposes. As discussed in the preamble of the Final Rule, and referenced in the definition of “AASHTO Manual”, the third paragraph in Article 6B.7.1 is excluded from the considerations to be used for load rating. The FHWA corrects this sentence to note this exclusion and to read as follows: “(k) Load rating. (1) Rate each bridge as to its safe load capacity in accordance with Sections 6 and 8, excluding the 3rd paragraph in Article 6B.7.1, AASHTO Manual (incorporated by reference, see §  650.317).”

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), an Agency may waive the normal notice and comment requirements if it finds, for good cause, that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. The FHWA finds that notice and comment for this rule is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest because it will have no substantive impact and is technical in nature. The amendments to the rule are necessary based on drafting errors made during the development of the Final Rule. The FHWA does not anticipate receiving meaningful comments on it. State and local governments rely upon the regulations corrected by this action. These corrections will reduce confusion for these entities and should not be unnecessarily delayed. Accordingly, for the reasons listed above, FHWA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) to waive notice and opportunity for comment. For these same reasons, this Final Rule is effective upon its date of publication under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) and, therefore, is exempt from the 30-day delayed effective date requirement of that section for these same reasons.

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under that E.O. This action complies with E.O.'s 12866 and 13563 to improve regulation. It is anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking will be minimal. This final rule only makes minor corrections that will not alter the regulatory effect of 23 CFR part 650. Thus, the final rule will not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes will not interfere with any action taken or planned by another Agency and will not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs.

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities and has determined that the action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final rule will not make any substantive changes to our regulations or in the way that our regulations affect small entities; it merely corrects technical errors. For this reason, FHWA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This final rule does not impose any requirements on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector and, thus, will not require those entities to expend any funds.

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. The FHWA has determined that this final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this final rule does not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to these programs. Local entities should refer to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction, for further information.

This final rule does not create any new information collection requirements for which submission to OMB would be needed under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

The FHWA has analyzed this final rule for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has determined that this action will not have any effect on the quality of the environment and qualifies for the categorical exclusion at 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20).

The FHWA has analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13175. The FHWA concluded that the final rule will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal government; and will not preempt Tribal law. There are no requirements set forth in the final rule that directly affect one or more Indian Tribes. Therefore, a Tribal summary impact statement is not required.

E.O. 12898 requires that each Federal Agency make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minorities and low-income populations. The FHWA has determined that this final rule does not raise any environmental justice issues.

A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RINs contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, 23 CFR part 650 is amended as set forth below.

Under section 218(g) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990  1 (42 U.S.C. 12701 et seq. ) (NAHA), participating jurisdictions are required to place their HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds under binding commitment within 24 months after the last day of the month in which HUD made the funds available ( i.e., deposited the funds into the participating jurisdiction's HOME Investment Trust Fund (“HOME account”)). Under section 218(g) of NAHA, 2 a participating jurisdiction's right to draw HOME funds from its HOME account expires if the funds are not placed under binding commitment by the 24-month deadline. In addition, pursuant to section 231 of NAHA, 3 a participating jurisdiction must reserve not less than 15 percent of its HOME funds for investment only in housing to be developed, sponsored, or owned by community housing development organizations (CHDOs). If any funds reserved under section 231 of NAHA remain uninvested for a period of 24 months, then HUD must deduct the uninvested funds from the line of credit in the participating jurisdiction's HOME account.

Prior to Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, HUD measured compliance with the 24-month requirement for committing funds, including CHDO set-aside funds, using a cumulative methodology. HUD also had a 5-year expenditure requirement for all participating jurisdictions that was measured using the cumulative methodology. Under HUD's cumulative methodology, HUD's Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS) committed and disbursed funds on a first-in, first-out basis and participating jurisdictions were not required to designate funds from a specific FY allocation when committing HOME funds to a project. Consequently, HUD did not require participating jurisdictions to specify which grant year's funds they were committing to a specific project in IDIS.

