Federal Register Vol. 82, No.96,

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0472; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-148-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane. This condition is known as widespread fatigue damage. It is associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.

The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.

The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.

In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0170, dated August 19, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A310-203, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0472.

We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2104, dated December 15, 2015. The service information describes procedures for a modification of the left hand (LH) and right hand (RH) wing bottom skin at the MLG reinforcing plate, including related investigative actions and applicable corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

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

The compliance time for the replacement specified in this proposed AD for addressing WFD was established to ensure that discrepant structure is replaced before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly warrant such an extension.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-7264; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-185-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this SNPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this SNPRM based on those comments.

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

We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2016 (81 FR 40201) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a quality control review on the final assembly line, which determined that the wrong aluminum alloy was used to manufacture several structural parts. The NPRM proposed to require a one-time eddy current conductivity measurement of certain cabin and cargo compartment structural parts to determine if an incorrect aluminum alloy was used, and replacement of any affected part with a serviceable part.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0021, dated February 8, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7264.

We reviewed the following service information:

• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3261, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated November 10, 2016.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3262, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 23, 2015.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-5072, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 23, 2015.

The service information describes procedures for a one-time eddy current conductivity measurement of certain cabin and cargo compartment structural parts to determine if an incorrect aluminum alloy was used, and replacement of any affected part with a serviceable part. This service information is distinct since it applies to different parts on different airplanes. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing the NPRM. We considered the comments received.

American Airlines (AA) asked that we change the compliance time for the on-condition replacement specified in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) from “before further flight” to “within 6 years after the effective date of the AD, or within 12 years from the aeroplane date of manufacture, whichever occurs first” to correspond with the compliance time in the EASA AD. AA stated that this would provide more flexibility to operators in order to have a better plan to procure the parts and accomplish the replacement without extended downtime if the replacement parts are not immediately available after doing the inspection.

We agree with the commenter for the reasons provided. We have changed the compliance time specified in paragraph (h) of this proposed AD accordingly.

AA asked that we correct a typographical error specified in the second box of Figure A-GFAAA, Sheet 02, “Inspection Flowchart,” of the service information identified in paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). AA stated that the conductivity measurement should specify Sigma 60 instead of Sigma 480.

We agree that the conductivity measurement specified in the second box of the specified inspection flowchart is incorrect. We have added paragraph (i) to this proposed AD to specify this exception to the inspection flowchart in the service information. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

As stated previously, we have revised this proposed AD to include new inspection locations for certain airplanes, and to remove incorrect part numbers from table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this proposed AD.

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

Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 37 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 17 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $53,465, or $1,445 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any on-condition repairs would take about 45 work-hours and would require parts costing $0, for a cost of $3,825 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs.

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our cost estimate.

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

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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-6429; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-117-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this SNPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this SNPRM because of those comments.

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

On February 25, 2015, we issued AD 2015-05-02, Amendment 39-18112 (80 FR 15152, March 23, 2015) (“AD 2015-05-02”). AD 2015-05-02 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233, and A321 series airplanes.

We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD to supersede AD 2015-05-02 that would apply to certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 11, 2016 (81 FR 29198) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) which indicates that principal structural elements and certain life-limited parts are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or revised structural inspection requirements.

Since we issued the NPRM, the manufacturer has issued more restrictive airworthiness limitations and added Model A320-251N and -271N airplanes to the applicability.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0239, dated December 2, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition. The MCAI states:

The required action is revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new or revised structural inspection requirements. The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, and WFD, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6429.

Airbus has issued the following service information.

• A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1—Safe Life—Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL—ALI), Revision 04, dated June 20, 2016. This service information describes mandatory instructions and airworthiness limitations for the “safe-life” structure.

• A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—Damage-Tolerant—Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT—ALI), Revision 05, dated July 8, 2016. This service information describes mandatory instructions and airworthiness limitations arising from fatigue and damage tolerance evaluation of damage tolerant structural elements.

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

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing the NPRM. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Airbus requested that we revise the NPRM to specify the latest ALS Part 1 document, which is currently Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1 SL—ALI, Revision 03, dated February 22, 2016. Airbus and United Airlines (UAL) requested that we revise the NPRM to specify Revision 05 of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—DT—ALI, which is expected to be published soon.

We agree with the commenters' requests. We have reviewed the latest ALS documents: Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—SL—ALI, Revision 04, dated June 20, 2016; and Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—DT—ALI, Revision 05, dated July 8, 2016.

We have added paragraph (j) to this proposed AD to specify that the incorporation of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—SL—ALI, Revision 04, dated June 20, 2016, is a method of compliance for the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this proposed AD. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

We have also revised paragraph (i) of this proposed AD to specify incorporation of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—DT—ALI, Revision 05, dated July 8, 2016.

UAL requested that we allow the instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA) defined in Airbus/EASA-approved RDAS as an acceptable adaptation to an ALI task for the affected repair location in lieu of obtaining approval of an FAA alternative method of compliance (AMOC). UAL stated that paragraph (j) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) (referred to as paragraph (k) of this proposed AD (in the SNPRM)) prohibits alternative action(s), including inspections and/or intervals, unless approved by an AMOC.

We do not agree with UAL's request. 14 CFR part 39.17 states that if a change in a product affects an operator's ability to accomplish the actions required by the airworthiness directive in any way, the operator must request FAA approval of an AMOC. For approval of an AMOC, the operator must provide evidence that the change will eliminate the unsafe condition or include the specific proposed actions to address the unsafe condition. An operator can submit a RDAS as substantiation to support a request for an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this proposed AD. We have not changed this proposed AD in this regard.

UAL requested that we clarify the repairs required by the proposed AD. UAL explained that paragraph 5.3 of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2, DT—ALI, Revision 04, dated December 18, 2015, states that operators must follow the structural repair manual or RDAS in case of damage or repairs. UAL stated that it is not certain that this provision provides authority to incorporate the adapted ICA for the repairs without requesting approval of an FAA AMOC.

We agree that clarification is necessary. AMOCs are not required to address findings from the required ALS inspection because the AD does not mandate corrective actions. An AMOC is only required if there are deviations from the ALS inspection method or interval. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are required by general airworthiness and operational regulations to perform maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We have not changed this proposed AD in this regard.

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

Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,182 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions required by AD 2015-05-02, and retained in this proposed AD, take about 2 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 are required by AD 2015-05-02 is $170 per product.

We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $200,940, or $170 per product.

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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

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

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0481; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-196-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-28, dated September 28, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0481.

We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-24-28, dated July 27, 2016, and Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-24-003, dated July 27, 2016. The service information describes procedures for the inspection of the APU generator power cables and the adjacent hydraulic line for damage, and repair, if necessary; and modification of the APU generator power cable installation. These documents are distinct since they apply to different configurations of this model. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

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

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 162 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these repairs:

According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

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

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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0340; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-002-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

We have received a report indicating that an operator found a 0.406-inch-long crack in the fuselage station (STA) 1380 frame inner chord, originating from a fastener hole between fuselage stringers S-25R and S-26R. The crack was found during frame web corrosion removal on an airplane with a 7075-T73 aluminum alloy at the fuselage STA 1380 frame inner chord. Boeing received five other reports of cracking on airplanes with a 7075-T73 aluminum alloy at the fuselage STA 1380 frame inner chord. Boeing has determined that existing internal zonal general visual and detailed structural inspections of the number 2 cargo door cutout are not adequate to reliably detect a crack before it grows to a critical length. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the door opening during flight, and result in rapid decompression of the airplane and the inability to sustain loads required for continued safe flight and landing.

