### 26556 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules

4 5 U.S.C. 601(3). The Bureau may establish an alternative definition after consultation with the Small Business Administration and an opportunity for public comment.

5 5 U.S.C. 603–605.

6 5 U.S.C. 609. practicable to make payments could alter the total payments received by various consumers. As a final example, any changes that limit the amount of funds that the Fund Administrator may allocate to consumer education and financial literacy programs would shift potential benefits from consumers who benefit from these programs to other

consumers.

The revisions to the Final Rule discussed in this rule would not have a unique impact on rural consumers. Since the amendments would not have any impact on covered persons, they also have no impact on insured depository institutions or insured credit unions with less than $10 billion in assets as described in section 1026(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act. VI. Regulatory Requirements

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires each agency to consider the potential impact of its regulations on small entities, including small businesses, small governmental units, and small not-for-profit organizations. The RFA defines a ‘‘small business’’ as a business that meets the size standard developed by the Small Business Administration pursuant to the Small Business Act. 4

The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 The Bureau also is subject to certain additional procedures under the RFA involving the convening of a panel to consult with small business representatives prior to proposing a rule for which an IRFA is required. 6

The undersigned certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Final Rule and proposed alternatives set forth only what Civil Penalty Fund payments the Bureau will make to victims and the procedures for allocating funds for such payments and for consumer education and financial literacy programs. The rule would not impose any substantive requirements on any small entities. VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Bureau has determined that neither the Final Rule nor any of the alternatives proposed in this notice of proposed rulemaking imposes any new recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public that would constitute collections of information requiring approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Comments on this determination may be submitted to the Bureau as instructed in the **ADDRESSES** section of this notice and to the attention of the Paperwork Reduction Act Officer. List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1075

Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations, Consumer Financial Civil Penalty Fund, Consumer protection, Organization and functions.

Dated: April 26, 2013. Richard Cordray, Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
[FR Doc. 2013–10318 Filed 5–6–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4810–25–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 39**

**[Docket No. FAA–2012–0756; Directorate Identifier 2012–CE–012–AD]** 

**RIN 2120–AA64**

**Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes** 

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule; withdrawal.

**SUMMARY :**  This document withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would have applied to all Piper Aircraft, Inc. (type certificate previously held by The New Piper Aircraft Inc.) Models PA–18 and PA–19 airplanes. The proposed airworthiness directive (AD) would have required either moving all toggle-style magneto switches located on the left cabin panel, adjacent to the front seat, away from this position; or replacing these switcheswith FAA-approved, non-keyed, rotarystyle switches. Since issuance of the NPRM, the FAA has re-evaluated this airworthiness concern and determined that an unsafe condition does not exist that would warrant AD action. This withdrawal does not prevent the FAA from initiating future rulemaking on this subject. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Gary Wechsler, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474–5575; fax: (404) 474–5606; email: gary.wechsler@faa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 19, 2012 (77 FR 42455). That NPRM proposed to require you to either move all toggle-style magneto switches located on the left cabin panel, adjacent to the front seat, away from this position; or replace these switches with FAA-approved, non-keyed, rotary-style switches.

Because of the comments received on the NPRM (77 FR 42455, July 19, 2012), the FAA re-evaluated the data collected on the safety concern and concluded that:

• an unsafe condition warranting AD action does not exist; and

• the associated level of risk does not warrant AD action.

To mitigate the safety concern from recurring, the FAA may take another airworthiness action such as a special airworthiness information bulletin (SAIB) to recommend the actions contained in the proposed rule and capture the concerns identified by the public during the NPRM (77 FR 42455, July 19, 2012) comment period.

Withdrawal of this NPRM (77 FR 42455, July 19, 2012) constitutes only such action and does not preclude the agency from issuing future rulemaking on this issue, nor does it commit the agency to any course of action in the future. Regulatory Findings

Since this action only withdraws an NPRM, it is neither a proposed nor a final rule and therefore, is not covered under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

The Withdrawal

Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), FAA–2012–0756, published in the Federal Register on July 19, 2012 (77 FR 42455), is withdrawn.


### 26557 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 1,
2013. Earl Lawrence, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–10786 Filed 5–6–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 71**

**[Docket No. FAA–2013–0276; Airspace Docket No. 13–AEA–5]** 

**Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Plattsburgh, NY** 

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

**ACTION :**  Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

**SUMMARY :**  This action proposes to amend Class E Airspace at Plattsburgh, NY, as the Clinton County Airport has closed and controlled airspace removed. New Class E Airspace at Plattsburgh International Airport would be created to accommodate standard instrument approach procedures developed at the airport. This action would enhance the safety and airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations.

**DATES :**  Comments must be received on or before June 21, 2013.

**ADDRESSES :**  Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey SE., Washington, DC 20590– 0001; Telephone: 1–800–647–5527; Fax: 202–493–2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA–2013–0276; Airspace Docket No. 13–AEA–5, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404)
305–6364.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 
Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA– 2013–0276; Airspace Docket No. 13– AEA–5) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see

**ADDRESSES** section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ‘‘Comments to Docket No. FAA–2013–0276; Airspace Docket No. 13–AEA–5.’’ The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of NPRMs

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through http:// www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA’s Web page at http://www.faa.gov/ airports

_ airtraffic/air

_ traffic/ publications/airspace

_ amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the

**ADDRESSES** section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays, at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM’s should contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267–9677, to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal

The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Clinton County Airport, Plattsburgh, NY, due to the airport’s closure. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be established within a 12.6-mile radius of Plattsburgh International Airport, Plattsburgh, NY to support new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures developed at the airport. The Clinton County Airport has closed, requiring airspace reorganization in the Plattsburgh, NY area, and for the continued safety and management of IFR operations.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation 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 proposed rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA’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 proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority as it