On December 2, 2016 (81 FR 86947), HUD published an interim rule in the Federal Register to implement a grant-specific method for determining compliance with both the 24-month commitment and 24-month CHDO set-aside commitment deadlines, and to establish a method of administering program income that would prevent participating jurisdictions from losing appropriated funds when they expend program income. The interim rule also eliminated the 5-year expenditure requirement for participating jurisdictions (other than insular areas) for FY 2015 and later grant years and changed the manner in which program income and other funds in the local HOME account were treated.

The 24-month commitment requirement in section 218(g) of NAHA, however, was later suspended for HOME funds with 24-month deadlines occurring in 2016 through 2023 under section 242 of Title I of Division K of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017. 4 Specifically, the 2017 Appropriations Act stated: “Section 218(g) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12748(g)) shall not apply with respect to the right of a jurisdiction to draw funds from its HOME Investment Trust Fund that otherwise expired or would expire in 2016, 2017, 2018, or 2019 under this section.” The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019  5 and subsequent appropriations acts, 6 also included a provision suspending the 24-month requirement for CHDO set-aside funds in section 231(b) of NAHA for “any uninvested funds that otherwise were deducted or would be deducted from the line of credit in the participating jurisdiction's HOME Investment Trust Fund” in 2018 through 2024. Consequently, HUD is currently not enforcing the 24-month commitment requirements for those grants covered by the suspensions. Despite the suspensions of sections 218(g) and 231(b) in recent appropriations acts, HUD is finalizing the interim rule as these suspensions may lapse in the future.

After considering the public comments submitted in response to HUD's interim rule, HUD is finalizing its December 2, 2016, interim rule without change. This final rule implements a grant-specific method of determining compliance with the HOME commitment deadlines. As discussed in HUD's interim rule, beginning with FY 2015 grants, a participating jurisdiction is required to select the grant year's funds that will be committed to a specific project or activity. When the participating jurisdiction requests a draw of grant funds for that project or activity, HUD, through IDIS, now disburses the specific grant year's funds committed to that project or activity, rather than the oldest funds available. This change requires participating jurisdictions to commit specific FY grant funds and for HUD to assess commitment deadline compliance on a grant-specific basis. This methodology change addresses the timely commitment and expenditure of program income, repaid funds, recaptured funds, and funds committed for programs to be administered by State recipients and subrecipients. Conforming changes are also made to the consolidated plan regulations with respect to program income, repaid funds, and recaptured funds.

The public comment period for the interim rule closed on January 31, 2017, and HUD received seven public comments. Comments were largely submitted by development agencies. The following presents the significant issues and questions related to the interim rule raised by the commenters and HUD's responses to these issues and questions.

The comments were generally supportive. One commenter stated that requiring additional project-specific information is a positive change. Other commenters praised the change eliminating the requirement to expend program income prior to drawing grant funds, stated that HUD has developed a reasonable approach to accounting for the commitment of program income and supported the elimination of the automatic cancellation of projects.

Issue: De-obligation of previously committed funds. Commenters stated that de-obligating funds when a project is cancelled or completed for less than the committed amount only penalizes participating jurisdictions for being responsible stewards of funds. The commenters encouraged HUD to allow the funds to be recommitted immediately and used within the expenditure deadline without being recaptured by HUD. Another commenter stated that grantees should have a grace period to recommit those funds, such as the commitment deadline for the next year's allocation.

HUD Response: HOME funds that become uncommitted for any reason after the funds have met their 24-month commitment deadline can be committed by the participating jurisdiction to another eligible HOME project or activity, provided the participating jurisdiction met the requirements for a commitment, including the definition of commitment at 24 CFR 92.2, at the time of the funds' 24-month commitment deadline.