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016. The service information describes procedures for repetitive surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for any cracking of the fuselage STA 1380 frame inner chord; an identification of the material (an inspection or measurement) of the fuselage STA 1380 frame inner chord; and applicable corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.” For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-20++-+++++.

The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. Corrective actions correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016, specifies to contact the manufacturer for certain instructions, but this proposed AD would require using repair methods, modification deviations, and alteration deviations in one of the following ways:

• In accordance with a method that we approve; or

• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 588 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

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

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0476; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-110-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

On April 7, 2014, we issued AD 2014-08-01, Amendment 39-17825 (79 FR 23900, April 29, 2014) (“AD 2014-08-01”), for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 2014-08-01 superseded AD 2014-03-08, Amendment 39-17745 (79 FR 9398, February 19, 2014) (“AD 2014-03-08”). AD 2014-08-01 was prompted by a report that an investigation showed that when a certain combination of target/proximity sensor serial numbers is installed on a flap interconnecting strut, a “target FAR” signal cannot be detected when it reaches the mechanical end stop of the interconnecting strut. AD 2014-08-01 requires an inspection to determine the part number of the interconnecting struts installed on the wings, identifying the part number and the serial number of the associated target and proximity sensor if applicable, and replacing or re-identifying the flap interconnecting strut if applicable. We issued AD 2014-08-01 to correct the definition of a serviceable interconnecting strut.

Since we issued AD 2014-08-01, we received a report that airplanes were delivered with pre-modification 27956 part number installed on the flap interconnecting strut(s), but declared to be in post-modification configuration in the Aircraft Inspection Report. We have determined that certain airplanes must be inspected to verify the interconnecting strut part number.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0113, dated June 15, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0476.

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-27-1206, Revision 02, dated November 2, 2015. The service information describes an inspection to determine the part number of the installed interconnecting struts and the part number and serial number of the associated target and proximity sensor, and replacement and re-identification of the interconnecting struts. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

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

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,032 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions required by AD 2014-08-01, and retained in this proposed AD, take about 8 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2014-08-01 is $680 per product.

We also estimate that it would take about 15 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,315,800, or $1,275 per product.

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

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 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 would amend Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated as a surface area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, as well as remove Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D airspace at Kenosha Regional Airport, Kenosha, WI, to enhance the safety and management of IFR operations at this airport..

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0210/Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-10.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by:

Modifying the Class D airspace to within a 4.2-mile radius (increased from a 4.1-mile radius) of Kenosha Regional Airport, Kenosha, WI;

Modifying the Class E airspace designated as a surface area to within a 4.2-mile radius (increased from a 4.1-mile radius) of Kenosha Regional Airport, and removing the Kenosha VOR and the 7-mile extension northeast of the airport;

Removing the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D airspace at Kenosha Regional Airport; and

Modifying the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.7-mile radius (reduced from a 7-mile radius) of Kenosha Regional Airport (formerly Kenosha Municipal Airport), with an extension from the Kenosha Localizer to 10 miles west of the localizer, and updating the name and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Kenosha VOR and to bring the airspace in compliance with FAA Order JO 7400.2K, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, at this airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

Additionally, this action would replace the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the Class D and Class E surface area airspace legal descriptions.

Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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 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 would amend Class E airspace to support IFR operations in standard instruments approach procedures at the airport.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0287/Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-6.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

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

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from 7.5-miles) of Wayne Municipal Airport, Wayne, NE. Airspace redesign of standard instrument approach procedures is necessary for IFR operations at the airport due to the decommissioning of the Wayne NDB, and cancellation of the NDB approach. The geographic coordinates of the airport also would be updated to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action would enhance the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

I. Background and Statutory Authority

The CPSIA was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA 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 or toddler products. Standards issued under section 104 are to be “substantially the same as” the applicable voluntary standards, or more stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product.

Section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA defines the term “durable infant or toddler product” as “a durable product intended for use, or that may be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the age of 5 years.” Section 104(f)(2)(C) of the CPSIA specifically identifies “booster chairs” as a durable infant or toddler product.

Pursuant to section 104(b)(1)(A) of the CPSIA, the Commission consulted with manufacturers, retailers, trade organizations, laboratories, consumer advocacy groups, consultants, and members of the public in the development of this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), largely through the ASTM process.

Based on a briefing package prepared by CPSC staff, the proposed rule would incorporate by reference the most recent booster seat voluntary standard developed by ASTM International, ASTM F2640-17ε 1, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Booster Seats, without modification. [https://cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Notice%20of%20Proposed%20Rulemaking%20-%20Booster%20Seats%20-%20May%203%202017.pdf?97pmoM5UAGyQBBPFtTPyvFu_RjCZMAwL] If finalized, the ASTM standard would be a mandatory safety rule under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA).

The testing and certification requirements of section 14(a) of the CPSA apply to the standards promulgated under section 104 of the CPSIA. Section 14(a)(3) of the CPSA requires the Commission to publish an NOR for the accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (test laboratories) to assess conformity with a children's product safety rule to which a children's product is subject. The proposed rule for booster seats, if issued as a final rule, would be a children's product safety rule that requires the issuance of an NOR. To meet the requirement that the Commission issue an NOR for the booster seats standard, this NPR also proposes to amend 16 CFR part 1112 to include 16 CFR part 1237, the CFR section where the booster seat standard will be codified if the standard becomes final.

ASTM F2640-17 ε 1 defines a “booster seat” as “a juvenile chair, which is placed on an adult chair to elevate a child to standard dining table height. The booster seat is made for the purpose of containing a child, up to 5 years of age, and normally for the purposes of feeding or eating. A booster seat may be height adjustable and include a reclined position.” Booster seats may be constructed from a wide variety of materials, including wood, plastic, fabric, metal, and/or foam. Most booster seats, notably those intended for home use, have removable trays, allowing a table to be used as an alternative eating surface. Some booster seats are intended to double as floor seats for toddlers, and others are high chair/booster seat combination products. The ASTM standard covers combination products when they are in their booster seat configuration.

Several suppliers produce booster seats that are designed specifically for use in restaurants. These suppliers sell their “food-service” booster seats directly to restaurants or through restaurant supply companies; however, consumers may purchase these products directly, for example online through third parties such as Amazon.com. Consequently, these food-service booster seats may also be found in homes. Furthermore, consumers use these food-service booster seats in establishments open to the public. ASTM F2640-17ε 1 broadly defines booster seats as “a juvenile chair, which is placed on an adult chair to elevate a child to standard dining table height.” There is no exclusion for food-service booster seats and ASTM subcommittee members have stated in several subcommittee meetings that food-service booster seats are included in the standard.

The standard does not cover car booster seats, which are also sometimes referred to as “booster seats.”

Currently, booster seats use a variety of methods to secure the booster on an adult chair; most employ a method of attachment, such as straps or suction, to attach to an adult chair. However, a few booster seats rely on the occupant's weight (along with anti-skid bottoms or grip feet to minimize slippage by means of friction) to secure the booster seat onto an adult chair. As discussed below in section VI.A., not all methods of securing a booster seat to an adult chair comply with the attachment requirements in ASTM F2640-17ε 1.

The Commission is aware of a total of 867 incidents (2 fatal, 865 nonfatal) related to booster seats, reported to have occurred between January 1, 2008 and September 30, 2016. Information on 83 percent of these incidents was based on retailer and manufacturer reports submitted through the CPSC's “Retailer Reporting Program.” Various sources, such as hotlines, Internet reports, newspaper clippings, medical examiners, and other state and local authorities provided the CPSC with the remaining incident reports. Because reporting is ongoing, the number of reported fatalities, nonfatal injuries, and non-injury incidents may change in the future.

CPSC has reports of two fatalities associated with the use of a booster seat:

In one incident, a 22-month-old female, sitting on a booster seat attached to an adult chair, pushed off from the table and tipped the adult chair backwards into a glass panel of a china cabinet behind her. The cause of death was listed as “exsanguination due to hemorrhage from incised wound.”

In the other incident, a 4-year-old male fell from a booster seat to the floor; he seemed uninjured at the time, but later that evening when riding his bike, the child fell, became unresponsive, and later died. The cause of death was multiple blunt force trauma.

CPSC has reports of 146 booster seat nonfatal injury incidents occurring between January 1, 2008 and September 30, 2016. Among the incidents with age information available, a majority of the incidents involved children 18 months and under. The severity of the injury types among the 146 reported injuries were as follows:

Four children required a hospital admission. The injuries were skull fractures, concussions, and other head injuries.

Another 22 children were treated and released from a hospital emergency department (ED) for injuries resulting mostly from falls.

The remaining incidents primarily involved contusions, abrasions, and lacerations, due to falls or entrapment of limbs/extremities.

The remaining 719 non-injury incident reports specified that no injury had occurred or provided no information about any injury. However, many of the descriptions indicated the potential for a serious injury or even death.

CPSC staff considered all 867 reported incidents to identify hazard patterns associated with booster seats; subsequently, staff considered the hazard patterns when reviewing the adequacy of ASTM F2640-17ε 1. CPSC staff identified the following hazard patterns associated with booster seats:

1. Restraint/Attachment Problems (37%): 317 incidents involved the mechanism for attaching a booster seat to an adult chair, or the restraint system that contains the child within the booster seat. Issues with the attachment mechanism included anchor Buckles/clasps/straps breaking, tearing, fraying, detaching or releasing. Restraint-system problems included: Buckles/prongs breaking, jamming, releasing too easily, or separating from straps; straps tearing or fraying, pinching, or coming undone; and general inadequacy or ineffectiveness of restraints in containing the child in place. In 18 incident reports, it was not clear from the report if the buckle or strap referred to in the report meant the restraint or the attachment system. In eight of the incident reports, both systems were reported to have failed. Thirty-seven injuries are included in this category, of which seven were treated at a hospital ED.

2. Seat-Related Issues (29%): 254 incidents involved seat-related issues. These incidents included failure of the lock/latch that controls the seat-recline function; seat pads tearing, cracking, and/or peeling; the seat back detaching altogether; seat height adjustment lock/latch failure; and seat detachment from the base available for certain models. Twenty-one injuries are included in this category, two resulting in hospitalizations and five of which were ED-treated injuries.

3. Tray-Related Issues (20%): 171 incidents involved issues relating to booster seat trays. These incidents included tray paint finish peeling off, trays failing to lock/stay locked, trays with sharp protrusions on the underside, trays too tight/difficult to release, and trays pinching fingers. These incidents also included complaints about broken toy-accessories, which are usually attached to the tray (or tray-insert). Thirty-six injuries are included in this category, including one that required ED treatment.

4. Design Problems (4%): 33 incidents involved a potential entrapment hazard due to the design of the booster seat. Most of these incidents involved limbs, fingers, and toes entrapped in spaces/openings between the armrest and seat back/tray, between passive crotch restraint bar and seat/tray, between tray inserts, or in toy accessories. Fifteen injuries were included in this category, two requiring ED treatment.

5. Stability-Related Issues (4%): 31 incidents involved issues of booster seat stability. Most of these incidents (27 of 31) concerned the adult chair to which the booster seat was attached tipping back or over. Some of these incidents resulted from the child pushing back from the table or counter. Twenty-two injuries (including two hospitalizations and five ED-treated injuries) and one fatality are included in this category.

6. Armrest Problems (3%): 24 incidents involved booster seat armrests cracking or breaking. In a few cases, the armrest reportedly arrived broken inside the booster seat packaging. One injury is included in this category.

7. Miscellaneous Product Issues (2%): 16 miscellaneous incidents involved a variety of product-related issues, including unclear assembly instructions, poor quality construction, odor, rough surface, breakage, or loose hardware at unspecified sites. Nine injuries were included in this category, including two ED-treated injuries.

8. Combination of Multiple Issues (2%): 17 incidents involved a combination of the above-listed product hazards. Four injuries were included in this category.

9. Unknown Issues (<0.5%): Four incidents involved unknown issues. In these incidents, insufficient information was available for CPSC staff to determine how the incidents occurred. In one incident in this category, a fatality, there were confounding factors reported that likely contributed to the death. One other injury was reported in this category.

Compliance staff reviewed recalls of booster seats that occurred from January 1, 2008 to September 30, 2016. During that time, there was one consumer-level recall involving booster seats. The recall was conducted to resolve a fall hazard caused when the stitching on the booster seat's restraint straps loosened, allowing the straps to separate from the seat and the child to fall out of the seat.

CPSC staff identified one international standard—BS EN16120 Child Use and Care Articles—Chair Mounted Seat—intended for a similar product category. EN16120 addresses products for a more narrow age range of children (up to 36 months); whereas, F2640-17ε 1 includes products intended for children up to 5 years of age. Some individual requirements in the EN16120 standard are more stringent than ASTM F2640-17ε 1. For example, EN16120 contains requirements for head entrapment, lateral protection, surface chemicals, cords/ribbons, material shrinkage, packaging film, and monofilament threads. Conversely, some individual requirements in F2640-17ε 1 are more stringent than those found in EN 16120; ASTM F2640-17ε 1 includes requirements for tray performance and toy accessories. CPSC staff believes that the current ASTM standard, ASTM F2640-17ε 1, is the most comprehensive of the standards to address the identified product hazards.

The voluntary standard for booster seats was first approved and published in 2007, as ASTM F2640-07, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Booster Seats. ASTM has revised the voluntary standard nine times since then. The current version of the standard, ASTM F2640-17ε 1 was approved on March 01, 2017 and published in March 2017.

ASTM F2640-17ε 1 includes the following key provisions: Scope, terminology, general requirements, performance requirements, test methods, marking and labeling, and instructional literature.

Scope. This section states the scope of the standard, detailing what constitutes a booster seat. As stated in section II.A. of this preamble, the Scope section describes a booster seat as “a juvenile chair, which is placed on an adult chair to elevate a child to standard dining table height.” The scope section further specifies appropriate ages for children using a booster seat, stating that a “booster seat is made for the purpose of containing a child, up to 5 years of age, and normally for the purposes of feeding or eating.”

Terminology. This section provides definitions of terms specific to this standard.

General Requirements. This section addresses numerous hazards with several general requirements; most are also found in the other ASTM juvenile product standards. The general requirements included in this section are:

Sharp edges or points;

Small parts;

Wood parts;

Lead in paint;

Scissoring, shearing, and pinching;

Openings;

Exposed coil springs;

Protective components;

Labeling; and

Toys.

Performance Requirements and Test Methods. These sections contain performance requirements specific to booster seats (discussed here) and the test methods that must be used to assess conformity with such requirements.

Tray impact test: This test assesses the tray's resistance to breaking into small pieces or creating sharp points/edges when dropped from a specified height.

Tray engagement test: This test assesses the tray's ability to remain engaged to the booster seat when subjected to a specified force horizontally and vertically.

Static load test: This test assesses whether the booster seat can support its maximum recommended weight, by gradually applying a static load on the center of the seating surface for a specified amount of time.

Restraint system test: This test assesses whether the restraint system can secure a child in the manufacturer's recommended-use positions.

Attachment test: This test specifies that a booster seat must have a means of attaching a booster seat to an adult chair and assesses the booster seat's ability to remain fastened to the adult chair when force is applied.

Structural integrity: This requirement assesses the durability of the locking/latching devices to prevent folding or adjustment of the booster seat.

Maximum booster seat dimensions: This requirement assesses how large a booster seat can be in relation to the adult chair dimensions specified on the booster seat's packaging.

Marking and Labeling. This section contains various requirements relating to warnings, labeling, and required markings for booster seats. This section prescribes various substance, format, and prominence requirements for such information.

Instructional Literature. This section requires that easily readable and understandable instructions be provided with booster seats. Additionally, the section contains requirements relating to instructional literature contents and format.

CPSC staff identified 867 incidents (including two fatalities) related to the use of booster seats. CPSC staff examined the incident data, identified hazard patterns in the data, and worked with ASTM to develop the performance requirements in ASTM F2640. The incident data and identified hazard patterns served as the basis for the development of ASTM F2640-17ε 1 by ASTM with CPSC staff support throughout the process.

CPSC believes that the current voluntary standard, ASTM F2640-17ε 1, addresses the primary hazard patterns identified in the incident data. The following section discusses how each of the identified product-related issues or hazard patterns listed in section III.C. of this preamble is addressed by the current voluntary standard:

Restraint system and attachment problems included buckles/prongs breaking, jamming, releasing too easily, or separating from straps; straps tearing or fraying, pinching, or coming undone; and inadequacy or ineffectiveness of restraints in containing the child in place, Similarly, complaints about the seat attachment system involved anchor buckles/clasps/straps breaking, tearing, fraying, detaching, or releasing. CPSC evaluated the attachment and restraint system tests in ASTM F2640-17ε 1, and believes that these tests adequately address this hazard.

Section 6.5 of ASTM F2640-17ε 1 requires that a booster seat must have a means of “attaching” to an adult chair, and be able to withstand a specified force without becoming detached from the adult chair. Booster seats may employ several methods to secure to an adult chair, including straps, suction, and anti-skid bottoms or grip feet that minimize slippage on the chair by means of friction. However, because “grip feet” and “friction bottoms” do not actually attach (i.e., fasten) the booster seat to an adult chair, a majority of ASTM subcommittee members, as well as CPSC staff, does not consider these means of securing booster seats to an adult chair to be a means of attachment that Section 6.5 requires. Conversely, because suction physically fastens the booster seat to an adult chair, CPSC staff and a majority of ASTM subcommittee members consider suction to be a means of attachment under Section 6.5 of the current ASTM standard; nevertheless, any booster seat using suction as a means of attachment must still pass the attachment test to be compliant.

Thus, promulgating the requirements of ASTM F2640ε 1 as a mandatory standard might result in the following: (1) Booster seats that currently use grip feet/friction bottoms to secure the booster seat to the surface upon which it sits (disproportionately used on food-service booster seats) would not comply with the mandatory standard due to their lack of a means of attachment; and (2) booster seats that currently use suction as a means of attachment may not pass the mandatory standard's attachment test. CPSC requests comments on the effect of ASTM F2640-17ε 1's attachment requirements becoming mandatory on booster seats that currently use grip feet/friction bottoms to secure the booster to the surface upon which it sits. Furthermore, CPSC requests comments on whether a suction attachment method is capable of passing ASTM F2640ε 1's attachment test.

Seat-related issues included failure of the lock/latch that controls the seat-recline function; seat pads tearing, cracking, and/or peeling; seat backs detaching altogether; seat height adjustment lock/latch failures; and seat detachment from the base that is available for certain models. CPSC evaluated the static load and dynamic booster seat tests in ASTM F2640-17ε 1, and believes that these tests adequately address this hazard.

Tray-related issues included trays with paint finish peeling off, trays failing to lock/stay locked, trays with sharp protrusions on the underside, trays that were too tight/difficult to release, and trays pinching fingers. Upon evaluation, CPSC believes that the general requirements section of F2640-17ε 1 adequately addresses peeling paint, sharp protrusions, and pinching hazards, and the standard's tray engagement test adequately address the tray locking failures.

Booster seat design problems resulted in limbs, fingers, and toes entrapped in spaces/openings between the armrest and seat back/tray, between passive crotch restraint bar and seat/tray, between tray inserts, or in toy accessories. CPSC evaluated the general requirements of ASTM 2640-17ε 1 (namely requirements relating to scissoring, shearing, and pinching, openings, and toys) and believes that the ASTM standard adequately addresses this hazard.

Stability-related incidents included instances where the adult chair to which the booster seat was attached, tipped back or tipped over. Addressing the stability of the booster seat while attached to an adult chair is difficult in a standard for booster seats because stability is dependent on the adult chair. The ASTM booster seat subcommittee and CPSC staff worked diligently to find an effective requirement to adequately address stability without specifying requirements for the adult chair. Although ASTM F2640-17ε 1 does not contain a performance requirement to address this hazard, it does contain a labeling requirement, whereby booster seats must contain a cautionary statement: “Never allow a child to push away from table.” Moreover, ASTM F2640-17ε 1 requires a booster seat to identify on the booster seat packaging the size of adult chair on which the booster seat can fit, thereby allowing consumers to make a more informed purchasing choice.

Armrest problems included booster seat armrests cracking, and in a few cases, the armrest arriving to the consumer broken in the packaging. CPSC evaluated the static and dynamic load tests contained in ASTM F2640-17ε 1, and believes that those tests adequately address armrest-related hazards.

Miscellaneous product-related issues included unclear assembly instructions, poor quality construction, odor, rough surface, breakage, or loose hardware at unspecified sites. CPSC evaluated the general requirements section, as well as the instructional literature requirements of ASTM F2640-17ε 1, and believes that those requirements adequately address this hazard.

As discussed in the previous section, the Commission concludes that ASTM F2640-17ε 1 adequately addresses the hazards associated with booster seats. Thus, the Commission proposes to incorporate by reference ASTM F2640-17ε 1, without modification, into the final rule.

The CPSA establishes certain requirements for product certification and testing. 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). Certification of children's products subject to a children's product safety rule must be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body. Id. 2063(a)(2). The Commission must publish an NOR for the accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies to assess conformity with a children's product safety rule to which a children's product is subject. Id. 2063(a)(3). Thus, the proposed rule for 16 CFR part 1237, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Booster Seats, if issued as a final rule, would be 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), codified at 16 CFR part 1112 (part 1112) and effective on June 10, 2013, which establishes requirements for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies to test for conformity with a children's product safety rule in accordance with section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA. Part 1112 also codifies all of the NORs issued previously by the Commission.

All new NORs for new children's product safety rules, such as the booster seats standard, require an amendment to part 1112. To meet the requirement that the Commission issue an NOR for the booster seats standard, as part of this NPR, the Commission proposes to amend the existing rule that codifies the list of all NORs issued by the Commission to add booster seats to the list of children's product safety rules for which the CPSC has issued an NOR.

Test laboratories applying for acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body to test to the new standard for booster seats would be required to meet the third party conformity assessment body accreditation requirements in part 1112. 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 1237, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Booster Seats, included in the laboratory's scope of accreditation of CPSC safety rules listed for the laboratory on the CPSC Web site at: www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.

The Commission proposes to incorporate by reference ASTM F2640-17ε 1, without modification. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. For a proposed rule, agencies must discuss in the preamble to the NPR ways that the materials the agency proposes to incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested persons or how the agency worked to make the materials reasonably available. In addition, the preamble to the proposed rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(a).

In accordance with the OFR's requirements, section V.B. of this preamble summarizes the provisions of ASTM F2640-17ε 1 that the Commission proposes to incorporate by reference. ASTM F2640-17ε 1 is copyrighted. By permission of ASTM, the standard can be viewed as a read-only document during the comment period on this NPR, at: http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. Interested persons may also purchase a copy of ASTM F2640-17ε 1 from ASTM International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428; http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. One may also inspect a copy at CPSC's Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that the effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after publication of the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Although a 6-month effective date has been adopted for several other section 104 rules, the Commission is proposing an effective date of 12 months after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register to allow booster seat manufacturers additional time to bring their products into compliance after the final rule is issued. CPSC was unable to rule out a significant economic impact for some booster seat importers and small firms, and a 12-month effective date will allow additional time for manufacturers and importers to make necessary changes to bring their booster seats into conformance with the ASTM F2640-17ε 1 and arrange for third party testing.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that agencies review a proposed rule for the rule's potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses. Section 603 of the RFA generally requires that agencies prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and make the analysis available to the public for comment when the agency publishes an NPR. 5 U.S.C. 603. Section 605 of the RFA provides that an IRFA is not required if the agency certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Staff could not rule out a significant economic impact on 20 of the 29 small suppliers of booster seats to the U.S. market. Accordingly, staff prepared an IRFA and poses several questions for public comment to help staff assess the rule's potential impact on small businesses.

The IRFA must describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities and identify significant alternatives that accomplish the statutory objectives and minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Specifically, the IRFA must contain:

A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered;

a succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule;

a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;

a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities subject to the requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for the preparation of reports or records; and

identification, to the extent possible, of all relevant federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule; and

In addition, the IRFA must describe any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.

The Commission has identified 49 firms supplying booster seats to the U.S. market, 39 that supply home-use booster seats, and 10 that supply food-service booster seats. Forty-four of these firms (28 manufacturers, 15 importers, and one supplier with an unknown supply source) are domestic. The remaining five firms are foreign.

As discussed in section I. of this preamble, section 104 of the CPSIA requires the CPSC to promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products that are substantially the same as, or more stringent than, the relevant voluntary standard. Section 104(f)(2)(C) of the CPSIA specifically identifies “booster chairs” as a durable infant or toddler product for which the Commission shall promulgate a consumer product safety standard.

CPSC staff is aware of 49 firms currently marketing booster seats in the United States, 44 that are domestic. Under U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines, a manufacturer is considered small if it has 500 or fewer employees; and importers and wholesalers are considered small if they have 100 or fewer employees. Staff limited its analysis to domestic firms because SBA guidelines and definitions pertain to U.S.-based entities. Based on these guidelines, 29 of the 44 domestic firms are small—18 manufacturers, 10 importers, and one firm with an unknown supply source. Additional unknown small domestic booster seat suppliers may be operating in the U.S. market.

Of the 18 small manufacturers, eight produce booster seats that comply with ASTM F2640-14, the voluntary standard currently in effect for testing purposes under the Juvenile Product Manufactures Association (JPMA) certification program. In general, it is expected that the small manufacturers whose booster seats already comply with the current voluntary standard will remain compliant with the voluntary standard as it evolves, because these small manufacturers follow, and in some cases, participate actively in the standard development process. ASTM F2640-17ε 1 has already been published and will be in effect by the time the mandatory standard becomes final. Moreover, history indicates that these firms are likely to be in compliance by the time the mandatory standard takes effect.

All but one of these eight already-compliant firms supply home-use booster seats that use straps/belts as an attachment method. The remaining small manufacturer uses suction to attach their home-use booster seat to adult chairs. It is unclear whether the suction-type booster seats would pass the attachment test in ASTM F2640-17ε 1 without modifications. Several participants in the ASTM voluntary standards development process, including one of the supplier representatives contacted by CPSC staff, believes that belts and/or straps will be required to pass the attachment test. If modifications were required, the impact could be significant. The firm could undertake efforts to improve their existing suction system, or they could modify the chair to use strap/belt attachment system, which would involve creating new product molds, as well as the cost of the belts and buckles. Several of the supplier representatives staff contacted believe that a complete redesign for booster seats costs approximately $500,000. Although it is unlikely that the cost of addressing the attachment performance requirement would be that high, any change that involves redesign can be expensive, and the affected firm likely has relatively low sales revenue. Therefore, staff cannot rule out a significant impact on this firm.

Ten small manufacturers produce booster seats that do not comply with the voluntary standard; half are home-use booster seat manufacturers, and the other half are food-service booster seat manufacturers. Staff cannot rule out a significant economic impact for any of these small manufacturers. The booster seats manufactured by all 10 firms are likely to require modifications, some of which may be significant, to meet the requirements of the voluntary standard. For example, eight of the 10 firms use attachment methods other than belts or straps, such as suction or friction, on one or more of their booster seat products. Six of those firms supply plastic or foam booster seats, which are likely to be more expensive to modify than wooden booster seats. In addition, some plastic booster seats may require a complete redesign to comply with the warning label requirements, even if sufficient space is available on the product to display the labels.

Staff cannot determine the extent and cost of the changes required for compliance of these manufacturers' booster seat products; therefore, staff cannot rule out a significant economic impact on these businesses. However, based on the revenue data available for these firms, the impact is not likely to be significant for two of the firms, unless modifications that cost more than $200,000 are required. The impact on five of the firms could be significant, even with relatively minor changes (i.e., less than $40,000). Without additional information, staff cannot determine the impact on the remaining three firms.

The Commission requests information on the changes that may be required to meet the voluntary standard, ASTM F2640-17ε 1 and, in particular, the time and cost associated with any necessary redesign or retrofitting. The Commission also requests information on the degree to which modifications required as a result of ASTM F2640-17ε 1's attachment test may add to a firm's costs.

Under section 14 of the CPSA, once the requirements of ASTM F2640-17ε 1 are effective, all manufacturers will be subject to the third party testing and certification requirements under the 1107 rule. Third party testing will include any physical and mechanical test requirements specified in the final booster seat rule. Manufacturers and importers should already be conducting required lead testing for booster seats. Third party testing costs are in addition to the direct costs of meeting the requirements of the booster seat standard.

Eight of the 18 small booster seats manufacturers are already testing their products, although not necessarily by a third party, to verify compliance with the ASTM standard. For these manufacturers, the impact on testing costs will be limited to the difference between the cost of third party tests and the cost of current testing regimes. CPSC staff contacted small booster seat manufacturers. They estimate that third party testing booster seats to the ASTM voluntary standard would cost about $500 to $1,000 per model sample. For the eight small manufacturers that are already testing, the incremental costs are unlikely to be economically significant.

For the 10 small manufacturers that are not currently testing their products to verify compliance with the ASTM standard, the impact of third party testing could result in significant costs for three firms. Although CPSC does not currently know how many samples will be needed to meet the “high degree of assurance” criterion required in the 1107 rule, testing costs could exceed one percent of gross revenue for two of these firms, if five samples are needed to be tested (assuming high-end testing costs of $1,000 per model sample). Revenue information was not available for the third firm, but that firm's revenue appears to be very small. Accordingly, that firm might be significantly affected by third party testing costs.

The Commission welcomes comments regarding overall testing costs and incremental costs due to third party testing (i.e., how much does moving from a voluntary to a mandatory third party testing regime add to testing costs, in total, and on a per-test basis). In addition, the Commission seeks comments on the number of booster seat units that typically need to be tested to provide a “high degree of assurance.”

CPSC does not believe that any of the 10 small importers of booster seats currently complies with the ASTM standard. There is insufficient information to rule out a significant impact for any of the 10 small importers supplying noncompliant booster seats. Whether there will be a significant economic impact will depend upon the extent of the changes required to comply and the responses of importers' supplying firms. Any increase in production costs experienced by their suppliers from changes made to meet the mandatory standard may be passed on to these importers. Costs would include expenses associated with coming into compliance with the voluntary standard, as well as costs associated with the attachment test (all of the home-use booster seats supplied by these firms already use straps/belts, but neither of the food-service suppliers appears to do so, and therefore, they will likely need to make changes to come into compliance).

Four of the 10 importers with noncompliant booster seats (two import food-service booster seats, and two import home-use booster seats) do not appear to have direct ties to their product suppliers. These firms may opt to switch to alternative suppliers (or, in some cases, alternative products), rather than bear the cost of complying with the standard. Although it is unclear whether the costs associated with changing suppliers would be significant for these firms.

The remaining six firms (all of which import home-use booster seats) are directly tied to their foreign suppliers, and therefore, finding an alternative supply source would not be a viable alternative. The foreign suppliers of these firms, however, may have an incentive to work with their U.S. subsidiaries/distributors to maintain an American market presence. It is also possible that these firms may discontinue the sale of booster seats altogether because booster seats are not a large component of their product lines. CPSC staff was unable to determine whether exiting the booster seats market would generate significant economic impacts due to the lack of sales revenue for booster seats, as well as the lack of revenue data for most of these firms.

As with manufacturers, importers will be subject to third party testing and certification requirements; consequently, importers will be subject to costs similar to those of manufacturers, if their supplying foreign firm(s) does not perform third party testing. Moving to third party certification for the requirements of the proposed rule is unlikely to result in significant costs for the four small importers for whom revenue data are available. However, there was no revenue data available for the remaining six small importers; accordingly, CPSC had no basis for examining the size of the impact on those firms.

In summary, based upon current information, CPSC cannot rule out a significant economic impact for 20 of the 29 booster seat firms operating in the U.S. market. The 12-month proposed effective date would help to spread costs over a longer time-frame.

One alternative is available to minimize the economic impact on small entities supplying booster seats while also meeting the statutory objectives. The Commission could allow a later effective date than proposed.

The Commission is proposing a 12-month effective date to allow booster seat manufacturers additional time (beyond the more usual 6-month effective date) to bring their products into compliance after the final rule is issued. The Commission believes that the proposed 12-month effective date would allow firms that may not be aware of the ASTM voluntary standard, or may believe that their product falls outside the scope of the standard, additional time to make this determination and thereafter, bring their products into compliance. The Commission could further reduce the proposed rule's impact on small businesses by setting an effective date later than 12 months after the final rule is issued. A later effective date would reduce the economic impact on firms in two ways. First firms would be less likely to experience a lapse in production/importation, which could result if they are unable to bring their products into compliance and certify compliance based on third party tests within the required timeframe. Additionally, firms could spread the costs of developing compliant products over a longer time period, thereby reducing their annual costs, as well as the present value of their total costs (i.e., they could time their spending to better accommodate their individual circumstances).

This proposed rule also would amend part 1112 to add booster seats to the list of children's products for which the Commission has issued an NOR. As required by the RFA, staff conducted a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) when the Commission issued the part 1112 rule (78 FR 15836, 15855-58). The FRFA concluded that the accreditation requirements would not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small testing laboratories because no requirements were imposed on test laboratories that did not intend to provide third party testing services. The only test 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 booster seat product standard will not have a significant adverse impact on small test laboratories. Moreover, based upon the number of test laboratories in the United States that have applied for CPSC acceptance of accreditation to test for conformance to other mandatory juvenile product standards, we expect that only a few test laboratories will seek CPSC acceptance of their accreditation to test for conformance with the booster seats standard. Most of these test laboratories will have already been accredited to test for conformance to other mandatory juvenile product standards, and the only costs to them would be the cost of adding the booster seat standard to their scope of accreditation. Consequently, the Commission certifies that the proposed NOR amending 16 CFR part 1112 to include the infant booster seat standard will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Commission's regulations address whether the agency is required to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Under these regulations, certain categories of CPSC actions normally have “little or no potential for affecting the human environment,” and therefore, they do not require an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Safety standards providing requirements for products come under this categorical exclusion. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The proposed rule falls within the categorical exclusion.

This proposed 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). In this document, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), we set forth:

A title for the collection of information;

a summary of the collection of information;

a brief description of the need for the information and the proposed use of the information;

a description of the likely respondents and proposed frequency of response to the collection of information;

an estimate of the burden that shall result from the collection of information; and

notice that comments may be submitted to the OMB.

Title: Safety Standard for Booster Seats.

Description: The proposed rule would require each booster seat to comply with ASTM F2640-17ε 1, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Booster Seats. Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F2640-17ε 1 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).

Description of Respondents: Persons who manufacture or import booster seats.

Estimated Burden: We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:

On December 8, 2016, Overload Productions notified the Coast Guard that it intends on conducting a high speed water ski race on Commencement Bay. Approximately 40 motor boats and water skiers will be participating in the races and operating at high speeds with limited maneuverability, which poses a significant hazard to race participants and other boaters. In addition the event sponsors anticipate a potential small number of on-water spectators to be present during the races.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and participants in the race as well as spectators and the maritime public. The rulemaking would accomplish this purpose by establishing two regulated areas before, during, and after the scheduled event, one for race participants, and one for spectators and the maritime public. Many factors amplify the potential hazards of the race, including limited maneuverability of the race participants, commercial vessel traffic, and the number of local recreational and fishing vessels. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233.

This proposed rule would create a temporary special local regulation on certain waters of Commencement Bay in Tacoma, WA for the 2017 World Water Ski Racing Championships. This special local regulation would establish two separate regulated areas, a race area and a spectator area. Within the race area, all persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels participating in the high-speed water ski races, are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within. Within the spectator area, all vessels are prohibited from anchoring and are required to transit at the minimum speed necessary to maintain course, minimizing vessels wake, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Puget Sound or a Designated Representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

E.O.s 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this proposed rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.

As this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the Special Local Regulation. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around race area or through the spectator area which would only impact a small designated area of Commencement Bay for less than nine hours during the days of event. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulated areas.

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

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

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 want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule would 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 proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

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

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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this proposed 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 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination 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 proposed rule involves a special local regulation lasting for nine hours on each day the event occurs and would prohibit entry into the race area and restrict movement within the spectator area. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under section 2.B.2, and figure 2-1, paragraph 34(h) of the Instruction. Paragraph 34(h) pertains to special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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.

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

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

Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of sources and activities that are located across a broad geographic area and emit fine particulates (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), and soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form PM2.5, which impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that can be seen. PM2.5 can also cause serious adverse health effects and mortality in humans; it also contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.

Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, “Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments” (IMPROVE), shows that visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national parks and wilderness areas. In 1999, the average visual range in many Class I areas (i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western United States was 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution. In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average visual range was less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. CAA programs have reduced some haze-causing pollution, lessening some visibility impairment and resulting in partially improved average visual ranges.

CAA requirements to address the problem of visibility impairment continue to be implemented. In Section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, man-made impairment of visibility in 156 national parks and wilderness areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas. On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I areas that is “reasonably attributable” to a single source or small group of sources, i.e., “reasonably attributable visibility impairment.” These regulations represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.

Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze issues, and EPA promulgated regulations addressing regional haze in 1999. The Regional Haze Rule revised the existing visibility regulations to add provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in our visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. States were required to submit the first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.

Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often under-controlled, older stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install and operate the “Best Available Retrofit Technology” (BART). Larger “fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants” are one of these source categories. Under the Regional Haze Rule, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for “BART-eligible” sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. The evaluation of BART for electric generating units (EGUs) that are located at fossil-fuel fired power plants having a generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts must follow the “Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule” at appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the “BART Guidelines”). Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides for greater progress towards improving visibility than BART.

On June 13, 2008, Louisiana submitted a SIP to address regional haze (2008 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP or 2008 SIP revision). We acted on that submittal in two separate actions. Our first action was a limited disapproval 1 because of deficiencies in the state's regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). Our second action was a partial limited approval/partial disapproval 2 because the 2008 SIP revision met some but not all of the applicable requirements of the CAA and our regulations as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.300-308, but as a whole, the 2008 SIP revision strengthened the SIP. On August 11, 2016, Louisiana submitted a SIP revision to address the deficiencies related to BART for four non-EGU facilities. We proposed to approve that revision on October 27, 2016.3 On February 10, 2017, Louisiana submitted a SIP revision intended to address the deficiencies related to BART for EGU sources (2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP or 2017 SIP revision), a portion of which is the subject of this proposed action.

In 2005, the EPA published CAIR, which required 28 states and the District of Columbia to reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX that significantly contribute to or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particulates and/or 8-hour ozone in any downwind state.4 EPA demonstrated that CAIR would achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal than would BART; and therefore, states could rely on CAIR as an alternative to EGU BART for SO2 and NOX.5

Louisiana's 2008 Regional Haze SIP relied on participation in CAIR as an alternative to meeting the source-specific EGU BART requirements for SO2 and NOX.6 Shortly after Louisiana submitted its SIP to us, however, the D.C. Circuit remanded CAIR (without vacatur).7 The court thereby left CAIR and CAIR Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) in place in order to “temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR” until we could, by rulemaking, replace CAIR consistent with the court's opinion.8 In 2011, we promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace CAIR.9 While EGUs in Louisiana were required to participate in CAIR for both SO2 and NOX, Louisiana EGUs are only included in CSAPR for ozone-season NOX.10

In 2012, we issued a limited disapproval of Louisiana's and several other states' regional haze SIPs because of reliance on CAIR as an alternative to EGU BART for SO2 and/or NOX.11 We also determined that CSAPR would provide for greater reasonable progress than BART and amended the Regional Haze Rule to allow CSAPR participation as an alternative to source-specific SO2 and/or NOX BART for EGUs, on a pollutant-specific basis.12 Because Louisiana EGUs are included in CSAPR for NOX, Louisiana can rely on CSAPR better than BART for NOX. However, Louisiana's regional haze program must include source-by-source EGU BART demonstrations for all other visibility impairing pollutants, namely, SO2 and PM.

CSAPR has been subject to extensive litigation, and on July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision generally upholding CSAPR but remanding without vacating the CSAPR emissions budgets for a number of states.13 We are in the process of responding to the remand of these CSAPR budgets. On October 26, 2016, we finalized an update to the CSAPR rule that addresses the 1997 ozone NAAQS portion of the remand and the CAA requirements addressing interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.14 Additionally, three states, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, have adopted or committed to adopt SIPs to replace the remanded FIPs and will continue the states' participation in the CSAPR program on a voluntary basis with the same budgets. On November 10, 2016, we proposed a rule intended to address the remainder of the court's remand as it relates to Texas.15 This separate proposed rule includes an assessment of the impacts of the set of actions that the EPA has taken or expects to take in response to the D.C. Circuit's remand on our 2012 demonstration that participation in CSAPR provides for greater reasonable progress than BART. Based on that assessment, the EPA proposed that states may continue to rely on CSAPR as being better than BART on a pollutant-specific basis.

In our partial disapproval and partial limited approval of the 2008 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP, we approved LDEQ's identification of 76 BART-eligible sources.16 Table 1 lists the EGU sources that were identified in the 2008 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP submittal as BART-eligible.

Because Louisiana's 2008 Regional Haze SIP relied on CAIR as better than BART for EGUs, the submittal did not include a determination of which BART-eligible EGUs were subject to BART. On May 19, 2015, we sent CAA Section 114 letters to several BART-eligible sources in Louisiana. In those letters, we noted our understanding that the sources were actively working with LDEQ to develop a SIP. However, in order to be in a position to develop a FIP should that be necessary, we requested information regarding the BART-eligible sources. The Section 114 letters required sources to conduct modeling to determine if the sources were subject to BART, and included a modeling protocol. The letters also requested that a BART analysis be performed in accordance with the BART Guidelines for those sources determined to be subject to BART. We worked closely with those BART-eligible facilities and with LDEQ to this end, and all the information we received from the facilities was also sent to LDEQ. As a result, the LDEQ submitted a revised SIP submittal on February 10, 2017, that evaluates BART-eligible EGUs in the State and provides a BART determination for each such source for all visibility impairing pollutants except NOX. This proposal addresses the entire 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP, but for the portion concerning one BART-eligible EGU facility, specifically the Entergy Nelson facility. We will propose action on the Entergy Nelson portion of the SIP at a later date. We note that Louisiana unintentionally omitted discussion of two BART-eligible facilities in its 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP: Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government Houma Generating Station and Louisiana Energy and Power Authority Plaquemine Steam Plant. We will address these two sources in the model plant analysis section below.

Several sources that were identified as BART-eligible have since retired from operation, rendering them no longer subject to the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. For the units identified in the Table 2, the LDEQ provided documentation supporting permit rescissions to make these retirements permanent and enforceable.17

In addition, Entergy Michoud Units 2 and 3 were identified as BART-eligible, but are no longer in operation. By letter dated August 10, 2016, Entergy System Operating Committee elected to permanently retire Michoud Units 2 and 3, effective June 1, 2016. This action was described in detail through a permit application to the state. As of the time of this proposal, LDEQ has not yet finalized that permit. The 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP includes the Air Permit Briefing Sheet that confirms Entergy's request to remove Units 2 and 3 from the permit.18 We propose to approve the SIP based on the draft permit, and note that we expect the proposed permit removing Units 2 and 3 to be final before we take final action to approve this portion of the 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP. Alternatively, LDEQ could submit another enforceable document to ensure that Units 2 and 3 cannot restart without a BART analysis and emission limits, or demonstrate the units have been deconstructed to the point that they cannot restart without obtaining a new NSR permit, making them not operational during the timeframe for BART eligibility.

I. Introduction

The state of North Dakota received primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for Class I, III, IV and V injection wells under SDWA section 1422 on October 5, 1984, and Class II injection wells under SDWA section 1425 on September 24, 1983. The state of North Dakota has applied to the EPA under SDWA section 1422, 42 U.S.C. sections 300h-1, for primacy for Class VI injection wells, except those located on Indian lands. This action is based on a legal and technical review of the state of North Dakota's application as directed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 145. As a result of this review, EPA is proposing that the state of North Dakota's application meets all applicable requirements for approval under SDWA section 1422, and the state is capable of administering a Class VI UIC program in a manner consistent with the terms and purposes of SDWA and all applicable regulations.

These regulations are being promulgated under authority of SDWA sections 1422 and 1450, 42 U.S.C. 300h-1 and 300j-9.

SDWA Section 1421 requires the Administrator of the EPA to promulgate minimum requirements for effective state UIC programs to prevent underground injection activities that endanger underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). SDWA Section 1422 establishes requirements for states seeking EPA approval of state UIC programs.

For states that seek approval for UIC programs under SDWA section 1422, the EPA has promulgated a regulation setting forth the applicable procedures and substantive requirements, codified in 40 CFR part 145. It includes requirements for state permitting programs (by reference to certain provisions of 40 CFR parts 124 and 144), compliance evaluation programs, enforcement authority, and information sharing.

On June 21, 2013, the state of North Dakota submitted a program revision application to add Class VI injection wells to its SDWA section 1422 UIC program. The EPA reviewed the application and published a Federal Register document of North Dakota's Underground Injection Control Program Revision Application on August 9, 2013 (78 FR 48639), which sought public comments and provided an opportunity to request a public hearing. Public notice of North Dakota's application was also published in the Bismarck Tribune on August 9, 2013.

The state of North Dakota held two public hearings with public comment periods on the state's intent to adopt its Class VI UIC regulations. The first public hearing was held on April 24, 2012, and the public comment period closed on June 8, 2012. The second public hearing was held on October 22, 2012, and the public comment period closed on November 1, 2012. Both public hearings were held in Bismarck, North Dakota, and no public comments were received during the two public comment periods.

On August 9, 2013, a document announcing North Dakota's Underground Injection Control Program Revision was published in the Federal Register (78 FR 48639) and in the Bismarck Tribune. This document provided that a public hearing would be held if requested. The agency did not receive any requests for a public hearing and received five written comments. Two comments were outside the scope of the state's application and three comments were focused on the Memorandum of Agreement between Region 8 and the North Dakota Industrial Commission. The EPA worked with the Commission to address these comments and revise the Memorandum of Agreement.

In this action, the EPA is proposing that the state of North Dakota's Class VI UIC program will assume primary enforcement authority (primacy) for regulating Class VI injection wells in the state, except for those located on Indian lands. Support of this action is part of the public record in EPA's Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2013-0280. When finalized, this action will amend 40 CFR part 147 and incorporate by reference the EPA-approved state statutes and regulations. The EPA will continue to administer its UIC program for Class I, II, III, IV, V and VI injection wells on Indian lands.

The provisions of the state of North Dakota's Code that contain standards, requirements, and procedures applicable to owners or operators of Class VI UIC wells will be incorporated by reference into 40 CFR 147.1751. Provisions of the state of North Dakota's Code that contain standards, requirements, and procedures applicable to owners or operators of Class I, III, IV and V injection wells have already been incorporated by reference into 40 CFR 147.1751. Any provisions incorporated by reference, as well as all permit conditions or permit denials issued pursuant to such provisions, will be enforceable by the EPA pursuant to SDWA section 1423 and 40 CFR 147.1(e).

In order to better serve the public, the EPA is reformatting the codification of the EPA-approved North Dakota SDWA section 1422 Underground Injection Control Program Statutes and Regulations for Well Classes I, III, IV, V and VI. Instead of codifying the North Dakota Statutes and Regulations as separate paragraphs, the EPA is now codifying a binder that contains the EPA-approved North Dakota Statutes and Regulations for Well Classes I, III, IV, V and VI. This binder will be incorporated by reference into part 147. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

The EPA will continue to oversee the state of North Dakota's administration of the SDWA Class VI program. Part of the EPA's oversight responsibility will require quarterly reports of non-compliance and annual UIC performance reports pursuant to 40 CFR144.8. The Memorandum of Agreement between the EPA and the state of North Dakota, signed by the Regional Administrator on October 28, 2013, provides the EPA with the opportunity to review and comment on all permits.

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

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2040-0042. Reporting or record-keeping requirements will be based on the state of North Dakota UIC Regulations, and the state of North Dakota is not subject to the PRA.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This rule does not impose any requirements on small entities as this rule approves a state program. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. EPA's approval of the state of North Dakota's program will not constitute a federal mandate because there is no requirement that a state establish UIC regulatory programs and because the program is a state, rather than a federal program.

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

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action contains no federal mandates for tribal governments and does not impose any enforceable duties on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

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

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

The EPA has determined that this action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This action will simply provide that the state of North Dakota has primacy under SDWA for the Class VI UIC program, pursuant to which the state of North Dakota will be implementing and enforcing a state regulatory program that is as stringent as the existing federal program.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 40 chapter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: