Federal Register Vol. 80, No.40,

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA), Public Law 111-296, requires significant changes in the Child Nutrition Programs to prevent and reduce childhood obesity, give eligible children access to nutrition benefits, and enhance the ability of nutrition professionals to operate the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) efficiently. Section 306 of the HHFKA amended section 7 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (CNA) (42 U.S.C. 1776) by adding paragraph (g), “Professional Standards for School Food Service.” This provision is intended to ensure that school nutrition professionals that manage and operate the NSLP and SBP have adequate knowledge and training to meet Program requirements. Requiring proper qualifications to serve in the Child Nutrition Programs is expected to improve the quality of school meals, reduce errors, and enhance Program integrity.

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a proposed rule (79 FR 6488) on February 4, 2014, seeking to amend the regulations governing the NSLP (7 CFR part 210) and the State administrative expense funds (7 CFR part 235) consistent with amendments made to the CNA by the HHFKA. The rule proposed to establish national hiring standards and annual continuing education/training requirements for school nutrition professionals that manage and operate the NSLP and SBP.

In developing the proposed professional standards, FNS considered input from a variety of sources. First, in November 2011, FNS conducted a session at the State Agency Meeting for State Child Nutrition Directors and their staff members. At that session, the participants brought up a number of general issues for FNS to consider, including grandfathering (the practice of exempting existing personnel from the new requirements), monitoring by State agencies, and how the new requirements would relate to existing State and local standards.

On March 13-14, 2012, FNS held a two-day listening session with approximately 60 invited stakeholders representing a variety of State agencies, local educational agencies (LEAs), professional associations and other constituencies concerned with standards affecting child nutrition professionals. The stakeholders provided suggestions for FNS to consider regarding required and preferred professional standards, and offered input on potential challenges and on use of resources to successfully implement national standards.

As follow-up to the March session, interested participants volunteered to continue providing input via conference calls. Participants on the calls included State and district directors, professional organizations, and FNS staff. Calls focused on three topics: Criteria and standards for hiring State agency directors; minimum education and training requirements for school nutrition directors; and training requirements for school nutrition managers and other staff. FNS conducted the conference calls in the five months following the listening session.

FNS also received feedback from attendees at the School Nutrition Association's Annual National Conference in July 2012 and July 2013. The audience, which consisted of State agency directors and staff, school nutrition directors, managers and other personnel, provided significant input for the proposed professional standards.

As a result of the stakeholders' feedback, FNS developed proposed professional standards consisting of minimum educational requirements for new State directors and school nutrition program directors, and annual continuing education/training requirements for all school nutrition personnel. These proposed standards for State directors are summarized in the following two charts and discussed later in the preamble:

For employees at the local level, FNS proposed minimum educational requirements for new school nutrition program directors only, based on an LEA size/student enrollment (LEAs with 2,499 students or less, LEAs with 2,500-9,999 students, LEAs with 10,000-24,999 students, and LEAs with 25,000 or more students). The proposed hiring standards are intended to apply to the school food authority (SFA), which is the governing body that has the legal authority to operate the school meal programs. In addition, FNS proposed annual continuing education/training requirements for all SFA employees. The proposed standards for SFA employees are summarized in the following two charts and discussed later in the preamble:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2009-20-05, Amendment 39-16028 (74 FR 49795, September 29, 2009). AD 2009-20-05 applied to certain Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2014 (79 FR 13925).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0118, dated July 4, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on the specified products. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 13925, March 12, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Airbus and United Airlines (UAL) requested that we reference Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1195, Revision 05, dated November 22, 2013; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1196, Revision 04, dated November 22, 2013; as appropriate sources of service information.

We agree with the commenters' requests to reference Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1195, Revision 05, dated November 22, 2013; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1196, Revision 04, dated November 22, 2013; as appropriate sources of service information for accomplishing the required actions in this AD. No additional work is specified by these service bulletin revisions for airplanes modified by any previous issue. We added a new paragraph (l) to this AD and redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly. New paragraph (l) gives credit for actions accomplished using certain service information before the effective date of this AD.

We have revised paragraph (i)(1) of this AD to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1195, Revision 05, dated November 22, 2013, and added paragraph (l)(1) to this AD to give credit for actions accomplished previously using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1195, Revision 03, dated November 8, 2011; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1195, Revision 04, dated August 22, 2012.

We have revised paragraph (i)(2) of this AD to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1196, Revision 04, dated November 22, 2013; and added paragraph (l)(2) to this AD to give credit for actions accomplished using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1196, Revision 02, dated November 8, 2011; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1196, Revision 03, dated August 22, 2012.

UAL requested that we revise paragraph (k) of the proposed AD (79 FR 13925, March 12, 2014) to reference Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/S-M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 10, dated October 2009; or Issue 11, dated September 2010; in addition to Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitations Items (DT ALI), Revision 01, dated April 4, 2012. UAL stated that Task 533154-02-1 of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitations Items (DT ALI), Revision 01, dated April 4, 2012, is “superseded by Airbus Service Bulletins A320-53-1195 and A320-53-1196.” UAL explained that operators that comply with Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitations Items (DT ALI), Revision 01, dated April 4, 2012, should already have removed Task 533154-02-1 from their maintenance/inspection programs. UAL also explained that operators might not have Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitations Items (DT ALI), Revision 01, dated April 4, 2012, in their maintenance/inspection programs and instead might have Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 10, dated October 2009; or Issue 11, dated September 2010.

We agree with the commenter's request to refer to Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 10, dated October 2009; or Issue 11, dated September 2010; in paragraph (k) of this AD. This revision will ensure that the actions specified by Task 533154-02-1 are removed from an operator's maintenance inspection program.

UAL requested that we not require reporting, as described in the service information, if no damage and/or cracks are found during the inspection of the hinge fittings. UAL stated that reporting has insignificant value and is a burden on the operator. UAL explained that, since the inspections must be repetitively accomplished, the rate of reporting no findings will be significant without adding valued information, and that any damage/cracks will be reported to Airbus when they are contacted for repair approval.

We disagree with the commenter's request to remove the reporting action required by this AD. A reporting requirement is instrumental in ensuring that we can gather as much information as possible regarding the extent and nature of the identified unsafe condition, especially in cases where that data may not be available through other established means. Also, the commenter did not provided any rationale concerning how eliminating the reporting requirement will ensure that future service information from Airbus will continue to maintain operational safety of the fleet. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

UAL requested that we remove the statement “for a repair method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD” in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD (79 FR 13925, March 12, 2014). UAL stated that this statement could have a significant impact on the financial cost and customer support between the operator and Airbus. UAL also stated that this statement should be removed for those general reasons stated in A4A's comment on the same topic in NPRM 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), which stated, among other justifications, that “The added costs for this AD and all that may follow bearing the new procedural wording represent an unfair burden placed solely on U.S. registered aircraft.”

We concur with the commenter's request to remove the requirement to include the AD reference in repair approvals. Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD. The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.

In the NPRM (79 FR 13925, March 12, 2014), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase “its delegated agent” to include “the Design Approval Holder (DAH) with a State of Design Authority's design organization approval (DOA)” to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the AD.

Comments were provided to the NPRM (79 FR 13925, March 12, 2014) and to an NPRM referenced by the commenter (i.e., Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013)) about these proposed changes. One commenter to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD, United Parcel Service (UPS), stated the following: “The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.”

This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, EASA, or Airbus's EASA DOA.

The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.

This clarification does not remove flexibility afforded previously by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the AD Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance.

Other commenters to NPRM 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) pointed out that in many cases the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the foreign authority's MCAI may have been issued some time before the FAA AD. Therefore, the DOA may have provided U.S. operators with an approved repair, developed with full awareness of the unsafe condition, before the FAA AD is issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with the FAA AD, the operator would be required to go back to the manufacturer's DOA and obtain a new approval document, adding time and expense to the compliance process with no safety benefit.

Based on these comments, we removed the requirement from this AD that the DAH-provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a requirement in the future, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals consider the unsafe condition addressed in an AD. Any such requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process, including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate.

We have also decided not to include a generic reference to either the “delegated agent” or the “DAH with State of Design Authority design organization approval,” but instead we will provide the specific delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the DAH.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 13925, March 12, 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 13925, March 12, 2014).

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

We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1195, Revision 05, dated November 22, 2013, which describes procedures for inspections of the MLG door actuator fittings on the keel beam, and corrective actions if necessary. We also reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1196, Revision 04, dated November 22, 2013, which describes procedures for inspections of the MLG door hinge fitting on the keel beam, and corrective actions if necessary. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

We estimate that this AD affects 851 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions that are required by AD 2009-20-05, Amendment 39-16028 (74 FR 49795, September 29, 2009), and retained in this AD take about 28 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2009-20-05 is $2,380 per product.

We also estimate that it will take about 26 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $1,880,710, or $2,210 per product.

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

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.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0139; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes, Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 8, 2014 (79 FR 19296).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0193, dated August 23, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes, Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0189-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 19296, April 8, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

United Parcel Service (UPS) asked that we remove the requirement to include the AD reference in repair approvals, as specified in paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD (79 FR 19296, April 8, 2014), which states “For a repair to be approved, the repair must specifically refer to this AD.” UPS stated the following: “The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of a mandated Airbus service bulletin.” UPS added that this will result in an increase in alternative method of compliance (AMOC) requests.

We agree with the commenter's request to remove the requirement that repair approvals specifically refer to this AD, from this AD.

Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD. The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.

In the NPRM (79 FR 19296, April 8, 2014), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase “its delegated agent” to include “the Design Approval Holder (DAH) with a State of Design Authority's design organization approval (DOA)” to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the AD.

As stated previously, UPS commented that: “The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.” This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, EASA, or Airbus's EASA DOA.

The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer, that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.

This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an AMOC.

Commenters to an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) pointed out that in many cases the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the foreign authority's MCAI may have been issued some time before the FAA AD. Therefore, the DOA may have provided U.S. operators with an approved repair, developed with full awareness of the unsafe condition, before the FAA AD is issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with the FAA AD, the operator would be required to go back to the manufacturer's DOA and obtain a new approval document, adding time and expense to the compliance process with no safety benefit.

Based on these comments, we removed the requirement from this AD that the DAH-provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a requirement in the future, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals consider the unsafe condition addressed in an AD. Any such requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process, including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate.

We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either the “delegated agent” or the “DAH with State of Design Authority design organization approval,” but instead we have provided the specific delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the DAH.

UPS asked that we extend the compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (79 FR 19296, April 8, 2014) from 30 to 36 months. UPS stated that it expects to accomplish the inspection during its existing C-check interval, which is 30 months. UPS added that in order to perform the inspection and repair at its major maintenance facility during C-checks, it requires an additional 6 months to allow for planning, preparation, and prototyping of the service information. UPS noted that this additional time is for the prototyping effort necessary when a project is initiated; UPS has determined that service information is often revised during accomplishment of the required actions, which makes it difficult to maintain regular maintenance schedules. Therefore, UPS must schedule special visit check lines for accomplishing the actions.

We do not agree with the commenter's request to extend the compliance time. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for the timely accomplishment of the inspection and subsequent modification. In consideration of these items, as well as the possibility of chafing of the overflow sensor harness, we have determined that a 30-month compliance time will ensure an acceptable level of safety and allow the modification to be done during scheduled maintenance intervals for most affected operators. However, under the provisions of paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

FedEx Express asked that we allow the use of UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin V-1577 for accomplishing the actions in the NPRM (79 FR 19296, April 8, 2014). FedEx Express stated that it operates 71 Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes, and 65 of those airplanes have had the in-tank fuel quantity system modified by a certain supplemental type certificate (STC), which means Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6109, Revision 01, dated December 20, 2013 (referred to as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the actions), cannot be used to accomplish the proposed actions. However, FedEx Express noted that six of its airplanes have the production in-tank fuel quantity system installed, and the referenced service information can be used for those airplanes. FedEx Express stated that the UTC Aerospace Systems service bulletin has not been issued yet; however, after issuance it should be included in the NPRM as a source of service information for accomplishing the proposed actions in order to mitigate the unsafe condition.

We partially agree with the commenter. We agree that airplanes that have had the in-tank fuel quantity system modified by STC ST00092BO (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/D41C5AE8E46B4901862574900069E004?OpenDocument&Highlight=st00092bo) cannot accomplish the actions proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 19296, April 8, 2014) by using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6109, Revision 01, dated December 20, 2013. Since the issuance of the NPRM, UTC Aerospace Systems has issued service bulletin 300723-28-03 (V-1577), dated October 10, 2014, to address the unsafe condition for airplanes that have been modified by supplemental type certificate ST00092BO.

We do not agree to revise this AD to require UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 300723-28-03 (V-1577), dated October 10, 2014. Instead, we are considering separate rulemaking to require the procedures and compliance time specified in UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 300723-28-03 (V-1577), dated October 10, 2014, for airplanes modified by STC ST00092BO. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (c) of this AD by removing airplanes modified by STC ST00092BO from the applicability of this AD.

FedEx Express asked that Revision 02 of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6109 be included for accomplishing the actions in the NPRM (79 FR 19296, April 8, 2014) before the final rule is issued. FedEx Express stated that it reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6109, Revision 01, dated December 20, 2013, and submitted its findings to Airbus for incorporation into upcoming Revision 02 before issuance. FedEx Express added that its intent in doing so was to prevent future requests for AMOCs to the FAA.

We disagree with the commenter's request to include Revision 02 of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6109. We are aware that Airbus is considering revising Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6109, Revision 01, dated December 20, 2013, to incorporate feedback received from FedEx Express in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. We will consider approving Revision 02 of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6109 as an AMOC to the actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, once this service bulletin is released. However, we find that delaying this AD action would be inappropriate in light of the urgency of the identified unsafe condition. Therefore, no change has been made to this AD in this regard.

FedEx Express asked for clarification as to whether the Required for Compliance (RC) note identified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6109, Revision 01, dated December 20, 2013, is applicable to the actions specified in the NPRM (79 FR 19296, April 8, 2014) and EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0193, dated August 23, 2013.

We acknowledge the commenter's concern and provide the following clarification:

The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directives Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement is a new process for annotating which steps in the service information are “required for compliance” with an AD. Differentiating these steps from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner's and operator's understanding of AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. In response to the AD Implementation ARC, the FAA released AC 20-176, Revision A, dated June 16, 2014, (http://rgl.avs.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/a78cc91a47b192278625796b0075f419/$FILE/AC%2020-176.pdf); and Order 8110.117 (http://rgl.avs.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/984bb9eb07cdd86986257a7f0070744c/$FILE/Order%208110.117.pdf), which include the concept of RC. The FAA has begun implementing this concept in ADs when we receive service information containing RC steps. Therefore, the RC note does apply to the actions required by this AD when using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6109, Revision 01, dated December 20, 2013, to accomplish the required actions. We do not have information concerning how EASA implements the RC concept in its ADs.

We split paragraph (j)(1) and redesignated the content as paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(1)(i) of this AD, and added paragraph (j)(1)(ii) to this AD to reflect information concerning the RC concept and to explain when it is necessary to request approval of an AMOC.

Paragraph (g) of this AD has been revised to clarify the inspection type as a one-time general visual inspection.

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 and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 19296, April 8, 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 19296, April 8, 2014).

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

We reviewed Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletins A300-28-0091, dated March 5, 2013; and A300-28-6109, Revision 01, dated December 20, 2013. This service information describes procedures for a one-time inspection for chafing of the overflow sensor harness, and contacting the manufacturer for repair instructions. This service information also describes modification of the sensor harness. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

We estimate that this AD affects 123 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it takes about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the inspection required by this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this inspection on U.S. operators to be $31,365, or $255 per product.

We estimate that it takes about 12 work-hours per product to comply with the modification requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $500 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this modification on U.S. operators to be $186,960, or $1,520 per product.

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this AD.

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.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0189; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

Restricted area R-2936, West Palm Beach, FL, was established to contain test firings of components for the main engines of the Space Shuttle (55 FR 5981) May 3, 1990. During test firings, hydrogen gas was released through an exhaust stack generating significant turbulence and high air temperatures that could be hazardous to aircraft up to 10,000 feet. The restricted area using agency informed the FAA there are no plans for further hazardous testing in the area. Therefore, the FAA is taking this action to remove restricted area R-2936.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 by removing restricted area R-2936, West Palm Beach, FL. The using agency notified the FAA that they no longer require the restricted area for hazardous activities.

Because this action removes restricted airspace no longer needed, and returns the airspace to the NAS, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.

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

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

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it returns restricted airspace that is no longer needed for its designated purpose to the NAS in the West Palm Beach, FL area.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 311c. This action returns restricted airspace to the National Airspace System. It is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

On January 6, 1994, the FAA amended restricted areas R-3801A, R-3801B, and R-3801C to reflect “U.S. Air Force, 917 Fighter Wing, Barksdale AFB, LA” as the using agency. Due to multiple U.S. Air Force organizational initiatives since 1994, the 917th Fighter Wing changed to the 917th Wing and then to the 917th Fighter Group. As a result of the 917th Fighter Group deactivating in 2013, the using agency responsibilities were transferred within the U.S. Air Force to the 307th Bomb Wing at Barksdale AFB, where they remain today.

The organizational changes listed above did not alter the location, size, or use of the restricted areas from the current parameters.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 by updating the using agency name for restricted areas R-3801A, R-3801B, and R-3801C, Camp Claiborne, LA. The name change is due to an organizational transfer of restricted area using agency responsibilities within the U.S. Air Force. This is an administrative change that does not affect the boundaries, designated altitudes, or activities conducted within the restricted areas; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

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

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

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the technical descriptions of restricted areas to ensure that accurate information is available to the flying public for the Camp Claiborne, LA, area.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 311d. This airspace action is an administrative change to the description of restricted areas R-3801A, R-3801B, and R-3801C to update the using agency name. It does not alter the dimensions, altitudes, time of designation, or use of the airspace; therefore, it is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

On December 15, 2014, the FAA published a final rule; technical amendment in the Federal Register that made minor adjustments to the boundary descriptions of restricted areas R-2932, R-2933, R-2934 and R-2935 at Cape Canaveral, FL (79 FR 74016). Subsequent to publication, it was determined that one latitude/longitude coordinate had been omitted from the boundary description of restricted area R-2935. The omission causes a slight gap between the boundaries of R-2935 and adjacent restricted areas. This correction inserts “lat. 28°25′01″ N., long 80°37′59″ W.,” between the points “lat. 28°25′01″ N., long. 80°41′44″ W.,” and “lat. 28°24′31″ N., long. 80°29′52″ W.”

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the boundary description of restricted area R-2935 Cape Canaveral, FL, as published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2014 (79 FR 74016) (FR Doc. 2014-29268) is corrected under the description as follows:

Background

In 2008, the FAA promulgated several amendments to the flight recorder regulations of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (73 FR 12542, March 7, 2008; Docket No. FAA-2005-20245). Those regulations amended the requirements for cockpit voice recorders (CVR) and digital flight data recorders (DFDR) and affected certain air carriers, operators, and aircraft manufacturers. In amending the regulations, the FAA increased the duration of certain CVR recordings; increased the data recording rate for certain DFDR parameters; required the physical separation of the DFDR and CVR; required improved reliability of the power supplies to both the CVR and DFDR; and required that datalink communications to or from an aircraft be recorded if datalink communication (DLC) equipment is installed. The changes were based on recommendations issued by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) following its investigations of several accidents and incidents, and included other revisions the FAA determined necessary. These changes to CVR and DFDR systems were intended to improve the quality and quantity of information recorded and retained for accident and incident investigations.

When the rule was promulgated, the FAA recognized that emergent DLC technology was changing the equipment and means used by pilots to communicate. While the 2008 regulations did not mandate the installation of datalink communication equipment, the FAA recognized the value of the data communications on the aircraft equipped with DLC, and the need for communicated data to be recorded.

In the preamble to the 2008 final rule, the FAA discussed a range of comments received about datalink communications, including compatibility with international standards, compliance time, recording capacities, and the application of the requirement to existing datalink capabilities. Many of the FAA's responses to those comments indicated that the requirement to record would depend on the dates of certification, whether the certification was at manufacture or was a retrofit, the extent of equipment installation and functionality, the scope of the message set and changes made to it. In retaining the installation of DLC as optional, but making recording mandatory at installation, the FAA expected that the expansion of datalink technology and its increasing value to operators would result in routine recordation of the communications.

Since 2010, implementation of the Controller Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) recording requirement has become more complex than anticipated. The FAA has been presented with a greater number of discrete aircraft equipment installations than expected when the rule was promulgated. As such, individual decisions on whether the recording rule applied have become difficult to make consistently within the scope of our original guidance. At issue are aircraft that were manufactured before the effective date of the rule (December 6, 2010) that require widely varying levels of additional CPDLC equipment or software to be fully functional.

The regulation requires recordation of the data on the CVR, and was added to the CVR sections of various operating rules in 14 CFR. These regulations were linked to the certification regulations for the particular aircraft, which refer to an approved data message set that must be recorded from the communications unit that translates the signal into data usable by the flight crew (in most cases the flight management system). Rather than define a specific message set, the FAA intended that the requirement be performance based to account for the differing needs and equipage of operators and the evolution of data capabilities.

There are two guidance documents that apply to datalink communications. First, Advisory Circular, AC 20-160—Onboard Recording of Controller Pilot Data Link Communication (CPDLC) in Crash Survivable Memory, identifies CPDLC messages that may be approved for inclusion in an approved message set. We regularly review this document as new DLC systems and capabilities are developed, the need for specific information changes, and coordination with other international regulating entities occurs.

The second guidance document is an FAA information bulletin, InFO 10016, released August 16, 2010, which was intended to present in more detail the circumstances that make the recordation requirement applicable to a specific aircraft. When applied to individual aircraft, however, the guidance documents raised unanticipated questions regarding when the requirement would apply, including the effect of equipment changes, and whether the timing of certain changes could alter the applicability of the recording requirement.

For example, while the FAA recognized that there were aircraft with DLC system design approvals established before the effective date of the rule, the question arose whether simple activation of the same system (such as by a software modification) would make recording mandatory. Since the system designs were approved prior to the rule, they would not have included DLC recording as part of the initial certification requirements, either for the system or the message set. The InFO included guidance on upgrading existing aircraft with DLC recording capability, which included a decision process requiring consideration of multiple factors, such as the date of manufacture of the aircraft, whether installation of both a CVR and a flight data recorder were required, the date of installation of any datalink equipment on the aircraft, whether the datalink equipment had an approved message set, whether a supplemental type certificate was required to install or activate the datalink equipment, and whether a software change alone was sufficient to make the data link recording requirement applicable to a particular aircraft.

Since the 2008 rules were promulgated, domestic CPDLC has expanded and evolved, and is poised to become a significant means to enhance safety, efficiency and capacity in the domestic national airspace system (NAS). The FAA is now actively promoting the use of this technology, and has invested in the Data Communications Program (Data Comm) to provide more robust DLC services between pilots and air traffic controllers. Data Comm will provide a data link between the ground and flight deck avionics for safety-of-flight air traffic control clearances, instructions, traffic flow management messages, flight crew requests, and reports. Data Comm has also become a core component of NextGen, as Data Comm provides needed enhancements for communication infrastructure. Data Comm is expected to reduce the impact of ground delays that result from airport reconfigurations, weather, and congestion; reduce communication errors; improve controller and pilot efficiency through automated information exchange; enable broader use of NextGen services (e.g., enhanced re-routes, trajectory operations); and increase controller productivity, leading to increased NAS capacity.

The FAA is developing data communications capability in two phases. Segment 1 Phase 1 (S1P1) will deploy the CPDLC departure clearance capability in the tower domain. Segment 1 Phase 2 (S1P2) will deliver data communications services to the en route domain (such as airborne reroutes, transfer of communications/initial check-in, and direct-to-fix routing). A second segment enhancing these services is also planned. Collectively, these services will contribute to a reduction in flight delays, reduced environmental impacts, and more efficient routes for aircraft resulting in increased operational efficiency, added flexibility, and enhanced safety. In order to realize the benefits of Data Comm in the NAS domestically, additional aircraft beyond those that currently support Data Comm in the Oceanic airspace are needed.

As part of the equipage initiative to support Data Comm, operators seeking to incorporate DLC equipment through the FAA-sponsored Data Comm program have reported that current interpretations of the rule and the guidance materials have resulted in an inconsistent determination of when DLC recordation is required on individual aircraft. The resulting uncertainty has delayed the installation of DLC equipment, with operators reporting significant costs to modify aircraft to record this data if the aircraft is not already equipped with the necessary wiring and upgraded information management systems. The difficulties and inconsistencies in application of the recordation criteria are reducing industry participation in the Data Comm program. As part of the NexGen Implementation Working Group (NIWG) activities in 2014, industry representatives noted that their declining participation in the Data Comm program was the result of the additional cost of the recording equipment, further delaying the goal of the fleet size needed to make the system effective.

In 2014, the NIWG recommended that the Performance-based Operations Rulemaking Committee (PARC) develop a recommendation on the recording rule and present it to the FAA. The PARC is an FAA-sponsored rulemaking committee that has both the FAA and aviation community at large among its members, and which makes recommendations to FAA management on the issues it addresses. Since 2005, the PARC has maintained a Communications Working Group (CWG) to address the implementation of aeronautical communications systems. In 2012, the PARC CWG began a review of airborne datalink recording capabilities.

The interplay of the recording regulation and the implementation of NextGen were confirmed by the findings of the PARC in its report it submitted to the FAA in October 2014. The FAA met with the PARC CWG and the Data Comm program participants and came to the conclusions already discussed—that determining whether datalink recording is required on individual aircraft manufactured before the effective date of the rule is difficult, resulting in confused and inconsistent decision making; and that the Datalink Recording (DLR) equipage policy defined in the current InFO 10016 leaves questions as to whether certain equipment changes and revisions to DLC systems and certification documentation caused the recordation requirement to apply.

Since datalink recording itself was still optional under the 2008 regulation, and the use of datalink communication was still limited, neither the recording requirement nor the guidance focused on the cost of the installing recording equipment or on the safety benefits of DLC use. The optional installation and varied use on in-service aircraft left the FAA unable to estimate whether, when, or how many existing aircraft would install DLC systems with CPDLC functionality. The FAA anticipated that the economic benefits of DLC to an operator would be the determining factor in a decision whether to install it at all. With the recent input of the NIWG and the PARC, the economic impact of installing a required DLC recording system is becoming better understood. Cost data have been collected from the airline partners that are participating in the Data Comm program and the PARC. The reported cost for installing the recording functions is $135,000 per aircraft. The costs associated with equipping an aircraft manufactured before 2010 with datalink recording were approximated as follows:

While the efficiency benefits of CPDLC had been projected and quantified in several studies that were available at the time of the rulemaking, the safety benefits had not been the subject of similar study. In 2012, the FAA began a preliminary analysis on the potential safety benefits arising from the implementation of two systems, the Future Air Navigation System (FANS 1/A) CPDLC and Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Contract (ADS-C), and presented the results to the North Atlantic Safety Analysis Reduced Separation Implementation Group (NAT SARSIG) in 2012. As the summary of discussions and conclusions of the meeting states, “These preliminary results indicated a significant potential for enhancing safety in the International Civil Aviation Organization North Atlantic Region (ICAO NAT) Region, particularly in the vertical dimension.” (See Appendix L to the Summary of Discussions of the NAT SARSIG Sixteenth Meeting, October 2012, included in the docket for this notice). The NAT SARSIG indicated that projected safety benefits include improved conformance monitoring and intervention capability through early detection and resolution of errors via integrated FANS 1/A CPDLC and ADS-C; a reduction in errors associated with manual pilot data entry of clearances resulting from the ability to load data link clearances directly into the Flight Management System (FMS); and a reduction in the duration of loss of communication between aircraft and air traffic control (ATC) when transferring ATC contact by using a reviewable message.

The ability to send reviewable messages is expected to significantly reduce several communications errors, such as read-back and hear-back errors, lack of read-back and hear-back, and audio interruptions. These types of communications errors impact ATC operations. As an example, failure to comply with an assigned altitude may result from not hearing the communication, hearing it incorrectly, or ATC not hearing a reply.

In its report, the PARC recommended first that the FAA clarify its guidance material to indicate that the recordation requirement does not apply to certain cases of datalink retrofit including those aircraft (1) that have an existing certified datalink capability; (2) that can activate a datalink capability that was certified before the effective date of the rule; and (3) that modify installation modifications to certified data link capability that do not change the FANS 1/A or ATN B1 interoperability. The PARC also recommended that the FAA go further and revise the regulations to exclude any aircraft manufactured before the effective date of the rule from the requirement to record datalink communications messages, regardless of the date of installation of the DLC equipment. Finally, the PARC recommended that the FAA work with the European Aviation Safety Agency and ICAO to continue harmonizing data link recording rules, their applicability, and timelines.

The FAA has reviewed the PARC report and discussed the issue with various aviation organizations. Based on the data and recommendations received, the FAA concluded that a significant need for clarification and revision of current policy exits. The agency and the industry have made significant investment in data communications. These systems are expected to reduce communication errors and improve safety in the NAS as they enhance NAS efficiency and capacity.

The FAA better understands the cost of installing DLR systems on aircraft that were designed and manufactured before the regulation was promulgated and no provisions for DLC recording were available. Most aircraft produced after the effective date of the rule have the base mechanisms for DLC already installed at manufacture, which significantly decreases the cost and impact of incorporating a recording component. Accordingly, the policy changes announced in this document are applicable to aircraft that were manufactured before December 6, 2010 (or April 6, 2012, if complying with part 91).

The FAA agrees that the complexity of the current guidance has resulted in inconsistent application of the rule. The recording regulation was not intended to discourage the installation of datalink capability, and its applicability should not depend on the subjective interpretation of factors as minor as the day a previously installed system was turned on or the scope of changes to a previously approved DLC system. In order to maximize the safety and efficiency benefits of DLC use in the NAS, the FAA is simplifying its guidance regarding the applicability of the recording requirement for aircraft that were manufactured before the effective date of the rule.

The target aircraft for this policy change represent approximately 30% of the current U.S. fleet operating under parts 121 and 135, as reported by the PARC. These 2,116 aircraft were manufactured prior to 2010 and had a certified DLC system that was available before the recordation rule became effective. This number will gradually decrease as these older aircraft are retired and replaced. Since DLC recordation was not required when these aircraft were manufactured, none of the messages associated with those certified systems were identified, making application of the regulation difficult and inconsistent. The FAA forecasts that by 2020, 34% of the U.S. fleet (approximately 2,200) will consist of aircraft manufactured after 2010 that have DLC recording capability.

While this policy update is effective on publication, the FAA seeks comment from interested persons regarding the application of the policy to affected operators. We are particularly interested in comments identifying the make/model/series of aircraft that had a certified DLC design approval prior to the effective date of the rule, and any information regarding the economic impacts of the prior and revised polices, and descriptions of circumstances for which application of the regulation remains unclear following this policy update.

Datalink recording requirements are found in the operating regulations of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), specifically in § 91.609, effective April 6, 2012; and in §§ 121.359, 125.227 and 135.151, effective December 6, 2010. These regulations each require that the subject airplanes or rotorcraft that install datalink communication equipment on or after [the effective date of the rule], must record all datalink messages as required by the certification rule applicable to the aircraft.

This policy statement clarifies how the FAA defines the phrase “install datalink communication equipment” for purposes of the recordation requirement. Clarification of this policy and FAA guidance material is intended to assist FAA personnel and aircraft operators in determining when datalink recording is required.

The term “datalink communication equipment” as used in these regulations, means all of the components installed on the aircraft that are necessary to complete data communications. The equipment may vary for individual aircraft, but could include the Flight Management Computer; Communications Management Unit (CMU), or equipment with an equivalent function that hosts an approved message set (e.g., CPDLC application), the datalink router (e.g., hosted in the CMU) that routes the messages to the radios, any radios (e.g., VHF, HF Datalink, Satcom) that are used to transmit the messages using an approved message set, and any antennas associated with these radios.

In applying this regulation, aircraft are divided into two groups: Those manufactured on or after the effective date of the rule, and those manufactured before that date.

Those airplanes or rotorcraft manufactured on or after the effective date, must record all datalink communications when both of the following conditions are met:

• The aircraft is required to have both a cockpit voice recorder and a flight data recorder; and

• The aircraft has datalink equipment installed that uses an approved message set (see FAA Advisory Circular 20-160).

Those airplanes or rotorcraft manufactured before the effective date of the rule must record all datalink communications when both of the following conditions are met:

• The aircraft is required to have both a cockpit voice recorder and a flight data recorder; and

• The MAKE/MODEL/SERIES of the aircraft did not have any certified DLC equipment installation design approval (providing one or more of the messages identified in AC 20-160) prior to the effective date of the rule.

The FAA InFO 10016 dated August 16, 2010 is cancelled. A revised InFO reflecting the policy changes noted here is under development and will be posted on the FAA Web site when completed.

On November 1, 2011, NOAA issued final regulations revising permit criteria for Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (76 FR 67348). NOAA inadvertently excluded existing paragraphs (d) through (h) in section 922.153 from the regulatory text as a result of mistaken directions given to the Government Publishing Office, which is responsible for publishing the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Instead of amending only paragraphs (a) through (c) of that section, per the 2011 rulemaking, NOAA instructed GPO to revise section 922.153 in its entirety, thus replacing all existing regulatory text with sections (a) through (c). The missing paragraphs of regulatory text are essential to inform regulated entities of NOAA's responsibilities toward treaty Indian tribes and their cultural and tribal resources. NOAA's responsibility to federally recognized Indian tribes, their cultural and treaty resources may affect both the processing and determinations of applications to conduct activities in the Sanctuary.

The missing paragraphs (d) through (h) can be found in a previous final rule in 60 FR 66875, published on December 27, 1995 and at 15 CFR 922.153 (2011).

Evidence that this deletion of paragraphs (d) through (h) was an inadvertent procedural error can be drawn from NOAA's absence of discussion on these changes in the preambles of both the proposed and final rules, as well as the absence of analysis in the associated environmental assessment prepared according to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The plain language of the prior rule should have guided the public's knowledge and expectations of regulated entities proposing activities in the Sanctuary. Without the missing paragraphs, those expectations would be conflicted. Accordingly, NOAA is publishing this technical correction as a correcting amendment without notice and comment. This rule reinstates paragraphs (d) through (h) of section 922.153.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of the meaning of Executive Order 12866.

The Assistant Administrator of the National Ocean Service (NOS) finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act because this rule merely reinstates language from a rule previously submitted to notice and comment review and inadvertently deleted from the Code of Federal Regulations and as such is unnecessary. This rule corrects a procedural error and ensures required and expected implementation of NOAA's statutory responsibilities toward treaty Indian tribes with cultural and treaty resources in or near the Sanctuary; improves communication and collaboration with federally recognized Indian tribes; and fulfills the intent of Executive Order 13175. NOAA has decided to make this document effective upon publication because public comment and delayed effectiveness are unnecessary. The language has already been subject to notice and comment from the public and is merely a restatement of pre-existing regulatory language. For the reasons above, the Assistant Administrator finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.

Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared.

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration amends 15 CFR part 922 as follows:

I. Background and Statutory Authority

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA, Pub. L. 110-314) was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA, part of the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, requires the Commission to: (1) Examine and assess the effectiveness of voluntary consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products, in consultation with representatives of consumer groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and independent child product engineers and experts; and (2) promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant and toddler products. These standards are to be “substantially the same as” applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standards if the Commission determines that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. The term “durable infant or toddler product” is defined in section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA as “a durable product intended for use, or that may be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the age of 5 years.”

On May 16, 2014, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for frame child carriers. 79 FR 28458. The NPR proposed to incorporate by reference the voluntary standard, ASTM F2549-14, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Frame Child Carriers, with one proposed substitute provision that would provide clear pass/fail criteria for an existing test.

In this document, the Commission is issuing a mandatory safety standard for frame child carriers. As required by section 104(b)(1)(A), the Commission consulted with manufacturers, retailers, trade organizations, laboratories, consumer advocacy groups, consultants, and the public to develop this proposed standard, largely through the ASTM process. The rule incorporates by reference the most recent voluntary standard developed by ASTM International (formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials), ASTM F2549-14a, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Frame Child Carriers. This most recent version of the ASTM voluntary standard includes the clear pass/fail criteria for an existing test that were proposed in the NPR.

In addition, the final rule amends the list of NORs issued by the Commission in 16 CFR part 1112 to include the standard for frame child carriers. Under section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), the Commission promulgated 16 CFR part 1112 to establish requirements for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (or testing laboratories) to test for conformance with a children's product safety rule. Amending part 1112 adds a NOR for the frame child carrier standard to the list of children's product safety rules.

The scope of ASTM F2549-14a defines a “frame child carrier” as “a product, normally of sewn fabric construction on a tubular metal or other frame, which is designed to carry a child, in an upright position, on the back of the caregiver.” The intended users of frame carriers are children who are able to sit upright unassisted and weigh between 16 pounds and 50 pounds. Frame carriers are intended to be worn on the back and suspended from both shoulders of the caregiver's body in a forward- or rear-facing position. This type of carrier is often used for hiking and closely resembles hiking/mountaineering backpacks not intended to be used for child transport.

Staff identified 16 firms supplying frame child carriers to the U.S. market. Typically, frame child carriers cost from $100 to around $300. Additional firms may supply these products to U.S. consumers.1 Most of these firms specialize in manufacturing and/or distributing one of two distinct types of products: (1) Children's products, including durable nursery products; or (2) outdoor products, such as camping and hiking gear. The majority of the 16 known firms are domestic (including five manufacturers, eight importers, and one firm whose supply source could not be determined). The remaining two firms are foreign (including one manufacturer and one firm that imports products from foreign companies and distributes the products from outside of the United States).2

The Commission expects that the frame child carriers of seven of these firms comply with ASTM F2549 because the firms either: (1) Certify their carriers through the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) (three firms); or (2) claim compliance with the voluntary standard (four firms).3 However, some of the suppliers of frame child carriers do not supply any other children's products; and it is possible that these suppliers may be unfamiliar with the voluntary ASTM standards, a circumstance confirmed by one supplier that staff contacted during the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) development. The Commission staff attempted unsuccessfully to obtain information from several firms whose frame child carriers do not claim compliance with the ASTM standard to determine the extent to which their carriers might not comply. Staff's testing indicates that some frame child carriers would not meet all provisions of the ASTM F2549.

In 2013, the CPSC conducted a Durable Nursery Product Exposure Survey (DNPES) of U.S. households with children under age 6. Data from the DNPES indicate that an estimated 2.38 million frame child carriers are in U.S. households with children under the age of 6 (with 95% probability that the actual value is between 1.8 million and 2.95 million). Data collected also indicate that about 54 percent of the frame child carriers in U.S. households with children under age 6 are in use (an estimated 1.28 million frame carriers, with 95% probability that the actual value is between about 880,000 and 1.7 million).4

Staff could not estimate annual injuries because the number of National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) cases was insufficient to meet the CPSC Directorate for Epidemiology (EPI) publication criteria. However, given that part of the publication criteria is that the estimate must be 1,200 or greater over the period under consideration, presumably, there would be, on average, fewer than 120 injuries annually over the approximately 10-year period considered by EPI staff. The recent EPI update for the final briefing package is consistent with this assumption.5

Combining the maximum annual emergency department-treated injury estimate with the data collected for the DNPES yields less than about 0.94 emergency department-treated injuries per 10,000 frame child carriers in use in U.S. households with children under age 6 annually ((120 injuries ÷ 1.28 million frame child carriers in use in U.S. households with children under age 6) × 10,000).6

The preamble to the NPR summarized the incident data reported to the Commission involving frame child carriers from January 1, 2003 through October 27, 2013. 79 FR 28459-60. In the NPR, CPSC's Directorate for Epidemiology identified a total of 47 incidents, including 33 injuries and no fatalities related to frame child carriers. Since the NPR, the Commission has received two new reports involving frame child carriers from October 28, 2003 through September 28, 2014. One reported a frame child carrier falling off of a chair with a 14-month-old child in the carrier. The child sustained a head injury. The second report was of a frame child carrier whose straps and buckles disintegrated, but no injury was mentioned.

The hazards reported in the new incidents are consistent with the hazard patterns identified among the incidents presented in the NPR briefing package. Specifically, staff identified stability and structural integrity as the two top product-related hazards in the incident data presented in the NPR package. The hazard for one of the two new incidents is related to stability, and the other is related to the structural integrity of the product.

ASTM F2549, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Frame Child Carriers, is the voluntary standard that addresses the identified hazard patterns associated with the use of frame child carriers and was first approved and published in December 2006, as ASTM F2549-06. ASTM has revised the voluntary standard six times since then. ASTM F2549-14a is the most recent version, which was approved on July 1, 2014.

In the NPR, the Commission proposed to incorporate ASTM F2549-14, which addressed many of the hazard patterns identified for frame child carriers, with one addition: specifying criteria for the retention system performance test to provide clear pass/fail criteria for the frame child carrier's restraints.

In May 2014, ASTM issued a ballot for ASTM F2549. That ballot contained language identical to the modification language proposed in the NPR regarding the pass/fail criteria associated with the retention system test. The ASTM subcommittee approved the ballot item. Therefore, the current version of the voluntary standard, ASTM F2549-14a, is identical to the requirements proposed in the NPR.

In this rule, the Commission incorporates by reference ASTM F2549-14a because the Commission's proposed modification in the NPR has been adopted in ASTM F2549-14a. Thus, ASTM F2549-14a specifies criteria for the retention system performance test to provide clear pass/fail criteria for the carrier's restraints.

The Commission received two comments in response to the NPR. A summary of each comment topic and response is provided below.

Comment: One commenter questioned the number of small domestic manufacturers cited by CPSC staff and believed that the term “domestic manufacturer” should mean that the product is physically manufactured in the United States.

Response: CPSC staff uses U.S. Census Bureau guidelines to determine whether a firm is domestic and whether a firm is a manufacturer. Under these guidelines, domestic firms are firms filing tax returns in the United States. The U.S. Census uses the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to determine the type of business. Under this system, a manufacturer can be a firm/establishment that processes materials itself or a firm/establishment that contracts with others to process the materials. The U.S. Small Business Administration's guidance on the Regulatory Flexibility Act (SBA Guidance) recommends using NAICS codes in combination with Census data to identify classes of small entities and estimate their number.7

Comment: One commenter questioned what is meant by an insignificant impact and asked whether staff's recommendation would be different if the proposed rule was found to have a significant impact on all or most small businesses.

The commenter also questioned the use of gross income rather than net income or profit, particularly as the higher costs of manufacturing domestically would decrease net income and profit while leaving gross income unaffected. The commenter suggested that this might, in turn, lead to an underestimate of the significance of the proposed rule on firms manufacturing only in the United States.

Response: The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not define “significant impact.” As stated in the SBA Guidance, the determination of “significance” will “vary depending on the economics of the industry or sector.” The SBA Guidance also notes that the applicable “agency is in the best position to gauge the small entity impacts of its regulations.” Generally, CPSC staff believes that an insignificant impact in the context of the regulatory flexibility analysis means that the impact is expected to be small enough that changes to a firm's current business operations would be limited or largely unaffected.

Section 104 of the CPSIA requires that the Commission promulgate a standard that is either substantially the same as the voluntary standard or more stringent than such voluntary standard if the Commission determines that the more stringent standard would further reduce the risk of injury associated with a product. CPSC may not propose a less stringent standard based on economic considerations. At the NPR stage, the Commission proposed adopting the voluntary standard with the sole addition of specifying the pass/fail criteria for the existing retention system performance requirement. By doing so, the Commission proposed adopting the least stringent rule allowed by law. Therefore, the Commission's proposed rule would have been the same even if the impact on each and every small business was found to be significant. The same holds true of the Commission's final rule, which is to adopt the current voluntary standard without modification. CPSC's ability to reduce the impact on small businesses is limited in this case to a later effective date, which would allow firms additional time to come into compliance, spreading out the associated costs.

The Directorate for Economic Analysis staff typically uses the gross revenue measure because these data are generally available. Furthermore, use of gross revenues as an appropriate measure is consistent with the SBA Guidance.8 In the case of small manufacturers and importers of frame child carriers, no information on profits or net income was available; therefore, no analysis based on this information could be undertaken.

Comment: The commenter questioned the Directorate for Economic Analysis's use of the American Baby Group's 2006 Baby Products Tracking Study, “which could be weighted by bias” and “may not have been adjusted for income and proclivities.”

Response: In the IRFA, staff acknowledged the bias inherent in the study. As noted in the IRFA, the data collected for the Baby Products Tracking Study do not represent an unbiased statistical sample because the data are drawn from American Baby magazine's mailing lists. However, these data were used solely to estimate annual sales of frame child carriers in the United States and the potential injury risk associated with this product. The use of the Baby Products Tracking Study in no way influenced staff's determination of whether the regulation's impact on firms would be significant or not.

Comment: One commenter asked that the CPSC “keep the cost-benefit ratio appropriate,” noting that the lack of serious “or near serious injuries . . . over the past ten years” would mean minimal benefits associated with third party testing “while such testing costs would be extremely expensive for small domestic businesses.” The commenter requested alternatives, specifically self-certification, and noted that she does not consider a firm's exit from the market an acceptable alternative.

Response: The CPSC did not conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the frame child carrier rule because the rule is being promulgated under the requirements of section 104 of the CPSIA, which does not require a cost-benefit analysis. Staff conducted an IRFA to assess the impact of the rule on small domestic businesses. Benefits are not required to be considered as part of an IRFA.

As noted above, section 104 of the CPSIA requires the Commission to adopt a standard that is substantially the same as the voluntary standard or more stringent than such voluntary standard if the Commission determines that the more stringent standard would further reduce the risk of injury associated with a product. Thus, CPSC's ability to reduce the impact on small firms is limited to providing a later effective date.

CPSC's ability to address testing costs in the context of section 104 rulemaking likewise is limited. In particular, applicable legal requirements do not allow CPSC to modify the voluntary standard to reduce the testing costs imposed by a mandatory frame child carrier standard; CPSC is required to adopt either the voluntary standard or a more stringent standard.

The discussion in the IRFA of one small domestic manufacturer leaving the market was based on information supplied by the firm when contacted. In consideration of that concern and to allow small businesses additional time to prepare for the impact of the rule, the final rule provides an 18-month effective date. To address potential hazards during that 18-month period before the rule takes effect, CPSC could act to remove any unsafe frame child carriers from the market using its authorities under section 15 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA).

Comment: One commenter stated that she had a problem finding laboratories that could conduct the proposed testing.

Response: In a follow-up phone conversation with the commenter, staff provided specific contacts for three laboratories. Although not yet accredited to test frame child carriers, all three laboratories are capable of testing frame child carriers to the final rule because they have experience testing frame child carriers to the ASTM standard referenced in the final rule.

One commenter raised several issues or questions regarding the test equipment specified in the ASTM standard.

Comment: One commenter was unable to secure the CAMI dummy due to its price and the lead-time needed to order it.

Response: Unfortunately, CAMI dummies are only available through the one company that makes them; thus, there are no less expensive versions available. However, there is no requirement for firms to perform testing themselves; thus, there is no requirement to purchase a CAMI dummy or any of the test equipment. Third party testing laboratories offer many services, not just certification testing. Testing laboratories can perform product assessments and pre-certification testing as well.

Comment: One commenter believed the size of the test dummy required by the standard is not indicative of a typical user of a frame child carrier. In addition, the commenter noted that the test dummy does not take into account items such as seasonal clothing on the child, which could increase the overall size of the occupant.

Response: The CAMI dummy referenced in the ASTM standard is modeled after the average (50th percentile) 6-month-old child, which is the youngest user normally specified for these carriers. The CAMI dummy is used in the standard to simulate the youngest user because the hazards being addressed (falling through leg openings, etc.) are more likely to occur with the youngest user. The older (larger) users are not as vulnerable to the specific hazards where testing requires using a CAMI dummy. Therefore, the test procedure uses a conservative approach and simulates use by the smallest (youngest) user. Adding a new test, or using an “older” dummy (or one wearing heavy clothes), would not capture any additional hazards and would only make the testing more expensive.

Comment: One commenter stated that she could not find the test sphere.

Response: The test sphere is not an off-the-shelf product. The standard defines the test sphere as a sphere, 16.5 inches (419.1 mm) in diameter, which is fabricated from a smooth, rigid material and weighs 7.0 pounds (3.2 kg). Those are the only design specifications. Staff is aware of test spheres fabricated from wood, metal, or plastic. Any competent machine shop or woodworking facility should be able to make one to the correct weight and size.

Comment: One commenter believed the use of the test sphere for the leg opening test is not reasonable because the shape is different from a child, and a sphere cannot use a safety harness. The commenter requested that a CAMI dummy be used instead.

Response: The goal of this performance requirement is to model a worst-case-use scenario associated with a specific hazard; i.e., an occupant slipping both legs and body through one leg opening. If the product passes a conservative, worst-case scenario test, the product would be safe in that particular respect for all users. For the leg-opening test, the test sphere simulates the smallest user's hip dimension. The requirement is intended to address the hazard associated with the smallest users who may be getting both legs/body into one leg hole and sliding out of the frame child carrier. Thus, the worst-case scenario is to take into account the smallest user's hip dimensions. Lastly, and more importantly, using a smooth, rigid, and consistently dimensioned sphere is more likely to provide repeatable results. This means that the same frame carrier would consistently pass (or fail) the test, irrespective of the test laboratory or technician running the test. The CAMI dummy is made from canvas fabric, and with age and use, the flexibility and texture of the dummy changes. Thus, a frame child carrier tested to the leg-opening requirement might fail the requirement if a worn CAMI dummy were used but would pass if a brand new CAMI dummy were used. Thus, staff agrees with ASTM that the test sphere is the right test probe. Leg opening tests are used in various other children's product standards; and the use of test equipment, such as spheres and probes, to conduct these tests is common practice.

Comment: One commenter expected to send products to a certified laboratory only after having pre-tested them, which she claims would not be possible because of the problems associated with obtaining the testing equipment.

Response: As mentioned in another response to a comment, firms are not required to pre-test their products before having the products tested by a third party laboratory for certification. It is, however, understandable that companies would like to be assured that their products will pass, before sending them out for certification testing. In that case, firms have multiple alternatives. They can purchase the equipment and undertake the testing themselves, or they can contract with a qualified testing laboratory to conduct the pre-testing.

Comment: One commenter, a registered small batch manufacturer, asked why CPSC cannot apply the small batch rules for registered small batch manufacturers to the third party testing requirements for section 104 rules. The commenter suggested removing the third party testing requirement from the rule and providing small batch manufacturers with the alternative to self-certify. The commenter noted that CPSC has already allowed for exemptions from the CPSIA's third party testing requirements for small batch manufacturers.

Response: Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires that all children's products subject to a children's product safety rule, like the rule for frame child carriers, must be third party tested. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2). Section 14(g)(4) of the Consumer Product Safety Act allows exceptions to third party testing for small batch manufacturers. However, that provision does not allow the Commission to provide small batch manufacturers any alternative requirements or exemptions for rules for durable infant and toddler products promulgated under section 104. Id. 2063(g)(4)(C)(ii). The rule for frame child carriers is promulgated under the legal authority in section 104 of the CPSIA. Therefore, the Commission does not have the legal authority to allow for self-certification for small batch manufacturers for the frame child carrier rule.

Comment: One commenter noted that CPSC staff will be conducting training for buyers and sourcing professionals dealing in electrical-electric-appliances, apparel, and toys in China. The commenter was concerned that similar training with respect to the mandatory rule for frame child carriers would give a competitive advantage to importers and foreign manufacturers whose products are made offshore.

Response: CPSC staff routinely conducts industry training both abroad and in the United States. During fiscal year 2013, for instance, we conducted 12 training events for industry abroad. For the same period, we conducted 14 training events domestically. Moreover, the Office of Compliance participated in public or webcast meetings throughout fiscal year 2013 to discuss newly issued and existing rules and requirements; these materials generally are made available to the general public. Many of these materials are available at www.slideshare.net/USCPSC for download and review. Since Fiscal Year 2012, we have uploaded 120 presentations on a variety of topic areas to SlideShare. The total number of these meetings was 88, the majority of which were domestic. Staff anticipates continuing such training opportunities both abroad and domestically.

Comment: One commenter asked for clarification about what constitutes a different model of a product and what changes to the frame child carrier would constitute enough of a difference to require additional third party testing.

Response: Guidance regarding material change testing is available on the CPSC Web site, which contains information about applicable definitions and legal requirements. It is a manufacturer's responsibility to determine when a product change constitutes a different model. How this determination is made governs whether different models could require third party testing and certification. A material change to the product's design or manufacturing process, as well as a new source of component parts for the product, could affect the product's ability to comply with the applicable children's product safety rule and could be considered enough of a change to require additional testing.

The frame child carrier rule is a children's product safety rule subject to third party testing. The manufacturer only has to retest the product if there is a material change. If the material change only affects certain component parts; component part testing can be sufficient for that component part only, so long as the material change will not affect the finished product's ability to comply with the applicable children's product safety rules.

Comment: One commenter agreed with the proposed 6-month effective date for the standard, while another commenter expressed concerns about whether a domestic test laboratory would be willing to perform testing to the mandatory frame child carrier standard if only three U.S. firms were requesting third party testing. A second commenter suggested that the rule could impose “excessive costs,” damaging to the commenter's firm.

Response: As previously noted, the sole alternative staff can recommend to help minimize the impact of the mandatory standard is a later effective date. A later effective date would allow manufacturers and test laboratories additional time to prepare for the rule's requirements. A later effective date would reduce the economic impact on small firms in two ways. First, firms would be less likely to experience a lapse in production, which could result if firms are unable to develop compliant frame child carriers and third party test them within the required timeframe. Second, firms could spread costs over a longer time period, thereby reducing their annual costs and the present value of their total costs.

Staff does not agree with the second commenter's concerns regarding the potential difficulty in securing a U.S. (or foreign) test laboratory accredited to test frame child carriers. Inquiries made of three domestic laboratories who are qualified to test frame child carriers indicated that these test laboratories already have the ASTM standard for frame child carriers in their accreditation scope. All three labs include the ASTM standard in their accreditation and intend to apply for CPSC acceptance for testing to the regulation after a final rule is published. Staff believes that laboratories will be able to complete the necessary procedures to permit testing under the new frame carrier rule within the 18-month period before effectiveness of the rule.

However, CPSC staff cannot rule out a significant impact on small businesses whose frame child carriers do not comply with the final rule. Therefore, as discussed above, the final rule provides an 18-month effective date to reduce the impact of the mandatory standard, to the extent possible, on small businesses.

Section 1230.2 of the final rule provides that frame child carriers must comply with ASTM F2549-14a. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. The OFR recently revised these regulations to require that, for a final rule, agencies must discuss in the preamble of the rule ways that the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested persons and how interested parties can obtain the materials. In addition, the preamble of the rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b).

In accordance with the OFR's requirements, the discussion in this section summarizes the provisions of ASTM F2549-14a. Interested persons may purchase a copy of ASTM F2549-14a from ASTM, either through ASTM's Web site or by mail at the address provided above and in the rule. One may also inspect a copy of the standard at the CPSC's Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, or at NARA, as discussed above. We note that the Commission and ASTM arranged for commenters to have “read only” access to ASTM F 2549-14a during the NPR's comment period.

The CPSC is incorporating by reference ASTM F2549-14a because ASTM F2549-14a includes the Commission's proposed modification in the NPR to specify criteria for the retention system performance test to provide clear pass/fail criteria for the carrier's restraints.

ASTM F2549-14a contains requirements covering:

The final rule amends part 1112 to add a new section 1112.15(b)(38) that lists 16 CFR part 1230, Safety Standard for Frame Child Carriers as a children's products safety rule for which the Commission has issued an NOR. Section XIII of the preamble provides additional background information regarding certification of frame child carriers and issuance of an NOR.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that the effective date of the rule be at least 30 days after publication of the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The safety standard for frame child carriers and the corresponding changes to the part 1112 rule regarding requirements for third party conformity assessment bodies will become effective 18 months after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The rule provides an 18-month effective date to allow firms whose frame child carriers may not comply with the voluntary ASTM standard additional time to come into compliance with the mandatory frame child carrier rule. Of the nine supplying firms contacted, four provided information on the time table required for redevelopment. Eighteen months reflects the maximum length of time these firms indicated might be necessary and will allow the greatest flexibility to small firms that may be significantly affected by the mandatory frame child carrier standard.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires agencies to consider the impact of proposed and final rules on small entities, including small businesses. Section 604 of the RFA requires that agencies prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) when promulgating final rules, unless the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FRFA must describe the impact of the rule on small entities. Specifically, the final regulatory flexibility analysis must contain:

• A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule;

• a statement of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments;

• the response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the comments;

• a description of and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such estimate is available;

• a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for the preparation of the report or record; and

• a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.

The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, section 104 of the CPSIA, requires the CPSC to promulgate mandatory standards for durable infant or toddler products that are substantially the same as, or more stringent than, the voluntary standard. Infant carriers are included in the definition of “durable infant or toddler products” subject to section 104 of the CPSIA. CPSC staff worked closely with ASTM stakeholders to develop the requirements and the pass/fail criteria associated with the retention system test procedures that have been incorporated into ASTM F2549-14a, which forms the basis for the mandatory standard.

The frame child carrier mandatory standard will have implications for two separate, existing federal rules: (1) Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification (16 CFR part 1107); and (2) Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies (16 CFR part 1112).

The testing and labeling rule (16 CFR part 1107) requires that manufacturers of children's products subject to product safety rules, certify, based on third party testing, that their children's products comply with all applicable safety rules. Because frame child carriers will be subject to a mandatory rule, they will also be subject to the third party testing requirements when the rule becomes effective.

In addition, section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires the third party testing of children's products to be conducted by CPSC-accepted laboratories. Section 14(a)(3) of the CPSA requires the Commission to publish a notice of requirements (NOR) for the accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (i.e., testing laboratories) to test for conformance with each children's product safety rule. These NORs are set forth in 16 CFR part 1112. The final rule is amending part 1112 to include frame child carriers in the list of NORs issued by the Commission.

There are approximately 16 firms currently known to be marketing frame child carriers in the United States, 14 of which are domestic. Under SBA guidelines, a manufacturer of frame child carriers is categorized as small if the entity has 500 or fewer employees, and importers and wholesalers are considered small if they have 100 or fewer employees. We limited our analysis to domestic firms because SBA guidelines and definitions pertain to U.S.-based entities. Based on these guidelines, about 11 of the identified 16 firms are small—four domestic manufacturers, six domestic importers, and one domestic firm with an unknown supply source. Additional unknown small domestic frame child carrier suppliers operating in the U.S. market may exist.

The impact of the final frame child carrier rule on the domestic manufacturers and importers considered to be small depends upon two factors: (1) Whether, and the degree to which, their frame child carriers comply with the voluntary standard; and (2) the importance of frame child carriers to the firm's overall product line. The effect of these two factors on small manufacturers and small importers is discussed below.

Aside from third party testing requirements, discussed below, the final rule is likely to have little or no impact on the three (of four) small domestic manufacturers whose frame child carriers are compliant with the ASTM voluntary standard currently in effect for JPMA testing and certification purposes (ASTM F2549-14). We anticipate these firms will remain compliant with the voluntary standard as the standard changes because the firms follow, and in at least one case, participate actively in the voluntary standard development process. Therefore, compliance with the evolving voluntary standard is part of an established business practice. ASTM F2549-14a, the voluntary standard that the final rule incorporates by reference as the mandatory standard for frame child carriers, will be in effect already for JPMA testing and certification purposes before the mandatory standard goes into effect. These firms are likely to be in compliance based on their history.

The remaining small manufacturer would experience some economic impacts of unknown size. Based on discussions with a company representative, this firm does not know whether its products comply with the voluntary standard. When contacted by staff prior to the NPR, the firm was unaware of the ASTM standard. Based on subsequent staff conversations, the firm has not yet tested its products to the voluntary standard. Initially, the company's representative indicated that the firm would likely discontinue production of its frame child carriers, regardless of whether they complied with the frame child carriers rule. However, subsequent information from the company suggests that the company likely will stay in the market and modify its frame child carriers, if necessary, to meet the final rule. This firm produces many other products and has indicated that frame child carriers do not represent a large portion of the firm's product line. However, the extent of the changes that may be required to meet the mandatory standard is unknown, as is the exact percentage of revenues that frame child carriers constitute for the firm. Because we have no basis for quantifying the size of the impact, we cannot rule out a significant economic impact for this firm.9

The 18-month effective date for the final frame child carrier rule should help reduce the impact of the final rule on the known small manufacturer whose frame child carriers may not comply with the rule. This would give the firm additional time to develop new or modified products and spread costs over a longer time frame.

Under section 14 of the CPSA, once the new frame child carrier requirements become effective, all manufacturers will be subject to the additional costs associated with the third party testing and certification requirements under the testing rule, Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification (16 CFR part 1107). Third party testing will include any physical and mechanical test requirements specified in the final frame child carrier rule; lead testing is already required, and testing for phthalates may also be required. Third party testing costs are in addition to the direct costs of meeting the mandatory frame child carriers standard.

CPSC staff contacted several frame child carrier suppliers regarding testing costs. Two firms provided estimates that included both physical and mechanical testing to the current ASTM standard, as well as lead and phthalate testing. Firms must test for lead and may be required to test for phthalates regardless of any rule for frame child carriers. Including lead and phthalate testing, one firm estimated testing costs to be $800 to $1,100 per unit tested, and the other firm estimated the costs to be about $1,300 per unit. Estimates provided by durable nursery product suppliers subject to other section 104 rulemakings indicate that around 40 percent to 50 percent of testing costs can be attributed to structural requirements, with the remaining 50 percent to 60 percent resulting from chemical testing (e.g., lead and phthalates). Therefore, staff estimates the ASTM voluntary standard portion of the frame child carrier testing cost estimates to be $320 to $550 per sample tested ($800 × .4 to $1,100 × .5) and $520 to $650 per sample tested ($1,300 × .4 to $1,300 × .5), respectively. A third frame child carrier supplier provided an estimate of $500 to $750 for testing to the ASTM standard separately. These estimates demonstrate that testing costs can vary widely. Elements that can influence costs include where the testing is performed and whether a firm can negotiate rates based on volume for one or more products.

Staff's review of the frame child carriers market shows that, on average, each small domestic manufacturer supplies three different models of frame child carriers to the U.S. market annually. Therefore, if third party testing were conducted every year, third party testing costs for each manufacturer would be about $960 ($320 × 3) to $2,250 ($750 × 3) annually, if only one sample were tested for each model. Based on an examination of each small domestic manufacturer's revenues from recent Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) or ReferenceUSAGov reports, the impact of third party testing to ASTM F2549-14a will be significantly less than 1 percent of revenue for the three small domestic manufacturers for whom revenue data are available (i.e., testing costs less than 1 percent of gross revenue). Although the testing and labeling rule (16 CFR part 1107) is not explicit regarding the number of samples firms will need to test to meet the “high degree of assurance” criterion, more than 20 units per model would be required before the testing costs of any of the three small manufacturers with available revenue data would exceed 1 percent of gross revenue.10 However, testing costs could be significant for the one small manufacturer for which revenue data were unavailable, given that the entity only recently entered the frame child carriers market and manufactures no other products.

As noted above, six small firms import frame child carriers, with two of them currently importing compliant carriers. Absent a mandatory regulation, these two small importers of frame child carriers would likely remain compliant with new versions of the voluntary standard. Given that the two small importers have developed a pattern of compliance with the ASTM voluntary standard as the voluntary standard evolves, and that the final rule is a soon-to-be-effective voluntary standard for JPMA testing, ASTM F2549-14a, the two small importers of compliant products would likely experience little or no direct costs if the final rule is implemented.

The extent of the economic impact on the four small importers with frame child carriers that do not comply with the voluntary standard will depend upon the product changes required to comply and how their supplying firms respond. Because no small importers with noncompliant frame child carriers responded to requests for information, staff cannot estimate the precise economic impact on these firms.

However, in general, if their supplying firm comes into compliance, the importer could elect to continue importing the frame child carriers. Any increase in production costs experienced by their suppliers from changes made to meet the mandatory standard may be passed on to the importers. If an importer decides that it is unwilling or unable to accept the increased costs, or if the importer's supplier decides not to comply with the mandatory standard, there are three alternatives available. First, importers could find another supplier of frame child carriers. This could result in increased costs, as well, depending, for example, on whether the alternative supplier must modify their carriers to comply with the mandatory standard. Second, firms could import a different product in place of their frame child carriers. This alternative would help mitigate the economic impact of the mandatory standard on these firms. Finally, importers could stop importing frame child carriers and make no other changes to their product line.

As with manufacturers, all importers will be subject to third party testing and certification requirements, and consequently, will be subject to costs similar to those for manufacturers, if their supplying foreign firm(s) does not perform third party testing. These costs appear unlikely to exceed 1 percent of gross revenue for the two small domestic importers for which revenue information is available, unless more than 10 or 30 units per model were required to be tested to provide a “high degree of assurance,” respectively. The impact on the other four small importers could not be determined or quantified, and thus, we cannot rule out a significant economic impact.

Section 104 of the CPSIA requires that the Commission promulgate a standard that is either substantially the same as the voluntary standard or more stringent. Therefore, the final frame child carrier rule (adoption of the voluntary standard, ASTM F2549-14a, with no modifications) is the minimum required by law. Consequently, the sole recommendation that staff can make to minimize (but not eliminate) the rule's economic impact is a later effective date. As discussed above, a later effective date would reduce the economic impact on small frame child carrier firms in two ways.

Because the economic impact of the frame child carriers rule on small firms could not be determined or quantified, staff cannot rule out a significant impact. Therefore, the final rule has an 18-month effective date, which was the maximum estimated period of time that frame child carrier firms familiar with the ASTM standard advised staff the firms would need for new product development. The minimum period of time estimated was 6 months, but only one of the four firms that responded to this question supported that time estimate. Of the nine supplying firms that staff contacted, four provided information on the time table required for redevelopment. Eighteen months reflects the maximum length of time these firms indicated might be necessary and will allow the greatest flexibility to small firms that may be significantly affected by the mandatory frame child carriers standard.

The Commission's regulations address whether we are required to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. These regulations provide a categorical exclusion for certain CPSC actions that normally have “little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” Among those actions are rules or safety standards for consumer products. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The rule falls within the categorical exclusion.

This rule contains information collection requirements that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 28466 through 28467) discussed the information collection burden of the proposed rule and specifically requested comments on the accuracy of our estimates. Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F2549-14a contain requirements for marking, labeling, and instructional literature. These requirements fall within the definition of “collection of information,” as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3).

OMB has assigned control number 3041-0166 to this information collection. The Commission did not receive any comments regarding the information collection burden of this proposal. However, the final rule makes modifications regarding the information collection burden because the number of estimated suppliers subject to the information collection burden is now estimated at 16 firms, rather than the 15 firms initially estimated in the proposed rule.

Accordingly, the estimated burden of this collection of information is modified as follows:

Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that if a consumer product safety standard is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission for an exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA refers to the rules to be issued under that section as “consumer product safety rules,” thus, implying that the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply. Therefore, a rule issued under section 104 of the CPSIA will invoke the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA when the rule becomes effective.

Section 14(a) of the CPSA imposes the requirement that products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other Act enforced by the Commission, must be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires that certification of children's products subject to a children's product safety rule be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body. Section 14(a)(3) of the CPSA requires the Commission to publish a NOR for the accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (or laboratories) to assess conformity with a children's product safety rule to which a children's product is subject. The “Safety Standard for Frame Child Carriers,” to be codified at 16 CFR part 1230, is a children's product safety rule that requires the issuance of an NOR.

The Commission published a final rule, Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, 78 FR 15836 (March 12, 2013), which is codified at 16 CFR part 1112 (referred to here as part 1112). This rule became effective on June 10, 2013. Part 1112 establishes requirements for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (or laboratories) to test for conformance with a children's product safety rule in accordance with section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA. Part 1112 also codifies a list of all of the NORs that the CPSC had published at the time part 1112 was issued. All NORs issued after the Commission published part 1112, such as the standard for frame child carriers, require the Commission to amend part 1112. Accordingly, the Commission is now amending part 1112 to include the standard for frame child carriers in the list of other children's product safety rules for which the CPSC has issued NORs.

Laboratories applying for acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body to test to the new standard for frame child carriers would be required to meet the third party conformity assessment body accreditation requirements in 16 CFR part 1112, Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies. When a laboratory meets the requirements as a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body, the laboratory can apply to the CPSC to have 16 CFR part 1230, Safety Standard for Frame Child Carriers, included in its scope of accreditation of CPSC safety rules listed for the laboratory on the CPSC Web site at: www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.

CPSC staff conducted a FRFA as part of the process of promulgating the part 1112 rule (78 FR 15836, 15855-58), as required by the RFA. Briefly, the FRFA concluded that the accreditation requirements would not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small laboratories because no requirements were imposed on laboratories that did not intend to provide third party testing services. The only laboratories that were expected to provide such services were those that anticipated receiving sufficient revenue from the mandated testing to justify accepting the requirements as a business decision.

Based on similar reasoning, amending 16 CFR part 1112 to include the NOR for the frame child carrier standard will not have a significant adverse impact on small laboratories. Based upon the relatively small number of laboratories in the United States that have applied for CPSC acceptance of the accreditation to test for conformance to other juvenile product standards, we expect that only a few laboratories will seek CPSC acceptance of their accreditation to test for conformance with the frame child carrier standard. Most of these laboratories will have already been accredited to test for conformance to other juvenile product standards, and the only costs to them would be the cost of adding the frame child carrier standard to their scope of accreditation. Costs should be negligible, as these laboratories are already familiar with the requirements for CPSC accreditation under 16 CFR part 1112 and have experience with this process for other durable nursery products under section 104 of the CPSIA. As a consequence, the Commission could certify that the NOR for the frame child carriers standard will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission amends Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower Drawbridge, mile 59.0, over Sacramento River, at Sacramento, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw opens on signal from May 1 through October 31 from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. and from November 1 through April 30 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. At all other times the draw shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given, as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.

The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position 7:45 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. on March 14, 2015, and from 7:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. on March 15, 2015, to allow the community to participate in the Shamrock 5K footrace and the Shamrock Half Marathon, respectively. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact 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.

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), who owns and operates this vertical lift-type drawbridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulation to facilitate biennial maintenance and inspections.

Under the regular operating schedule, the bridge opens on signal, except for two other time periods in July and November as described in 33 CFR 117.822. The Cape Fear Memorial Bridge has 65 feet of vertical clearance in the closed position at mean high water.

Under this temporary deviation the repairs would restrict the operation of the draw. It would allow the bridge to remain closed from 7 a.m. March 16, 2015, to 5 p.m. March 20, 2015 to facilitate biennial maintenance and inspections.

The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation. Vessels able to pass under 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 immediate alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in closed positions. Mariners are advised to proceed with caution.

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

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security COTP Captain of the Port FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NAD 83 North American Datum of 1983 A. Regulatory Information and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because publishing an NPRM would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Sufficient information regarding the severe deteriorating condition of this bridge was only received by the City of Boston in October 2014 after an inspection was conducted in accordance with the new Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) guidelines. That inspection deemed the bridge unsafe for a live load rating for vehicular traffic, dropping the bridge below the minimum standards. Further, in January 2015, a 60 foot by 12 inch water main broke off the bridge above the navigational channel and fell into the channel. Although the pipe was later removed, the condition of the bridge remains a hazard.

The demolition of the bridge will start immediately and will take approximate three to five months. Accordingly, there is insufficient time to publish an NPRM and solicit comments from the public before the demolition takes place. Thus, waiting for a comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to fulfill its mission to keep the ports and waterways safe.

It is crucial to the operation of the waterway that this $21 million-demolition project remains on schedule and is completed before the recreational boating season traffic starts. The commuter ferry service that transits between Weymouth-Hingham and Boston has adapted to another route, adding approximately 10 minutes of time to their scheduled runs. The contractor is expected to remove the 225 foot navigational span first, so that commuter ferries can resume transiting their normal route. The actual removal of the sixteen spans is complex and involves a combination of a controlled detonation and conventional demolition. If the bridge demolition project is delayed up it would have serious ramifications to the waterway stakeholders, especially during the summer boating season when it is heavily used by recreational boaters. Due to the dangers posed by the condition of the bridge and the controlled and conventional demolition of such a large structure over a waterway, the different safety zones are necessary to provide for the safety of any vessels transiting the area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect immediately and during the demolition phases.

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. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

The legal basis for the temporary rule is 33 U.S.C., 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define regulatory safety zones.

The temporary safety zones are being established to prohibit vessels from transiting the navigational channel until the span is permanently removed and from transiting in the vicinity of the existing Long Island Bridge during the bridge's demolition and removal.

For the reasons discussed above, the COTP is establishing temporary safety zones in the vicinity of the Moon Island Long Island Bridge to ensure the safety of vessels and other property from the hazards associated with the current condition of the bridge and the bridge demolition. The COTP Boston has determined that the actual condition of the bridge and the demolition of such a large structure over the waterway pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Hazards include the falling of parts from the deteriorated bridge to include large pieces of heavy metal, possible flying fragments from the controlled detonation and the obstructions to the waterway that may contribute to marine casualties, such as crane barges, work vessels, and construction equipment, and large pieces of debris falling into the water that may cause death or serious bodily harm. Establishing a safety zone around the location of the navigational channel until it is permanently removed and during the controlled detonation and the conventional demolition operations will help ensure the safety of vessels and other property and help minimize the associated risks.

The Coast Guard has been coordinating with contractors and local stakeholders regarding the scope of the overall project. The stakeholders that may be affected by this rulemaking have been notified of the risks of transiting this navigational channel and have since modified their ferry routes. They also know the potential impacts to the waterway from this project.

Vessels may enter or transit through the safety zones during the effective period if authorized by the COTP Boston or the designated representative.

The COTP will cause notice of enforcement or suspension of enforcement of the safety zones to be made by all appropriate means to affect the widest distribution among the affected segments of the public. Such means of notification will include, but is not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or 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, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.

The Coast Guard determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: The safety zone for the navigational channel will be of limited duration, expecting to completed by the end February 2015, and the commuter ferries have already rerouted out of safety concerns with the previous falling debris from the bridge and have requested that the navigational bridge span be removed at the earliest stages of the project. This time of the season there is no recreational boating traffic.

Persons and/or vessels may enter the safety zone if they obtain permission from the Coast Guard COTP, Boston.

Notifications will be made to the local maritime community through the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners well in advance of the demolition.

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.

For all of the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning And Review section, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. 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 Mr. Mark Cutter at the telephone number or email address indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

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 calls for no 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 State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it 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 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 establishment of a safety zone. 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:

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive necessary information about the event until January 23, 2015. As a result, the Coast Guard did not have sufficient time to publish an NPRM and to receive public comments prior to the event. Any delay in the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the race participants, spectators and the general public. For the same reason, the Coast Guard finds under 5 U.S.C. 552 for good cause that the rule should take effect in less than 30 days from publication in the Federal Register.

(a) The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated safety zones and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.

(b) The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safety of the runners, and the general public during the Cooper River Bridge Run.

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 economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone will only be enforced for a total of three hours; (2) although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; and (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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 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.

(1) This rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit in a portion of the Cooper River, and Town Creek Reaches in Charleston, South Carolina from 7:30 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. on March 28, 2015.

(2) For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 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 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 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 a safety zone on waters of the Cooper River, and Town Creek Reaches, South Carolina during the Cooper River Bridge Run on Saturday, March 28, 2015. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph (34)(g) 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 165 as follows:

On June 17, 2014, we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety and Security Zones: Jacksonville Captain of the Port Zone in the Federal Register (79 FR 34674).

In 1994, the USCG published a safety zone around firework barges between the Hart and Acosta Bridges within the Port of Jacksonville. As of 2008, there are 22 special local regulations listed under 33 CFR 100.701 which establish a 500 yard regulated area around various barges for firework display events. This regulation revises the current regulations to add safety zone regulations during natural and other disasters. It also implements safety zones for all fire work displays in the Jacksonville Captain of the Port Zone.

The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

The purpose of these regulations is to ensure the safety of life on navigable waters of the United States through the addition of regulations applicable during disasters and firework displays within the Jacksonville Captain of the Port Zone.

Public meetings were held on June 23, 2014 in Jacksonville and June 25, 2014 in Port Canaveral. No comments were received during the meetings or the NPRM comment period.

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. This regulation is not a significant regulatory action because most of the regulations already exist in some form such as special local regulations for firework displays. The regulations that are being added are not expected to have a significant regulatory action due to the infrequency of use for the safety zones around firework barges. The removal of the safety and security zone for Blount Island would have no effect as the Restricted Area set in place by the Army Corps of Engineers will remain in effect.

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 zero 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.

For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 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 disestablishing of a safety and security zone, addition of port regulations that would be otherwise published as a Temporary Final Rule, and addition of safety zones to include all firework barge displays within the Jacksonville Captain of the Port Zone. 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:

I. Background

Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS. Section 110(a) of the CAA generally requires states to make a SIP submission to meet applicable requirements in order to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. These SIP submissions are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIP submissions. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make an infrastructure SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the infrastructure SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affect the content of the submission. The contents of such infrastructure SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains. In the case of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states typically have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous ozone NAAQS.

More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these requirements include basic structural SIP elements such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements of section 110(a)(2) are summarized below and in EPA's September 13, 2013, memorandum entitled “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).” 1

On November 24, 2014, EPA proposed to approve in part and disapprove in part, the May 29, 2012, and July 26, 2012, 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submissions with the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4), and the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), which EPA will address in a separate action. EPA also proposed to disapprove a portion of Mississippi's infrastructure submission for section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) pertaining to state board majority requirements respecting significant portion of income. See 79 FR 69787. EPA did not receive any comments, adverse or otherwise, on the Agency's November 24, 2014, proposed action. In this rulemaking, EPA is taking final action to approve in part and disapprove in part Mississippi's May 29, 2012, and July 26, 2012, infrastructure submissions as demonstrating that the State meets the applicable requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as proposed in the Agency's November 24, 2014, rulemaking. EPA will act on portions of Mississippi's submissions not addressed in today's rulemaking in a separate action.

With the exceptions described below, EPA is taking final action to approve that MDEQ's infrastructure SIP submissions, submitted May 29, 2012, and July 26, 2012, for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS have met the above described infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA is disapproving in part section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of Mississippi's infrastructure submissions because the majority of members of boards that approve permits or enforcement orders in Mississippi may still derive a significant portion of income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders issued by such Mississippi boards, and therefore, its current SIP does not meet the section 128(a)(1) majority requirements respecting significant portion of income. This final approval in part and disapproval in part, however, does not include the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4), and the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), which will be addressed by EPA in a separate action. With the exceptions noted above Mississippi has addressed the elements of the CAA 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP requirements pursuant to section 110 of the CAA to ensure that the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Mississippi.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 1, 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:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

A transportation conformity SIP can be adopted as a state rule, a memorandum of understanding, or a memorandum of agreement. The appropriate form of the state transportation conformity procedures depends upon the requirements of local or state law, as long as the selected form complies with all Clean Air Act requirements for adoption, submission to EPA, and implementation of SIPs. EPA will accept state transportation conformity SIPs in any form provided the state can demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that, as a matter of state law, the state has adequate authority to compel compliance with the requirements of the conformity SIP.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) collaborated with the Akron Metropolitan Area Transportation Study, the Clark County-Springfield Transportation Coordinating Committee, the Eastgate Regional Council of Governments, EPA, the Erie Regional Planning Commission, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, the Indiana Department of Transportation, the Kentucky-Ohio-West Virginia Interstate Planning Commission, the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments, the Ohio Department of Transportation, the Licking County Area Transportation Study, the Lima-Allen County Regional Planning Commission, the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission, the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission, the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency, the Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, and the West Virginia Department of Transportation (the agencies listed in this paragraph are referenced as “Federal, state, and local agencies” throughout this document) to develop a transportation conformity SIP revision that meets EPA and DOT transportation conformity requirements resulting from passage of SAFETEA-LU.

On August 20, 2014, the Ohio EPA submitted a request to EPA to revise the Ohio transportation conformity SIP to include procedures, roles, and responsibilities for involved Federal, state agencies, and local agencies that must conduct transportation conformity planning and consultation.

For EPA approval, the submittal must address and give full legal effect to requirements laid out in three sections of title 40, part 93, subpart A of the Code of Federal Regulations: § 93.105, § 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and § 93.125(c).

Section 93.105 describes SIP requirements for interagency consultation (between Federal, state, and local agencies), conflict resolution, and public consultation. A transportation conformity SIP must include well defined interagency consultation procedures that define the roles and responsibilities for each participating agency. These consultation procedures must include provisions for circulating materials for comment before formal adoption, processes for convening consultation meetings, and processes for responding to significant comments of involved agencies. In addition, procedures for involved Federal, state, and local agencies must be included that address:

• Evaluation and selection of an emissions model and associated methods and assumptions to be used in hot-spot and regional emissions analyses, including determining which minor arterials and other transportation projects should be considered regionally significant for purposes of regional emissions analyses.

• Evaluation and selection of an emissions model, associated methods and assumptions, and projects to be included in determining conformity in isolated rural nonattainment and maintenance areas.

• Evaluation of events that will trigger new conformity determinations.

• Consultation on emissions analyses for transportation activities that cross metropolitan planning organization (MPO), nonattainment area, or air basin borders.

• Determination of conformity of projects that might lie outside of a metropolitan planning area, but within a nonattainment area, if such a situation exists.

• Disclosure of any regionally significant projects which are not FHWA or FTA projects to the MPO on a regular basis.

• Interagency consultation on data collection efforts and regional transportation model development by the MPO.

• Provision of final documentation and supporting information to each agency after approval or adoption.

• Resolution of conflicts among state agencies or between state agencies and an MPO.

• Public consultation for affected agencies that make conformity determinations on transportation plans, programs, and projects consistent with the public consultation requirements listed in 23 CFR 450.316(a).

The regulation at 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) provides that a transportation conformity SIP must contain provisions to ensure that any emission reduction credits from control measures that are not included in the SIP and that do not require a regulatory action in order to be implemented will not be included in a project level conformity determination unless the National Environmental Policy Act document includes written commitments from the appropriate entities to implement those control measures. These written commitments must be obtained by the initiating party prior to a conformity determination and the written commitments must be addressed by the initiating party.

The regulation at 40 CFR 93.125(c) provides that a transportation conformity SIP must contain provisions that ensure project-level mitigation measures will be identified with written commitments if those mitigation measures are part of the conditions for making the project level conformity determination. The commitments must be included in the project design and scope used in the regional emissions analysis or project-level hot-spot analysis.

The transportation conformity SIP revision submitted by the Ohio EPA on August 20, 2014, meets the requirements of 40 CFR 93.105, 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and 93.125(c) and therefore is approvable into the Ohio SIP.

EPA is approving a revision to Ohio's transportation conformity SIP submitted by Ohio EPA on August 20, 2014. We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective May 1, 2015 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by April 1, 2015. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective May 1, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

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

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 1, 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. 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:

Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS. Section 110(a) of the CAA generally requires states to make a SIP submission to meet applicable requirements in order to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. These SIP submissions are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIP submissions. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make an infrastructure SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the infrastructure SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affect the content of the submission. The contents of such infrastructure SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains. In the case of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states typically have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous ozone NAAQS.

More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these requirements include basic structural SIP elements such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements of section 110(a)(2) are summarized below and in EPA's September 13, 2013, memorandum entitled “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).” 1

On August 22, 2014, EPA proposed to approve South Carolina's July 17, 2012, 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission with the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4), and the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), which EPA will address in a separate action. See 79 FR 49736. EPA did not receive any comments, adverse or otherwise, on the Agency's August 22, 2014, proposed action. In this rulemaking, EPA is taking final action to approve South Carolina's infrastructure submission as demonstrating that the State meets the applicable requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as proposed in the Agency's August 22, 2014 rulemaking. EPA will act on other portions of South Carolina's submission in a separate action.

With the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4), and the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), EPA is taking final action to approve South Carolina's July 17, 2012, SIP submission. This submission addresses infrastructure requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the South Carolina SIP. With the exceptions noted above SC DHEC has addressed the elements of the CAA 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP requirements pursuant to section 110 of the CAA to ensure that the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in South Carolina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

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

In addition, this action for the state of South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the State of South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, “all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.” However, EPA has determined that because this rule does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe because, as noted above, this action is not approving any specific rule, but rather proposing that South Carolina's already approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements. EPA notes today's action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 1, 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:

An interim rule was published on July 29, 2014 (79 FR 43958) implementing 10 U.S.C. 2409, as amended by section 846 of the national Defense Authorization Act for FY 2008 (Pub. L. 110-181) and section 827 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239). The interim rule implemented Whistleblower protections for contractor employees performing under contracts with NASA.

On August 29, 2014, technical amendments to the interim rule were published in the Federal Register (79 FR 51501). The technical amendments corrected the numbering of two sections. NASA received no comments on the interim rule and has adopted the interim rule as a final rule without change.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

NASA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, at 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because it does not alter the solicitation or contract polices or procedures, nor does it create whistleblower protections for contractor employees. Such protections currently exist and this case sets forth requirements for contractors to notify employees of their rights and includes procedures and processes for contractor employees to exercise their rights.

This final rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. in accordance with The Paperwork Reduction Act.

Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.110. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from North Carolina through Maine. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state are described in § 648.10(c)(1)(i).

The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan provided a mechanism for summer flounder quota to be transferred from one state to another (December 17, 1993; 58 FR 65936). Two or more states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence of the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator, can transfer or combine summer flounder commercial quota under § 648.102(c)(2). The Regional Administrator is required to consider the criteria in § 648.102(c)(2)(i) when evaluating requests for quota transfers or combinations.

North Carolina has agreed to transfer 23,480 lb (10,650 kg) of its 2015 commercial quota to Virginia. This transfer was prompted by landings of the F/V Illusion and the F/V Jo Ann B, North Carolina vessels that were granted safe harbor in Virginia due to hazardous weather, medical emergencies, and mechanical failure on January 5 and 15, 2015. As a result of these landings, a quota transfer is necessary to account for an increase in Virginia's landings that would have otherwise accrued against the North Carolina quota. North Carolina has also agreed to transfer 9,062 lb (4,110 kg) of its 2015 commercial quota to New Jersey. This transfer was prompted by summer flounder landings of the F/V Bella Sky, a North Carolina vessel that was granted safe harbor in New Jersey due to mechanical failure on January 29, 2015. The quota transfer is necessary to account for an increase in New Jersey's landings that would have otherwise accrued against the North Carolina quota.

The Regional Administrator has determined that the criteria set forth in § 648.102(c)(2)(i) have been met. These transfers are consistent with the criteria because they will not preclude the overall annual quota from being fully harvested, the transfers address an unforeseen variation or contingency in the fishery, and the transfers are consistent with the objectives of the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The revised summer flounder commercial quotas for calendar year 2015 are: New Jersey, 1,860,420 lb (843,872 kg); Virginia, 2,383,120 lb (1,080,965 kg); and North Carolina, 3,005,551 lb (1,363,295 kg).

This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.