Issue: Elimination of cumulative method. A commenter stated that eliminating the cumulative method for determining compliance with the CHDO set-aside is impractical and will result in a significant loss of funds. The commenter stated that funding has declined recently and using the small amount of funds is very difficult, so jurisdictions wait and pool CHDO set-aside funds across multiple years. Eliminating the use of the cumulative method would essentially require at least some participating jurisdictions to work solely with CHDOs to have sufficient project dollars for the projects funded by CHDO set-aside funds.

HUD Response: The Department is aware of the challenges that the elimination of the cumulative method of measuring compliance with the 15 percent CHDO set-aside requirement may cause. Rather than committing less than 15 percent in some years and more than 15 percent in other years so that 15 percent of cumulative HOME allocations are used for CHDO projects, each participating jurisdiction is now required to commit a minimum of 15 percent of each grant year's allocation or HUD will recapture the funds. While the Department lacks statutory authority to use the cumulative method in determining compliance with the 15 percent CHDO set-aside requirement, Congress recognized these challenges and responded by suspending the application of section 231(b) of NAHA to CHDO set-aside funds that were or would be deducted in 2018 through 2024 and section 218(g) of NAHA to remove the expiration of funds with 24-month commitment deadlines in 2016 through 2024. Since the suspension of sections 218(g) and 231(b) of NAHA relieves participating jurisdictions of the obligation of committing funds to projects within 24 months, the combined effect of the suspensions allows participating jurisdictions to have a longer period of time to accumulate enough CHDO set-aside funds to commit to a CHDO project. The suspension of section 231(b) of NAHA also removes the requirement that participating jurisdictions reserve CHDO set-aside funds to be used for projects owned, developed, or sponsored by CHDOs for more than 24-months from the date the funds are made available. This allows participating jurisdictions to use CHDO set-aside funds for non-CHDO HOME projects after the end of the 24-month CHDO set-aside time period defined in section 231 of NAHA.

Issue: Elimination of CHDO set-aside. A commenter also supported eliminating the CHDO set-aside.

HUD Response: Elimination of the CHDO set-aside would require an amendment to NAHA.

Issue: Difficult to meet. A commenter stated that the 24-month commitment deadline is very difficult to meet, and the new rule does nothing to change it. Another commenter supported the elimination of the 24-month commitment deadline.

HUD Response: The 24-month deadline for committing HOME funds is a statutory requirement in section 218(g) of NAHA. Eliminating the requirement therefore requires a statutory amendment. In recent appropriations acts, Congress recognized the issues with the 24-month commitment deadline in section 218(g) by suspending the commitment requirement for HOME funds with deadlines occurring in 2016 through 2024. Congress also suspended section 231(b) of NAHA to permit participating jurisdictions to retain CHDO set-aside funds that were or would otherwise be deducted from a participating jurisdiction's HOME account in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, or 2024.

Issue: Notification. A commenter stated that HUD should notify all grantees as soon as possible of the amounts of prior year funds that must be committed, what the deadline is, and what the penalty for failure to meet the deadline is.

HUD Response: Participating jurisdictions have real time access to this information in IDIS. Under 24 CFR 92.504(a), participating jurisdictions are responsible for monitoring their progress toward meeting this and other HOME program deadlines.

Issue: Simplification and elimination. A commenter supported the simplification of expenditure deadlines and supported the elimination of the 5-year expenditure deadline.

HUD Response: Under the terms of the interim rule and this final rule, there is no 5-year expenditure deadline for participating jurisdictions (other than insular areas) for FY 2015 and subsequent allocations. The last application of the expenditure deadline for most participating jurisdictions occurred in 2019.

Issue: Expiration of funds. A commenter asked HUD for confirmation that the period of performance is retroactive so that the period of performance for FY 2015 grants ends on September 1, 2024, and the period of performance for FY 2016 grants ends on September 1, 2025.

HUD Response: The period of performance for HOME grants is specified on the Funding Approval and HOME Investment Partnerships Agreement (HUD-40093) between HUD and the participating jurisdiction. The period of performance for FY 2015 grants ends on September 1, 2023, and the period of performance for FY 2016 grants ends on September 1, 2024. These dates provide participating jurisdictions with time prior to the cancellation of the grants on September 30, 2023, and September 30, 2024, respectively, to draw down funds for costs incurred during the period of performance before the funds will be returned to the U.S. Treasury.

Issue: Timing for entering program income into the IDIS. Commenter asked whether program income is to be entered into the IDIS at the time of receipt or when it is reported in the annual action plan.

HUD Response: A participating jurisdiction's program income must be deposited in the participating jurisdiction's HOME Investment Trust Fund local account pursuant to 24 CFR 92.503(a) and reported in IDIS at the time it is received. If a participating jurisdiction's written agreement permits the state recipient or subrecipient to retain program income, then the program income must be reported in IDIS at the time it is received by the state recipient or subrecipient. If a participating jurisdiction permits a state recipient or subrecipient to retain program income, then the participating jurisdiction is still responsible for requiring that this information be entered into IDIS. The use of State recipients, subrecipients, or contractors does not relieve the participating jurisdiction of this responsibility, but a State participating jurisdiction may rely upon a state recipient for compliance with recordkeeping requirements under 24 CFR 92.508(a)(5)(iii) and (b) and need not duplicate such efforts.

Issue: Conflict with Department of Treasury. A commenter asked whether there is a conflict with the Department of Treasury in allowing a participating jurisdiction to accumulate expenditure of program income, as Treasury requires program income to be expended first.

HUD Response: Due to HOME funds' statutory 24-month commitment deadline, HUD established requirements for HOME program income that differ from those applicable to other Federal grant programs. Requiring participating jurisdictions to expend program income first places an additional barrier to committing allocated HOME funds by the 24-month commitment deadline. Therefore, HUD determined that the revised provisions for program income in the interim rule and finalized in this final rule are necessary so that participating jurisdictions can avoid losing allocated HOME funds that are subject to the 24-month commitment deadline.

Issue: Loss of appropriated funds. A commenter stated that HUD must prevent participating jurisdictions from losing appropriated HOME funds when they expend program income.

HUD Response: HUD agrees and established provisions in the interim rule and final rule to ensure that participating jurisdictions do not lose allocated HOME funds subject to the 24-month commitment deadline because they have expended program income.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The information collection requirements contained in this rule have been submitted to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB control number 2506-0171.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. This rule will not impose any Federal mandates on any State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector within the meaning of UMRA.

When the interim rule was published, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations in 24 CFR part 50 that implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). Because this rule finalizes the interim rule without change, the previous FONSI remains applicable.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As discussed, this regulation changes the manner in which HUD measures compliance with the statutory 24-month commitment deadline in the HOME program and does not alter the manner in which participating jurisdictions administer their HOME programs. Given this fact, HUD anticipates the regulatory changes will have minimal, or no, economic impacts.

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

Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. This rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments nor preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive order.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number applicable to the program that would be affected by this rule is 14.239.

Through July 31, 2022, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) resided and accepted mail at 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC, 20005-4026. On August 1, 2022, PBGC officially relocated to a new street address: 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20024-2101.

PBGC is promulgating these amendments without advance notice or an opportunity for public comment because they fall under the “good cause” exemption of the Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). PBGC finds that notice and comment are unnecessary because these amendments are merely technical; they effect no substantive changes to any rule. For the same reason, these amendments fall within the “good cause” exception to the delayed effective date provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Congressional Review Act at 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), 808(2). Moreover, because these amendments are exempt from the notice and comment procedure of the Administrative Procedure Act under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), PBGC is not required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis under 5 U.S.C. 603 or 604. 1

PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.

For the reasons given above, PBGC amends 29 CFR parts 4000, 4233, and 4903 as follows.

The Housekeeping Statute, 5 U.S.C. 301, authorizes agency heads to promulgate regulations governing “the custody, use, and preservation of its records, papers, and property.”

The Supreme Court held in United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951), that under such authority, agency heads may establish procedures for determining whether to release official information and allow personnel testimony sought through a subpoena or other litigation request. This regulation sets forth DoD's procedures, which as the Supreme Court explained, are useful and necessary as a matter of internal administration to prevent possible harm from unrestricted disclosures in court.

In DoD Directive 5145.01, “General Counsel of the Department of Defense (GC DoD),” December 2, 2013, as amended (available at https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/514501p.pdf ), and pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 113, the Secretary of Defense has delegated the authority to establish those procedures to the General Counsel.

This rule's corresponding internal issuance is DoD Directive 5405.2, “Release of Official Information in Litigation and Testimony by DoD Personnel as Witnesses,” July 23, 1985 (available at https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/540502p.pdf ). When this rule is finalized, DoD Directive 5405.2 will be reissued as DoD Instruction 5405.02, “Release of Official Information in Litigation and Presentation of Witness Testimony by DoD Personnel,” which will be made available at https://www.esd.whs.mil/Directives/issuances/dodi/.

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register (86 FR 26444-26448) on May 14, 2021, with no public comments received. The rule proposed modifications primarily to clarify and streamline the requirements for the proper submission of subpoenas and litigation requests, the factors that chief legal advisors will consider when responding, and the fees that may be collected to cover associated expenses.

The modifications included:

• Adding in § 97.1 references to 5 U.S.C. 301 and the Supreme Court's decision in United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951), to note the legal basis for this rule's purpose.

• Reorganizing the paragraphs in § 97.2 to provide a more practical order of categories covered by and excluded from the rule.

• Revising in § 97.3 the definition of “personnel” to make clear that the rule covers not only Service members and civilian employees of every DoD component, but also employees of other Federal agencies who are assigned to, detailed to, or otherwise affiliated with a DoD component.

• Adding in § 97.3 the defined term “chief legal advisors” to replace the phrases “appropriate DoD official designated in paragraph (a) of this section” and “appropriate DoD official designated in § 97.6(a),” which are used awkwardly throughout the current rule to refer to a component's chief attorney. Also adding in § 97.3 the defined term “court” to replace the awkward phrase “court of competent jurisdiction or other appropriate authority” throughout the rule. These changes allow for cleaner sentences and result in a more straightforward rule that is easier to follow.

• Moving the definition of “disclosure” from § 97.6 to § 97.3, the Definitions section, so that the reader may find it easily. For the same reason, separating the defined terms “litigation” and “litigation request,” which appear together in the current rule under the definition of “litigation.”

• Dividing the Responsibilities section into two separate sections (GC DoD and DoD Component heads); dividing the Procedures section into five separate sections (authorities, factors to consider, requirements and determinations, fees, and expert or opinion testimony); and subdividing the five new Procedures sections to list separately each item that requesting parties, personnel, and chief legal advisors must take into account. These formatting changes result in a more streamlined rule that is easier to use.

While no public comments were received, DoD is making two administrative revisions in this final rule:

• Adding in § 97.8 a factor to consider whether a disclosure would reveal information protected by the Privacy Act.

• Adding a third appendix for litigation requests and demands to the Department of the Army.

The general notice-and-comment requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act does not apply to these administrative revisions. DoD finds for good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) that another round of notice and comment is impracticable and unnecessary. Adding Privacy Act information to the factors to consider simply recognizes an existing obligation set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552a. The revision also will reinforce DoD components' compliance with this statute. And similar to the previously published appendices for the Departments of the Navy and Air Force, the Department of the Army appendix simply lists the appropriate offices where parties should submit their requests and demands.

As no public comment was received on this analysis, the Department is finalizing this section without change. Consolidating Touhy requirements into a single rule, along with updating the rule to make it clearer and more streamlined, will produce efficiencies and uniformity to the public's benefit. Less attorney time will be spent searching for only one rule and complying with its requirements. The Department has concluded that attorneys for third-party litigants will save an estimated 30 minutes of research, review, and compliance time per subpoena or litigation request when referring to the CFR for guidance.

For purposes of estimating the cost savings, the Department's subject matter experts deemed it reasonable to use the mean hourly wage for lawyers as informed by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, $69.86. 1 Subject matter experts further advised that at least 80% of subpoenas and litigation requests submitted to DoD involve consultation of the various rules in the CFR. 2 An average of 1,405 requests are received annually across the entire Department, according to Fiscal Year 2016 data. This rule should result in an annual cost savings of approximately $39,261.32, which is the impacted percentage (80%) of total annual requests (1,405) multiplied by the attorney hours saved per request (0.5) and the mean hourly wage ($69.86)—in other words, 0.8*1,405*0.5*69.86 = $39,261.32. These savings are reflected in the chart below.

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi 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 these security zones by September 21, 2022 to ensure security of these vessels and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to provide for the security of the vessel.

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 Corpus Christi (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the transit of the Motor Vessel (M/V) CELSIUS CAROLINA when loaded will be a security concern within a 500-yard radius of the vessel. This rule is needed to provide for the safety and security the vessel, their cargo, and surrounding waterway from terrorist acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other events of a similar nature while they are transiting within Corpus Christi, TX, from September 21, 2022 until September 25, 2022.

The Coast Guard is establishing four 500-yard radius temporary moving security zones around M/V CELSIUS CAROLINA. The zone for the vessel will be enforced from September 21, 2022, until September 25, 2022. The duration of the zone is intended to protect the vessel and cargo and surrounding waterway from terrorist acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other events of a similar nature. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

Entry into the security zone is prohibited unless authorized by 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 Corpus Christi. Persons or vessels desiring to enter or pass through each zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 361-939-0450. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate for the enforcement times and dates for each security zone.

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 size, duration, and location of the security zones. This rule will impact a small designated area of 500-yards around the moving vessel in the Corpus Christi Ship Channel and La Quinta Channel as the vessels transit the channel over a five day period. Moreover, the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zones.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and 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 moving security zone lasting for the duration of time that the M/V CELSIUS CAROLINA is within the Corpus Christi Ship Channel and La Quinta Channel while loaded with cargo. It will prohibit entry within a 500 yard radius of M/V CELSIUS CAROLINA while the vessel is transiting loaded within Corpus Christi Ship Channel and La Quinta Channel. It is categorically excluded from further review under L60 in Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

On October 1, 2015, EPA promulgated a revised primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone, revising the 8-hour ozone standards from 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to a new more protective level of 0.070 ppm. See 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIP revisions meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. This particular type of SIP is commonly referred to as an “infrastructure SIP” or “iSIP.” States were required to submit such SIP revisions for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than October 1, 2018. 1

EPA is approving changes to the Georgia SIP that were provided to EPA under a cover letter dated April 30, 2021. 1 Specifically, GA EPD submitted changes to Georgia's Rule 391-3-20— Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (“Georgia I/M Regulation”), which were adopted by the GA DNR Board of Directors and became state-effective on April 13, 2021. The changes update the Georgia SIP to remove obsolete references, requirements, and terminology, and update terminology to reflect advances in technology. These proposed changes include removing and revising definitions applicable to the Georgia I/M Regulation.

Georgia's April 30, 2021, SIP revisions sought to modify the following sections of the Georgia's SIP-approved I/M Regulation: Rule 391-3-20-.01—“Definitions”; Rule 391-3-20-.04—“Emission Inspection Procedures”; Rule 391-3-20-.05—“Emission Standards”; Rule 391-3-20-.07—“Inspection Equipment System Specifications”; Rule 391-3-20-.09—“Inspection Station Requirements”; and Rule 391-3-20-.11—“Inspector Qualifications and Certification.”

On July 11, 2022, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to propose approval of the aforementioned changes to Georgia's SIP. See 87 FR 41080. EPA's July 11, 2022, NPRM includes further detail on the changes made in Georgia's April 30, 2021, submittal as well as EPA's rationale for approving these changes to the SIP. Comments were due on the July 11, 2022, NPRM on or before August 10, 2022, and EPA received no comments on that proposal. Therefore, EPA is approving the changes in this final action.

In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in Section I of this preamble, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Georgia Rules 391-3-20-.01— Definitions; 391-3-20-.04— Emission Inspection Procedures; 391-3-20-.05— Emission Standards; 391-3-20-.07— Inspection Equipment System Specifications; 391-3-20-.09— Inspection Station Requirements; and 391-3-20-.11— Inspector Qualifications and Certification, all of which have an effective date of April 13, 2021, into the Georgia SIP. EPA has made and will continue to make these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, the revised materials as stated above, have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 2

EPA is taking final action approving changes to the Georgia SIP that were provided to EPA in a cover letter dated April 30, 2021. GA EPD submitted changes to Georgia's Rule 391-3-20— Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (“Georgia I/M Regulation”), which were adopted by the GA DNR Board of Directors and became state-effective on April 13, 2021. Specifically, Georgia's April 30, 2021, SIP revisions modify the following sections of the Georgia's SIP-approved I/M Regulation: Rule 391-3-20-.01— Definitions; Rule 391-3-20-.04 — Emission Inspection Procedures; Rule 391-3-20-.05— Emission Standards; Rule 391-3-20-.07— Inspection Equipment System Specifications; Rule 391-3-20-.09— Inspection Station Requirements; and Rule 391-3-20-.11— Inspector Qualifications and Certification.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 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. 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 EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 21, 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, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

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

On March 25, 2022 (87 FR 17060), the EPA proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of the following rule that was submitted for incorporation into the California SIP.

SC Rule 1118 is designed to decrease volatile organic compound (VOC), sulfur oxide, and nitrogen oxide emissions from industries such as petroleum refineries, sulfur recovery plants, and hydrogen production plants. The revisions to this rule include adoption of the requirements for refinery flares from the final rule of the 2015 EPA Refinery Rule, updated emission factors based on AP-42 guidance, and clarified reporting requirements.

We proposed a limited approval because we determined that this rule improves the SIP and is largely consistent with the relevant CAA requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval because Rule 1118 Section (j) does not satisfy the requirements of CAA section 110 and part D of the Act. As described in our proposal, documents submitted for inclusion into the SIP should not include unbounded director's discretion that allows the State to approve alternatives to the applicable SIP without following the SIP revision process described in CAA section 110. Rule 1118 Section (j) provides the Executive Officer the authority to approve other American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) methods other than those currently included in the rule. Without further specificity regarding how this authority will be exercised, it could functionally allow for a revision of the SIP without complying with the process for SIP revisions required by the CAA. As a result, this undermines the enforceability of the submission, constitutes a SIP deficiency, and conflicts with CAA Section 110.

Our proposed action contains more information on the basis for this rulemaking and on our evaluation of the submittal.

The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received no comments.

No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, the EPA is finalizing a limited approval of the submitted rule. This action incorporates the submitted rule into the California SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. As authorized under section 110(k)(3) and 301(a), the EPA is simultaneously finalizing a limited disapproval of SCAQMD Rule 1118.

As a result, the EPA must promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless we approve subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies within 24 months. In addition, the offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) will be imposed 18 months after the effective date of this action, and the highway funding sanction in CAA section 179(b)(1) six months after the offset sanction is imposed. A sanction will not be imposed if the EPA determines that a subsequent SIP submission corrects the identified deficiencies before the applicable deadlines.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1118 as described in Section I of this preamble and set for below in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

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

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because 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, and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

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

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

The state did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal. There is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goals of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and indigenous peoples.

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 21, 2022. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule 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 Environmental Protection Agency amends part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

In the final rule that published in the Federal Register on September 16, 2022, at 87 FR 57108, the following correction is made: