Federal Register Vol. 80, No.101,

This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 97 and Order No. 948, both as amended (7 CFR part 948), regulating the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.

The handling of Colorado Area No. 3 potatoes is regulated by 7 CFR part 948. Prior to this change, the minimum quantity exception for potatoes was 1,000 pounds. The Committee unanimously recommended increasing the minimum quantity exception to be consistent with the approximate weight of one pallet of potatoes. The recommendation was made at the request of producers and handlers who wanted greater flexibility in distributing smaller quantities of potatoes. Therefore, this rule continues in effect the rule that relaxed the quantity of potatoes that may be handled without regard to the requirements of § 948.387(a) and (b) of the order from 1,000 to 2,000 pounds.

In an interim rule published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2015, and effective on January 23, 2015, (80 FR 3140, Doc. No. AMS-FV-14-0092; FV15-948-1 IR), § 948.387(f) was amended by increasing the minimum quantity from 1,000 to 2,000 pounds of potatoes.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 6 handlers of Colorado Area No. 3 potatoes subject to regulation under the order and approximately 6 producers in the regulated production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

During the 2013-2014 fiscal period, the most recent for which statistics are available, 663,025 hundredweight of Colorado Area No. 3 potatoes were inspected under the order and sold into the fresh market. The USDA Market News Service reported a 2013-2014 average f.o.b. price of $10.70 per hundredweight. Multiplying $10.70 by the shipment quantity of 663,025 hundredweight yields a shipping point revenue estimate of $7,094,368. The average annual fresh potato revenue for each of the 6 Colorado Area No. 3 potato handlers is therefore calculated to be approximately $1,182,395 ($7,094,368 divided by 6), which is less than the SBA threshold of $7,000,000. In view of the foregoing, the majority of Colorado Area No. 3 potato handlers may be classified as small entities.

In addition, based on information provided by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the average producer price for the 2013 Colorado fall potato crop was $7.25 per hundredweight. Multiplying $7.25 by the shipment quantity of 663,025 hundredweight yields an annual crop revenue estimate of $4,806,931. The average annual fresh potato revenue for each of the 6 Colorado Area No. 3 potato producers is therefore calculated to be approximately $801,155 ($4,806,931 divided by 6), which is greater than the SBA threshold of $750,000. Consequently, on average, most of the Colorado Area No. 3 potato producers may not be classified as small entities.

This rule continues in effect the action that relaxed the quantity of potatoes that may be handled without regard to the requirements of § 948.387(a) and (b) of the order from 1,000 to 2,000 pounds. Authority for the establishment and modification of a minimum quantity exception is provided in § 948.22(b)(2) of the order. This rule amends the provisions in § 948.387(f).

This action is not expected to increase the costs associated with the order's requirements. Rather, it is anticipated that this change will have a beneficial impact. The Committee believes it will provide greater flexibility in the distribution of small quantities of potatoes. Currently, the distribution of potatoes between 1,000 and 2,000 pounds requires an inspection and certification that the product conforms to the grade, size, and maturity requirements of the order. This translates into a cost for handlers of both time and inspection fees, which is high in relation to the small value (approximately $214.00 per pallet) of these transactions. This action will allow shipments of up to 2,000 pounds of potatoes without regard to the order's handling requirements and the related costs. The benefits for this rule are expected to be equally available to all fresh potato producers and handlers, regardless of their size.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178 (Generic Vegetable and Specialty Crops). No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Colorado Area No. 3 potato handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.

Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Colorado Area No. 3 potato industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the May 14, 2014, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue.

Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before March 23, 2015. One comment was received during the comment period in response to the proposal. The commenter opposed the proposed relaxation. The recommendations made by the commenter were to withdraw the change or to increase the exemption to 20,000 pounds. An increase of the minimum quantity exception to 20,000 pounds would eliminate the need for the order, which is not the recommendation of the industry. Also, this action was initiated from a unanimous recommendation of the Committee, which represents a cross-section of the Colorado Area No. 3 potato industry. Accordingly, no changes will be made to the rule.

To view the interim rule, go to: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=AMS-FV-14-0092.

This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13175, and 13563; the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35); and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).

After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in the Federal Register (80 FR 3140, January 22, 2015) will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Accordingly, the interim rule that amended 7 CFR part 948 and that was published at 80 FR 3140 on January 22, 2015, is adopted as a final rule, without change.

This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 985 (7 CFR part 985), as amended, regulating the handling of spearmint oil produced in the Far West (Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and designated parts of Nevada and Utah), hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.

The handling of spearmint oil produced in the Far West is regulated by the order and is administered locally by the Committee. Under the authority of the order, salable quantities and allotment percentages were established for both Scotch and Native spearmint oil for the 2014-2015 marketing year. However, during the course of the 2014-2015 marketing year, it became evident to the Committee and the industry that demand for Native spearmint oil was greater than previously projected and an intra-seasonal increase in the salable quantity and allotment percentage for Native spearmint oil was necessary to adequately supply the increased demand. Therefore, this rule continues in effect the rule that increased the Native spearmint oil salable quantity from 1,090,821 pounds to 1,280,561 pounds and the allotment percentage from 46 percent to 54 percent.

In an interim rule published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2015, effective on January 22, 2015, and applicable to the 2014-2015 marketing year (80 FR 3142, Doc. No. AMS-FV-13-0087, FV14-985-1B IR), § 985.233 was amended to reflect the aforementioned increase in the salable quantity and allotment percentage for Native spearmint oil for the 2014-2015 marketing year.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are 8 spearmint oil handlers subject to regulation under the order, and approximately 39 producers of Scotch spearmint oil and approximately 91 producers of Native spearmint oil in the regulated production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

Based on the SBA's definition of small entities, the Committee estimates that only two of the eight handlers regulated by the order could be considered small entities. Most of the handlers are large corporations involved in the international trading of essential oils and the products of essential oils. In addition, the Committee estimates that 22 of the 39 Scotch spearmint oil producers and 29 of the 91 Native spearmint oil producers could be classified as small entities under the SBA definition. Thus, the majority of handlers and producers of Far West spearmint oil may not be classified as small entities.

The use of volume control regulation allows the spearmint oil industry to fully supply spearmint oil markets while avoiding the negative consequences of over-supplying these markets. Without volume control regulation, the supply and price of spearmint oil would likely fluctuate widely. Periods of oversupply could result in low producer prices and a large volume of oil stored and carried over to future crop years. Periods of undersupply could lead to excessive price spikes and could drive end users to source their flavoring needs from other markets, potentially causing long-term economic damage to the domestic spearmint oil industry. The order's volume control provisions have been successfully implemented in the domestic spearmint oil industry since 1980 and provide benefits for producers, handlers, manufacturers, and consumers.

This rule increases the quantity of Native spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from or handle on behalf of producers during the 2014-2015 marketing year, which ends on May 31, 2015. The 2014-2015 Native spearmint oil salable quantity was initially established at 1,090,821 pounds and the allotment percentage initially set at 46 percent. This rule increases the Native spearmint oil salable quantity to 1,280,561 pounds and the allotment percentage to 54 percent.

The Committee reached its decision to recommend an increase in the salable quantity and allotment percentage for Native spearmint oil after careful consideration of all available information. With the increase, the Committee believes that the industry will be able to satisfactorily meet the current market demand for this class of spearmint oil. This rule amends the salable quantities and allotment percentages previously established in § 985.233. Authority for this action is provided in §§ 985.50, 985.51, and 985.52 of the order.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178, Vegetable and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large spearmint oil handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the spearmint oil industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the November 5, 2014, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue.

Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before March 23, 2015. No comments were received. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, without change.

To view the interim rule, go to: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=AMS-FV-13-0087-0004.

This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13175, and 13563; the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35); and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).

After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in the Federal Register (80 FR 3142, January 22, 2015) will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected airplanes. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

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

On December 10, 2009, Bombardier Aerospace applied for a type certificate for their new Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes (hereafter collectively referred to as “CSeries”). The CSeries airplanes are swept-wing monoplanes with an aluminum alloy fuselage, sized for 5-abreast seating. Passenger capacity is designated as 110 for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 125 for the Model BD-500-1A11. Maximum takeoff weight is 131,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 144,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A11. The CSeries airplanes will have an electronic flight control system.

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Bombardier Aerospace must show that the CSeries airplanes meet the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25 as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-129.

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

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the CSeries airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

The CSeries will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: Electrical and electronic flight control systems that perform critical functions, the loss of which may result in loss of flight controls and other critical systems and may be catastrophic to the airplane.

The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for these design features. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

The CSeries airplanes have a fly-by-wire flight control system that requires a continuous source of electrical power in order to maintain an operable flight control system. Section 25.1351(d), Operation without normal electrical power, requires safe operation in visual flight rule (VFR) conditions for at least five minutes after loss of normal electrical power excluding the battery. This rule was structured around a traditional design using mechanical control cables and linkages for flight control. These manual controls allowed the crew to maintain aerodynamic control of the airplane for an indefinite period of time after loss of all electrical power. Under these conditions, a mechanical flight control system provided the crew with the ability to fly the airplane while attempting to identify the cause of the electrical failure, restart engine(s) if necessary, and attempt to re-establish some of the electrical power generation capability.

A critical assumption in § 25.1351(d) is that the airplane is in VFR conditions at the time of the failure. This is not a valid assumption in today's airline operating environment where airplanes fly much of the time in instrument meteorological conditions on air traffic control defined flight paths. Another assumption in the existing rule is that the loss of all normal electrical power is the result of the loss of all engines. The five-minute period in the rule is to allow at least one engine to be restarted following an all-engine power loss in order to continue the flight to a safe landing. However, service experience on airplane models with similar electrical power-system architecture as the CSeries has shown that at least the temporary loss of all electrical power for causes other than all-engine failure is not extremely improbable. In addition, Bombardier is applying for extended operations (ETOPS) type design approval. In order to meet the applicable ETOPS requirements, the electrical power generation system must be able to power all of the electrically powered equipment required for a maximum-length ETOPS diversion.

In order to maintain the same level of safety envisioned by the existing rule with traditional mechanical flight controls in a non-ETOPS operating environment, the CSeries design must not be time-limited in its operation under all reasonably foreseeable conditions, including loss of all normal sources of engine or auxiliary-power-unit (APU)-generated electrical power. Unless Bombardier can show that the non-restorable loss of the engine and APU power sources is extremely improbable, Bombardier must demonstrate that the airplanes can maintain safe flight and landing (including steering and braking on the ground for airplanes using steer/brake-by-wire and/or fly-by-wire speed brake panels) with the use of its emergency/alternate electrical power systems. These electrical power systems, or the minimum restorable electrical power sources, must be able to power loads that are essential for continued safe flight and landing, including those required for a maximum length ETOPS diversion.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model No. BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes. Should Bombardier Aerospace apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

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

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Bombardier BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes.

In lieu of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.1351(d) the following special conditions apply:

1. Bombardier must show by test or a combination of test and analysis that the airplane is capable of continued safe flight and landing with all normal electrical power sources inoperative, as prescribed by paragraphs 1a and 1b below. For purposes of these special conditions, normal sources of electrical power generation do not include any alternate power sources such as the battery, ram air turbine, or independent power systems such as the flight-control permanent magnet generating system. In showing capability for continued safe flight and landing, Bombardier must account for systems capability, effects on crew workload and operating conditions, and the physiological needs of the flightcrew and passengers for the longest diversion time for which Bombardier is seeking approval.

a. In showing compliance with this requirement, Bombardier must account for common-cause failures, cascading failures, and zonal physical threats.

b. Bombardier may consider the ability to restore operation of portions of the electrical power generation and distribution system if it can be shown that unrecoverable loss of those portions of the system is extremely improbable. The design must provide an alternative source of electrical power for the time required to restore the minimum electrical power generation capability required for safe flight and landing. Bombardier may exclude unrecoverable loss of all engines when showing compliance with this requirement.

2. Regardless of any electrical generation and distribution system recovery capability shown under paragraph 1 of these special conditions, sufficient electrical system capability must be provided to:

a. Allow time to descend, with all engines inoperative, at the speed that provides the best glide distance, from the maximum operating altitude to the top of the engine restart envelope, and

b. Subsequently allow multiple start attempts of the engines and auxiliary power unit (APU). The design must provide this capability in addition to the electrical capability required by existing part 25 requirements related to operation with all engines inoperative.

3. The airplane emergency electrical power system must be designed to supply:

a. Electrical power required for immediate safety, which must continue to operate without the need for crew action following the loss of the normal electrical power, for a duration sufficient to allow reconfiguration to provide a non-time-limited source of electrical power.

b. Electrical power required for continued safe flight and landing for the maximum diversion time.

4. If Bombardier uses APU-generated electrical power to satisfy the requirements of these special conditions, and if reaching a suitable runway for landing is beyond the capacity of the battery systems, then the APU must be able to be started under any foreseeable flight condition prior to the depletion of the battery or the restoration of normal electrical power, whichever occurs first. Flight test must demonstrate this capability at the most critical condition.

a. Bombardier must show that the APU will provide adequate electrical power for continued safe flight and landing.

b. The operating limitations section of the airplane flight manual (AFM) must incorporate non-normal procedures that direct the pilot to take appropriate actions to activate the APU after loss of normal engine-driven generated electrical power.

5. As part of showing compliance with these special conditions, the tests to demonstrate loss of all normal electrical power must also take into account the following:

a. The assumption that the failure condition occurs during night instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) at the most critical phase of the flight, relative to the worst possible electrical power distribution and equipment-loads-demand condition.

b. After the un-restorable loss of normal engine generator power, the airplane engine restart capability is provided and operations continued in IMC.

c. The airplane is demonstrated to be capable of continued safe flight and landing. The length of time must be computed based on the maximum diversion time capability for which the airplane is being certified. Bombardier must account for airspeed reductions resulting from the associated failure or failures.

d. The airplane must provide adequate indication of loss of normal electrical power to direct the pilot to the non-normal procedures, and the operating limitations section of the AFM must incorporate non-normal procedures that will direct the pilot to take appropriate actions.

On December 10, 2009, Bombardier Aerospace applied for a type certificate for their new Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes (hereafter collectively referred to as “CSeries”). The CSeries airplanes are swept-wing monoplanes with an aluminum alloy fuselage, sized for 5-abreast seating. Passenger capacity is designated as 110 for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 125 for the Model BD-500-1A11. Maximum takeoff weight is 131,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 144,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A11.

The CSeries flight control system design incorporates normal load factor limiting on a full time basis that will prevent the pilot from inadvertently or intentionally exceeding the positive or negative airplane limit load factor. The FAA considers this feature to be novel and unusual in that the current regulations do not provide standards for maneuverability and controllability evaluations for such systems.

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Bombardier Aerospace must show that the CSeries airplanes meet the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25 as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-129.

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

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the CSeries airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

The CSeries airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: Fly-by-wire electronic flight control system that provides an electronic interface between the pilot's flight controls and the flight control surfaces for both normal and failure states. The system generates the actual surface commands that provide for stability augmentation and control about all three airplane axes.

In the absence of positive lateral stability, the curve of lateral control surface deflections against sideslip angle should be in a conventional sense and reasonably in harmony with rudder deflection during steady heading sideslip maneuvers.

Since conventional relationships between stick forces and control surface displacements do not apply to the “load factor command” flight control system on the CSeries airplanes, Bombardier should evaluate the longitudinal stability characteristics by assessing the airplane handling qualities during simulator and flight test maneuvers appropriate to the operation of the airplane. Bombardier may accomplish this by using the Handling Qualities Rating Method presented in appendix 5 of Advisory Circular (AC) 25-7C, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes, dated October 16, 2012, or they may propose an acceptable alternative method. Important considerations are as follows:

(a) Adequate speed control without creating excessive pilot workload;

(b) Acceptable high- and low-speed protection; and

(c) Provision of adequate cues to the pilot of significant speed excursions beyond VMO/MMO and low-speed awareness flight conditions.

The airplane should provide adequate awareness cues to the pilot of a low-energy (i.e., a low-speed, low-thrust, or low-height) state to ensure that the airplane retains sufficient energy to recover when flight control laws provide neutral longitudinal stability significantly below the normal operating speeds. This may be accomplished as follows:

(a) Adequate low-speed/low-thrust cues at low altitude may be provided by a strong positive static stability force gradient (1 pound per 6 knots applied through the sidestick); or

(b) Low-energy awareness may be provided by an appropriate warning with the following characteristics:

(i) It should be unique, unambiguous, and unmistakable.

(ii) It should be active at appropriate altitudes and in appropriate configurations (i.e., at low altitude, in the approach and landing configurations).

(iii) It should be sufficiently timely to allow recovery to a stabilized flight condition inside the normal flight envelope while maintaining the desired flight path and without entering the flight control's angle-of-attack protection mode.

(iv) It should not be triggered during normal operation, including operation in moderate turbulence, for recommended maneuvers at recommended speeds.

(v) It should not be cancelable by the pilot other than by achieving a higher-energy state.

(vi) There should be an adequate hierarchy among the warnings so that the pilot is not confused and led to take inappropriate recovery action if multiple warnings occur.

Bombardier should use simulator and flight tests in the whole take-off and landing altitude range for which certification is requested to evaluate global energy awareness and non-nuisance of low-energy cues. This would include all relevant combinations of weight, center-of-gravity position, configuration, airbrakes position, and available thrust, including reduced and de-rated take-off thrust operations and engine failure cases. Bombardier should conduct a sufficient number of tests to assess the level of energy awareness and the effects of energy management errors.

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

Notice of proposed special conditions No. 25-15-04-SC for the Bombardier CSeries airplanes was published in the Federal Register on March 5, 2015 (80 FR 11958). No comments were received, and the special conditions are adopted as proposed.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Bombardier BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11. Should Bombardier Aerospace apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

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

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Bombardier Aerospace Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes.

1. Electronic Flight Control System: Lateral-Directional and Longitudinal Stability and Low-Energy Awareness. In lieu of the requirements of §§ 25.171, 25.173, 25.175, and 25.177:

(a) The airplane must be shown to have suitable static lateral, directional, and longitudinal stability in any condition normally encountered in service, including the effects of atmospheric disturbance. The showing of suitable static lateral, directional, and longitudinal stability must be based on the airplane handling qualities, including pilot workload and pilot compensation, for specific test procedures during the flight test evaluations.

(b) The airplane must provide adequate awareness to the pilot of a low-energy (low-speed/low-thrust/low-height) state when fitted with flight control laws presenting neutral longitudinal stability significantly below the normal operating speeds. “Adequate awareness” means warning information must be provided to alert the crew of unsafe operating conditions and to enable them to take appropriate corrective action.

(c) The static directional stability (as shown by the tendency to recover from a skid with the rudder free) must be positive for any landing gear and flap position and symmetrical power condition, at speeds from 1.13 VSR1, up to VFE, VLE, or VFC/MFC (as appropriate).

(d) The static lateral stability (as shown by the tendency to raise the low wing in a sideslip with the aileron controls free), for any landing-gear and wing-flap position and symmetric-power condition, may not be negative at any airspeed (except that speeds higher than VFE need not be considered for wing-flaps-extended configurations nor speeds higher than VLE for landing-gear-extended configurations) in the following airspeed ranges:

(i) From 1.13 VSR1 to VMO/MMO.

(ii) From VMO/MMO to VFC/MFC, unless the divergence is—

(1) Gradual;

(2) Easily recognizable by the pilot; and

(3) Easily controllable by the pilot.

(e) In straight, steady sideslips over the range of sideslip angles appropriate to the operation of the airplane, but not less than those obtained with one half of the available rudder control movement (but not exceeding a rudder control force of 180 pounds), rudder control movements and forces must be substantially proportional to the angle of sideslip in a stable sense; and the factor of proportionality must lie between limits found necessary for safe operation. This requirement must be met for the configurations and speeds specified in paragraph (c) of this section.

(f) For sideslip angles greater than those prescribed by paragraph (e) of this section, up to the angle at which full rudder control is used or a rudder control force of 180 pounds is obtained, the rudder control forces may not reverse, and increased rudder deflection must be needed for increased angles of sideslip. Compliance with this requirement must be shown using straight, steady sideslips, unless full lateral control input is achieved before reaching either full rudder control input or a rudder control force of 180 pounds; a straight, steady sideslip need not be maintained after achieving full lateral control input. This requirement must be met at all approved landing gear and wing-flap positions for the range of operating speeds and power conditions appropriate to each landing gear and wing-flap position with all engines operating.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No.: 2015-0065-E, dated April 24, 2015, to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group Service Bulletin SBM 200, Revision 1, dated April 2015. The transmittal letter for Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group SBM 200, Revision 1, incorrectly states it transmits the Initial Issue; page 1 of this service bulletin is dated April 2015; pages 2 through 8 are dated March 2015. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. The service bulletin describes procedures for inspecting the brake master cylinder pivot pins, part number (P/N) T67M-45-539, that are installed on rudder pedal assemblies #1 and #4 for cracks and distortion and replacing any damaged pivot pins. 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 of this AD.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because failure of a brake master cylinder pivot pin could cause the rudder pedal mechanism to detach from the brake master cylinder, which could result in jammed rudder controls and consequent loss of control. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-1737; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-014-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD.

We estimate that this AD will affect 2 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $50 per product.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $1,120, or $560 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about .5 work-hours and require parts costing $100, for a cost of $142.50 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2012-09-09, Amendment 39-17044 (77 FR 30371, May 23, 2012), (“AD 2012-09-09”). AD 2012-09-09 applied to all IAE V2500-A1, V2525-D5, and V2528-D5 turbofan engines, and certain S/Ns of IAE V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2530-A5, and V2533-A5 turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 24, 2014 (79 FR 77411). The NPRM was prompted by the discovery that partially silver-plated nuts for certain HPC stage 3 to 8 drums cause the drum to corrode and crack. The NPRM proposed to perform ECI or FPI, and initial and repetitive USIs of certain HPC stage 3 to 8 drums. The NPRM also proposed to expand the affected population for initial and repetitive USIs of the HPC stage 3 to 8 drum, revise the inspection intervals, require removal of the affected attachment nuts and any HPC stage 3 to 8 drum found cracked, and add a mandatory terminating action. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPC stage 3 to 8 drum, which could result in uncontained drum failure, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 77411, December 24, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

One commenter requested that paragraph (f)(3) of the NPRM (79 FR 77411, December 24, 2014) be changed from “If you inspect the HPC stage 3-8 drum at shop visit . . .” to “If you have previously inspected the HPC stage 3-8 drum at piece-part exposure as shown in the Grace Periods Table for each compliance group listed in paragraph 1.E. in IAE Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) No. V2500-ENG-72-A0615, Revision 6, dated September 4, 2014.” The justification for this comment is that the AD wording is not clear enough for the actual work performed.

We partially agree. We agree with referring to piece-part exposure instead of shop visit. We disagree with referencing the service bulletin (SB) because the AD wording is otherwise clear in its reference to the Grace Periods Table for each compliance group. We changed paragraph (f)(3) of this final rule by changing “at shop visit” to “at piece-part exposure.”

The same commenter suggested adding engine manual (EM) Task No. or SB reference to paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3)(i), and (g)(3)(ii) because these paragraphs do not provide the specific method to perform the stated requirements.

We do not agree. The SB and EM tasks for these operations are not mandated. Therefore, they are referenced in the Related Information section of the AD. We did not change the AD.

Lufthansa, United Airlines (UA), and another commenter, asked that the AD be clarified that if the terminating actions were performed prior to the effective date of the AD, credit may be taken and no further action would be required. The commenter's justification is that the AD should be clear that if the parts are installed prior to effective date of the AD, the parts installation should be considered as terminating action.

We do not agree because paragraph (e), Compliance, states to perform the requirements of the AD “unless already done.” This statement applies to all requirements of the AD including the terminating action. No additional clarification is needed. We did not change the AD.

An anonymous commenter requested that repetitive inspections not start until after the threshold for the initial inspection has been reached. The justification for this request is that many unnecessary extra inspections would have to be performed if the initial inspection is performed early, and the AD requires repeat inspections to follow immediately.

We agree. This final rule was changed as follows: Paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) were changed from “. . . of the last USI.” to “. . . of the last USI after the initial inspection required by paragraph (e) of this AD.”

The Boeing Company agreed with the NPRM (79 FR 77411, December 24, 2014) as written.

Lufthansa and Wizz Air stated that the terminating action will result in many unplanned extra shop visits to remove parts. The cost analysis does not include the cost associated with these extra shop visits.

We do not agree. The Costs of Compliance in the AD includes prorated part costs based on early removal of parts. Our cost calculations do not include costs associated with engine removal, down time, or scheduling. We did not change the AD.

Lufthansa and IAE requested that service information include revision and date information. They suggested that the service information does not list the latest revision information or, in some cases, any revision information at all.

We partially agree. We agree that the SB references should reflect the latest revision. We disagree with adding the revision and/or date to all instances of SBs referenced in the Related Information paragraph because the revision date is listed on the first instance of each SB referenced in the paragraph. We changed the Related Information paragraph by changing the date of IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0625 to October 8, 2014.

Lufthansa stated that the compliance categories (applicability) are based on engine serial number. The commenter suggested defining the categories based on drum serial number rather than engine serial number because the inspection times and intervals should be based on the drum history. The correct inspection times and intervals may not be utilized for the affected drums if a drum moves from one engine to another.

We do not agree. We evaluated use of drum serial numbers versus engine serial numbers and chose engine serial numbers based on the increased complexity associated with tracking drum serial numbers. It was also noted that it is more likely that an engine, as opposed to an individual used drum, would be moved. The engine groups in the AD reflect the unsafe condition as it exists today. If the engine distributions change significantly in the future, we would consider additional rulemaking. We did not change the AD.

Rolls Royce plc proposed that revision 6 of IAE Alert NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0615 be quoted in the AD, and that all references to it, including engine groups affected, be aligned to this latest revision. The justification for this request is that the current AD references IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0615, Revision 3. This NMSB is now at revision 6.

We do not agree because the AD already references Revision 6 of IAE Alert NMSB No.V2500-ENG-72-A0615. We did not change the AD.

UA and Delta Airlines requested clarification of whether IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0638 is considered incorporated by reference. This AD will incorporate by reference IAE Alert NMSB No. V2500-ENG 72-0615, Revision 6, dated September 4, 2014, which refers to IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0638 for instructions on performing the USI. IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0638 contains instructions and procedures that do not affect failure mode detection, prevention or elimination of the unsafe condition identified in the NPRM (79 FR 77411, December 24, 2014) and should not be mandated by the AD.

We agree that IAE Alert NMSB No.V2500-ENG-72-0638 should not be incorporated by reference. We changed the AD to remove the requirement to use IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0638. We also added a new paragraph (g) to this AD that provides specific information from IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0638 to perform the USI.

UA and Delta Airlines requested that IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0638 be added to the Relevant Service Information paragraph.

We partially agree. We do not agree with adding IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0638 to the Relevant Service Information paragraph because that paragraph is not in the final rule. We agree that the service information should be included in the AD, elsewhere. We added IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0638 to the Related Information paragraph.

UA and LATAM Airlines requested clarification on the difference between the AD and SB terminating actions for compliance time to incorporate terminating action. The AD requires accomplishment within 9,450 cycles after the effective date of the AD, while the SB requires accomplishment by December 31, 2021. The commenter said shop visits were planned based on the end date in the SB. The AD limit of 9,450 cycles will force engines off wing earlier than planned.

We do not agree. The cycle limit in the AD represents fleet average utilization up to the SB `accomplish by' date. We did not change the AD.

UA requested clarification that inspections are not required after the terminating action has been performed. UA suggested that this clarification was required because the SB Grace Periods Tables include timing for any drum fitted with non-silver nuts. It is not explicit that the table does not apply to a new drum with non-silver nuts.

We do not agree. Terminating action means that no further action is required. Therefore, the AD does not require any additional inspections after the terminating action has been accomplished. We did not change the AD.

UA identified that IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0638, Part B paragraph (3)Y.(3) states that an engine be rejected if staining and/or cracking of the ceramic liner is found. This requirement should not be mandated because this concern was addressed in AD 2012-09-09 which was superseded. The FAA agreed that there was not clear acceptance criteria to mandate engine rejection based on staining and axial cracking of the HPC stage 7 to 8 drum ceramic liner.

We agree. We changed this final rule by deleting reference to IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0638 in paragraph (e) of this AD.

UA requested that the AD be changed to allow a one-cycle ferry flight. No justification was given.

We do not agree. Per 14 CFR 39.23, an AD only addresses ferry flights if they are prohibited. We did not prohibit ferry flights in this AD. We did not change the AD.

UA commented that some grace periods in AD 2012-09-09 are different from the NPRM (79 FR 77411, December 24, 2014). UA requested clarification that the older compliance times in AD 2012-09-09 are no longer applicable or available and let “Credit for Previous Actions” allow the longer compliance times of the NPRM. The clarification was requested since, for compliance intervals that have been shortened, the commenter can see no way to address those engines, particularly if the engine has already exceeded the shortened interval. For intervals that have been extended, inspection intervals can easily be extended to agree.

We do not agree. AD 2012-09-09 is being superseded by this AD; therefore, the previous compliance times are inapplicable after the effective date of this AD. This final rule allows 200 cycles after the effective date of the AD to perform the initial USI if the cycles since new threshold has been passed. If the cyclic interval allowed by this AD for the next USI based on the last part inspection has been surpassed, then the initial inspection requirements would apply. This means you must inspect within 200 cycles after the effective date of this AD. We did not change the AD.

UA stated that the USI procedures, as defined in IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0638, which lift the probe off the surface of the drum, should not be mandated. The USI procedures, in IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0638, use a “clamp” added to the USI probe to lift the probe off of the drum. This procedure relies on couplant to fill the gaps to the drum and any missing drum coatings. UA is not confident that accurate measurements can be consistently achieved using this procedure, especially in areas that have been repaired.

We partially agree. We agree that the USI procedures in IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0638, and those referenced in superseded AD 2012-09-09, are valid methods of inspection. We disagree that the procedure in IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0638 would not provide accurate measurements. We changed this AD by removing IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0638 and adding a paragraph that provides specific information to perform the USI.

Jetstar Group Airways requested that allowance for future SB revisions be included in the AD.

We do not agree. We cannot mandate documents which do not yet exist. We did not change the AD.

Jetstar Group Airways requested that the applicability for V2500-A5 engines be revised to exclude Engine Serial Number (ESN) V16660 and higher as the introduction of the terminating action configuration began with ESN V16660 based on the applicability of IAE SB V2500-ENG-72-0632 that introduced silver free nuts.

We do not agree. The AD applicability is correct. The applicability defined in IAE SB V2500-ENG-72-0632 does not reflect actual part installations. We did not change the AD.

Lufthansa, Jetstar Group Airways, Wizz Air, and MTU Maintenance (MTU) requested to remove “within 9,450 cycles after the effective date of the AD” for terminating action and allow unlimited USI. The commenters pointed out that the unsafe condition results from a corrosive operating environment, and the amount of corrosion varies with time and location. The commenters also pointed to the lack of data to support a calendar end date of 2021, and that the hard time for part removals will drive younger parts off wing early, with no additional benefits to safety. Finally, the commenters offered that if the USI and the ECI provide sufficient safety against an uncontained failure, this should also be the case after 9,450 flight cycles (FC). Additionally, the overall risk in the fleet will decrease due to the number of planned shop visits.

We do not agree. The ongoing repetitive inspections do not provide sufficient safety by themselves and are considered interim actions. The previous ADs did not include an end date because no terminating action was available. This AD includes mandatory terminating action that completely removes the noted unsafe condition and restores an acceptable level of safety. We did not change the AD.

Wizz Air, Lufthansa, and Delta Airlines requested the compliance time for terminating action be changed from “9,450 FC after the effective date of the AD” to “at next piece-part exposure.” This will eliminate extra shop visits solely for drum replacement.

We do not agree. This change would significantly increase the need for spare parts in the near term, which cannot be supported by industry at this time. We did not change the AD.

IAE requested that the Compliance phrase “If cracks are found . . .” be changed to “if crack indications or inspection rejections are found . . .”. The reason for this request is that FPI, USI, and ECI only indicate a crack may be present. Cracks typically can only be confirmed via lab destructive testing.

We do not agree. If a part fails the inspection it is assumed to be cracked. No additional testing is requested or required to prove a crack exists. We did not change the AD.

IAE and MTU requested that “cycles since new” (CSN) refer to cycles on the specific drum and not engine cycles since new. If drums are replaced, there could be confusion on when a part must be inspected.

We agree. We changed paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(5) from “within 200 cycles of accumulating xxxx CSN” to “within 200 cycles of the drum accumulating xxxx cycles.”

IAE and MTU requested an end date of December 31, 2025 be added to the compliance time in addition to the existing cycle limit. This request was justified because low utilization operators will not be required to upgrade their engines until well beyond 2040 with only the cycle limit. IAE is concerned that after the larger operators have completed the upgrades to their fleets, the expertise and equipment required to perform the required inspections will no longer be available.

We agree. We changed the Mandatory Terminating Action paragraph to include an end date of December 31, 2025.

IAE requested that IAE NMSBs No. V2500-ENG-72-0594, No. V2500-ENG-72-0603, No. V2500-ENG-72-0608, Revision 2 and earlier, and No.V2500-ENG-72-0615, Revision 2 and earlier, be removed from the “Credit for Previous Actions” paragraph because these SB revisions do not require complete inspection of the drum circumference in areas of liner loss. Incomplete inspections are not effective at detecting cracks and compromises safety.

We agree. We removed IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0594, IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0603, IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0608, Revision 2 and earlier, and IAE NMSB No.V2500-ENG-72-A0615, Revision 2 and earlier, from the Credit for Previous Actions paragraph.

Delta Airlines commented that the compliance plan as proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 77411, December 24, 2014), is too complicated. Delta said that it requires: (1) Knowledge of where the HPC 3-8 drum(s) have operated by flight number for the V2500-A1 and V2500-A5 engine models; (2) tracking the inspections performed at shop level for the HPC 3-8 drum(s); (3) tracking the HPC module assembly for the 3-8 drum(s) installed and the configuration at the last shop visit of the HPC module; and (4) operators to trace documents of HPC 3-8 drum(s) that exchanged between HPC modules and from other operators. Without those trace documents, operators will be forced to obtain new HPC 3-8 drum(s) to prevent recontamination of their respective fleets.

We do not agree. The changes we proposed in this AD, expanding the population, changing the inspection interval, etc., are not complex changes to the compliance program. We also evaluated the original compliance program requirements. We did not conclude that they were so complex that operators would find them difficult to understand, particularly since the information needed to comply with the AD is available in operator records. We did not change the AD.

Delta Airlines stated that IAE Alert NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-A0615, Revision 6, has lists of engine models and drum part numbers. The SB lists drum part numbers as associated with the V2500-D5 engine that are not approved for installation on the V2500-D5 engine. The SB could be misinterpreted as allowing use of part numbers on the V2500-D5 engine model that have not actually been approved for use.

We do not agree. The SB separates engine applicability into six groups. The drum part numbers listed for each group represent the possible drum part numbers for all the noted engine models listed in the group. These groupings do not otherwise indicate that part numbers are interchangeable among the engine models. The groups that include V2500-D5 (Group E and group F) also include other engine models. We did not change the AD.

Lufthansa requested clarification of the Mandatory Terminating Action paragraph. The commenter stated that the paragraph directing the installation of HPC stage 3 to 8 drum is not clear if the mandatory terminating action is meant to be a hard-time limit which requires removal of drums from service by means of a shop visit. The commenter suggested that the terminating action for drum replacement may be substituted by an on-wing USI. On-wing USI could occur after 9,450 FC from the effective date of this AD until the engine has a shop visit.

We do not agree. The mandatory terminating action has a hard-time limit of 9,450 FC after the effective date of this AD. The terminating actions must be performed within this time. The AD does not give allowance to perform inspections in place of performing the terminating actions. We did not change the AD.

MTU requested that the mandatory terminating action be delayed based on the appropriate inspection grace period listed in the service information. The grace period extension would eliminate extra shop visits for only drum replacement.

We do not agree. The cyclic intervals listed in the service information, based on piece-part inspection, apply to the threshold for performing the next USI. The compliance time for completing the terminating actions is not related to when or what inspections were performed. We did not change the AD.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 77411, December 24, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 77411, December 24, 2014).

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

International Aero Engines Alert NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-A0615, Revision 6, dated September 4, 2014. The NMSB describes procedures for inspecting the engine front support pins. 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 of this AD.

We estimate that this AD will affect 956 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate that it will take about 3 hours per engine to perform the USI and about 2 hours per engine to perform the FPI or ECI of the HPC stage 3 to 8 drum. We also estimate that removing silver residue from the HPC stage 3 to 8 drum will cost about $2,600 per engine and a set of silver free nuts will cost about $1,060 per engine. We estimate the pro-rated replacement cost to replace an HPC stage 3 to 8 drum to be $52,014. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $53,630,644.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In its rule “Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections” (76 FR 23110, Apr. 25, 2011), the Department raised the limits on denied boarding compensation (DBC) due to passengers from the previous amounts of $400/$800 to the current amounts of $650/$1,300. The rule also requires that these maximum DBC amounts be adjusted to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). Under 14 CFR 250.5(e), the review of denied boarding compensation was to take place every 2 years, with the first such review occurring in July 2012, to coincide with our review of the baggage liability amount. Section 250.5(e) prescribes the use of a specific formula to calculate the revised maximum DBC amounts when making these periodic adjustments. The formula is below.

We reviewed the compensation amounts in 2012 and found that according to the formula set out in section 250.5(e), no change in the DBC amounts was called for. However, the 2014-2015 review indicated that an inflation adjustment is required. Applying the formula to consumer price index changes occurring between August 2011 (the basis month required by the formula) and July 2014,1 the appropriate inflation adjustment is $650 × 238.250/226.545 [$650 × 1.0517], which yields $683.60. (The base amount of $650 in the formula was the maximum denied boarding compensation in section 250.5(a)(2) 2 at the time that this biennial indexing provision was added to the rule, 238.250 was the CPI-U for July 2014, and 226.545 was the CPI-U for August 2011.) Section 250.5(e) requires us to round the adjustment to the nearest $25, or to $675 in this case. Section 250.5(a)(3) provides that for passengers who are not rerouted to reach their destination within two hours the maximum DBC amount is twice the amount provided by section 250.5(a)(2); therefore, under the formula adjustment, this amount is twice $675, or $1,350.

In this final rule, we are also correcting an editorial error in section 250.5(e). When issuing the 2011 final rule prescribing the formula for inflation adjustment for DBC limits, we inadvertently referred only to section 250.5(a) for involuntary denied boarding on domestic flights and omitted section 250.5(b) 3 for involuntary denied boarding on international flights outbound from U.S. airports. We intend to apply the periodic inflation adjustment to both sections because the inflation adjustment is applicable to “DBC limits” without distinguishing domestic and international flights as noted by the Department in the preamble to the 2011 final rule. We are correcting this error by adding another paragraph to this rule, section 250.5(e)(3), to provide that the DBC inflation adjustment also applies to section 250.5(b) regarding passengers involuntarily denied boarding on an international flight outbound from a U.S. airport.

Part 254 of the Department's rules (14 CFR part 254) establishes minimum baggage liability limits that air carriers may apply to domestic air service. Section 254.6 of this domestic baggage liability limit rule requires the Department to review every two years the minimum limit of liability prescribed in Part 254 in light of changes in the CPI-U and to revise the limit of liability to reflect changes in that index as of July of each review year. Section 254.6 prescribes the use of a specific formula to calculate the revised minimum liability amount when making these periodic adjustments. The formula is below.

The application of the formula during the 2012 review of the minimum domestic baggage liability limit raised the amount from $3,300 to the current amount of $3,400. The 2014-2015 review indicates that another inflation adjustment is required. Applying the formula using the consumer price index changes occurring between December 1999 (the basis month required by the formula) and July 2014,4 the appropriate inflation adjustment is $2,500 × 238.250/168.30 [$2,500 × 1.4156], which yields $3,539.07. (The base amount of $2,500 in the formula was the minimum liability limit in Part 254 at the time that this biennial indexing provision was added to the rule, 238.250 was the CPI-U for July 2014, and 168.30 was the CPI-U for December 1999.). Section 254.6 requires us to round the adjustment to the nearest $100, or to $3,500 in this case.

The maximum civil penalty amounts for violations of aviation economic and consumer rules and statutes administered by the Department appear in 14 CFR part 383. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410) provides a detailed formula on how Federal monetary civil penalties should be adjusted for inflation. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134, sec. 31001) requires each agency to adjust monetary civil penalties within its jurisdiction at least once every four years. It also limits the initial adjustment to a civil penalty pursuant to the 1996 Act to no more than 10 percent of such penalty. The adjustment is based on changes to the CPI-U from June of the year when these civil penalties were last adjusted to June of the year prior to the current adjustment.

Notwithstanding the formula provided by the 1990 Act, the civil penalty amounts in Part 383 were set by Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 108-176; 117 Stat. 2490, December 12, 2003). Subsequently, these civil penalty amounts were reviewed by the Department in 2008. In a final rule issued on November 21, 2008, the Department adjusted three of the five civil penalties under Part 383: Raising the general civil penalty from $25,000 to $27,500; raising the general civil penalty for small businesses or individuals from $10,000 to $11,000; and raising the civil penalty for violations of section 41719 and rules and orders issued under that section from $5,000 to $5,500. According to the formula provided by the 1990 Act, the comparison between the CPI-U index for June 2008 and June 2014 results in an inflation factor of 1.089. This current review determines that none of the three civil penalties that were raised in 2008 are due for another increase.

The current review also determines that only one of the two civil penalties that were set by Vision-100 in 2003, and were not raised in 2008, is due for an increase. The comparison between the CPI-U index for June 2003 (the year when these two civil penalties were last set by Vision-100) and June 2014 results in an inflation factor of 1.297. As such, the current $2,500 maximum civil penalty amount is raised to $2,750 for violations of section 41712 or consumer protection rules or orders by small businesses and individuals ($2,500 multiplied by the inflation factor of 1.297 which results in a raw increase of $742.50, rounded to the nearest $1,000 then capped by the 10 percent increase limitation for the initial adjustment under the 1990 Act.)

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) contains a “good cause” exemption which allows agencies to dispense with notice and comment if those procedures are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. We have determined that under 5 U.S.C. 553 (b)(3)(B) good cause exists for dispensing with a notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment for the inflation adjustments herein as the application of this rule does not involve any agency discretion. Those adjustments are simply a ministerial inflation update based on the terms and formulas set by 14 CFR 250.5, as most recently amended in 76 FR 23110 (April 25, 2011), and by 14 CFR 254.6, as most recently amended in 73 FR 70591 (November 21, 2008). Those formulas were subject to notice and comment in the rulemaking proceedings during which they were added to these baggage liability and oversales rules. Similarly, the clarification of the applicability of the inflation adjustment provision in section 250.5(e) to international transportation simply corrects an incomplete internal citation in the rule text where the Department's intent as expressed in the preamble to the 2011 rule was clear. The adjustment to a certain civil penalty is also a ministerial action required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, and it is based on a statutory formula. Accordingly, we find that prior notice and comment are unnecessary, and we are issuing these revisions to Parts 250, 254, and 383 as a final rule.

This final rule will become effective with respect to transportation taking place on August 25, 2015. This means that any compensation due to passengers in instances of involuntary denied boarding, or any compensation due to domestic passengers because of loss, delay or damage to baggage, with respect to transportation taking place on or after the effective date (as opposed to tickets sold on or after the effective date) will be covered by this final rule. All notices to passengers required by the rules (Part 250 and Part 254) as they pertain to the new maximum DBC amounts and domestic baggage liability limit must be updated by the effective date of this final rule. The increased maximum civil penalty amount will become applicable to all violations that occur on or after the effective date of this final rule.

This final rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing policies and procedures and is considered not significant under both Executive Order 12866 and DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; therefore, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

The revision of 14 CFR part 250 provides for an inflation adjustment to the maximum DBC amounts that air carriers and foreign air carriers are required by 14 CFR 250.8 to tender to passengers who are involuntarily denied boarding. The provisions are required by current regulatory language, and require no exercise of discretion or interpretation.

This rule will pose minor additional costs to airlines only in those instances in which carriers oversold a flight, there was not a sufficient number of passengers who volunteered to give up their seats, and the carriers failed to arrange alternative transportation for passengers denied boarding that is scheduled to transport them to the next destination within a certain number of hours. The maximum potential impact in those instances is $25-$50 per affected passenger, depending on the delay in getting the passenger to the next destination and whether the flight is a domestic flight or outbound international flight. Reports filed each quarter with the Department by U.S. airlines that each account for at least one percent of total domestic scheduled-service passenger revenues show that, in 2013, approximately 0.0092 percent (.000092) of passengers transported on their scheduled domestic and outbound international flights were involuntarily denied boarding. The total number of domestic and international outbound scheduled passenger enplanements for those carriers in 2013 was 620.5 million. This means that approximately 57,000 passengers experienced involuntarily denied boarding last year on domestic or international outbound scheduled flights operated by these U.S. carriers (.000092 multiplied by 620.5 million). As the Department does not have a rule requiring foreign air carriers to report the number of passengers on their U.S.-outbound international flights who were involuntarily denied boarding, we do not have statistics on that number. However, the total 2013 annual enplanements for international outbound flights operated by foreign carriers is 41.7 million. Using the same rate of involuntarily denied boarding for U.S. carriers (0.0092 percent), the estimated number of passengers who were involuntarily denied boarding from foreign carrier-operated outbound international flights for 2013 is approximately 3,800. Therefore, we expect that the increase in the maximum DBC amounts will cost the affected carriers (both U.S. and foreign air carriers) no more than $3.04 million a year based on 60,800 total affected passengers (57,000 plus 3,800) multiplied by the maximum increase of $50 per passenger. The actual cost will be significantly less than that, since many passengers who are involuntarily denied boarding qualify for less than the maximum amount of DBC and their compensation will not be affected by this increase in the limits. There would be a benefit to passengers for the same amount.

The revision of 14 CFR 254.4 provides for an inflation adjustment to the amount of the minimum limit on baggage liability that air carriers may assert in cases of mishandled baggage, as required by section 254.6. The provisions are also required by current regulatory language, without interpretation.

This rule will pose minor additional costs to airlines only in those instances in which carriers lose, damage or delay baggage and where the amount of the passenger's claim in those instances exceeds the prior minimum liability limit of $3,400. The maximum potential impact in those instances is $100 on each such claim. Reports filed each month with the Department by U.S. airlines that each account for at least one percent of total domestic scheduled-service passenger revenues show that, in 2013, approximately 0.3 percent (.003) of domestic passengers of these carriers experienced a mishandled bag. The total number of domestic scheduled passenger enplanements for these carriers in 2013 was 590.8 million. This means that approximately 1.77 million domestic scheduled passengers experienced a mishandled bag last year (.003 multiplied by 590.8). However, the vast majority of the instances of mishandled baggage do not result in a claim in an amount that is affected by the liability limit in this rule. Based on the information provided to us in 2013 by several carriers, we believe a little more than one half percent (0.0058) of the domestic passengers who experience a mishandled bag would benefit from an increase in the minimum limit on baggage liability, i.e., about 10,266 passengers per year. Therefore, we expect that there would be a cost to the airline industry of a little over $1 million each year—the number of domestic passengers who have a baggage claim that exceeds the prior minimum liability limit of $3,400 (10,266 passengers) multiplied by the maximum potential impact in those instances ($100). There would also be a benefit to passengers for the same amount. Since the rule is limited to domestic transportation, it does not affect foreign air carriers.

The increase of the maximum civil penalty will impact entities and individuals that are found to be in violation of section 41712 and consumer protection rules and orders. There is no direct cost to any regulated entity or individual unless the entity or individual is found to have committed a violation.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires an assessment of the impact of proposed and final rules on small entities unless the agency certifies that the proposed regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. An air carrier or a foreign air carrier is a small business if it provides air transportation only with small aircraft (i.e., aircraft with up to 60 seats/18,000 pound payload capacity). See 14 CFR 399.73. The revisions of the DBC and baggage liability amounts principally affect flight segments operated with large aircraft. As a result, many operations of small entities, such as air taxis and many commuter air carriers, are not covered by the rule. Moreover, any additional costs for small entities associated with the rule would be minimal and, in the case of baggage liability, may be covered by insurance.

The revision of the civil penalty amount will raise potential penalties for individuals and small businesses with regard to violations of section 41712 or consumer protection rules and orders. Because the maximum civil penalty amount is only increased by $250 from the current amount, the aggregate economic impact of this rulemaking on small entities should be minimal and would only be borne by those entities found in violation of the regulations.

Accordingly, I hereby certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule imposes no new reporting or record keeping requirements necessitating clearance by OMB.

Accordingly, the Department of Transportation amends 14 CFR parts 250, 254, and 383 as follows:

The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended and re-codified at 51 United States Code (U.S.C.) Subtitle V—Commercial Space Transportation, ch.509, Commercial Space Launch Activities, 51 U.S.C. 50901-50923 (the Act), authorizes the Department of Transportation (DOT) and thus the FAA, through delegations, to oversee, license, and regulate commercial launch and reentry, and the operation of launch and reentry sites as carried out by U.S. citizens or within the United States. 51 U.S.C. 50904, 50905. Section 50905(a)(2) also authorizes the FAA to establish procedures for safety approvals of launch vehicles, reentry vehicles, safety systems, processes, services, or personnel that may be used to conduct a licensed launch or reentry.

The FAA is issuing this direct final rule without prior notice and prior public comment. The Administrative Procedure Act provides that an agency may publish a final rule without prior notice and comment if the agency for good cause finds that the notice and comment procedure is unnecessary.1 This rule will not make any substantive changes to the requirements that must be met in order to obtain a commercial-space license, experimental permit, or safety approval. Rather, this rule will simply add an option for applicants for a license, permit, or safety approval to submit their applications electronically. Accordingly, the FAA does not believe that any adverse comments will be filed in response to this rulemaking, and consequently, notice and comment is unnecessary.

The Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT), 44 FR 1134, February 26, 1979, provide that to the maximum extent possible, operating administrations for the DOT should provide an opportunity for public comment on regulations issued without prior notice. Accordingly, the FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views.

The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting this final rule.

A direct final rule will take effect on a specified date unless the FAA receives an adverse comment or notice of intent to file an adverse comment within the comment period. An adverse comment explains why a rule would be inappropriate, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. It may challenge the rule's underlying premise or approach. Under the direct final rule process, we do not consider the following types of comments to be adverse:

(1) A comment recommending another rule change, in addition to the change in the direct final rule at issue. We consider the comment adverse, however, if the commenter states why the direct final rule would be ineffective without the change.

(2) A frivolous or insubstantial comment.

If we receive an adverse comment or notice of intent to file an adverse comment, we will advise the public by publishing a document in the Federal Register before the effective date of the final rule. This document may withdraw the direct final rule in whole or in part. If we withdraw a direct final rule because of an adverse comment, we may incorporate the commenter's recommendation into another direct final rule or may publish a notice of proposed rulemaking.

If we do not receive an adverse comment or notice of intent to file an adverse comment, we will publish a confirmation document in the Federal Register, generally within 15 days after the comment period closes. The confirmation document tells the public the effective date of the rule.

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

The FAA currently issues licenses for the launch of a launch vehicle, the operation of a launch site, the reentry of a reentry vehicle, and the operation of a reentry site.2 The FAA also issues experimental permits that allow a person to launch or reenter a reusable suborbital rocket.3 Finally, the FAA issues safety approvals that may be used in conducting a licensed launch or reentry.4

To obtain a license, experimental permit, or safety approval, an applicant must first submit an application in writing to the FAA.5 Currently, this application may not be submitted electronically, but must instead be mailed to the FAA on paper and in duplicate.6

The FAA has determined that this paper-based submission process is unduly burdensome because an electronically-submitted application would provide the FAA with the same information as a paper application. In addition, the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) requires that, when practicable, a Federal agency must provide the public with an option to transact with the agency electronically.7

Accordingly, this rulemaking will relieve the burden imposed by the FAA's current paper-submission application processes and bring the FAA's application processes into compliance with GPEA by providing an option for license, experimental permit, and safety approval applicants to submit their applications electronically.

This rule amends §§ 413.7 and 414.11 to allow applicants for a license, experimental permits or safety approval to file their applications to the FAA by paper or by electronic means. The new electronic filing options provided by this rule will be: (1) Simply emailing the application to the FAA; or (2) providing the application to the FAA on a physical electronic storage device rather than submitting the application in paper form. Under this rule, “physical electronic storage” is an electronic storage device that can store electronic documents and files. Examples of physical electronic storage devices include optical discs, memory cards, USB flash drives, and external hard drives.8

The FAA emphasizes that this rule will not make electronic submission of applications mandatory. Thus, applicants who wish to submit their applications in paper form will be able to continue doing so under this rule. However, applicants who prefer to submit their applications electronically will now be able to do so instead of having to submit those applications in paper form.

To ensure the authenticity and security of electronically-submitted applications, this direct final rule specifies certain requirements for electronically-submitted applications. For an application submitted via email, the application will have to satisfy the following criteria. First, the application must be sent via email as an email attachment to the following email address: [email protected]. Second, the email to which the application is attached must be sent from an email address controlled by the person who signed the application or by an authorized representative of the applicant. The FAA anticipates that this will usually be that person's official work-related email address. Finally, the application must be provided in a format that cannot be altered, such as a PDF document or a read-only Word file.

An application submitted via a physical electronic storage device will be subject to the following criteria. First, the submission package must include a cover letter identifying each document and file that is being submitted on the physical electronic storage device. The cover letter must be in paper form and it must be signed either by the person who signed the application or by an authorized representative of the applicant. Second, the physical electronic storage device must be submitted in a format that does not allow the contents of the device to be altered. For example, the application could be submitted on a write-protected USB flash drive or a CD-ROM disk that does not allow additional data to be written onto the disk.

Finally, the physical electronic storage device and cover letter must either be: (1) Hand-delivered to an authorized FAA representative; or (2) mailed to the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST). If opting to mail the application to AST, the applicant must use the same mailing address that he or she would use to submit a paper application. This address is: Federal Aviation Administration, Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, Room 331, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. Attention: Application Review.

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this direct final rule.

Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this direct final rule. The reasoning for this determination follows:

This direct final rule will permit, but not require, an application for a license, an experimental permit, or a safety approval to be submitted electronically to the FAA rather than by mailing in a paper application. This will make the application process more efficient and flexible.

This direct final rule does not impose any incremental costs because it will provide an additional method of submitting applications to the FAA. Therefore, the expected outcome will be a minimal impact with positive net benefits, and a full regulatory evaluation was not prepared. The FAA requests comments with supporting justification about the FAA determination of minimal impact.

The FAA has, therefore, determined that this direct final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.

However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.

This direct final rule does not impose any incremental costs because it will provide an additional method of submitting applications to the FAA.

If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this direct final rule and determined that it will have only a domestic impact and therefore no effect on international trade.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $151 million in lieu of $100 million.

This direct final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this direct final rule.

Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary circumstances.

The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism implications.

The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the executive order and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the rulemaking action in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the rulemaking action, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking. Before acting on this rulemaking action, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this rulemaking action in light of the comments it receives.

An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the Internet by—

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or

3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Commenters must identify the docket or amendment number of this rulemaking.

All documents the FAA considered in developing this rulemaking action, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter III of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

FDA published in the Federal Register of June 10, 2014 (79 FR 33072), a final rule requiring electronic submission of certain postmarketing submissions (the final rule) and also published an accompanying revised draft guidance for industry “Providing Submissions in Electronic Format—Postmarketing Safety Reports” (79 FR 33200) (June 2014 revised draft guidance).1 The final rule becomes effective June 10, 2015. Under the final rule, persons subject to mandatory postmarketing reporting requirements are required to submit postmarketing ICSRs to FDA in an electronic format that the Agency can process, review, and archive. Postmarketing ICSRs and ICSR attachments sent to FDA for human drug and nonvaccine biological products are processed into the FAERS database. As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, FDA provides two options for electronic submission of ICSRs to FAERS to satisfy the requirement in the final rule that persons subject to mandatory postmarketing reporting requirements submit postmarketing ICSRs to FDA in an electronic format that the Agency can process, review, and archive: (1) Direct submission through the Electronic Submissions Gateway, and (2) submission through the SRP. Persons subject to mandatory postmarketing reporting requirements can choose to use these options to meet the requirements of the final rule to electronically submit postmarketing ICSRs to FAERS.

At this time, FDA is announcing the availability of the SRP, a Web-based electronic submission system, for the electronic submission of postmarketing ICSRs of adverse events for human drug and nonvaccine biological products.

To use the SRP, the ICSR information is entered manually into a Web-based form and then submitted to FDA to be uploaded into the FAERS database. The SRP may be used by any persons subject to mandatory postmarketing safety reporting requirements, including manufacturers, packers, and distributors, and applicants with approved new drug applications (NDAs), abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs), and biologics license applications (BLAs), those that market prescription drugs for human use without an approved application including entities that are registered with FDA as outsourcing facilities under section 503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 353b), and those subject to the reporting requirements in section 760 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379aa).

The Agency believes that the SRP may be particularly useful for those entities that submit a small volume of ICSRs because the SRP does not require an internal database that is compatible with the ICH-based direct transmission system. FDA understands that not all persons subject to mandatory postmarketing reporting requirements who wish to use the SRP will have the opportunity to register for an account and test the submission process prior to June 10, 2015, the effective date of the final rule. Therefore, while persons subject to mandatory postmarketing reporting requirements are going through the registration process, FDA is delaying the compliance date of the final rule until September 8, 2015. FDA will continue to accept postmarketing ICSRs submitted on paper Forms FDA 3500A for 90 calendar days from the June 10, 2015, effective date of the final rule. FDA expects full compliance with the final rule by Tuesday, September 8, 2015. FDA is delaying the compliance date for this rule directly, without issuing notice of proposed rulemaking or taking comments on this action, for good cause. Because not all persons who want to use the SRP will be able to do so prior to the June 10, 2015, effective date for this rule, and because this effective date is now imminent, we find that issuing notice and taking comments are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest with respect to this action.

The SRP originated as a collaborative initiative developed by a multi-agency Federal Adverse Event Task Force, which included FDA as part of the Agency's MedWatch Plus strategic effort, starting in 2004. Submission of safety reports through the SRP is described on the FDA SRP Web page (the SRP is available on the SRP Web page at https://www.safetyreporting.hhs.gov/fpsr/WorkflowLoginIO.aspx?metinstance=0AA0751AD2587A59D28B14D5C764AC7CA68678FE). The SRP is intended to create greater harmonization among Federal Agencies for adverse event and product problem reporting by streamlining and coordinating the currently diverse Federal requirements for the reporting and the review of adverse events.2 Further information on submitting ICSRs through the SRP is included in FDA's June 2014 revised draft guidance.

In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval, unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807) of the regulations.

Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144, July 9, 2012), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1). Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2). Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and then a request for classification under the first procedure, the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. If the person submits a request to classify the device under this second procedure, FDA may decline to undertake the classification request if FDA identifies a legally marketed device that could provide a reasonable basis for review of substantial equivalence with the device or if FDA determines that the device submitted is not of “low-moderate risk” or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls to mitigate the risks cannot be developed.

In response to a request to classify a device under either procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA will classify the device by written order within 120 days. This classification will be the initial classification of the device.

In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, FDA issued an order on June 12, 2012, classifying the Verigene® Gram Positive Blood Culture Nucleic Acid Test (BC-GP) into class III, because it was not substantially equivalent to a device that was introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or a device which was subsequently reclassified into class I or class II. On June 15, 2012, Nanosphere, Inc., submitted a request for classification of Verigene® Gram Positive Blood Culture Nucleic Acid Test (BC-GP) under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. The manufacturer recommended that the device be classified into class II.

In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. FDA classifies devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the de novo request, FDA determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

The device is assigned the generic name multiplex nucleic acid assay for identification of microorganisms and resistance markers from positive blood cultures, and it is identified as a qualitative in vitro device intended to simultaneously detect and identify microorganism nucleic acids from blood cultures that test positive by Gram stain or other microbiological stains. The device detects specific nucleic acid sequences for microorganism identification as well as for antimicrobial resistance. This device aids in the diagnosis of bloodstream infections when used in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory findings. However, the device does not replace traditional methods for culture and susceptibility testing.

Multiplex nucleic acid assay for identification of microorganisms and resistance markers from positive blood cultures is a prescription device.

FDA has identified the following risks to health associated with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1:

FDA believes that the measures set forth in the special controls guideline entitled “Class II Special Controls Guideline: Multiplex Nucleic Acid Assay for Identification of Microorganisms and Resistance Markers from Positive Blood Cultures” are necessary, in addition to general controls, to mitigate the risks to health described in table 1.

Therefore, effective June 26, 2012, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding § 866.3365.

Following the effective date of this final classification order, any firm submitting a 510(k) premarket notification for this device type will need to comply with the special controls.

Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. Therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a premarket notification, prior to marketing the device, which contains information about the multiplex nucleic acid assay for identification of microorganisms and resistance markers from positive blood cultures they intend to market.

The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

This final administrative order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 50 and 56 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0755; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 801 and 809 regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 regarding investigational device exemptions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 regarding quality systems have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of information regarding Requests for Feedback (“presubmissions”) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0756.

This special controls guideline reflects changes the Agency is making to clarify its position on the binding nature of special controls. The changes include referring to the document as a “guideline,” as that term is used in section 513(a) of the FD&C Act, which the Secretary has developed and disseminated to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for class II devices, and not a “guidance,” as that term is used in 21 CFR 10.115. The guideline uses mandatory language to emphasize that firms must comply with special controls to legally market their class II devices. The guideline clarifies that firms will need either to: (1) Comply with the particular mitigation measures set forth in the special controls guideline or (2) use alternative mitigation measures, but demonstrate to the Agency's satisfaction that those alternative measures identified by the firm will provide at least an equivalent assurance of safety and effectiveness. These revisions do not represent a change in FDA's position about the binding effect of special controls, but rather are intended to address any possible confusion or misunderstanding.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 866 is amended as follows:

The Department of State published a final rule on March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12081-12082), changing the address for service of process on the Department. This document corrects the zip code in that address.

As stated above, title 22, part 172, is amended by making the following correcting amendment:

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

This final rule amends 33 CFR 100.1302 Special Local Regulation; Annual Dragon Boat Races, Portland, Oregon.

The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice 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 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. The Coast Guard did not receive all of the details about this year's Dragon Boat race until it was too late to publish an NPRM and receive comments before the event this July 6th and 7th. However, as this is a permanent rule addressing a recurring annual event, the Coast Guard is seeking comments from the public before a final rule for all subsequent iterations of this annual event is issued. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section above for further instructions on submitting comments.

The basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 1233. Coast Guard Captains of the Port are granted authority to establish special local regulations in 33 CFR 1.05-1(i).

This final rule will eliminate inconsistencies with the event dates and the published enforcement period. This will serve to better inform the public of the regulations in the race area.

This rule will revise 33 CFR 100.1302 paragraph (c) to read as set forth in the regulatory text of this rule.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The Coast Guard bases this finding on the fact that the no changes to the regulation were made beyond clarifying the enforcement period.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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. This rule will affect the following entities some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the race are during the times this regulation is enforced. This special local regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Vessels desiring to transit this area of the Willamette River may do so by scheduling their trips in the early morning or evening when the restrictions on general navigation imposed by this section will not be in effect.

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, above.

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 determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

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.

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.

This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

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.

This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (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 the revision of the enforcement period of a special local regulation in 33 CFR 100.1302(c). This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

The Virginia Department of Transportation, who owns and operates the James River Draw Bridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.5, to facilitate electrical repairs on the south tower of the bridge.

Under the regular operating schedule, the James River Draw Bridge, mile 5.0, between Isle of Wight and Newport News, VA, opens on signal. The bridge is a vertical lift draw bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 60 feet above mean high water.

Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be closed to navigation from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on June 8, 2015.

The James River is used by a variety of vessels including freighters, tugs, and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with commercial and recreational waterway users.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no alternate route for vessels to pass for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by the temporary deviation.

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

On March 25, 2015, the Coast Guard published an NPRM entitled Safety Zones; Captain of the Port New Orleans Zone in the Federal Register (80 FR 15705). We did not receive any comments in response to the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested and none were held.

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. Providing a full 30 days notice is contrary to the public interest as it would delay the effectiveness of a portion of the safety zones until after the planned fireworks events. Immediate action is needed to protect vessels and mariners from the safety hazards associated with aerial fireworks displays over a waterway when large concentrations of spectators are expected. The Coast Guard did not receive any comments on the proposed rule following the publication of the NPRM. The Coast Guard will give actual notice to the public and maritime community that each safety zone will be in effect and of the enforcement periods via broadcast notices to mariners.

The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1; 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define safety zones.

The Coast Guard has determined that temporary safety zones are necessary to promote the safety of life on navigable waterways within the COTP New Orleans Zone during these events due to the potentially hazardous conditions caused by the fireworks and the high volume of spectators that are anticipated.

The Coast Guard is establishing five temporary safety zones within the Captain of the Port (COTP) New Orleans Zone between April 27, 2015 and July 4, 2015.

The events to be covered by this rule will be enforced on the respective dates listed in the table below.

Entry into these zones is prohibited unless permission has been granted by the COTP New Orleans, or a designated representative.

The COTP New Orleans will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the safety zones as well as any changes in the planned schedule. Mariners and other members of the public may also contact Coast Guard Sector New Orleans Command Center to inquire about the status of the safety zone, at (504) 365-2200.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. These temporary safety zones will restrict navigation on the Lower Mississippi River in the vicinity of New Orleans, Louisiana, the southern end of the Tchefuncta River near Madisonville, Louisiana, and Lake Pontchartrain in vicinity of Mandeville, Louisiana. No safety zone will be established for longer than one hour. Due to the limited scope and short duration of each temporary safety zone, the impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule.

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 because it is limited in scope and each temporary safety zone will only be in effect for approximately one hour on one day. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the following waterways on the listed dates: The Lower Mississippi River in New Orleans, Louisiana on April 27, 2015 and April 28, 2015; the Tchefuncta River near Madisonville, Louisiana on July 4, 2015, and the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain in the vicinity of Mandeville, LA on July 4, 2015. Before enforcement, COTP New Orleans will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the impacted waterways and will make notifications to the public through marine band radio when the temporary safety zones are being enforced. Additionally, deviation from this rule may be requested and will be considered on a case by case basis by COTP New Orleans or a COTP New Orleans designated representative.

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, above.

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 determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

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.

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.

This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

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.

This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (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 establishing temporary safety zones in the Lower Mississippi River, Tchefuncta River, and Lake Pontchartrain. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

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

In a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 14038, March 18, 2015, the EPA proposed to approve and incorporate by reference revisions to the Alaska SIP submitted on July 1, 2014 and October 24, 2014. Please see our March 18, 2015, proposed rulemaking for further explanation and the basis for our finding. The public comment period for the proposal ended on April 17, 2015. We received a comment letter from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, dated April 16, 2015, acknowledging our work and supporting the proposal. We received no other comments.

The EPA is approving and incorporating by reference into the Alaska SIP changes to the following provisions submitted on July 1, 2014 and October 24, 2014:

• 18 AAC 50.015 “Air Quality Designations, Classifications, and Control Regions” (State effective 10/6/2013);

• 18 AAC 50.040 “Federal Standards Adopted by Reference” (State effective 10/6/2013);

• 18 AAC 50.225 “Owner-Requested Limits” (State effective 10/6/2013);

• 18 AAC 50.260 “Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology under the Regional Haze Rule” (State effective 10/6/2013);

• 18 AAC 50.502 “Minor Permits for Air Quality Protection” (State effective 11/9/2014); and

• 18 AAC 50.990 “Definitions” (State effective 11/9/2014).

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the provisions of 18 AAC 50 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 27, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

The CDL program was established by the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA) (49 U.S.C. chapter 313). The CMVSA authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to set minimum standards for the CDL. The Administrator of FMCSA has been delegated the authority to carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by the CMVSA (49 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1.87(e)(1)).

Parts 383 and 384 of Title 49, CFR, implement the CMVSA requirements. Part 383 prohibits any person who does not hold a valid CDL or commercial learner's permit (CLP) issued by his/her State of domicile from operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) that requires a driver with a CDL. This regulatory guidance is based on that authority and is intended to ensure that CDL holders obtain the proper endorsements before operating a CMV.

The American Bus Association (ABA) asked if drivers of certain custom motorcoaches require passenger endorsements. These motorcoaches are used primarily to transport entertainers to performance venues throughout the United States. Because these vehicles have gross vehicle weights (GVWs) and gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWRs) greater than 26,000 pounds, the driver must have a CDL. However, the vehicles are not designed or used to transport 16 or more passengers. Each vehicle begins as a motorcoach chassis and body shell which is then customized by a second-stage manufacturer that installs beds, couches, sinks, kitchen cabinets, and other furnishings. ABA notes that the maximum passenger capacity of these vehicles is approximately 10-12 persons, plus the driver. The ABA asked whether the drivers must have passenger endorsements on their CDLs. ABA estimates that approximately 1,000 entertainer motorcoaches are currently in operation.

The CDL rules in 49 CFR 383.23(a) require individuals to pass written and driving tests for a CLP or CDL to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). Section 383.5 defines a CMV.

The customized motorcoaches described by the ABA are Group B Heavy Straight Vehicles, within the CMV definition under § 383.5 and under § 383.91 concerning endorsements. They are used in commerce to transport passengers, and have GVWRs and GVWs of 26,001 pounds or more. Section 383.93(b)(2) requires CDL holders who operate or expect to operate “passenger vehicles” to obtain a passenger endorsement requiring a knowledge and skills test (§ 383.93(c)(2)). Neither these sections nor the passenger endorsement provisions in § 383.117 specifies a minimum number of passengers needed to trigger the endorsement requirement. Drivers of the customized motorcoaches used by the entertainment industry, which are designed or used to transport between 10 and 12 passengers, including the driver, are therefore required to have a CDL with a passenger endorsement.

It should be noted that FMCSA and its predecessor agency, the Federal Highway Administration, have held for more than 20 years that drivers of recreational vehicles used strictly for non-commercial purposes are not required to obtain a CDL [Question 3 under § 383.3, 58 FR 60734, 60735, November 17, 1993; available on the Agency's Web site: www.fmcsa.dot.gov]. Such vehicles are not “used in commerce” in the sense intended by the definition of “commercial motor vehicle” in 49 U.S.C. 31301(4) and 49 CFR 383.5. Today's regulatory guidance is therefore limited to the issue of the passenger endorsement for individuals who are already required to possess a CDL.

In consideration of the above, FMCSA has determined that the requirements under 49 CFR part 383 require CDL-holders to have a passenger endorsement when operating a vehicle that exceeds the 26,000-pound threshold, and is designed to transport passengers rather than property. FMCSA therefore includes the following as new Guidance to 49 CFR 383.93:

Question 15: Is a person who operates a custom motorcoach in commerce with a gross vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight greater than 26,001 pounds required to have a passenger endorsement for his or her CDL if the vehicle is designed or used to transport less than 16 passengers, including the driver?

Guidance: Yes. The motorcoach is a Heavy Straight Vehicle (Group B) under 49 CFR 383.91 that is designed to transport passengers in commerce. The driver is, therefore, required by § 383.93(b)(2) to have a passenger endorsement.

FMCSA adopts regulations governing the lease and interchange of passenger-carrying CMVs to ensure that passenger carriers cannot evade FMCSA oversight and enforcement by entering into questionable lease arrangements to operate under the authority 1 of another carrier that exercises no actual control over these operations. The rule is based on the broad authority of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 as amended (49 U.S.C. 31136) and the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (49 U.S.C. 31502).

The rule (1) identifies the motor carrier operating a passenger-carrying CMV that is responsible for compliance with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), and (2) ensures that a lessor surrenders control of the CMV for the full term of the lease or temporary exchange of CMVs and drivers; and (3) requires motor carriers originally hired to provide charter transportation of passengers that subcontract this work to another motor carrier of passengers to notify the tour operator or group of passengers about the role of, and certain information about, the subcontracted motor carrier of passengers.

The Agency has revised some of its cost calculations from the NPRM based on comments received. The estimated costs of the final rule consist of the following: (1) Trip- or longer-term lease negotiation; (2) lease documentation; (3) lease copying; (4) receipt documentation; (5) vehicle marking; and (6) documentation as per the common ownership and control and revenue pooling exceptions, in place of a copy of the lease. The analysis also provides a cost estimate of the notification requirement described in the previous paragraph. The analysis considered a no-action alternative (Option 1). It also considered two regulatory options (Options 2 and 3), each with three rates of leasing frequency—low, medium, and high. Other cost elements were considered but eliminated because of their insignificance or because they had already been incurred in the normal course of business. These costs include document storage and disposal of discarded CMV marking materials.

The annualized costs of the Agency-selected option (Option 2, hereafter “the rule” or “final rule”) (at a seven-percent discount rate) from 2017 through 2026 are summarized in Table 1 below. The annualized cost of the final rule at the low-leasing frequency is $4.1 million, at the medium-leasing frequency it is $8.0 million, and at the high-leasing frequency it is $15.7 million.2

The anticipated motorcoach-related fatality reductions over the ten-year period from 2017 through 2026 as a result of the rule are presented in Table 2 below for each of the three lease frequencies.

In order for the final rule to achieve cost neutrality across the range of leasing frequencies considered, the rule must prevent between 4 and 14 (determined as 3.46 and 13.42 rounded up to whole numbers) motorcoach-related fatalities, respectively, between 2017 and 2026.

Therefore the plausible range of crash reductions from 2017 to 2026 necessary to achieve cost neutrality with respect to this rule is between 2 and 7 (rounding up to whole numbers and based on 2.09413 statistical fatalities per fatal motorcoach crash, documented in detail in Appendix A of the Regulatory Evaluation). Given the Agency's central assumption of a medium-leasing frequency, the FMCSA analysis shows that the prevention of 4 fatal crashes (3.24 rounded up)—approximately equivalent to the prevention of 7 fatalities (6.78 rounded up) over the ten years from 2017 through 2026 will be sufficient to offset the costs of the rule.

This rule is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (1935 Act) and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (1984 Act), as amended.

The 1935 Act authorizes DOT to “prescribe requirements for—(1) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation” (49 U.S.C. 31502(b)).3

The 1984 Act confers on DOT authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. “At a minimum, the regulations shall ensure that—(1) commercial motor vehicles are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of commercial motor vehicles do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of commercial motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely . . .; and (4) the operation of commercial motor vehicles does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators” (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)). Section 32911 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) [Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 818, July 6, 2012] enacted a fifth requirement, i.e., to ensure that “(5) an operator of a commercial motor vehicle is not coerced by a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary to operate a commercial motor vehicle in violation of a regulation promulgated under this section, or chapter 51 or chapter 313 of this title” [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(5)].4

The 1984 Act also includes more general authority to “(8) prescribe recordkeeping . . . requirements; . . . and (10) perform other acts the Secretary considers appropriate” (49 U.S.C. 31133(a)).5

This rule imposes legal and recordkeeping requirements consistent with the 1935 and 1984 Acts on for-hire and private passenger carriers that operate CMVs, in order to enable investigators and the general public to identify the passenger carrier responsible for safety. Currently, passenger-carrying CMVs and drivers are frequently rented, loaned, leased, interchanged, assigned, and reassigned with few records and little formality, thus obscuring the operational safety responsibility of many industry participants. Because this rule has only indirect and minimal application to drivers of passenger-carrying CMVs—at most, their employers might require them to pick up a lease document and place it on the vehicle, though that task could also be assigned to other employees—FMCSA believes that coercion of drivers to violate the rule will not occur.

Before prescribing any regulations, FMCSA must also consider their “costs and benefits” (49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A) and 31502(d)). Those factors are also discussed in this final rule.

On September 20, 2013, FMCSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (78 FR 57822). The NPRM discussed the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) recommendation that FMCSA regulate the leasing of passenger carriers in much the same way as it regulates the leasing of for-hire property carriers.

Twelve submissions were received from the following parties: American Bus Association (ABA), United Motorcoach Association (UMA), Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), Greyhound Lines, Peter Pan Bus Lines, Coach USA, Adirondack Trailways, GE Capital, Dawson Bus Service, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), NTSB, and Gobbell Transportation Services (Gobbell) on behalf of the Tennessee Motor Coach Association, and the motor coach operators that belong to the National Association of Small Trucking Companies.

UMA, ABA, Greyhound, Coach USA, and Gobbell argued that the crashes discussed in the NPRM would not have been prevented by the proposed rule, had it been in effect; that the Agency has not demonstrated that the rule will improve safety; and that the rule has no clear safety benefits.

As the NPRM said, “this action is necessary to ensure that unsafe passenger carriers cannot evade FMCSA oversight and enforcement . . . This action will enable the FMCSA, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and our Federal and State partners to identify motor carriers transporting passengers in interstate commerce and correctly assign responsibility to those entities for regulatory violations . . .” [78 FR at 57822].

Unlike rules that require specific actions that would help to prevent crashes, such as the requirement for properly-adjusted brakes or rest opportunities for drivers, this final rule improves safety less directly and immediately by imposing new requirements to ensure the proper identity of the motor carrier responsible for the operation of the passenger-carrying vehicle. Through the proper identification of the entity, FMCSA and its State partners are in a better position to monitor the safety performance of the entity and remove from service unsafe passenger carriers. Therefore, the rule will improve safety, although not in the same manner as rules concerning vehicle maintenance and hours of service for drivers.

The USDOT identification number allows the Agency to track the safety records of hundreds of thousands of different motor carriers and to assign to each of them the appropriate inspection and violation information. These data in turn feed the Agency's Safety Measurement System (SMS) and Pre-Employment Screening (PSP) programs. Similarly, the leasing requirements of this rule improve the ability of the Agency to attribute the inspection, compliance, and enforcement data collected by the Agency and its State partners to the correct carrier and driver, allowing FMCSA more accurately to identify unsafe and high risk carriers and initiate appropriate interventions.

ABA, UMA, Greyhound, and Coach USA noted that mechanical failures can unexpectedly strand passengers at places where safe accommodations may not exist. The commenters argued that, in order to minimize the resulting inconvenience and possible danger to passengers, the carrier must obtain a replacement vehicle as quickly as possible, sometimes from an unknown lessor, and without waiting to negotiate and exchange written lease documents. These commenters requested an exception to the proposed leasing requirements for emergency situations. ABA requested an exemption for leased operation of another carrier's vehicle for a period of less than 30 days as a result of “a mechanical breakdown or accident while a passenger-carrying commercial vehicle was en-route.”

FMCSA agrees that negotiating and writing a lease for a replacement vehicle (perhaps with a driver) from a local passenger carrier and exchanging the appropriate documents could unnecessarily prolong the delays in acquiring alternative transportation for passengers, especially when there are no safe accommodations at the location where the vehicle became disabled. However, the benefits the Agency expects to derive from this rule would be lost if the requirement for a lease were simply waived for 30 days, as requested by ABA. To address these situations, FMCSA has adopted an exception that gives the operating carrier and the lessor up to 48 hours after the lessee takes possession of the replacement vehicle to put in writing the terms of their lease agreement [§ 390.303(a)(2)]. Because the replacement vehicle will pick up the stranded passengers and resume the interrupted trip almost immediately, a lessee may not be able to ensure that a copy of the lease is carried on the vehicle, as required by § 390.303(f)(2). In this limited situation, a lessee that cannot transmit an electronic copy of the executed lease to the driver's wireless device (either because no such device is carried on the vehicle or no wireless connectivity is available) may carry a statement signed by the driver or any available company official that “[Carrier A] has leased this vehicle to [Carrier B] pursuant to 49 CFR 390.303(a)(2).” The Agency believes the 48-hour window provides ample time for the parties to document the transaction, given that it is unlikely the driver would have difficulty receiving electronic information for more than 2 calendar days.

This exception should be helpful to the many small companies that comprise most of the passenger carrier industry. This exception could also be used when a passenger vehicle is placed out-of-service (OOS) under the North American Standard OOS Criteria and a replacement vehicle is needed to resume the trip.

GE Capital, UMA, and Coach USA disagreed with proposed § 390.301(b), which would have excluded from the scope of the rule any lease-financing arrangement with a duration of 5 years or longer. GE Capital—“on behalf of GE Capital business units that engage in lease-financing of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles”—said that “the proposed draft is not clear enough to also exclude leases in the nature of a lease-financing of CMVs provided by independent and captive leasing and finance companies, banks, financial services corporations, broker/packagers and investment banks. . . . Financing Lessors are . . . not motor carriers . . . but passive owners/lessors of CMVs for the purpose of providing lease-financing of CMVs for the CMV industry without assuming any operational control, responsibility or oversight of the lease-financed CMVs . . .” UMA said that “Commercial institution leasing is certainly dominant; however, leasing by private investors, limited liability corporations, and limited partnerships remain commonplace. . . . Currently, it is routine practice for bus manufacturers or dealers to loan, rent, and lease buses for periods as short as a day.” Coach USA stated that all of its buses are leased.

The Agency never intended the proposed rule to be applicable to leases with non-carrier financial entities. The definition of a Lease in proposed § 390.5 was “a contract or arrangement in which a motor carrier grants the use of a passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicle to another motor carrier . . .” [emphasis added]. To reinforce the point that the rule does not apply unless both parties to the lease are motor carriers, the text of the NPRM's § 390.301(b) has been slightly modified to make it clear that the new requirements do not apply to a contract (however designated, e.g., lease, closed-end lease, hire purchase, lease purchase, purchase agreement, installment plan, etc.) between a motor carrier and a manufacturer or dealer of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles, provided the financial organization, manufacturer or dealer is not itself a motor carrier. Assuming that GE Capital, banks, private investors, etc., are not themselves motor carriers, their lease-financing contracts with passenger carriers will not be subject to this rule. And even if bus manufacturers or dealers operate as passenger motor carriers, their leasing activity may well be managed by separately incorporated non-carrier financial subsidiaries whose lease contracts would not be subject to this rule.

The NPRM limited the lease-financing exception in § 390.301(b) to leases with a period of 5 years or longer, but in view of UMA's comment that financial leases may have very short terms, FMCSA has removed the 5-year limit; § 390.301(b)(1) applies to a financial lease of any duration.

ABA pointed out that “[u]nder 49 U.S.C. 14302(b), an agreement to pool or divide services and earnings may be approved if the carrier participants assent and if the United States Surface Transportation Board finds that the agreement will be in the interest of better service to the public or of economy of operations and will not unreasonably restrain competition. . . . The proposal in the NPRM does not reference the STB, Section 14302 or any provision of the ICC Termination Act. Thus, there is a substantial issue as to whether and how any pooling agreement can be viewed or interpreted in connection with the NPRM.”

Adirondack Trailways indicated that it is “party to long-standing agreements for Through Service and Revenue Pooling (approved by the Surface Transportation Board) which account for tens of thousands of additional interchanges between and among other well-established and safe passenger carriers who are long-standing parties to such agreements.” Adirondack argued that these agreements “do not, and arguably cannot, contain all of the elements required by the newly proposed rules, e.g., to `specify the time and date when, and the location where the lease, interchange or other agreement begins and ends.' The nature of the interchanges under all of these agreements is such that interchanges often occur in remote locations, with a frequency that is both scheduled and unscheduled (often with no prior notice at all) for durations that are incapable of being predicted in advance due to spontaneous, ever-changing and unpredictable passenger demands.”

Greyhound wrote that, in 2012, it “operated a total of 8,089 trips with buses leased on an interchange basis from its pool or interline partners.” It provided no details about these pool agreements.

Although the NPRM would have exempted parties to a revenue pooling agreement approved by the Surface Transportation Board (STB) or an interline agreement from the requirement to provide receipts [§ 390.303(d)(4)], the commenters almost unanimously recommended a broader exemption.6 FMCSA agrees that operations under revenue pooling agreements approved by the STB should be exempt from the lease and receipt requirements of this rule. Revenue pooling allows separate passenger carriers to offer essentially the same service as a single carrier on approved routes. Because the number of carriers in a pool is small, and the parties to the pool typically run the same trips on a daily basis (or even more frequently), the carrier responsible for safety on a particular trip can be narrowed to several carriers at most and often only two carriers. The final rule therefore imposes only a few requirements to enable the agency to track the safety performance of all members of the pool and specifically identify the carrier responsible for safety. Each vehicle must have available, either in hard copy or electronically, the number and date of the STB decision approving the pool and the names of the pool members. In addition, each vehicle must have available a list of (1) all routes covered by the pooling agreement, (2) the carrier or carriers authorized to operate on each route or portion of a route, and (3) all points of origin, destination, or interchange (should interchanges be part of the agreement). This list avoids the time, date, and location information to which Adirondack objected in its comments. However, all members of the revenue pool must mark the vehicles with the name of the operating carrier, as required by § 390.21(f). The advantage of this exception is that the parties to a pooling agreement need not exchange lease documents and receipts.

Greyhound was critical of the NPRM's cost estimates. It commented, among other things, that:

In short, Greyhound argued that “FMCSA severely underestimates the costs through miscalculation of some costs and disregard of others.”

Peter Pan supplied no details, but said that, “[g]iven our level of leasing, even if we could comply, we have estimated our cost of compliance at over $100,000 annually.”

The Agency has revised some of its cost calculations based on comments from Greyhound and others. The Agency updated the time frame of this analysis to consider the 10 year span of 2017 to 2026, which led to increases in certain components of the rule's costs and benefits. Projected growth in the motor carrier industry led to an increased number of affected carriers, thereby increasing the rule's costs. Similarly, inclusion of estimated lease counts provided by Greyhound raised the number of projected leases, adding to the rule's costs. Application of the most recent guidance from the Office of the Secretary of Transportation regarding the value of a statistical life (VSL) in future years increased the monetized benefit resulting from reductions in fatal crashes. A summary of the new estimates contained in the separate Regulatory Evaluation for this rule is presented below in Section VII.A. The cost of this rule depends primarily on the number of lease transactions subject to its requirements. That number is not precisely known, either by FMCSA or—it would appear—by the passenger carrier industry. Greyhound and Peter Pan provided information about their own operations (which cannot be extrapolated to the rest of the industry, given the unusually large size of these two companies), but no commenter took issue with the Agency's three-tier estimates of leasing volume. The final rule, therefore, retains the NPRM's assumptions about low-, medium-, and high-frequency leasing. Our cost analysis assigns a completion time for each separate task needed to comply with the rule. We believe that these times are conservative, especially after repetition makes the requirements familiar to carrier employees, and that the corresponding costs are also conservatively high. Nonetheless, the Agency's threshold analysis, discussed in Section VII.A., shows that the rule would be cost-neutral if it prevented approximately 4 fatal passenger carrier crashes (3.24 rounded up) between 2017 and 2026. This is mathematically equivalent to the prevention of one fatal passenger carrier crash every 3.09 years (3.09 years = 1 crash ÷ (3.24 crashes ÷ 10 years)). In other words, the annual cost of the rule is approximately one-quarter of the cost of a single passenger carrier crash. FMCSA believes that enhanced monitoring of passenger carrier leasing, and of the carriers involved in such leasing, will have beneficial effects that readily cover these costs.

Coach USA, a non-carrier that controls many passenger carriers, requested “an exemption from the requirements of proposed section 390.303 for vehicle exchanges between affiliated companies. By `affiliated companies,' Coach USA means companies that share a common parent company.”

Coach USA described the situations that it believes demand and justify an exemption.

Similar comments were submitted by Adirondack Trailways, which is commonly owned and controlled with two other carriers, Pine Hill Trailways and New York Trailways. Adirondack stated that:

FMCSA agrees that there is no need for individual leases and receipts when vehicles are interchanged between or among commonly owned and controlled passenger carriers. Such a requirement would add nothing to these carriers' standard business practices and impose unnecessary paperwork. It is likely that all of the “family” members are operating according to the same administrative procedures and safety standards. However, FMCSA is imposing a few limits on this exception to ensure the Agency's ability to identify the carrier responsible for safety and regulatory compliance. This is necessary because large holding companies seek to minimize their regulatory and tort exposure by dividing their motor carrier business into multiple limited liability companies (LLCs) while operating them very much like a single corporation. Therefore, each driver in a group of commonly owned and controlled motor carriers must carry a summary document listing all members of the corporate family, along with their USDOT numbers, business addresses, and contact telephone numbers. The document must also identify the operating carrier, the trip (by charter number, run number, or some other identifier), the vehicle (by at least the last 6 digits of the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) 7 ), and the date of the trip. This document is subject to the record retention requirements of § 390.303(d). Like the parties to a pooling agreement, however, commonly owned and controlled carriers need not prepare leases or receipts when they exchange vehicles.

ABA said that the NPRM “does not define, or even mention, the term `charter,' which is how motorcoach carriers of passengers view the hiring or interchange of vehicles. Therefore, there is a substantial issue as to the relation of `charter' to `lease' and how these terms will be interpreted for purposes of the regulation.”

UMA commented that:

The NPRM did not specifically discuss “passenger carriers chartering other passenger carriers” because the Agency believed it was sufficiently clear that such arrangements, depending on their specific terms, either would not be subject to the proposed rule at all because they involved no leases, or would be subject to the rule because the “chartered” carrier was leasing vehicles and drivers to another passenger carrier. Based upon the comments received, it is apparent that clarification is needed.

A passenger carrier that agrees to transport a tour or travel group on a particular trip may find itself without the capacity to accommodate the group. In that case, the carrier might transfer the contract to a second carrier that has the necessary capacity. The second carrier may or may not pay a fee to the transferring passenger carrier. In any case, this rule would not apply to that transaction because the first carrier has not leased equipment from the second. The contract has been reassigned and the second carrier has undertaken the trip in its own name on its own authority with its own vehicle(s), and is therefore responsible for compliance with the FMCSRs. As a good business practice, the transferring passenger carrier should of course immediately notify the tour or travel group that another carrier will provide the transportation. Disgruntled customers have occasionally contacted FMCSA when such notification does not occur and an unknown carrier arrives unexpectedly to pick up a group of passengers. While the final rule does not address communication when a passenger transportation contract is completely transferred to another carrier, the industry should note that the interests of tour operators and their customers are not adequately protected when such contracts are transferred among carriers without prior notice to the passengers affected by the change.

On the other hand, a passenger carrier that needs one or more additional vehicles may subcontract with another carrier to supply the vehicle(s) and possibly also driver(s) while still nominally performing the contract with the tour or travel group. When a passenger carrier hires or charters (i.e., contracts for) the services of another passenger carrier to help perform a contract, it has leased vehicles and services from that carrier. In these circumstances, a lease must be prepared and receipts exchanged in compliance with this rule to indicate that the prime contractor is responsible for the lessor's (i.e., subcontractor's) regulatory compliance. A copy of the lease or written agreement must be on the vehicle obtained from the subcontracted lessor, and the hiring passenger carrier's legal name and USDOT number must be marked on the vehicle as prescribed in 49 CFR 390.21. While the prime contractor (i.e., the lessee carrier) may require the subcontractor to comply with all applicable provisions of the FMCSRs and to indemnify it for any civil penalties assessed for violations of those provisions by the subcontracted lessor, FMCSA and its State partners will hold both the prime contractor and its subcontractor responsible for completion of the lease described in this final rule.

In this situation described above, the lessee carrier is fully responsible for the regulatory compliance of the lessor carrier and must mark the vehicles leased from the lessor with the information required by 49 CFR 390.21(f). However, because the name and/or logo of the chartered or hired passenger carrier is likely to be displayed prominently on the vehicles, passengers might overlook the smaller placard required by § 390.21(f)(2) and assume that a different carrier was providing the transportation. To reduce the possibility of confusion, FMCSA has added a provision to the rule that requires a passenger carrier that subcontracts all or a portion of a transportation service to notify the tour or travel group within 24 hours of establishing the subcontracting arrangement that all or some of the transportation will be performed by a lessor subcontractor.

This rule holds the lessee carrier directly responsible for violations of the FMCSRs. While UMA asserted that the chartered passenger carrier generally assumes all responsibilities for regulatory compliance, this final rule does not prevent the two carriers from including in the charter (i.e., lease) contract a provision making the chartered carrier responsible for such compliance, with appropriate indemnification language for penalties imposed by regulatory agencies. The relationship between the two parties remains that of a lessor and lessee. The “charter contract” described by UMA appears to involve negotiation and paperwork burdens similar to those associated with a lease. The net burden imposed by this rule therefore should be minor.

Advocates generally supported the NPRM, but argued that “because of the seriousness of the abuses that the provisions are intended to prevent, including, potentially, willful misconduct that attempts to evade FMCSA out-of-service orders, . . . specific criminal and civil penalties should be referenced as applicable to the more serious violations of the lease/interchange restrictions.”

FMCSA does not believe that the regulatory language in subpart F of part 390 should include the maximum applicable statutory penalties. The penalties available to the Agency are adequately described in subpart G and appendices A and B of part 386. However, while considering this comment, it became apparent that the NPRM was not sufficiently explicit in assigning responsibility for violations of the proposed rule. We have therefore added paragraph (c) to § 390.301 to clarify that both the lessor and lessee are liable for civil penalties if they exchange vehicles without the required documentation, or prepare a lease, interchange agreement, or other agreement that fails to meet the requirements of subpart F.

Advocates argued that the vehicle marking required by the NPRM is insufficient to provide notice of the arrangement to the public prior to the purchase of tickets. Advocates stated:

The Agency does not agree that advance notice of lease and interchange arrangements must be provided to customers. Many of the motorcoach services that have expanded significantly in recent years are so-called curbside operations that do not require, and sometimes do not allow, advance ticketing. Because demand for service cannot always be predicted, these carriers may need to obtain additional vehicles from other carriers on short notice. This rule requires lessors and lessees to document these arrangements and mark the vehicles appropriately, but changing the curbside, on-demand business model is not within the rule's scope or purpose. These carriers may not know until shortly before a trip whether they will need to operate leased vehicles on that trip and therefore cannot give potential customers advance notice of the lease arrangement. Such notice may be more compatible with other types of motorcoach operation, especially those involving commonly owned and controlled carriers and revenue pooling agreements, but even a segment-specific notice requirement would involve significant changes in operating practices. This issue was not raised in the NPRM and, given its far-reaching implications for the industry, cannot be included in today's final rule because the public was not provided with an opportunity to comment on a regulatory proposal to address the issue. The Agency does not find it advisable to delay this rule, and thus defer its benefits, while considering whether to expand its reach as recommended by Advocates.

NTSB supported the NPRM but said that

Section 390.305 of the NPRM proposed to require passenger carriers that had been placed out of service to notify FMCSA by email or U.S. Mail, either 3 or 5 business days, respectively, before transferring control of its vehicles to another passenger carrier. The FMCSA has decided that notification and related issues would be best addressed in another rulemaking. Therefore, the language of § 390.305 proposed in the NPRM has been removed.

OOIDA asked several questions and provided comments about the NPRM: (1) Why did the Agency limit the rule to motor carrier lessors rather than all lessors of passenger vehicles? (2) Proposed § 390.303(f)(3) said that nothing required by paragraph (f) was “intended to affect whether the lessor of the passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicle or a driver provided by the lessor is an independent contractor or an employee of the motor carrier lessee.” OOIDA asserted that paragraph (f)(3) had no legal effect. (3) “FMCSA should clarify that the Lessee's responsibility to maintain public liability insurance required by federal law means that it cannot delegate such responsibility, including delegating the cost of such insurance, to any other party, including the Lessor. . . . OOIDA believes FMCSA does not need to revise the proposed language, but should explain that it means that by having the responsibility to maintain public liability insurance, the Lessee may not avoid responsibility for the cost of the insurance by passing it on to another party, directly or indirectly.”

(1) The 1984 Act (49 U.S.C. 31136) gives the Agency jurisdiction over operators of commercial motor vehicles, but not over equipment lessors generally. The rule is therefore limited to motor carrier lessors. (2) Section 390.303(f)(3) did not claim to have legal effect. On the contrary, it was and is a disclaimer of any such effect. The provision has been re-designated as § 390.303(b)(4)(iii) in the final rule. (3) While the lessee must maintain the evidence of financial responsibility required by 49 CFR part 387, FMCSA has no authority to change a contractual term that obligates the lessor to pay the cost of the insurance the lessee is required to maintain.

No comments were received about the Agency's intention to require our State and local partners to adopt this final rule pursuant to the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) (49 CFR part 350). Therefore, as proposed, State and local agencies participating in MCSAP will be required to include the passenger-carrying CMV lease and marking requirements of this rule in their annual enforcement plans. As mentioned in the NPRM, our MCSAP partners are not required to enforce the CMV leasing regulations in part 376. However, the focus of this final rule is safety, and FMCSA believes that States must adopt and enforce compatible leasing and marking regulations for all motor carriers operating passenger-carrying CMVs in interstate commerce.

Section 390.5 is amended to add definitions for lease, lessee, and lessor, all of which are based (with changes) on the same definitions in part 376—Lease and Interchange of Vehicles. Because both parties to the lease required by subpart F of part 390 are motor carriers of passengers, rather than owners of equipment (as in part 376), the terms lease, lessee, and lessor here apply specifically to motor carriers of passengers and are applicable only to §§ 390.21(f) and 390.301 through 390.305. All three terms are amended to include interchange of passenger-carrying CMVs. In § 390.5, interchange is currently defined as the tendering of intermodal chassis to a motor carrier; that meaning is retained as paragraph (1), and paragraph (2) is added to describe the exchange of passenger-carrying CMVs between motor carriers continuing a through movement on a particular route. We have also included a cross-reference to § 376.2, where the same terms are defined for purposes of the lease and interchange of property-carrying vehicles.

Section 390.21(e), dealing with the marking of rented CMVs for periods of 30 calendar days or less, is amended to limit its application to “property-carrying CMVs,” as intended when this paragraph was adopted in 1990 in response to a petition from the Truck Rental and Leasing Association. The Federal Highway Administration noted in the preamble to the final rule that “[t]he petition articulated compliance problems with a segment of the trucking industry that had not been considered during the promulgation of the marking requirement.” Paragraph (e) was added to provide an alternative method for compliance with the previous marking requirements in § 390.21 (55 FR 6991, February 28, 1990). Under today's rule, that alternative method is not available in the case of rented passenger-carrying CMVs.

Instead, current paragraphs (f) and (g) of § 390.21 are redesignated as paragraphs (g) and (h), and a new paragraph (f) is added to cover the marking of Leased and interchanged passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles. The marking in new paragraph (f) must meet the requirements of § 390.21(b) Nature of marking, (c) Size, shape, location, and color of marking, except that marking is required only on the right (curb) side of the vehicle on or near the front passenger door, and (d) Construction and durability. Carriers operating leased or interchanged passenger-carrying CMVs as defined in § 390.5 must also display a placard, sign, or other permanent or removable device on the right (curb) side of the passenger-carrying CMV on or near the front passenger door. The device must show the name and USDOT number of the carrier operating the vehicle, preceded by the words “operated by,” e.g., “Operated by ABC Motorcoach, Inc., USDOT 12345678.”

The final rule adds to part 390 a new subpart F entitled “Lease and Interchange of Passenger-Carrying Commercial Motor Vehicles.” The “Applicability” statement in § 390.301(a) makes clear that—with the exceptions noted—the subpart applies to all leases or interchanges of passenger-carrying CMVs between motor carriers, no matter how brief. Paragraph (b), however, explains (1) that the rule does not cover leases between carriers and vehicle manufacturers or dealers (providing they are not themselves motor carriers) because most of these contracts are likely to be in the nature of purchase agreements, unlike the routine or casual transfers of vehicles between passenger carriers to meet temporary fluctuations in demand; (2) that leases and receipts are not required when passenger vehicles are exchanged between or among commonly owned and controlled motor carriers; and (3) that leases and receipts are not required when passenger carriers that are party to a revenue pooling agreement approved by the Surface Transportation Board exchange or interchange passenger vehicles between or among themselves on routes subject to the pooling agreement and mark the vehicle appropriately. Paragraph (c) provides that if the use of a passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicle requires a lease, but the motor carriers fail to make the lease or fail to meet all applicable requirements of subpart F, both motor carriers shall be subject to a civil penalty specified in 49 CFR part 386, Appendix B, paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(3).

Section 390.303 specifies the contents of lease and interchange documents. Paragraph (a)(1) requires a written lease or interchange document, or a written agreement covering any less formal temporary transfer of a passenger-carrying CMV.

Paragraph (a)(2) creates an exception to the requirement that the lease or interchange agreement be signed before the vehicle is operated under the terms of the agreement. When a passenger vehicle is disabled during a trip, the lessor and lessee of the replacement vehicle may postpone the completion of a written lease for up to 48 hours.

Paragraph (b) requires the lease, interchange agreement, or other agreement to contain: (1) The name of the vehicle manufacturer, the year of manufacture, and the last 6 digits of the Vehicle Identification Number; (2) the legal names, contact information, and signatures of both parties; (3) the time and date when the lease begins and ends and other specific information; (4) a statement that the lessee has exclusive possession and control of the leased vehicle and is responsible for regulatory compliance; and (5) a statement that the lessee is responsible for compliance with the insurance requirements of 49 CFR part 387.

Paragraph (c) requires an original and two copies of each lease, etc., with one copy to be kept on the leased passenger vehicle. The parties may prepare, sign, exchange, and maintain the lease (and any other documents required by this rule) in electronic 8 or paper format. Leases generated, exchanged, or maintained using electronic methods do not satisfy FMCSA requirements unless they are legible and capable of being retained and accurately reproduced for reference by any party entitled to access them.

Paragraph (d) requires that copies of each lease or other agreement or statement must be retained for one year after expiration of the lease or agreement.

Paragraph (e) includes detailed requirements for the preparation of receipts when vehicles are surrendered to the lessee and returned to the lessor.

Paragraph (f) specifies how the leased equipment is to be marked and identified in leases or other agreements.

Section 390.305 requires that, when a passenger carrier with an original charter contract leases vehicles from a subcontractor carrier to perform the charter, it must notify the charter party within 24 hours after hiring the subcontractor that the transportation will be provided by the subcontractor.

FMCSA has determined that this action is a non-significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 18, 2011), and DOT regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 1103, February 26, 1979). The estimated economic costs of the rule do not exceed the $100 million annual threshold. Moreover, the Agency does not expect the rule to generate substantial congressional or public interest. This rule has not been reviewed formally by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Due to the lack of data that would enable FMCSA to quantify the safety benefits of this final rule, the separate Regulatory Evaluation in the docket relies upon a threshold analysis. There are no statistical or empirical studies that directly link the written documentation of a vehicle lease agreement to enhanced motor carrier safety. And though the Agency has described above the many practical, informational, and administrative benefits of this final rule, it is unable to quantify its safety benefits, typically measured in terms of avoided crashes. In accordance with OMB guidance (Circular A-4),9 a Federal regulatory agency has the option to conduct a threshold analysis in lieu of a cost-benefit analysis in cases in which either the benefits (as in this case) or the costs are unquantifiable, or difficult to quantify. A threshold analysis estimates the quantified costs of a rule in terms of the non-quantified benefits (in this instance, the number of passenger-carrier crashes that would have to be prevented by the rule to equal its costs). The rule is expected to provide safety benefits that are not directly or easily quantifiable. Hence, the estimated costs of the regulatory options in this final rule are compared to the number of passenger-carrier-related fatalities, currently estimated at $20.3 million per crash 10 during calendar year 2017 11 that would have to be avoided to make the rule cost-neutral.

Additionally, the final rule is expected to provide many practical benefits to the public and to FMCSA. These benefits include more effective oversight and enforcement, through proper identification of passenger carriers and proper documentation of lease agreements—both of which help ensure accurate identification of the carrier responsible and liable for operation of the leased vehicle. Additionally, the proper marking of vehicles provides useful information to the traveling public and State and Federal enforcement personnel.

Passenger carriers provide many types of service, including transit, school, charter, tour, sightseeing, airport shuttle, commuter, and scheduled intercity routes. The motorcoach industry, which largely provides scheduled service, charter, tour and sightseeing services, provided more than 637 million passenger trips in 2012. FMCSA has jurisdiction over 29,000 passenger carriers of various types, including, but not limited to, carriers that are authorized for-hire, exempt for-hire, private (business), and private (non-business).

The carrier population impacted by this rule consists of motor carriers transporting passengers in interstate commerce in CMVs that either (1) have a gross vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight of at least 10,001 pounds, whichever is greater; (2) are designed or used to transport more than 8 passengers (including the driver) for compensation; or (3) are designed or used to transport more than 15 passengers (including the driver) and are not used to transport passengers for compensation [49 U.S.C. 31132(1)(A)-(C)]. For purposes of the Regulatory Evaluation the total number of private carriers that meet the terms of § 31132(1)(C) (16+ passengers) was reduced by 90 percent because private passenger carriers do not lease vehicles to a significant degree.

Table 3 below shows the number of passenger carriers considered for such inclusion, based on the carrier population in FMCSA's Motor Carrier Management Information System as of June, 2014. Passenger motor carriers of five types are listed in Table 3 below: (1) For-hire motor carrier,12 authorized by FMCSA under 49 U.S.C. chapter 135; (2) For-hire motor carrier, exempt under 49 U.S.C. chapter 135, but subject to chapters 311, 313, and 315, and using CMVs designed to transport 9 or more passengers (including the driver); (3) For-hire motor carrier, exempt under 49 U.S.C. chapter 135, but subject to chapters 311, 313, and 315, and using CMVs designed to transport 16 or more passengers (including the driver); (4) Private motor carrier of passengers (business); 13 and (5) Private motor carrier of passengers (non-business).14 The private passenger carriers in categories (4) and (5) are reduced by 90 percent, as referred to in the previous paragraph and in the final rule's Regulatory Evaluation.15