On May 2, 2011, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued proposed regulations (76 FR 24406) to eliminate the 10-year statute of limitations on collection of debt by administrative offset, which includes centralized salary offset. The proposed regulations conformed with an amendment to 31 U.S.C. 3716(e) made by section 14219 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246 (122 Stat. 1651)) that became effective on June 18, 2008, to authorize the offset of nontax payments (via salary offset) to collect delinquent Federal debt without regard to the amount of time the debt has been delinquent.

The 60-day comment period for the proposed regulations ended July 1, 2011. OPM received comments from one agency that concurred with changes in the proposed regulations. We also received comments from two labor organizations and two individuals. This supplementary information addresses these comments.

One labor organization appreciated that the proposed regulations were designed to conform to the statutory change authorizing the offset of nontax payments to collect Federal debt without time limitations. However, the labor organization believed the proposed regulations do not give sufficient clarification on the requirement for the creditor agency to notify employees about such a longstanding overdue debt. We agree. We have revised 5 CFR 550.1104(d) to specify the requirements for notification of employees for debts outstanding more than 10 years on or before June 11, 2009; see also the Department of the Treasury's salary offset regulations at 31 CFR 285.7(d)(7) for additional notification requirements.

The labor organization also questioned whether OPM should amend its own internal agency salary offset regulations at 5 CFR part 179, subpart B, which contains the obsolete 10-year limitation provision. This final regulation does not amend OPM's internal salary offset regulations at 5 CFR part 179, subpart B. Under 5 U.S.C. 5514 and 5 CFR 550.1104, each covered agency must issue regulations, subject to OPM approval, governing its internal procedures for collecting a debt by salary offset. OPM's internal salary offset regulations, as well as the internal salary offset regulations issued by other agencies, must be amended to reflect the changes made by these final regulations on or after the effective date of these regulations. OPM considers amendments to agency internal salary offset regulations in this case to be conforming changes. Agencies need not submit these conforming changes to OPM for approval prior to publication.

A different labor organization and an individual opposed the removal of the 10-year limit from the salary offset regulations. The labor organization stated the proposed regulations would allow agencies to be less accountable for clearing up mistakes in a timely fashion and expressed concerns that in some cases they could allow agencies to retaliate against employees and their exclusive representatives. The labor organization believed that the statute of limitations governing debt collection should be based upon the nature of actions of the agencies and the employees involved, and that, where an employee in good faith earned compensation that is later judged to be erroneously paid, there should be no more than a 6-year statute of limitations, consistent with the time limit under the Back Pay Act. The individual stated that there must be boundaries on salary offset rules and the Government should move swiftly to collect debt within a reasonable period of time.

OPM is not changing the regulations in response to these comments. Elimination of the 10-year limitation in OPM's regulations to authorize the offset of nontax payments (via salary offset) to collect delinquent Federal debt without regard to the amount of time the debt has been delinquent is required by changes made to 31 U.S.C. 3716(e) by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. OPM has no authority to establish a time limitation under regulations for collecting a debt via salary offset that is inconsistent with the law.

Another individual questioned the legality of the changes to § 550.1104 regarding deductions of greater than 15 percent of the employee's disposable pay, as it related to employee due process rights. We are not revising the regulations in response to this comment. Employees will continue to have notice and due process rights as provided in 5 U.S.C. 5514 and 5 CFR 550.1104 if a court orders deductions greater than 15 percent of pay.

I certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they will apply only to Federal agencies and employees.

The Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this rule in accordance with E.O. 13563 and 12866.

Accordingly, OPM is amending 5 CFR part 550 as follows:

OPM is issuing an interim final regulation to reflect the FEGLI election opportunities authorized by Executive Order (E.O.) 13562 signed by the President on December 27, 2010. E.O. 13562 established the Internship Program and the Recent Graduates Program, which, along with the Presidential Management Fellows Program, as modified therein, became the Pathways Programs. This interim final rule updates 5 CFR 870.302(b)(2) to allow FEGLI election opportunities for participants in the Pathways Programs as authorized by the final rule: “Excepted Service, Career and Career-Conditional Employment; and Pathways Programs,” 77 FR 28193 (May 11, 2012).

Students hired under an Internship Program, Recent Graduate Program, or Presidential Management Fellows (PMF) Program, collectively known as the Pathways Programs, and who are employed in an appointment for a period expected to last longer than 1 year are eligible for life insurance coverage, as long as they are expected to be in a pay status for at least one-third of the total period of time from the date of their initial appointment to the date of the completion of the Program. The regulations are being changed to reflect this enrollment opportunity. This change can be found in section 870.302(b)(2).

OPM has determined that it would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to delay putting the provisions of this interim final regulation in place until a public notice and comment process has been completed. Under section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required when an agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. The FEGLI elections authorized by E.O. 13562 for students and recent graduates require immediate implementation to protect available election opportunities for enrollees and their eligible dependents.

I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulation only affects life insurance benefits of Federal employees and retirees.

This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866.

Accordingly, OPM is amending 5 CFR part 870 as follows:

The Pathways Programs offer clear paths to civil service careers for recent graduates and provide meaningful training, mentoring, and career-development opportunities through internships and similar programs with Federal Government agencies. This interim final rule updates 5 CFR 890.303 and 5 CFR 894.302 to allow election opportunities for participants in these programs as authorized by the final rule: “Excepted Service, Career and Career-Conditional Employment; and Pathways Programs,” 77 FR 28193 (May 11, 2012). Accordingly, to provide essential healthcare benefits, and dental and vision benefits, and to further the recruitment and retention of talent by Federal agencies, OPM is issuing this rule to allow Pathways Programs participants to elect FEHBP and FEDVIP benefits.

(1) Executive Order 13562, Recruiting and Hiring Students and Recent Graduates, and implementing regulations provide employee benefits to eligible participants in the Federal Government internships known as the Pathways Programs. The Federal Employee Dental and Vision Insurance Program (FEDVIP), signed into law on December 23, 2004, established a dental benefits and vision benefits program for Federal employees, annuitants, and their eligible family members. The FEDVIP benefit is available to all eligible Federal employees and is a valuable tool to recruit and retain students and recent graduates by allowing talented employees to participate in Government internships and similar programs. Similarly, eligibility to enroll in health benefits is a valuable tool that can be used as part of an overall plan to attract students and recent graduates interested in Federal careers and to successfully recruit and retain them. Accordingly, OPM is proposing to amend the existing Federal regulations to clarify that eligible employees in the Pathways Programs are eligible to elect FEDVIP benefits. Also, we are proposing to amend the FEHBP rules to clarify that Pathways Programs interns are eligible to elect FEHBP enrollment pursuant to authorities contained in Schedule D of the excepted service, a new schedule created by E.O. 13562 to make necessary exceptions to the competitive hiring rules. These changes can be found in 5 CFR 894.302(f) and 5 CFR 890.303(e)(2).

OPM has determined that it would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to delay putting the provisions of this interim final regulation in place until a public notice and comment process has been completed. Under section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required when an agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. The expanded FEDVIP elections authorized by the Pathways Programs final rule require immediate implementation to protect available election opportunities for employees and their eligible dependents.

I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulation only affects health insurance benefits of Federal employees and retirees.

This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866.

Accordingly, the Office of Personnel Management is amending 5 CFR chapter I as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 11, 2013 (78 FR 15335). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0221, dated October 23, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

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

US Airways stated it agrees with the NPRM (78 FR 15335, March 11, 2013) to ensure safety and has been actively weighing and applying new part numbers for over a year.

Airbus requested we change paragraph (i) of the NPRM (78 FR 15335, March 11, 2013) to specify that the corrective action for an overweight elevator is required before further flight for that elevator and not for the airplane.

We agree with the commenter's request because the intent of the final rule is to prohibit flight with elevators that exceed the weight limit established in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1034, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated August 19, 2011. We have changed paragraph (i) in this final rule to state “. . . Before further flight with an elevator that exceeds the weight limits established in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1034, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated August 19, 2011, repair . . . .”

Delta Airlines (DAL) requested we revise the NPRM (78 FR 15335, March 11, 2013) to allow omitting the elevator weight check if a review of the airplane maintenance records shows that an affected elevator is not installed on the airplane.

We disagree with the commenter's request. This final rule does not specify a particular method of determining if an affected elevator is installed. Paragraph (c) of this final rule identifies the affected airplanes, and table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD lists the affected elevator part numbers. Once an operator determines an affected elevator part number is not installed on an airplane in its fleet, the operator may record compliance with this AD for those airplanes and elevator part numbers. However, the operator is still subject to paragraph (l) of this AD, which prohibits installing the elevator part numbers listed in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, unless the actions required by this AD are accomplished on the elevator before installation. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

DAL requested we add a note to the NPRM (78 FR 15335, March 11, 2013) similar to a note in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1034, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated August 19, 2011. DAL stated that elevator installation requires compliance with a critical design configuration control limitation (CDCCL) that requires weighing the elevator. DAL commented that the note states it is not necessary to weigh the elevator again if an elevator has previously been weighed for the CDCCL requirement and, since the elevator was weighed, no maintenance actions were carried out on it that could have led to an elevator weight increase.

We disagree with the commenter's request to add a note to this final rule. Paragraph (g)(1) of this AD already allows a records review if the elevator weight can be conclusively determined from review of maintenance records. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

US Airways requested we change the applicability of the NPRM (78 FR 15335, March 11, 2013) from airplanes to all part numbers of affected elevators. US Airways stated that the NPRM should be a component AD, as the elevators are interchanged among the fleet, and AD applicability by manufacturer serial number (MSN) of the airplane could be confusing.

We disagree with the commenter's request. The FAA risk assessment was performed to determine corrective action(s) for mitigating the unsafe condition at an airplane level. Since the elevator parts are interchanged among the fleet, this final rule applicability at an airplane level will ensure discrepant elevator parts are identified and corrected. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

US Airways requested clarification as to why elevators having “MPN D55280002002 & D55280002003” are not included in the NPRM (78 FR 15335, March 11, 2013). US Airways stated that these elevators have a requirement for a weight check after any repair according to Component Maintenance Manual Manufacturer 55-21-15, Revision 13, dated January 1, 2013.

We agree to clarify. The purpose of this AD is to perform a one-time weight check of all elevators that are in service with no record of weight at the time of production. Airbus Modification 150390 installs a placard with the elevator weight during production. The two part numbers referenced by US Airways are installed in production by Airbus Modification 150390, and the configuration is maintained by CDCCL in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section Part 2—Damage-Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items. Therefore, the two part numbers are not included in this final rule. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

US Airways requested we change the corrective actions in the NPRM (78 FR 15335, March 11, 2013) to reflect that primer paints called out in Structural Repair Manual 51-23-11, Page 10, Table 6, Sheet 3 (F1 area), are approved as alternate paints to apply to elevators that need to be re-painted. US Airways stated that Appendix 1, step (5)(b) and step (6) of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1034, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated August 19, 2011, requires an external paint scheme and the primer materials called out in this service information are not readily available.

We disagree with the commenter's request. The commenter did not provide substantiation for an equivalent alternative to the primer material referenced in the service information in this final rule. The operator may apply for approval of an alternative method of compliance under the provisions of paragraph (m) of this final rule to use different primer material. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

DAL noted an error in paragraph (h)(2) of the NPRM (78 FR 15335, March 11, 2013), which should state “than” instead of “that.”

Paragraph (h)(2) of the NPRM (78 FR 15335, March 11, 2013) stated “For elevators other that those identified in . . . .” We agree with the commenter's request and have changed paragraph (h)(2) of this final rule to state “For elevators other than those . . . .”

Airbus requested we revise paragraph (i) of the NPRM (78 FR 15335, March 11, 2013) to use the word “restore” in lieu of “repair.” Airbus stated it considers the word “restore” to be more appropriate for the required actions (i.e., removal of paint layers).

We disagree with the commenter's request. The intent of word “repair” is to restore the structure/part to its original type design configuration. Therefore, replacing the word “repair” with “restore” may be misinterpreted. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

We have changed the first compliance time specified in paragraph (i) of this AD from “before further flight” to “within the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD.” We have determined that this change will provide sufficient time to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 15335, March 11, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 15335, March 11, 2013).

We estimate that this AD affects 755 products of U.S. registry. We estimate that it will take about 45 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $2,887,875, or $3,825 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0208-0002; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2009-14-02, Amendment 39-15951 (74 FR 30919, June 29, 2009). AD 2009-14-02 applied to the specified products. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2013 (78 FR 40050). The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections for wear damage and cracks of the fuselage skin in the interface area of the vertical stabilizer seal and fuselage skin, a detailed inspection for wear damage and cracks of the surface of any skin repair doubler in the area, and corrective actions if necessary. For airplanes on which the fuselage skin has been blended to remove wear damage, AD 2009-14-02 also required repetitive external detailed inspections or high frequency eddy current inspections for cracks of the blended area of the fuselage skin, and corrective actions if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to reduce the repetitive inspection interval, change certain corrective actions, and expand the applicability.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (78 FR 40050, July 3, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing requested we revise the terminating action title of paragraph (i) of the NPRM (78 FR 40050, July 3, 2013) by removing the word “Optional.” Boeing stated that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2478, Revision 3, dated October 17, 2011, specifies that if any crack is found or if wear damage is greater than the limit allowed, rub strips must be installed in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2721, Revision 2, dated March 17, 2011. Boeing commented that in this case, the terminating action is not optional.

We do not agree with the commenter's request. We agree that in cases where any damage is found outside the limits allowed by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2478, Revision 3, dated October 17, 2011, rub strips are required to be installed as described in that service bulletin.

We disagree with removing the word “optional” in the title of paragraph (i) of this final rule, because the current wording in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this final rule requires the operators to do all applicable corrective actions in accordance with, and at the compliance times specified in, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2478, Revision 3, dated October 17, 2011. This wording in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this final rule requires installing rub strips as described in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2721, Revision 2, dated March 17, 2011, before further flight if the damage is found to be outside the limits permitted as described in the service repair manual (SRM). Paragraph (i) of this final rule is provided to give the operators the option to install the rub strips as described in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2721, Revision 2, dated March 17, 2011, at any time. Doing the installation of the rub strips in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2721, Revision 2, dated March 17, 2011, is a terminating action for the work given in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2478, Revision 3, dated October 17, 2011, at the locations of the rub strip installation only. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

Boeing and All Nippon Airways (ANA) requested we revise paragraphs (i) and (j)(3) of the NPRM (78 FR 40050, July 3, 2013) to reference the latest revision level of the referenced service information, which is Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2721, Revision 3, dated June 25, 2013.

Boeing requested we revise paragraph (k)(2) of the NPRM (78 FR 40050, July 3, 2013) to give credit for actions done prior to the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2721, Revision 2, dated March 17, 2011.

We agree with the commenters' requests. Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2721, Revision 3, dated June 25, 2013, clarifies the post-modification and post-repair inspection requirements and transfers post-repair inspection instructions from the SRM and repair assessment guidelines to this service bulletin for airplanes that have the zone 1 full length repair installed. We have changed paragraphs (i) and (j)(3) of this final rule to reference Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2721, Revision 3, dated June 25, 2013.

We also have added Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2721, Revision 2, dated March 17, 2011, to paragraph (k) of this final rule to provide credit for the actions specified in paragraph (i) of this final rule, if the corresponding actions were performed before the effective date of this final rule using this service bulletin. We revised paragraph (k) by adding subparagraphs (k)(2)(i) through (iii).

Qantas Airways Limited (QAN) requested that we allow it to continue with the inspection program mandated in AD 2009-14-02, Amendment 39-15951 (74 FR 30919, June 29, 2009), as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to the actions specified in the NPRM (78 FR 40050, July 3, 2013). The FAA interprets this as a request to withdraw the NPRM and not supersede AD 2009-14-02. QAN commented that it understands the FAA's concern over the report of wear damage at earlier times than the AD 2009-14-02 inspection mandates. QAN stated that its fleet utilization and related extensive service experience with robust data collection on repetitive inspection results since the AD 2009-14-02 compliance period commenced support the adequacy of the repetitive inspection interval of 7,500 flight hours in AD 2009-14-02. QAN also stated that minor wear damage in its fleet remains under SRM-allowable rework limits.

We do not agree with the commenter's request. The service and analytical data from the airplane manufacturer do not support the request to keep the current mandated repetitive inspection thresholds required by AD 2009-14-02, Amendment 39-15951 (74 FR 30919, June 29, 2009). An operator has reported wear through the fuselage skin between body station (STA) 2598 and STA 2638, stringers S-2L to S-3L. The wear developed in less than 3,657 flight hours since the previous inspection, which was less than the repetitive inspection interval given in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2478, Revision 2, dated July 15, 2010. The wear occurred through both the Teflon-filled coating and the full thickness of the 0.050-inch-thick skin to create a hole approximately 16 inches in length.

In developing the compliance times for this final rule, we considered not only the safety implications of the identified unsafe condition, but the average utilization rate of the affected fleet and the practical aspects of an orderly inspection, repair, and modification of the fleet during regular maintenance periods. We have considered the commenter's request, and we have concluded that the proposed repetitive compliance times remain appropriate. However, under the provisions of paragraph (l) of this AD, we may consider requests for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that an alternative inspection plan would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

QAN requested clarification on the rate of wear damage and the compliance times specified in the NPRM (78 FR 40050, July 3, 2013). QAN noted that on the airplanes that have not started the inspections described in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2478, Revision 2, dated July 15, 2010, the compliance time for the initial inspection is 20,000 total flight hours. QAN also noted that, on the airplanes that have started the inspections described in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2478, Revision 2, dated July 15, 2010, the initial inspection compliance time is reduced to 2,000 or 3,000 flight hours, depending on the condition. QAN stated that, based on the inspection program in AD 2009-14-02, Amendment 39-15951 (74 FR 30919, June 29, 2009), it understands that the rate at which the wear damage develops is a primary concern to the FAA.

We agree to clarify. We agree with QAN that the AD 2009-14-02, Amendment 39-15951 (74 FR 30919, June 29, 2009), inspection program rate at which the wear damage developed is a primary concern because at least one operator has reported wear through the fuselage skin in less than 3,657 flight hours after a mandatory inspection, but before the specified repetitive inspection interval of 7,500 flight hours or 6,000 flight hours. However, we do not agree with the commenter that the 20,000-total-flight-hour threshold is reduced. Rather, the initial inspection threshold of 2,000 flight hours is not a reduced threshold as the commenter implied, but is instead a required time by which additional inspections must resume if any inspection has already been accomplished. With the service and analytical data from the airplane manufacturer, a new repetitive inspection program is required, as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2478, Revision 3, dated October 17, 2011. The compliance time depends on when operators have previously inspected their airplanes and the condition of the fuselage skin.

We disagree with QAN that AD 2009-14-02, Amendment 39-15951 (74 FR 30919, June 29, 2009), has an adequate mandated repetitive interval because service history has shown defects reported before the AD 2009-14-02 mandatory repetitive inspection interval. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

We have revised the Exceptions to Service Information, paragraph (j)(3) of this final rule, to include Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2478, Revision 3, dated October 17, 2011.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 40050, July 3, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 40050, July 3, 2013).

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

We estimate that this AD affects 917 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 25, 2012 (77 FR 65144). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directives 2011-12-01 and 2011-12-02, both effective December 27, 2011 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2011-12-01 states:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2013 (78 FR 40057). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0011, dated January 15, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

The subject area on certain Airbus Model A318, A319, and A321 series airplanes is almost identical to that on the affected Model A320 series airplanes. Therefore, those Model A318, A319, and A321 series airplanes may be subject to the unsafe condition revealed on the Model A320 series airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0467-0002 .

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received.

United Airlines (UAL) requested that the modification be recorded at the part number level, instead of the serial number level. UAL explained that re-identifying the post-modification window at the serial number level only will potentially lead to de-modification of the window, which could result in the unsafe condition identified in the NPRM (78 FR 40057, July 3, 2013). UAL reasoned that re-identifying the window at the part number level would better allow operators to manage the post-AD configuration.

UAL provided further substantiation to add the “M” to the part number instead of the serial number during a teleconference with us during the week of September 23, 2013. UAL's reason for adding the “M” to the part number is related to the convenience/preference of UAL maintenance practices.

We disagree with the request to require recording the modification at the part number level. After coordinating with Airbus, we have determined that adding “M” to the serial number will prevent installation of unsafe sliding window part numbers without changing the part number configuration and associated administrative processes to change part numbers. However, we have revised paragraph (h) of this final rule to include phrasing to clarify and to allow for modification to be recorded at the serial number level of the affected part number.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 40057, July 3, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 40057, July 3, 2013).

Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD affects about 851 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 3 work- hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $217,005, or $255 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $85 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0467-0002; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2012 (77 FR 41931). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which published in the Federal Register January 26, 2011 (76 FR 4567). The NPRM (76 FR 4567, January 26, 2011) proposed to require inspecting the orientation of both sides of the coil cord connector keyways of the number 2 windows on the flight deck; re-clocking the connector keyways to 12 o'clock, if necessary; and replacing the coil cord assemblies on both number 2 windows on the flight deck. The SNPRM proposed to require changing the keyway position of certain receptacle connectors and adding airplanes to the applicability.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (77 FR 41931, July 17, 2012) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing requested that we revise the applicability of the SNPRM (77 FR 41931, July 17, 2012) to include the airplanes specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013. Boeing stated that the effectivity of this service bulletin includes 75 airplanes that were delivered with the identified unsafe condition.

We agree that the 75 airplanes were delivered with the identified unsafe condition. However, we disagree with expanding the applicability of this final rule, because that would necessitate (under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act) reissuing the notice, reopening the period for public comment, considering additional comments subsequently received, and eventually issuing a final rule. We have determined that further delay of this final rule is not appropriate in light of the identified unsafe condition that exists in the airplanes specified in the applicability of the SNPRM (77 FR 41931, July 17, 2012). However, we might consider additional rulemaking in the future. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

American Airlines (AAL) stated that it has no objections to the SNPRM (77 FR 41931, July 17, 2012), but requested that we allow the removal of power by opening circuit breakers in Step B.1., of Part 1, of the Work Instructions in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 4, dated November 3, 2011. AAL stated that removal of power by opening circuit breakers is allowed in Step B.1.(b)., of Part 2, of the Work Instructions in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 4, dated November 3, 2011. AAL explained that removal of power by opening circuit breakers would greatly reduce the disruption to airplane maintenance being accomplished concurrently.

We agree with AAL's request. The requested procedure is included in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013. We have changed paragraphs (g), (h), and (k) of this final rule (paragraph (k) in this final rule was identified as paragraph (i) in the SNPRM (77 FR 41931, July 17, 2012)) to refer to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, as the appropriate source of service information.

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, specifies an additional inspection that is not included in Revision 4 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin, dated November 3, 2011. For Group 1, Configuration 3, and Group 2, Configuration 2, airplanes, Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, specifies a general visual inspection for rubbing damage on the coil cords, and replacement of the coil cord with a new coil cord if rubbing damage is found. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, describes the labor hours required for the inspection as less than one hour for each coil cord. We have determined that this minor change in inspection procedures will not impose an additional burden on any operator; further, because it is a logical outgrowth of the notice, an additional opportunity for public comment will not be necessary. We have added the costs for this inspection to the Costs of Compliance section of this final rule, added new paragraph (i) to this final rule to require the coil cord inspection, and re-designated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Revision 5 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, dated April 24, 2013, also describes changes to a wire diagram reference and adds improved figure work instructions.

AAL requested that we allow retention and re-installation of coil cords if they are the new part number and no damage is found on them during the inspections proposed in the SNPRM (77 FR 41931, July 17, 2012). AAL stated that since the new coil cord has been available for several years, it is possible that some airplanes may already have the new coil cord installed.

We disagree with revising this final rule because this final rule and the referenced service information, Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, specify further actions beyond simply installing a new coil cord. Figures 12 and 14 in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, provide procedures for installation of receptacle connectors on the cover as part of the coil cord replacement for certain airplanes. Operators must ensure that all applicable actions specified in the service information have been done in addition to the installation of the new coil cord. However, under the provisions of paragraph (l) of this final rule, we will consider requests for approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to allow retaining and reinstalling the coil cord on airplanes after the effective date of this final rule, providing sufficient data is submitted to address the identified unsafe condition. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

AAL requested that we clarify the work instructions for reinstallation of connector receptacle D10572 for Group 1, Configuration 1, airplanes as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 4, dated November 3, 2011. AAL stated that Figures 12 and 14 of this service bulletin have steps to reinstall the connector receptacle, but the work instructions and figures for Group 1, Configuration 1 airplanes do not include steps that remove the connector receptacle.

We agree to clarify. The removal of the receptacle connector D10572 was addressed in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 3, dated July 7, 2010. The instructions were inadvertently omitted in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 4, dated November 3, 2011. Boeing has added the requested clarification to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013. As referenced previously, we have specified Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, as the appropriate source of service information in this final rule.

We have added new paragraph (j) to this final rule to specify exceptions to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, and redesignated the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the SNPRM (77 FR 41931, July 17, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM (77 FR 41931, July 17, 2012).

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

We estimate that this AD affects 712 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On September 7, 2012, at 77 FR 55166, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Sikorsky Model S-70, S-70A, S-70C, S-70C (M), and S-70C (M1) helicopters with GE T700-GE-401C or T700-GE-701C engines installed. The NPRM proposed establishing new fatigue life limits for certain GE engine GGT rotor parts, based upon a formula in GE's service information. The NPRM was prompted by the determination that the affected engines could fail due to fatigue unless the life limits of certain GE engine rotor parts are changed from hours TIS to LCF events.

On July 23, 2013, at 78 FR 44052, the Federal Register published our supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM), which proposed to revise the formula in the NPRM for establishing the new fatigue life limits by using the correct formula in a newer revision of GE's service information. Also, the SNPRM corrected a typographical error made in the preamble of the previous NPRM in the “Related Service Information,” which referenced the service bulletin number as 72-041 rather than the correct service bulletin number 72-0041.

The proposed actions in the SNPRM were intended to prevent failure of a GGT rotor part, engine failure, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the NPRM (77 FR 55166, September 7, 2012), and the SNPRM (78 FR 44052, July 23, 2013), but we did not receive any comments.

We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed in the SNPRM (78 FR 44052, July 23, 2013).

We estimate that this AD will affect 9 helicopters of U.S. registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD: A minimal amount for work hours and labor costs because these parts are replaced as part of the periodic maintenance on the helicopter; a minimal amount of time to calculate the new retirement life; $360,000 to replace the GGT rotor parts per helicopter; and $3,240,000 to replace the GGT rotor parts for the entire U.S. operator fleet.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

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

On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694), EPA designated the Southeast Florida area (i.e., Broward, Dade and Palm Beach counties) as Moderate; the Jacksonville area (i.e., Duval County) as Transitional; and the Tampa area (i.e., Hillsborough and Pinellas counties) as Marginal nonattainment areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Among the requirements applicable to nonattainment areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was the requirement to meet certain volatility standards (known as Reid Vapor Pressure or RVP) for gasoline sold commercially. See 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990). As discussed in greater detail below, as part of the RVP requirements associated with these nonattainment designations, gasoline sold in the 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas could not exceed 7.8 psi RVP during the high-ozone season months.

Following implementation of the 7.8 psi RVP requirement in the Southeast Florida, Jacksonville and Tampa areas, each area was redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (60 FR 41 (January 3, 1995); 60 FR 10326 (February 24, 1995); and 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995), respectively).

Included with Florida's redesignation requests, the State submitted the required 1-hour ozone monitoring data and maintenance plans ensuring that these areas would remain in attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard for at least a period of 10 years (consistent with CAA section 175A(a)). The maintenance plans submitted by Florida followed EPA guidance for maintenance areas subject to section 175A of the CAA. Florida later updated all three maintenance plans in accordance with section 175(A)(b) to extend the maintenance plans to cover additional years such that the entire maintenance period extended at least 20 years after the initial redesignation of these areas to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

These 1-hour ozone maintenance plan requirements remained in place for the Maintenance Plan Areas when they were subsequently designated unclassifiable/attainment for the subsequent 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS  1 and then designated unclassifiable/attainment for the revised 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012. However, the Maintenance Plan Areas were required to submit a 10-year maintenance plan under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 2 As required, these 110(a)(1) maintenance plans provide for continued attainment and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years from the effective date of these areas' designation as attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These plans also include components demonstrating how each area will continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and provide contingency measures should the area violate the NAAQS. Florida's ozone redesignation requests and maintenance plans for the Maintenance Plan Areas did not seek removal of the 7.8 psi RVP standard, and as such, these areas remain subject to the 7.8 psi RVP standard per the terms of their approved respective 110(a)(1) maintenance plans.

On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), EPA determined that gasoline nationwide had become increasingly volatile, causing an increase in evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment. Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as VOC, are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to ground-level ozone can reduce lung function (thereby aggravating asthma or other respiratory conditions), increase susceptibility to respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people with heart and lung disease.

The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Pursuant to section 211(c) of the CAA, EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868), that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the high-ozone season. These regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program, which was designed to reduce the volatility of commercial gasoline during the high-ozone season. On June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), EPA promulgated more stringent volatility controls as Phase II of the volatility control program. These requirements established maximum RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi (depending on the State, the month, and the area's initial ozone attainment designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS during the high-ozone season).

The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new section, 211(h), to address fuel volatility. Section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high-ozone season. Section 211(h) prohibits EPA from establishing a volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that EPA may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former ozone nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.

On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), EPA modified the Phase II volatility regulations to be consistent with section 211(h) of the CAA. The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, beginning in 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658).

As stated in the preamble to the Phase II volatility controls and reiterated in the proposed change to the volatility standards published in 1991, EPA will rely on states to initiate changes to EPA's volatility program that they believe will enhance local air quality and/or increase the economic efficiency of the program within the limits of CAA section 211(h). 3 In those rulemakings, EPA explained that the Governor of a State may petition EPA to set a volatility standard less stringent than 7.8 psi for some month or months in a nonattainment area. The petition must demonstrate such a change is appropriate because of a particular local economic impact and that sufficient alternative programs are available to achieve attainment and maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. A current listing of the RVP requirements for states can be found on EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/gasolinefuels/volatility/standards.htm.

As explained in the December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), Phase II rulemaking, EPA believes that relaxation of an applicable RVP standard in a nonattainment area is best accomplished in conjunction with the redesignation process. In order for an ozone nonattainment area to be redesignated as an attainment area, section 107(d)(3) of the Act requires the state to make a showing, pursuant to section 175A of the Act, that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for the ozone NAAQS for a period of ten years after redesignation. Depending on the Area's circumstances, this maintenance plan will either demonstrate that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for ten years without the more stringent volatility standard or that the more stringent volatility standard may be necessary for the area to maintain its attainment with the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a request for redesignation, EPA will not relax the volatility standard unless the state requests a relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates, to the satisfaction of EPA, that the area will maintain attainment for ten years without the need for the more stringent volatility standard. As noted above, however, Florida did not request relaxation of the applicable 7.8 psi RVP standard when the Jacksonville, Southeast Florida and Tampa Areas were redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Rather, Florida is now seeking to relax the 7.8 psi RVP standard after these Areas have been redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, the original modeling and maintenance demonstration supporting the section 110(a)(1) ozone maintenance plans must be revised to reflect continued attainment under the relaxed 9.0 psi RVP standard that the State has requested.

The State of Florida previously implemented a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program in the Jacksonville, Southeast Florida and Tampa areas as part of the State's strategy to meet the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. This program was referred to as the Motor Vehicle Inspection Program (MVIP). On July 1, 2000, the Florida legislature terminated the MVIP for Jacksonville, Southeast Florida and Tampa, and removed the program's statutory authority. As a consequence of this repeal, FDEP developed and submitted SIP revisions to remove the emissions reductions attributable to this program in the aforementioned areas from the Florida SIP. Specifically, on December 10, 1999, FDEP submitted a revision to the SIP for the ozone air quality maintenance plans for the Jacksonville and Southeast Florida areas, and on August 29, 2000, for the Tampa, Florida area. FDEP's submissions requested the removal of the emission reduction credits attributable to the MVIP from the future year emission projections contained in the maintenance plans and provided a demonstration that removal of the emission reductions associated with the MVIP would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. At the time, however, Florida did not also explicitly request removal from its SIP of the regulatory references to the MVIP program. Subsequently, in EPA's final rulemakings, published August 2, 2001 (66 FR 40137), and August 15, 2002 (67 FR 53314), the Agency approved the SIP revisions removing the emissions reductions that were attributable to the inspection and maintenance program in the Maintenance Plan Areas, but the regulatory references to the MVIP program remained.

Florida's December 10, 1999, and August 29, 2000, SIP revisions demonstrated that the Maintenance Plan Areas could maintain the ozone NAAQS without the implementation of the MVIP. EPA reviewed the State's emissions inventory and modeling analyses and found that they met the applicable guidance and requirements. Therefore, the State made the necessary demonstration that the MVIP was not necessary to maintain the ozone NAAQS and that attainment of the NAAQS for any other pollutant would not be affected by removing the MVIP from the SIP. However, because EPA did not remove Florida Code Annotated Section 62-242 from the table of EPA-approved rules at 40 CFR 52.520, on November 29, 2012, FDEP submitted a letter to EPA requesting that EPA remove these now-defunct rules from the Florida SIP. In its letter, the State noted that these rules relate to the defunct MVIP, and also noted EPA's previous rulemakings to remove the emissions reductions attributable to this program in its SIP. The portion of today's action related to removal of the MVIP rules from the SIP is being taken in response to the State's November 29, 2012, request, and is based upon the previously approved non-interference demonstration provided by Florida to support the removal of the emission reduction credits associated with the now-defunct inspection and maintenance program in the Southeast Florida, Tampa Bay and Jacksonville areas.

EPA notes that the section 110(l) non-interference demonstration submitted by Florida in support of its requested RVP revisions is also premised upon the continued non-implementation of the now-discontinued MVIP in these areas.

On November 8, 2013 (78 FR 67090), EPA proposed approval of Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP revision to the State's approved maintenance plans addressing the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Southeast Florida, Tampa Bay and Jacksonville areas. Specifically, Florida's revision, including updated modeling, shows that these areas would continue to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard if the currently applicable Federal RVP standard for gasoline of 7.8 psi was modified to a less stringent standard of 9.0 psi for Broward, Dade, Duval, Hillsborough, Palm Beach and Pinellas Counties during the high-ozone season. Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP revision, includes updated mobile source emissions modeling using EPA's approved models—Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) and NONROAD2008—to support the request to modify the RVP gasoline requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.

Section 110(l) of the CAA requires that a revision to the SIP not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. EPA's criterion for determining the approvability of Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP revision is whether the requested action complies with section 110(l) of the CAA. Because the modeling associated with the current maintenance plans for Florida are premised in part upon the 7.8 psi RVP requirement, a request to revise the maintenance plan modeling to no longer rely on the 7.8 psi RVP requirement is subject to the requirements of CAA section 110(l). Therefore, the State must demonstrate that its August 15, 2013, SIP revision will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA also notes that Florida's technical demonstration in its August 15, 2013, SIP revision accounts for the absence of the previously-implemented inspection and maintenance programs in the Maintenance Plan Areas.

The section 110(l) non-interference demonstration is a case-by-case determination based upon the circumstances of each SIP revision. EPA interprets 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in effect, including those that have been promulgated, but for which the EPA has not yet made designations. The specific elements of the 110(l) analysis contained in the SIP revision depend on the circumstances and emissions analyses associated with that revision. EPA's analysis of Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP revision, including review of section 110(l) requirements, can be found in the proposed rule published on November 8, 2013 (78 FR 67090). The specific revisions to the maintenance plan modeling that EPA is approving are the ozone maintenance plan attainment inventories, emissions projections and air quality monitoring data. The revised modeling also utilizes updated models to calculate the mobile source emissions.

Also, based on a request by the State on November 29, 2012, EPA is removing the existing SIP references related to the previously-implemented inspection and maintenance programs in the Maintenance Plan Areas. As discussed above, Florida discontinued this program and submitted SIP revisions in 1999 and 2000 to remove the emissions reduction credits associated with the MVIP program from its SIP. See 66 FR 40137; 67 FR 53314. At the time, Florida demonstrated that removal of these emission credits would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. In addition, the State's technical demonstration provided with the August 15, 2013, RVP-related SIP revision also demonstrates that the less-stringent RVP standard and the absence of an inspection and maintenance program in these areas would not interfere with continued maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS or any other applicable standard.

EPA received no adverse comments on its proposed action and is therefore finalizing the proposed action.

EPA is approving the State of Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP revision to its 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plans for the Maintenance Plan Areas. Specifically, EPA is approving the State's showing that the Maintenance Plan Areas can continue to maintain the 1997 ozone standard without the emissions reductions associated with both the previously-implemented MVIP, and the use of gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi during the high-ozone season—June 1 through September 15 in the Maintenance Plan Areas. Also, EPA is approving the updated attainment inventories, emissions projections and air quality monitoring which are associated with the updated and revised modeling related to the change in the applicable RVP standard, and the absence of the previously-implemented inspection and maintenance programs for the Maintenance Plan Areas. Additionally, EPA is removing Florida Code Annotated Section 62-242, which pertains to the now-defunct MVIP, from the Florida SIP.

EPA has determined that Florida's August 15, 2013 SIP revision, including the technical demonstration associated with the State's request for the removal of the Federal RVP requirements, and the updated attainment inventory, emissions projections and air quality monitoring data, and the removal of the MVIP-related sections of the Florida SIP are consistent with the applicable provisions of the CAA. Should EPA decide to remove the subject portions of the Maintenance Plan Areas from those areas subject to the 7.8 psi Federal RVP requirements, such action will occur in a separate rulemaking.

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

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

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

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

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

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, October 7, 1999);

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 7, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

The background for today's action is discussed in detail in our October 25, 2013 proposal (78 FR 63929). In that notice, we proposed to approve revisions to the Texas SIP regarding 30 TAC Chapter 116, subchapter H: “Permits for Grandfathered Facilities” and Subchapter I: “Electric Generating Facility Permits”.

We received one comment on our proposal. The comment we received can be accessed from the www.regulations.gov Web site (Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0202). The discussion below addresses the comment we received on our proposed action.

Comment: We received a comment dated November 22, 2013, from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) stating that TCEQ does not support the proposed approval of 30 TAC 116.803. TCEQ noted that on September 24, 2013, it withdrew 30 TAC 116.793 through 116.807 from EPA consideration. TCEQ referenced a June 29, 2011 letter from EPA Region 6 to TCEQ. In that letter, EPA returned certain subsections of 30 TAC Chapter 116, subchapter H, specifically 30 TAC 116.779(a)(10), 116.786(c)(2)(B)(ii)(I), 116.794(11), 116.795(f), and 116.799(a). The returned subsections pertain to Texas' implementation of the hazardous air pollution program under section 112(g) of the Clean Air Act, and are not required to be submitted as a revision to the Texas SIP.

Response: EPA agrees with TCEQ. EPA believes that these sections are no longer before EPA as part of Texas' SIP submittal. EPA is taking no action on 30 TAC 116.779(a)(10), 116.786(c)(2)(B)(ii)(I), and 116.793 through 116.807. TCEQ's comment and the documents referenced in the comment are included in the docket.

We are approving revisions to the Texas SIP regarding 30 TAC Chapter 116, subchapter H: “Permits for Grandfathered Facilities” and Subchapter I: “Electric Generating Facility Permits”. Specifically, we are approving the following revisions to the Texas SIP:

• Addition of 30 TAC Chapter 116, subchapter H, sections 116.770-772, 116.774, 116.775, 116.777, 116.779-781 (except for 116.779(a)(10)), 116.783, 116.785-788 (except for 116.786(c)(2)(B)(ii)(I)), and 116.790, submitted on July 31, 2002.

• Addition of 30 TAC Chapter 116, subchapter H, section 116.778 and Subchapter I, section 116.919, submitted on September 4, 2002.

• Addition of the revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116, subchapter H sections 116.770 and 116.772, submitted on March 1, 2004.

The revisions require that all grandfathered facilities obtain specific permits which include emission control methods to achieve mandated emission reductions, as required, or shutdown; and require that emissions from dockside vessels which result from operations at grandfathered land-based facilities be included in specific permits. The revisions also outline additional permitting procedures for certain grandfathered pipeline equipment located in an ozone nonattainment area. We are approving the revisions under section 110, part C, and part D of the CAA, and EPA's regulations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 7, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

EPA is taking final action to approve a SIP revision submitted by the State of Missouri to EPA on May 4, 2012. The purpose of this revision is to control the emissions of VOCs, consistent with Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) issued by EPA, and to satisfy the RACT requirements of the CAA for the Missouri portion of the St. Louis metropolitan 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. Specifically, the revision incorporates an amendment to an existing SIP-approved Missouri regulation 10 Code of State Regulations 10-5.455 to control emissions from Industrial Solvent Cleaning Operations in the St. Louis metropolitan area. The revision includes lowering the allowable emissions threshold for VOCs released per day from the use, storage and disposal of industrial cleaning solvents, and adds requirements for facilities that exceed the applicability threshold. EPA is taking final action to approve this revision because the adoption by Missouri of this regulation represents RACT control levels for CTGs issued by EPA after 2006. In addition, EPA is taking final action to approve this revision because it meets the requirements of the conditional approval EPA issued on January 10, 2012. See 77 FR 3144 (January 23, 2012).

This section briefly summarizes the background for today's final action. More detailed discussion of the statutory and regulatory background can be found in the preamble to the proposal for this rulemaking. See 78 FR at 45112-45114 (July 26, 2013). No comments were received on the proposed rulemaking.

The St. Louis metropolitan area—which includes the counties of Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles and St. Louis, and the City of St. Louis in Missouri (as well as four counties in Illinois), is currently designated as a moderate nonattainment area under the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). 1 For areas in moderate nonattainment with the ozone NAAQS, section 182(b)(2) of the CAA requires states to submit SIP revisions to EPA that require sources of VOCs in the nonattainment area that are subject to a CTG issued by EPA, and all other major stationary sources, 2 to implement RACT.

EPA has defined RACT as the lowest emissions limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available, considering technological and economic feasibility. 44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979). EPA provides states with guidance concerning what types of controls could constitute RACT for certain source categories through the issuance of CTGs. See 71 FR 58745, 58747 (October 5, 2006).

Section 183(e) of the CAA provides that EPA may issue a CTG in lieu of a national regulation for categories of consumer or commercial products where the Administrator determines that such guidance will be substantially as effective as regulations in reducing VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas.

In this rulemaking, EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to Missouri's VOC rule 10 CSR 10-5.455 into Missouri's SIP, as EPA believes that this rule satisfies RACT for the Missouri portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area for Industrial Cleaning Solvents. EPA also believes that this rule satisfies the requirements of the conditional approval of Missouri's VOC RACT SIP referenced above. This final action means that the Missouri SIP meets all of the applicable VOC RACT requirements for St. Louis under section 182(b)(2) of the Act, as they relate to the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 7, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR Part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select “Test Methods and Guidelines.”

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR Part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0874 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before March 7, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR Part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR Part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0874, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

• Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

In the Federal Register of January, 16, 2013 (78 FR 3377) (FRL-9375-4), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (IN-10520) by SciReg Inc. 12733 Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22192, on behalf of Rhodia Inc., CN 7500, 8 Cedar Brook Drive, Cranbury NJ, 08512-7500. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of dimethyl esters of glutaric acid (i.e., dimethyl glutarate, CAS Reg. No. 1119-40-0), succinic acid (i.e., dimethyl succinate, CAS Reg. No. 106-65-0), and adipic acid (i.e., dimethyl adipate, CAS Reg. No. 627-93-0) when used as an inert ingredient as solvents/co-solvents in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by on SciReg Inc., on behalf of Rhodia, Inc., the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for DMEGSA including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with DMEGSA follows.

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by DMEGSA as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.

Acute toxicity studies demonstrate low acute oral and dermal toxicity (Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) 870.1100 and 870.1200, respectively) with minimal eye irritation (OCSPP 870.2400) and no dermal irritation (OCSPP 870.2500). Results from a dermal sensitization study were negative (OCSPP 870.2600).

The repeat dose database contains oral, dermal, and inhalation studies. Due to their prevalence in commercial paint strippers, polishes, and lacquer thinners, the majority of the studies were conducted via inhalation, the most expected route of exposure from non-pesticidal uses.

Animals in a 14-day oral dietary study showed reduced weight gain and food consumption at 1,684 mg/kg/day (LOAEL) but showed no adverse effects at 842 mg/kg/day (NOAEL). Animals in a one month oral gavage study showed no adverse effects at the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day. In addition, a 14-day dermal study was conducted and although mild skin irritation was noted in rats at doses equal to and greater than 100 mg/kg/day, the effects were reversible and no systemic effects were observed at any dose tested up to the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day.

To support the safety finding as it relates to oral exposure, oral studies on the metabolites were also evaluated. Available repeat dose oral studies on the metabolites include a 13-week study on succinic acid, two 90-day studies on glutaric acid and a two year study on adipic acid. Succinic acid was shown to cause decreased body weight gain in rats at and above 2,500 mg/kg/day. Glutaric acid also caused a decrease in body weight gain in both rats and dogs at 1,000 and 750 mg/kg/day, respectively. Similarly, adipic acid was seen to cause decreased body weight gain and food consumption in rats at 2,250 mg/kg/day. The results of these studies indicate that the metabolites of DMEGSA are of low toxicity via the oral route of exposure.

The majority of the repeat dose and reproductive/developmental studies conducted on dibasic esters (DBE, CAS Reg. No. 95481-62-2- a chemical mixture of approximately 55-75% dimethyl glutarate, 15-27% dimethyl succinate, and 10-25% dimethyl adipate) and/or the individual chemicals are via the inhalation route of exposure. The available database includes three 90-day inhalation studies in rats, one conducted with DMEGSA and two with DBE. In the first study rats were exposed to DMS and DMA at doses of 0 or 0.4 mg/L and DMG at doses of 0, 0.01, 0.05, or 0.4 mg/L. Degeneration of the olfactory epithelium was observed for all chemicals at and above 0.05 mg/L with the severity of the local effect being dose dependent. Exposed animals also showed microscopic alterations in the liver (males) and lung (females). The hormonal changes observed in these studies with DMS, DMA, and DMG were: An increase in sperm counts (2/3 studies), a decrease in testosterone levels (1/3 studies), and a decrease in leutenizing hormone levels (1/3 studies) in males and a decrease in estradiol levels in females (1/3 studies). The significance of these findings is unclear because the decrease in male hormone levels should result in a decrease in sperm counts, yet the opposite effect was observed. The single study showing changes in estradiol was not observed in the other two studies. Furthermore, there were no functional parameters such as estrous cycle and sperm motility or morphology affected. In addition, a reproductive study was conducted with DBE and there were no effects on fertility, viability of pups at birth, and the ability of the mothers to lactate.

Two other 90-day rat studies (OCSPP 870.3465), tested DBE and again, degeneration of the olfactory epithelium was noted at all doses tested (0.02-1.0 mg/L). In both studies decreases in liver weight were observed but no histopathological findings were evident. Similarly, when rats were exposed to 1 mg/L DBE slight increases in relative heart and testes weights in males and a slight decrease in absolute spleen weight in females were observed. These slight organ weight changes were not accompanied by any histopathological changes and are therefore, considered of minimal biological significance. No other significant effects were observed.

Repeat dose inhalation studies have demonstrated the chemicals potential to affect the olfactory mucosa in the nasal passage of rats. These local effects are believed to be related to the hydrolysis of DMEGSA by carboxylesterases located in the nasal/olfactory epithelium to the dicarboxylic acid metabolites. These effects on the olfactory epithelium are expected to be of much lower impact in humans due to major anatomical and physiological differences between rats and humans. See Unit VI.B for further discussion.

Depressed pup weights were observed in a one-generation reproduction inhalation toxicity study with DBE at 1.0 mg/L but were only seen in the presence of maternal toxicity. Two developmental inhalation toxicity studies (OCSPP 870.3700) were conducted, one testing DBE on rats and with DMG on rabbits. In both studies no developmental effects were observed at doses up to and including 1.0 mg/L. Similarly, no adverse developmental effects were observed in oral studies on the metabolites glutaric acid (rat and rabbit) and adipic acid (rat and mice) at doses up to and including 1,300 mg/kg/day.

An Ames test conducted with DBE was negative; however, a chromosome aberration study conducted with DBE was positive at high concentrations in the presence of S9 metabolic activation (negative without S9 activation) in lymphocytes from female donors. This result is not consistent with what is known about the hydrolysis products of the methyl esters. Methanol is not clastogenic or genotoxic. Glutaric acid, succinic acid, and adipic acid are all endogenous and not considered to be clastogenic or genotoxic; a chromosome aberration study conducted with adipic acid was negative. As such, it is possible that, in the presence of S9 metabolic activation, the esters were hydrolyzed and the acids released, affecting the pH, making it more acidic. This is known to cause false positive effects in cytogenicity assays. Therefore, an in vivo genotoxicity assay on somatic cells was performed. A bone marrow micronucleus assay was performed in mice following a single inhalatory nose-only exposure to DBE for six hours. There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes between mice of all groups including controls at any sampling time up to 72 hours following exposure up to a very high concentration of 19 mg/L, illustrating the absence of clastogenicity of the test substance in vivo. In addition, a rat micronucleus study conducted with DMG was negative.

No neuropathological changes or effects on the functional observation battery parameters were reported in any of the studies. The agency does not believe DMEGSA will be neurotoxic. Chronic/carcinogenicity studies could not be identified for DMEGSA. A DEREK evaluation for DMG and DMS was conducted and did not show any special alerts. In addition, carcinogenicity studies were conducted with adipic acid and monosodium succinate in rats and no carcinogenic effects were observed. Therefore, the agency does not expect DMEGSA to be carcinogenic in humans.

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

Various inhalation studies with DMEGSA show local effects (likely a result of irritation at the point of contact in the nasal region) as well as some changes in hormone levels that, although consistently observed, are not considered to be toxicologically significant. The effects on the olfactory epithelium are expected to be of much lower impact in humans due to major physiological differences between rats and humans (e.g., rats have a larger surface of nasal epithelium and different air flow and breathing pattern (e.g., rats are obligate nose breathers) and greater carboxylesterase activity in nasal/olfactory epithelium than do humans) so the local exposure will be significantly lower in humans. In vitro experiments with human nasal tissue homogenates suggest that DBE metabolism in human nasal tissue is 100 to 1000 times less active than rat nasal tissue. Therefore, humans are expected to be much less sensitive. In the absence of other systemic toxicity along with the expected decrease in sensitivity of humans to olfactory responses, EPA concluded that these effects were not sufficiently adverse to be used as an endpoint for risk assessment.

As noted in Unit VI. A. above, exposed animals in repeat dose inhalation studies showed microscopic organ changes and hormonal changes in studies with DMS, DMA, and DMG. The significance of these findings is unclear because for example, the decrease in male hormone levels should result in a decrease in sperm counts, yet the opposite effect was observed. The single study showing changes in estradiol was not observed in the other two studies. Furthermore, there were no functional parameters such as estrous cycle and sperm motility or morphology affected. In addition, a reproductive study was conducted with DBE and there were no effects on fertility, viability of pups at birth, and the ability of the mothers to lactate. For these reasons the point of departure for the risk assessment for chronic oral routes of exposure was from the 14-day oral toxicity study in rats. The NOAEL was 842 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL was 1684 mg/kg/day based on reduced weight gain and food consumption. A 1000 fold uncertainty factor was used for the chronic exposure (10X interspecies extrapolation, 10X for intraspecies variability and 10X FQPA safety factor)).

The dermal study did not result in an endpoint of concern. Adverse local olfactory effects were observed in inhalation toxicity studies; however, due to anatomical and physiological difference between study animals and humans, the effects are likely to be less severe in humans and subsequently of minimal toxicological concern. No systemic endpoint of concern was identified in the available inhalation toxicity studies; therefore, quantification of inhalation risk is not necessary.

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to DMEGSA, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures from DMEGSA in food as follows:

Because no acute endpoint of concern was identified, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model DEEM-FCIDTM, Version 3.16, EPA used food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What we eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). This dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. The Inert Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (I-DEEM) is a highly conservative model with the assumption that the residue level of the inert ingredient would be no higher than the highest tolerance for a given commodity. Implicit in this assumption is that there would be similar rates of degradation between the active and inert ingredient (if any) and that the concentration of inert ingredient in the scenarios leading to these highest of tolerances would be no higher than the concentration of the active ingredient. The model assumes 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all crops and that every food eaten by a person each day has tolerance-level residues. A complete description of the general approach taken to assess inert ingredient risks in the absence of residue data is contained in the memorandum entitled “Alkyl Amines Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food and Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Inerts.” (D361707, S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0738.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. For the purpose of the screening level dietary risk assessment to support this request for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for DMEGSA, a conservative drinking water concentration value of 100 ppb based on screening level modeling was used to assess the contribution to drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessments for parent compound. These values were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.

3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).

The majority of the current pesticidal uses (e.g., use in paints and wood products) of DMEGSA are for industrial and commercial settings; however, DMEGSA are approved for use in textiles, as paper coatings, and in and around homes and landscapes. There are no approved antimicrobial uses of DMEGSA. Neither the dermal nor inhalation studies resulted in an endpoint of concern; therefore, there was no need to quantify dermal or inhalation exposure. Since there is potential for use of this chemical in and around homes, residential exposure was evaluated using agency approved models to estimate high end post-application oral exposures to children from treated lawns. The residential and aggregate level of concern (LOC) is for margins of exposure (MOE) that are less than 1000 and is based on 10X interspecies extrapolation, 10X for intraspecies variability, and 10X FQPA safety factor.

4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA has not found DMEGSA to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and DMEGSA does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that DMEGSA does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. No evidence of increased susceptibility was seen in the available developmental and reproductive toxicity studies for DMEGSA and its metabolites. Depressed pup weights were observed in a one-generation reproduction inhalation toxicity study with DBE at 1.0 mg/L but were only seen in the presence of maternal toxicity. Two developmental inhalation toxicity studies were conducted, one testing DBE on rats and with DMG on rabbits. In both studies no developmental effects were observed at doses up to and including 1.0 mg/L; while maternal toxicity was observed at doses of 0.3 mg/L and above. Similarly, no adverse developmental effects were observed in oral studies on the metabolites glutaric acid (rat and rabbit) and adipic acid (rat and mice) at doses up to and including 1,300 mg/kg/day.

3. Conclusion. EPA concludes that the FQPA safety factor of 10X for DMEGSA should be retained because of the need to extrapolate from a subchronic study for a chronic risk assessment. In making this determination, EPA considered the following factors:

i. The toxicity database for DMEGSA and their metabolites includes several subchronic and chronic studies, several developmental and reproductive toxicity studies, and mutagenicity studies. No chronic studies are available on DBEs; however, chronic toxicity studies on metabolites are available to characterize long term toxicity potential of DBEs.

ii. Increased incidence of delayed renal papillary development and decreased pup weights were observed in reproductive/developmental inhalation toxicity studies at 1000 mg/m 3 ; however, these effects were only observed in the presence of depressed maternal body weight. In addition, there were no systemic effects seen in oral studies at doses up to and including the limit dose of 1000 mg/kg/day indicating no evidence of increased susceptibility.

iii. There is no indication that DMEGSA are neurotoxic chemicals. Although no neurotoxicity studies are available in the database, no clinical signs of neurotoxicity were observed in the available subchronic and chronic studies. Therefore, there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

vi. The dietary food exposure assessment utilizes proposed tolerance level or higher residues and 100% CT information for all commodities. By using these screening-level assessments, chronic exposures/risks will not be underestimated.

EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, DMEGSA is not expected to pose an acute risk.

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to DMEGSA from food and water will utilize 83.9% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no current or proposed residential uses for DMEGSA at this time. Based on the explanation in this unit, regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of DMEGSA is not expected.

3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). A short-term adverse effect was identified; however, DMEGSA is not currently used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products that are registered for any use patterns that would result in short-term residential exposure. They may, however, be used in the future as an inert ingredient in pesticide products that are registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to DMEGSA.

Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential oral exposures result in aggregate MOEs for children of 1450 for hand-to-mouth exposure to treated lawns. Because EPA's level of concern for DMEGSA is a MOE of 1000 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, DMEGSA is not currently used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products that are registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. They may, however, be used in the future pesticide products that are registered for uses that could result in intermediate-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with intermediate-term residential oral exposures to DMEGSA.

Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs for children of 1500 for hand-to-mouth exposure to treated lawns. Because EPA's level of concern for DMEGSA is a MOE of 1000 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in available studies of the metabolites of the subject chemicals and a DEREK assessment of DMEGSA which revealed no alerts, DMEGSA is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to DMEGSA residues.

An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180. 910 for dimethyl glutarate (CAS Reg. No. 1119-40-0), dimethyl succinate (CAS Reg. No. 106-65-0), and dimethyl adipate (CAS Reg. No. 627-93-0) when used as inert ingredients (solvent/co-solvent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest.

This final rule establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), do not apply.

This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ).

This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Second Report and Order, FCC 13-137; PS Docket Nos. 12-94, 06-229, WT Docket No. 06-150; adopted and released October 28, 2013. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, or online at http://www.fcc.gov/document/700-mhz-public-safety-broadband-service-rules-report-and-order. This document will also be available via ECFS at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

This document contains no new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13.

1. In the Second Report and Order (Second R&O) we adopt consolidated rules, primarily technical service rules, for the 758-769/788-799 MHz band, which is licensed to the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) on a nationwide basis. We also direct the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) to accept and process applications for equipment certification in this band consistent with the newly consolidated rules. Our adoption of the Second R&O will further “facilitate the transition” of spectrum to FirstNet to enable its deployment of a nationwide public safety broadband network as prescribed by statute. We also focus on these technical matters in order to expedite the availability of equipment for use in this band, which will fulfill “the imminent need” FirstNet cites “for authorized equipment to meet the needs of jurisdictions that may deploy early” in its licensed spectrum.

2. The rules we adopt today will provide a necessary foundation for FirstNet's operations and expedite the availability of equipment for use in this band. As noted below, in light of the urgent need to resume our process for certifying equipment for use in promoting more effective public safety operations in this band, and because that process cannot be resumed in the absence of governing technical service rules, we find good cause to make the Second R&O effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register .

3. The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, enacted February 22, 2012, provides for the deployment of a nationwide public safety broadband network in the 700 MHz band. The Act established FirstNet as an independent authority within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and required the Commission to grant a license to FirstNet for the use of both the existing public safety broadband spectrum (763-768/793-798 MHz) and the spectrally adjacent D Block (758-763/788-793 MHz), a commercial spectrum block that the statute required the Commission to reallocate for public safety use. The Act charges FirstNet with the responsibility for establishing and overseeing “a nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband network” operated in this spectrum by taking “all actions necessary to ensure the building, deployment, and operation of the . . . network, in consultation with Federal, State, tribal, and local public safety entities, the Director of NIST, the Commission, and the public safety advisory committee [that section 6205 of the Act requires FirstNet to establish].” Among its more specific duties, FirstNet is responsible for issuing Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and entering into contracts for the construction, operation and management of the network on a nationwide basis, using funds allocated for these purposes under the Act.

4. The Act also established within the Commission a Technical Advisory Board for First Responder Interoperability (Interoperability Board) charged with the development of recommended minimum technical requirements to ensure nationwide interoperability for the public safety broadband network based on “commercial standards for Long Term Evolution (LTE) service.” On May 22, 2012, the Interoperability Board submitted its recommendations to the Commission, and on June 21, 2012, the Commission approved the transmittal of these recommendations to FirstNet. The Act requires FirstNet to incorporate the recommendations into its RFPs “without materially changing” them.

5. On September 7, 2012, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau adopted, on delegated authority, a Report and Order implementing the clear statutory directive requiring the Commission to reallocate the D Block for “public safety services.” The Bureau also deleted a number of Commission rules that were plainly inconsistent with this revised allocation, including the rules establishing, providing license authority with respect to, and governing operations under the “Public Safety Broadband License” that had previously been established for the existing public safety broadband spectrum. On November 15, 2012, the Bureau granted FirstNet the license prescribed by statute, under call sign WQQE234.

6. The Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ) on March 8, 2013, seeking comment on additional measures to implement its statutory responsibilities regarding deployment of the public safety broadband network. The NPRM sought comment on the adoption of consolidated technical service rules for the network; on the exercise of the Commission's statutory responsibilities as they relate to oversight of FirstNet's operations; and on transition matters for the various classes of incumbent operations in the spectrum licensed to FirstNet. The Commission also sought comment on the scope of its authority as it relates to these proposals, particularly in light of the statutory delegation to FirstNet of the responsibility to develop “the technical and operational requirements of the network.”

7. FirstNet filed comments on the NPRM on August 2, 2013, after the comment cycle had completed. While not addressing for the most part the substantive rules at issue, FirstNet urged the Commission to “act quickly to amend its technical service rules to enable FirstNet to expedite the deployment of [its network].” FirstNet also expressed support for “swift Commission action to begin accepting and processing equipment authorizations” in its licensed spectrum, particularly in light of imminent public safety network deployments planned therein. On August 28, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau published a notice in the Federal Register providing an additional seven days for public comment on FirstNet's filing, 78 FR 53124, Aug. 28, 2013. The few comments received in response were supportive of these views.

8. In the Second R&O, we adopt consolidated technical service rules to facilitate FirstNet's efforts in deploying a nationwide public safety broadband network in the 700 MHz band. The adoption of these rules will also enable the Commission to certify for operation in the spectrum licensed to FirstNet. This will expedite the availability of equipment for operation in this band, which FirstNet and numerous other commenters identify as an urgent priority given the near-term deployments planned in this spectrum.

9. In the NPRM we sought comment, including specific data and information, on the costs and benefits of each proposal set forth and of any potential alternatives to such proposals. The few commenters that addressed the potential costs associated with consolidating technical service rules under part 90 anticipate that such costs will be minimal. Such comments are unsurprising, given that the rules proposed for consolidation are already codified in Commission rules and largely track the service rules that apply to commercial LTE services in neighboring bands. Accordingly, we proceed with the consolidation of technical rules based on the record before us.

10. In the NPRM, the Commission observed that “rules governing 700 MHz commercial wireless spectrum, including the D Block, are codified primarily in part 27 (“Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services”), while rules governing the existing public safety broadband spectrum generally fall under part 90.” The Commission proposed, as a general matter, to modify its rules so as to merge the requirements governing both band segments into a unified set of part 90 rules. FirstNet and many other commenters expressed support for this general approach, and none opposed it. Accordingly, in the Second R&O we adopt a unified set of part 90 rules to govern FirstNet's licensed spectrum.

11. We first consider the Commission's proposed modifications to the part 27 technical service rules governing the D Block and parallel part 90 rules governing the public safety broadband spectrum (763-768/793-798 MHz). The Commission proposed such modifications to unify under a common set of rules a number of technical requirements, many of them substantively similar or identical to one another, that govern the two respective segments of FirstNet's licensed spectrum. The Commission also sought comment on the merits of these technical requirements as applied to the combined spectrum allocation licensed to FirstNet. In this section, we consider each requirement in turn.

12. Power Limits. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to modify § 90.542(a) of its rules to bring the D Block frequencies within its purview and to delete as redundant the parallel provisions of § 27.50(b). The Commission also sought comment on whether the power limits established in § 90.542(a) remain appropriate for the combined public safety broadband allocation, and on the relative costs and benefits of any proposed alternatives. In addition, the Commission sought comment on whether the operational parameters of Long Term Evolution (LTE) technology call for the placement of more restrictive limits on the power output of portable ( i.e., hand-held) devices operated in the public safety broadband allocation.

13. Comments. Most commenters that addressed the issue support maintaining the power and antenna height limits set forth in § 90.542(a) and extending the reach of this provision to the D Block. Harris supports this general approach, but argues that the rule's reduced base station power limits for antennas above 305 meters in height above average terrain (HAAT) “may not reflect the economic realities of building out [the network] in rural areas” and that “[f]lexibility should be allowed for implementation of a cost effective network . . . but free of rules that may force higher site densities based on regulation rather than need.” To that end, Harris contends that “a single set of maximum power limits should be established and the licensee should be offered flexibility to determine specific operating parameters for each RF site” within these limits. Verizon opposes Harris's proposal, observing that the rule “already allow[s] operations in rural areas at power levels that are twice that of higher density areas.” Verizon further argues that more restrictive power limits on transmissions from antennas above 305 meters HAAT should remain in place “to protect not only nearby commercial 700 MHz operations, but other FirstNet and narrowband public safety operations as well.”

14. A number of commenters also argue that the power limits currently in place for portable devices are consistent with the operational parameters of LTE and should not be restricted further. Motorola Solutions explains that the power limits established under § 90.542, unlike those specified by LTE standards, are expressed in terms of “effective radiated power” (ERP) and thus account for antenna gains and losses. Motorola Solutions further argues that the Commission should continue to permit “high gain/high powered operations” in this band, because “higher power LTE devices improve spectral efficiency and coverage range, especially in rural areas with large inter-site distances and low user density.” Meanwhile, General Dynamics contends that further restricting the permissible power output of hand-held devices operated in the public safety broadband allocation “would negate some manufacturers' research and development investment-to-date” in higher-power LTE devices and “could greatly impact ongoing system-level engineering trades for the emerging [network] being designed by the FirstNet.”

15. Discussion. As the Commission observed in the NPRM, power limits play an important role in minimizing the potential for radiofrequency (RF) transmissions to create harmful interference for operations in co-channel and adjacent spectrum bands. Identical power limits are already in place for the public safety broadband spectrum and D Block, and the majority of commenters support the consolidation of these existing requirements under § 90.542. Moreover, as AT&T observes, the proposed consolidated limits are those that already “apply to 700 MHz commercial wireless services,” which include LTE services. We thus find that the proposed limits are reasonable for FirstNet's licensed spectrum, which will be used to deploy a nationwide LTE broadband network for first responders. Also, while recognizing the need to afford FirstNet flexibility to implement its network in a cost-effective manner, we decline to reformulate the rule as Harris proposes to sever the relationship between base station power limit and antenna height above average terrain. We first observe that FirstNet has not sought any modification of the restrictions currently in place, which are already calibrated to provide maximum flexibility to operators consistent with protecting both adjacent and co-channel operations from interference. We also note Verizon's observation that the rules in place already provide for higher-power transmissions in rural areas, which should enable sites to be deployed less densely in areas where it may be particularly costly to build out the network. Accordingly, we consolidate the power limits for FirstNet's licensed spectrum under § 90.542(a) as proposed. Moreover, as we find no support in the record for further restricting the permissible power output of hand-held devices operated in this spectrum to reflect the operational parameters of LTE technology, we will retain the 3 watt ERP limit the rule currently prescribes for hand-held ( i.e., portable) devices.

16. Power Strength Limits (Power Flux Density). In the NPRM, the Commission proposed consolidating under § 90.542(b) of its rules the power flux density limits that govern the respective segments of FirstNet's licensed spectrum. The Commission then sought comment on whether the limit set forth, namely 3000 microwatts per square meter (μw/m 2 ) on the ground within 1000 meters of the base of an antenna for any signal transmitted in excess of 1000 watts ERP, remains appropriate. Finally, it sought comment on the costs and benefits of the proposed rule consolidation and of any possible alternatives.

17. Comments. Several commenters support the proposed consolidation of existing power flux density limits under § 90.542(b). One such commenter, Motorola Solutions, explains that “[i]n the 800 MHz band, the 3000 μw/m 2 limit has proven to be an effective compromise between service and interference prevention,” one that “does not prevent interference in all cases [but] is an effective standard to trigger the initiation of mitigation work.” Harris, on the other hand, argues that limiting the power flux density only of signals transmitted in excess of 1000 watts ERP “is counterproductive to minimizing harmful interference.” Harris explains that even lower ERP transmissions from a FirstNet base station could, “by a combined effect of the site antenna directivity and ERP,” produce a power flux density that is sufficient to create a serious potential for interference with public safety narrowband operations in the surrounding area. Harris explains that co-location of broadband and narrowband sites can mitigate this problem but that “site densities for LTE are expected to be higher necessitating the need for broadband-only sites.” Accordingly, Harris recommends extending rule to cover base station transmissions at any level of ERP.

18. Discussion. Power flux density limits help mitigate the potential for a base station's transmissions to create interference for adjacent-band users in the immediate area. We agree with Motorola Solutions that the limits currently in place provide for interference mitigation without unduly constraining service. We further observe that no public safety narrowband licensee or other public safety commenter argued that the proposed PFD limits are insufficiently restrictive to protect narrowband or other operations from interference. We will therefore consolidate the existing PFD limits as proposed. In doing so, we acknowledge Harris's argument that FirstNet's placement and configuration of sites within its network may affect the probability that adjacent narrowband users may encounter harmful interference from its base station transmissions. We would expect that FirstNet will carefully coordinate its site deployments with adjacent narrowband licensees and adjust its operations as appropriate to mitigate any problems that may arise. The Commission may also consider adoption of a more restrictive PFD limit for this spectrum in the future should circumstances warrant.

19. In the NPRM the Commission sought comment on proposals to unify under § 90.543 of our rules the out-of-band emission (OOBE) limits that govern the public safety broadband spectrum allocation, as expanded to include the D Block. First, the Commission proposed consolidating into § 90.543(e) the provisions restricting emissions from the public safety broadband allocation into the adjacent 700 MHz public safety narrowband segment (769-775/799-805 MHz). It then proposed consolidating into § 90.543(f) the limits on emissions from the public safety broadband allocation into the 1559-1610 MHz band, which supports the operation of Global Positioning System (GPS) L1 receivers, and to retain the explicit language in § 90.543(f) that the rule applies to emissions “including harmonics.” Finally, it sought comment on whether limits codified in § 27.53(d)(3) on emissions from the D Block into frequencies below 758 MHz, between 775 and 788 MHz, and above 806 MHz should be extended to apply to the public safety broadband spectrum. For each of these proposals, the Commission also sought comment on any possible alternatives and on the respective costs and benefits of each.

20. Comments. All commenters that addressed this issue support retaining appropriate limits on emissions from the public safety broadband allocation into adjacent spectrum bands, and the majority of these commenters endorse the specific proposals issued in the NPRM.

21. A number of commenters emphasize the need for appropriate rules limiting emissions from the public safety broadband allocation into the adjacent narrowband spectrum. Motorola Solutions supports the proposed consolidation of the existing limits on such emissions, noting that it “strongly opposes any reduction in the protection afforded to public safety narrowband systems.” AT&T supports the proposed rule consolidation as one that would “apply to the national public safety broadband spectrum the same requirements applicable to commercial wireless service.” Harris argues that the protection of adjacent narrowband systems “require[s] special attention by the [C]ommission” given the incompatibility of broadband technologies with these systems, which are “used for existing critical communications.” Harris believes that the proposed limit on emissions into the narrowband spectrum would not adequately protect these existing systems from interference from LTE operations. Accordingly, it proposes a more robust set of protections under which limits on emissions into the narrowband spectrum would vary based on the nature ( e.g., base vs. mobile) of both the transmitter and the receiver of the out-of-band signal.

22. With respect to the 1559-1610 MHz band, commenters acknowledge the importance of protecting GPS L1 receivers operated there from interference. General Dynamics states that the protection of GPS operations “is viewed with great importance,” while Motorola Solutions observes that “GPS is a critically important service to public safety as well as a wide range of consumer, enterprise and government applications.” While commenters generally support the proposed consolidation under § 90.543(f) of the existing rules limiting emissions from the public safety broadband allocation into the 1559-1610 MHz band, parties disagree on whether that provision should retain the phrase “including harmonics.” General Dynamics contends that this phrase “is necessary to ensure that the rules are unambiguous about restrictions that are placed on harmonics of intended transmissions” and that the cost impact of its inclusion would be “minimal.” Ericsson, on the other hand, contends that the provision in question would apply to harmonics emissions even in the absence of explicit wording to that effect, making such wording “not necessary.”

23. Finally, a number of commenters support the proposed extension to the public safety broadband spectrum of existing limits imposed on emissions from the D Block into neighboring commercial spectrum bands. General Dynamics observes that “public safety systems based on LTE technology will have to co-exist with commercial services operating in adjacent spectrum” and that adopting the proposed rule would merely “ensure consistency” with emission limitations already imposed on 700 MHz public safety narrowband operations. General Dynamics further contends that the proposed limits “are relatively straightforward to achieve by fixed, mobile and portable stations” and that adoption of the proposal thus “will not impose any additional cost on public safety station equipment.” AT&T also supports the proposal, observing that its adoption would harmonize the requirements applicable to this band with those that apply to 700 MHz commercial wireless services.

24. Discussion. Out-of-band emissions limits play a critical role in minimizing inter-band interference. As several commenters recognize, the limits established under § 90.543(e) have been calibrated to prevent public safety broadband operations from interfering with operations in the adjacent public safety narrowband spectrum. Moreover, while Harris explains that its alternative proposal “is based on 3GPP standard practice for evaluating co-location and co-existence of commercial deployments,” the rule as written is aligned with the rules applicable to 700 MHz commercial bands. We accordingly modify § 90.543(e) to include within its purview the D Block portion of FirstNet's spectrum. In doing so, we emphasize that this provision merely establishes a baseline of protection, one which FirstNet may opt to strengthen as it moves forward with its deployment and engages in its required consultations with State and local governments. Accordingly, while we decline to adopt more stringent out-of-band emissions limits of the sort Harris proposes, we encourage FirstNet to work cooperatively with adjacent-channel narrowband licensees to ensure that their respective operations are adequately protected.

25. Section 90.543(f), which limits emissions from the public safety broadband spectrum into the 1559-1610 MHz band, protects critical GPS operations from interference. Accordingly, with the support of many commenters, we incorporate the D Block into this provision. We further observe that no commenters provided a compelling reason to delete the phrase “including harmonics” from this provision, while one argues that such deletion could create unnecessary ambiguity. We therefore retain the original wording of the part 90 provision.

26. Finally, we observe that many commenters support the Commission's proposed adoption of a part 90 provision limiting emissions from the public safety broadband allocation into neighboring commercial spectrum bands, and none oppose the proposal. The adoption of this proposal would further align the technical service rules for this band with those established for commercial 700 MHz LTE operations. Moreover, the one commenter to address the cost implications of the proposal argues that it would create no cost burden. We accordingly adopt the proposal.

27. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether a field strength limit should be established for the expanded public safety broadband allocation to limit interference between the FirstNet radio access network (RAN) and any State Networks deployed in the same band. The Commission then sought comment more specifically on whether to adopt for this band the field strength limit of 40 dBuV/M specified in § 27.55(a)(2) for 700 MHz commercial wireless spectrum, or whether an alternative limit would be more appropriate. The Commission also sought comment on the costs and benefits of the various options.

28. Comments. Commenters were divided on whether the Commission should adopt a field strength limit for FirstNet's licensed spectrum. Motorola Solutions supports the adoption of the proposed 40 dBuV/M limit “[g]iven the likelihood that there will be more than one network operating in [this spectrum.]” However, it also notes that 40 dBuV/M represents a “relatively high” field strength limit that is “sufficient to cause interference,” so “deployments near service area boundaries [will] require licensee coordination.” AT&T contends that a field strength limit should be adopted “to mitigate the potential for harmful interference between the nationwide network and any State networks,” and it proposes adoption of the 40 dBuV/M limit already specified “for 700 MHz commercial wireless services” in § 27.55(a)(2). General Dynamics and TIA also support using the 40 dBuV/M limit set forth in § 27.55(a)(2).

29. Some commenters, however, oppose the Commission's adoption of a field strength limit for FirstNet's licensed spectrum. Harris contends that any State Networks deployed in this spectrum must “function logically [with FirstNet's network] as a single RAN,” making field strength limits “not necessary for this spectrum.” Ericsson similarly argues that such limits are unnecessary given the expectation that FirstNet “will work in a cooperative way to ensure that harmful interference is not an issue through coordination and site engineering.” Alcatel-Lucent also opposes adoption of such a limit “at this time.”

30. Discussion. Although FirstNet is licensed on a nationwide basis, we acknowledge the importance of minimizing interference between the FirstNet network and any “State Network” deployed in the same spectrum. The statutory scheme under which State Networks may be deployed, however, includes several provisions that serve to promote the operational integration of such networks with FirstNet's nationwide deployment. A State electing to deploy its own network must submit an interoperability plan for the Commission's approval; apply to NTIA to lease spectrum capacity from FirstNet upon demonstrating that will have the technical capabilities to operate its network, have the ability to maintain ongoing interoperability with FirstNet, and provide a comparable quality of service; and pay any user fees associated with its use of FirstNet's core network. These provisions, among others, already contemplate a significant amount of advance coordination of State Network operations with those of FirstNet. We therefore do not find it necessary at this time to adopt a field strength limit for RANs operated in FirstNet's licensed spectrum.

31. The Commission sought comment in the NPRM on whether FirstNet or other broadband operators in its licensed spectrum should be required to engage in interference coordination of some kind, either with 700 MHz commercial licensees or with incumbent public safety narrowband licensees.

32. Comments. While several commenters acknowledge the importance of protecting co-channel and spectrally adjacent operations from mutual interference, many oppose the adoption of formal requirements for FirstNet or other public safety broadband operators to coordinate with either 700 MHz commercial or incumbent public safety narrowband licensees. APCO “cautions the Commission to refrain from adopting any unnecessary procedures or requirements that would have the effect of introducing additional complexity on network planning with little or no corresponding benefit.” Motorola Solutions raises similar concerns and suggests that interference coordination procedures be “implemented as a design guideline” rather than a binding rule. Ericsson meanwhile suggests that, while the Commission “is wise to consider coordinating interference issues” between incumbent narrowband operators and FirstNet, these two constituencies are “highly motivated” to coordinate with one another even in the absence of any formal requirements. AT&T also opposes the adoption of formal coordination requirements but recommends that the Commission adopt for the public safety broadband allocation the informal coordination procedures codified for commercial operations under § 27.64.

33. Alone among commenters, the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia) argues “that co-ordination requirements must be put in place to protect incumbent narrowband operations” such as its own. In support of its position, Virginia explains that its network “has already experienced harmful interference from the testing of a 700 MHz LTE system in Virginia by a manufacturer,” an outcome it deems “unacceptable for public safety communications.”

34. Discussion. We agree with commenters that assert the importance of coordination among spectrally and geographically adjacent network operators to protect against mutual interference. At the same time, we observe once again that the statute creating FirstNet imposes on it a number of consultative obligations, including obligations to consult with state and local governments as it designs and implements its network. In addition, FirstNet's desire to attract public safety customers and potential commercial partners is likely to create incentives for additional coordination beyond what is statutorily required, which are different in kind and degree from those of a manufacturer conducting tests. Accordingly, we do not find it necessary at this time to adopt any formal requirements that FirstNet coordinate its operations with either incumbent narrowband or 700 MHz commercial operators. We will continue, however, to exercise our spectrum management and licensing responsibilities as necessary to ensure that properly authorized radio communications are protected from harmful interference, and we encourage all parties to work together to minimize the potential for interference.

35. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to remove the D Block from the reach of § 27.57(b) and place it within the purview of § 90.533, which sets forth substantively identical requirements concerning international coordination. Ericsson and General Dynamics, the only parties to address the issue, support this proposed rule consolidation. Accordingly, we adopt the proposal.

36. In the NPRM, the Commission observed that FirstNet's license includes the 768-769/798-799 MHz band, which is designated as a guard band under Commission rules to minimize the potential for interference between the broadband and narrowband segments of the 700 MHz public safety band. Observing that the transfer of the broadband spectrum to FirstNet does nothing to mitigate these concerns, the Commission proposed to maintain the designation of this spectrum as a guard band and keep in place all associated restrictions on its use. The Commission sought comment on this proposal, and on whether the possibility of broadband operations eventually being permitted in the narrowband segment should have any impact on this analysis.

37. Comments. A number of commenters support preserving the designation of the 768-769/798-799 MHz band as a guard band, at least during the early stages of public safety broadband network development. FirstNet recommends that “[a]t this time” the Commission “enable the guard band to continue serving as a `buffer' between public safety broadband and narrowband spectrum.” Harris agrees and further argues that “the existing expanded public safety broadband allocation should be deployed and subsequent evaluation of real-world harmful interference should be evaluated before the guard band is allowed to be used.” Motorola Solutions similarly contends that “[t]he interference concerns that led to the establishment of the guard band have not been mitigated” and that “[t]he Commission should take no actions with respect to the guard band that would jeopardize the continued interference-free availability of the public safety narrowband spectrum.” The Commonwealth of Virginia also asserts that “a continued guard band is a necessity.”

38. Some commenters, however, suggest that this spectrum could be suitable for limited use, if only within specified parameters. Motorola Solutions envisions use of the band for “localized public safety applications” including “low power mobile/portable applications that would enhance public safety communications while posing little risk of interference to adjacent band systems.” NPSTC meanwhile argues that designating this spectrum as a “home” for narrowband vehicular repeaters currently operated in the public safety broadband spectrum could serve as a cost-effective strategy for managing the relocation of these operations. FirstNet also cautions that “[its] plans could necessitate a change in the status of the public safety guard bands” to accommodate some operations therein.

39. Finally, a few commenters contend that FirstNet should retain control over the operational parameters of all spectrum licensed to it, including the 768-769/798-799 MHz band. APCO argues that FirstNet's statutory responsibilities “extend to the guard bands” and that the Commission should accordingly “remove the existing guard band restrictions and instead leave to FirstNet's discretion as to how to address any potential interference issues.” Similarly, Ericsson “supports allowing FirstNet discretion on its use as long as these bands function as guard bands to protect narrowband operations.”

40. Discussion. As an initial matter, we observe that the Commission holds authority to adopt regulations aimed at preventing public safety broadband network operations from creating interference for users in adjacent bands. The operational restrictions that currently attach to the 768-769 and 798-799 MHz “guard band” were adopted to mitigate interference between users in the broadband and narrowband segments of the public safety band, and no commenter has challenged the Commission's observation that these underlying concerns remain valid. In addition, FirstNet itself recommends that the band “continue serving as a `buffer' ” between these bands, at least in the near term. Accordingly, we will maintain the guard band restrictions currently in place for the 768-769 and 798-799 MHz band. In a future proceeding we may consider relaxing these restrictions to accommodate some operations in this band, such as those commenters contemplate, but such matters are not yet ripe for consideration at this early stage of network development.

41. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed consolidating under § 90.549 of its rules the requirements governing certification of equipment for operation in FirstNet's licensed spectrum. The Commission further observed that, under this approach, such certification would be subject to consolidated technical rules that had themselves yet to be adopted. Accordingly, it suspended OET's acceptance and processing of applications for equipment certification in FirstNet's licensed spectrum pending the adoption of the necessary technical rules. In addition, it sought comment on whether to adopt certification requirements specific to this band that would augment the basic certification requirements already codified under § 90.549. Finally, it proposed removing from its rules a legacy provision, § 90.203(p), that required applicants for equipment certification in the public safety broadband spectrum to demonstrate support for LTE interfaces that public safety operators had been required to implement under rules no longer in force.

42. Comments. In general, commenters support the specific proposals regarding equipment certification set forth in the NPRM. Those commenters that addressed these matters support the proposed consolidation of requirements under § 90.549 and the proposed deletion of § 90.203(p). With respect to the proposed rule consolidation, General Dynamics further observes that “[t]he inclusion of the D Block frequency in this section will have the benefit of eliminating duplicative certification processes, thereby reducing cost.”

43. As noted earlier, a substantial number of commenters, including FirstNet, contend that urgent Commission action is necessary to ensure that equipment is made available for operations in FirstNet's licensed spectrum on an expedited basis. FirstNet explains that “there is an imminent need for authorized equipment to meet the needs of jurisdictions that may deploy early” in its licensed spectrum under lease agreements. Motorola Solutions similarly notes that “[t]here is already a demand” for authorized equipment “that will increase as FirstNet progresses towards deployment of the nationwide public safety broadband network,” and that “[t]he halt in equipment authorizations is impacting product development schedules for devices being designed to meet this demand.” Ericsson further argues that “delays in certifying equipment hampe[r] the access to new and potentially life-saving technologies by the public safety community.” Some commenters, including APCO and Harris, offer proposals for expediting the availability of equipment for use in this band prior to the adoption of technical service rules. APCO recommends “issuance of an earlier order that focuses on [equipment certification] to avoid further interruptions in the development of equipment necessary for [network] operations.” Harris, meanwhile, recommends that the Commission permit equipment with existing certifications already granted under the provisions of its 2010 waiver order, and equipment subsequently certified to be compliant with that order's technical requirements, to be authorized for use by early adopter networks while the Commission continues to develop technical service rules to permit the certification of equipment. Harris clarifies, however, that all equipment operated in the band should be subject to the rules ultimately adopted “to ensure interoperability and [a] multi-vendor environment.”

44. A few commenters also urge the Commission to refrain from adopting any band-specific requirements that would augment the more basic requirements for equipment certification established under § 90.549. On this point, Motorola Solutions observes that “[s]imilar to any commercial system operator, FirstNet has the right to impose additional requirements on equipment vendors to support specified features, protocols and applications” and that “[s]ubjecting future enhancements and refinements to the Commission's rulemaking process would add unnecessary delay to providing public safety with devices that have the latest features and functionality.”

45. Discussion. Our adoption in the Second R&O of consolidated public safety broadband technical service rules sets the stage for equipment certifications to commence in this band. Commenters widely support the Commission's proposal to unify the equipment certification requirements for this band under § 90.549, without further modification. We accordingly consolidate this rule as proposed and direct the Office of Engineering and Technology to certify equipment in this band consistent with the technical rules adopted in the Second R&O, as soon as these rules become effective. We also delete § 90.203(p) as proposed in the NPRM.

46. Moreover, as explained in more detail below, we will make the Second R&O effective January 6, 2014. Such action will expedite the Commission's ability to process applications for equipment certification under the newly consolidated rules, thereby obviating the need for adoption of interim measures such as those APCO and Harris propose.

47. AT&T's Proposed Rule on Adherence to Commercial Standards. AT&T proposes that, in addition to consolidating existing technical rules under part 90, the Commission should adopt “a catch-all rule to ensure that the public safety broadband network operates in accordance with `commercial standards' as defined [by statute].” Motorola Solutions opposes the adoption of such a rule, arguing that it “may hinder FirstNet's ability to promote the development and use of public safety applications and devices that do not conform precisely to commercial standards.”

48. AT&T concedes that many of the specific technical rules proposed in the NPRM align with requirements applicable to commercial spectrum bands, but it asserts that its proposed rule “would serve to fill any unintended gaps in the other rules, provide important context for construing any ambiguities in the other rules, and plainly place the Commission in step with the mission of other governments entities charged with implementing [the statute].” The rule it proposes, however, largely recites general principles set forth by statute and, as such, would not appear to place any affirmative restriction on the conduct of FirstNet or any other entity in deploying and operating the network. Any such restriction the rule might impose, on the other hand, may exceed the scope of the NPRM, which did not expressly seek comment on proposals to implement the statutory requirement that FirstNet base its network on “commercial standards,” or on how this requirement of the Spectrum Act should be construed in this context. We thus decline to adopt AT&T's proposal.

49. Harris's Proposed Regulatory Classification of LTE Base Stations. Harris proposes that the Commission's public safety broadband service rules “establish distinct definitions and rules for different types of base stations . . . in a manner consistent with 3GPP definitions and technical specifications.” In particular, Harris recommends the adoption of distinct transmitter power and minimum coupling loss (MCL) restrictions for “Wide area,” “Medium area,” “Local area,” and “Home” base stations, at levels defined by the LTE standard. Specialized requirements for various base station classes are necessary, Harris asserts, “to ensure that minimum technical requirements are placed on each of the classes while minimizing cost and harmful interference potential.”

50. The technical rules we are establishing for FirstNet's licensed spectrum include power limits and other technical requirements aimed at mitigating the interference potential of operations in FirstNet's licensed spectrum. These protections are well-established and enjoy broad record support, and, as some commenters have observed, they are generally aligned with the technical service rules that apply to 700 MHz commercial LTE services. We do not find that Harris has made the case for codifying a distinct and potentially conflicting set of rules for FirstNet's licensed spectrum based directly on LTE design specifications, which themselves may evolve over time. Accordingly, we decline to adopt Harris's proposal.

51. In addition to its proposed consolidation of technical service rules, the Commission proposed additional minor rule revisions necessary to remove the D Block from the reach of part 27 and place it within the purview of part 90. The only commenters to address these proposed revisions support them. We accordingly adopt the proposals. We also requested comment more generally on “the development of a unified set of rules for the expanded public safety broadband allocation,” and Motorola Solutions identified for revision two additional “non-substantive” part 27 references to the D Block. We agree that these changes to reflect the new statutory mandate with respect to the D Block are purely ministerial, and we adopt such revisions as well.

52. The Commission also proposed minor revisions to §§ 2.103, 90.179 and 90.523 of its rules to omit references to the defunct Public Safety Broadband Licensee. The few commenters that addressed any of these proposed revisions support them. We accordingly adopt these proposals as well.

1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of rules adopted in the Second R&O in PS Docket No. 12-94. The Commission sought comment on such impact in an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) prepared in connection with the NPRM in which the rules were proposed. No commenters directly responded to the IRFA.

2. In the Second R&O, the Commission adopts a unified set of technical service rules for the spectrum licensed to the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) for purposes of establishing a nationwide 700 MHz public safety broadband network. This unification primarily involves merging into part 90 of the Commission's rules a number of technical requirements that had been codified separately in parts 27 and 90 for the two respective segments of FirstNet's licensed spectrum, the “public safety broadband spectrum” (763-768/793-798 MHz) and the “D Block” (758-763/788-793 MHz). Such action will further “facilitate[s] the transition” of spectrum to FirstNet for its use in establishing a nationwide wireless broadband communications network for our Nation's first responders. In particular, the adoption of consolidated rules for FirstNet's licensed spectrum will enable the Commission to start certifying equipment for operation in this spectrum under the technical rules established for the combined band.

3. No commenters directly responded to the IRFA. A number of commenters expressed support in general for the consolidation of technical rules that we effect in the Second R&O. Also, no commenters expressed the view that such consolidation of rules would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”). Below, we further describe and estimate the number of small entity licensees and regulatees that may be affected by the rules changes we propose in the NPRM.

5. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards. First, nationwide, there are a total of approximately 27.5 million small businesses, according to the SBA. In addition, a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,315 small organizations. Finally, the term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88,506 entities may qualify as “small governmental jurisdictions.” Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.

6. Public Safety Radio Licensees. As a general matter, Public Safety Radio Pool licensees include police, fire, local government, forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency medical services. Because of the vast array of public safety licensees, the Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to public safety licensees. The SBA rules contain a definition for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) which encompasses business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications employing no more than 1,500 persons. With respect to local governments, in particular, since many governmental entities comprise the licensees for these services, we include under public safety services the number of government entities affected. According to Commission records, there are a total of approximately 133,870 licenses within these services. There are 2,442 licenses in the 4.9 GHz band, based on an FCC Universal Licensing System search of May 23, 2012. We estimate that fewer than 2,442 public safety radio licensees hold these licenses because certain entities may have multiple licenses.

7. We observe, however, that “small governmental jurisdictions”—regardless of their status as Public Safety Radio Pool licensees—are ineligible to hold direct Commission authorizations to operate in the spectrum licensed to FirstNet. By statute, FirstNet is charged with constructing, operating and maintaining public safety broadband network in this spectrum on a nationwide basis, under a nationwide license. Accordingly, we do not believe the technical service rules adopted in the Second R&O to govern operations in this spectrum will directly affect a substantial number of small entities, and that it is thus unnecessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with these requirements. Nevertheless, to the extent such rules could be construed as having a direct effect on a substantial number of small entities, we estimate that the economic impact on any entity would be minimal. This is because the rules adopted in the Second R&O largely involve unifying under a single set of part 90 provisions a number of already existing technical requirements that had been codified in disparate rule sections.

8. The Second R&O does, however, establish rules governing equipment certification, which would apply directly to equipment manufacturers or other entities seeking to certify equipment for use in FirstNet's licensed spectrum. The SBA category that includes such entities is that of “Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing,” which the Census Bureau defines as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: all such firms having 750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 939 establishments in this category that operated for part or all of the entire year. According to Census bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 919 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 771 had less than 100 employees and 148 had more than 100 employees. Thus, under that size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

9. The technical service rules adopted in the Second R&O largely involve consolidating a number of parallel part 27 and part 90 rules within the latter rule part, so as to subject FirstNet's licensed spectrum to a unified set of rules. Because FirstNet is the nationwide licensee in this spectrum, it will be primarily responsible on a nationwide basis for complying with any such requirements that are ultimately adopted. Accordingly, as discussed, we do not believe that these requirements would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

10. The Second R&O also establishes certification requirements for equipment operated in the combined public safety broadband spectrum and directs the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) to process certifications under the newly consolidated rules. These certification requirements will be applicable to entities, such as equipment manufacturers, seeking to certify equipment for operation in this spectrum. However, as we observed in the IRFA, equipment certification is a longstanding Commission practice, widely applicable to equipment marketed for operation in radiospectrum licensed by the Commission. As the Commission further anticipated in the IRFA, the equipment certification rules adopted in the Second R&O do not depart significantly from current practice in this area. Indeed, the rules merely consolidate equipment certification requirements already applicable to the two respective segments of FirstNet's licensed spectrum. We do not believe that such consolidation would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

11. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in developing its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”

12. As previously discussed, the rules adopted in the Second R&O already involve the “consolidation” of existing requirements into a unified set of part 90 provisions. We believe that such action will help facilitate the efforts in deploying the network, and there is no reason to believe that such rule consolidation would impose a significant economic impact on small entities.

13. We also do not believe it would be tenable to establish differing requirements for small entities or to exempt such entities from rules adopted in the Second R&O, including rules governing equipment certification. Given the importance of ensuring that the public safety broadband network is technically and operationally viable on a nationwide basis, it is important that the network be governed by a common set of rules and requirements and that all equipment operated in the network be subject to common certification procedures.

14. None.

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act generally requires publication of a rule in the Federal Register at least thirty days before it goes into effect, but not when an agency otherwise finds and publishes “good cause” for an earlier effective date. We believe there is good cause for making such rules effective immediately upon publication. As noted above, in our NPRM we suspended OET's acceptance and processing of applications for equipment certification in this band pending the adoption of the foregoing technical rules against which to evaluate such equipment. With several near-term deployments now planned in FirstNet's licensed spectrum, some under lease agreements that have already been executed, it is essential that the Commission commence its equipment certification process for this band as soon as possible, particularly in light of the clear public safety benefits resulting from such proposed deployments. Because the rules we adopt in the Second R&O will provide the foundation for this certification process, expediting their effective date is necessary to prevent delay in the availability of equipment for operation in FirstNet's licensed spectrum. We will therefore make the Second Report and Order effective January 6, 2014.

The Bureau will send a copy of the Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1, 2, 27 and 90 as follows:

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The final 2013 and 2014 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (78 FR 13162, February 26, 2013) set the 2014 pollock TAC at 111,530 metric tons (mt) and the 2014 Pacific cod TAC at 63,150 mt in the GOA. In December 2013, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) recommended a 2014 pollock TAC of 174,976 mt for the GOA, which is more than the 111,530 mt established by the final 2013 and 2014 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA. The Council also recommended a 2014 Pacific cod TAC of 64,738 mt for the GOA, which is more than the 63,150 mt established by the final 2013 and 2014 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA. The Council's recommended 2014 TACs, and the area and seasonal apportionments, are based on the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation report (SAFE), dated November 2013, which NMFS has determined is the best available scientific information for these fisheries.

Steller sea lions occur in the same location as the pollock and Pacific cod fisheries and are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Pollock and Pacific cod are a principal prey species for Steller sea lions in the GOA. The seasonal apportionment of pollock and Pacific cod harvest is necessary to ensure the groundfish fisheries are not likely to cause jeopardy of extinction or adverse modification of critical habitat for Steller sea lions. The regulations at § 679.20(a)(5)(iv) specify how the pollock TAC will be apportioned. The regulations at § 679.20(a)(6)(ii) and § 679.20(a)(12)(i) specify how the Pacific cod TAC will be apportioned.

In accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(iii), (a)(2)(i)(B), and (a)(2)(iv) the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that, based on the November 2013 SAFE report for this fishery, the current GOA pollock and Pacific cod TACs are incorrectly specified. Consequently, pursuant to § 679.25(a)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator is adjusting the 2014 GOA pollock TAC to 174,976 mt and the 2014 GOA Pacific cod TAC to 64,738 mt. Therefore, Table 2 of the final 2013 and 2014 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (78 FR 13162, February 26, 2013) is revised consistent with this adjustment.

Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(iv), Table 4 of the final 2013 and 2014 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (78 FR 13162, February 26, 2013) is revised for the 2014 TACs of pollock in the Central and Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.

Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(6)(ii) and § 679.20(a)(12)(i), Table 6 of the final 2013 and 2014 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (78 FR 13162, February 26, 2013) is revised for the 2014 seasonal apportionments and allocation of Pacific cod TAC in the GOA consistent with this adjustment.

NMFS establishes regulations to implement Amendment 99 to the BSAI FMP. NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off Alaska under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP) and the BSAI FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the GOA FMP and BSAI FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. Regulations implementing the GOA FMP and BSAI FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations that pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600.

NMFS published the Notice of Availability for Amendment 99 in the Federal Register on September 30, 2013 (78 FR 59908), with a 60-day comment period that ended November 29, 2013. NMFS published a proposed rule for Amendment 99 in the Federal Register on October 25, 2013 (78 FR 63951). The 30-day comment period on the proposed rule ended November 25, 2013. NMFS received a total of three comment letters from the same person during the comment periods on Amendment 99 and the proposed rule. The letters contained one substantive comment. A summary of this comment and NMFS' response is provided in the Comments and Responses section of this preamble.

A detailed review of the provisions of Amendment 99, the proposed regulations, and the rationale for these regulations is provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (78 FR 63951, October 25, 2013) and is not repeated here. The proposed rule is available from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site (see ADDRESSES ). The preamble to this final rule provides a brief review of the regulatory changes made by this final rule.

Amendment 99 amends the BSAI FMP and this final rule revises Federal regulations to: (1) Increase the maximum length overall (MLOA) to 220 feet (67 m) on an LLP license that authorizes a vessel to catch and process Pacific cod with hook-and-line gear in the BSAI; (2) allow a holder of an LLP license authorized to catch and process Pacific cod with both hook-and-line and pot gear in the BSAI to increase the MLOA on the LLP license to 220 feet (67 m) only if the pot gear endorsement is surrendered within a specific time frame; and (3) allow a vessel that catches and processes Pacific cod with hook-and-line gear in the BSAI to exceed length, tonnage, and power limits established under the American Fisheries Act (AFA). The following sections provide background on the need for, the objectives of, and the provisions of Amendment 99 and this final rule.

Under the LLP, which was implemented by NMFS on January 1, 2000 (63 FR 52642, October 1, 1998), an LLP license is required for most vessels directed fishing for groundfish in the BSAI and GOA. Directed fishing is defined in regulations at § 679.2. For a vessel designated on an LLP license, the LLP license authorizes the type of fishing gear that may be used by the vessel, the maximum size of the vessel, and whether the vessel may catch and process fish at sea or if it is limited to delivering catch without at-sea processing. LLP licenses that allow vessels to catch and process at-sea are assigned a catcher/processor (C/P) endorsement. LLP licenses specify the MLOA of the vessel to which that LLP license may be assigned. Regulations implementing the LLP prohibit participants in LLP groundfish fisheries from using a vessel to fish for LLP groundfish that has a length overall that is greater than the MLOA specified on the LLP license (see § 679.7(i)(6)).

The LLP also includes a species endorsement for Pacific cod in the BSAI and GOA. A vessel can directed fish for Pacific cod in the BSAI or GOA only if the vessel is designated on an LLP license that has this specific endorsement. The LLP Pacific cod endorsement requirement has, in effect, limited the number of vessels that are eligible to fish for Pacific cod in the BSAI and GOA. Specific to this final rule, vessels currently used to directed fish for Pacific cod in the BSAI using hook-and-line gear and to process that catch at sea must be assigned an LLP license with a BSAI Pacific cod hook-and-line C/P endorsement. Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat. 2887, Dec. 8, 2004, at section 219(a)(6), defines the term “longline catcher processor subsector” as “the holders of an LLP license that is noninterim and transferable, or that is interim and subsequently becomes noninterim and transferable, and that is endorsed for Bering Sea or Aleutian Islands catcher processor fishing activity, C/P, Pcod [Pacific cod], hook and line gear.” There are 36 LLP licenses that meet the eligibility criteria for the BSAI longline C/P subsector.

Currently, each of the 36 LLP licenses eligible for the BSAI longline C/P subsector have an MLOA equal to or less than 220 feet (67 m). Increasing the MLOA on the LLP licenses in the BSAI longline C/P subsector to 220 feet (67 m) will not constrain any existing LLP licenses in terms of vessel length. Additional detail on the LLP licenses currently eligible for the BSAI longline C/P subsector can be found in the preamble to the proposed rule (78 FR 63951, October 25, 2013) and section 1.5.1 of the RIR for this action (see ADDRESSES ).

Under this final rule, NMFS will increase the MLOA on LLP licenses in the BSAI longline C/P subsector that are not also endorsed for pot gear to 220 feet (67 m). NMFS and the Council have determined that a 220-foot (67 m) MLOA for these eligible LLP licenses will encourage LLP license holders in the BSAI longline C/P subsector to replace aging vessels with newer, safer, and more efficient vessels. NMFS determined that a 220-foot (67 m) MLOA provides adequate incentives to meet the objectives of the action. It will promote the sustainable harvest of groundfish, especially Pacific cod in the BSAI and GOA, by removing disincentives for owners of vessels to rebuild or replace their vessels with larger vessels. It will promote efficient utilization of the Pacific cod resource in the BSAI and GOA. The action will also promote safety-at-sea by allowing vessel owners to replace existing vessels with vessels that can accommodate improved safety features and minimize the risks faced by crew members.

The 220-foot (67 m) MLOA is intended to allow vessel owners to replace vessels with new vessels that could accommodate improved efficiency and safety design. Additional detail on the rationale for the 220-foot (67 m) MLOA limit is provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (78 FR 63951, October 25, 2013) and section 1.6.2.2 of the RIR prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES ).

NMFS is also implementing regulations that are intended to protect historical participants in the Pacific cod pot fisheries that could be adversely affected by the use of larger, more efficient vessels in the BSAI longline C/P subsector. NMFS recognizes that three of the 36 LLP licenses endorsed for participation in the BSAI longline C/P subsector also authorize the designated vessel to target Pacific cod with C/Ps using pot gear in the BSAI: two of those LLP licenses authorize participation in the BSAI Pacific cod fisheries with C/Ps using pot gear; one of the LLP licenses authorizes participation in the BSAI and Western GOA Pacific cod fisheries with C/Ps using pot gear. Under the final rule, NMFS will authorize a person holding an LLP license endorsed to catch and process Pacific cod with hook-and-line and pot gear in the BSAI to increase the MLOA on the LLP license to 220 feet (67 m) only if the LLP license holder elects to surrender any Pacific cod pot gear endorsements within a specific time frame.

Regulations implemented by this final rule are intended to prevent adverse competitive effects of increased fishing capacity by the BSAI longline C/P subsector relative to the C/Ps using pot gear in both the BSAI and the GOA. Under this final rule, the holders of the two BSAI longline C/P subsector LLP licenses with BSAI Pacific cod pot gear C/P endorsements can either surrender the BSAI Pacific cod pot gear C/P endorsements and receive an LLP license with a 220-foot (67 m) MLOA or retain their current MLOA and continue to participate in both fisheries. Similarly, the holder of the BSAI longline C/P subsector LLP license with BSAI and Western GOA Pacific cod pot gear C/P endorsements can either surrender the BSAI and GOA Pacific cod pot gear C/P endorsements and receive an LLP license with a 220-foot (67 m) MLOA or retain the BSAI Pacific cod pot gear C/P endorsements and the current LLP license MLOA will continue to apply.

This final rule will limit holders of LLP licenses with Pacific cod pot gear C/P endorsements from naming larger vessels on those LLP licenses that could increase vessel capacity in the pot gear C/P fisheries and could disadvantage historical participants in the sector who would continue to be constrained by the MLOAs specified on their LLP licenses. Without this limitation, these participants could harvest a greater proportion of the GOA Pacific cod sector allocation relative to their historical catch. This could negatively impact historical participants in the Pacific cod pot fisheries and would not promote a fair and equitable standard for all participants in the pot gear C/P fisheries.

This final rule establishes regulations to ensure that holders of LLP licenses eligible for the BSAI longline C/P subsector that choose to retain Pacific cod pot gear C/P endorsements will continue to be restricted by the current MLOAs on the LLP licenses. This final rule establishes a time limit on the one-time permanent election for these LLP license holders that would close 36 months from the date of implementation of this action. The deadline for making the one-time election is intended to promote the conservation and management of the BSAI and GOA Pacific cod fisheries by clearly identifying pot gear C/P sector participants within a reasonable time frame and by establishing an upper limit on vessel capacity in the BSAI longline C/P subsector.

This final rule lists the groundfish LLP licenses that are modified by this action at Table 9 to part 679. Table 9 to part 679 will list in Column A the 36 LLP licenses endorsed to participate in the BSAI longline C/P subsector. Table 9 indicates which LLP licenses are eligible for an increase in MLOA to 220 feet (67 m), as designated in Column B, and the LLP license holders that are eligible for a one-time election to permanently surrender and extinguish certain LLP license endorsements in exchange for an increase in the MLOA to 220 feet (67 m), as designated in Column C.

This final rule modifies the regulatory definition of “Maximum LOA (MLOA)” at § 679.2 and establishes regulatory provisions at § 679.4(k)(3)(i)(D) for a new MLOA category. Under this provision, NMFS will revise MLOAs on the LLP licenses designated in Column B of Table 9 to part 679. The NMFS Restricted Access Management Division will issue new LLP licenses with an MLOA of 220 feet (67 m) to the holders of the eligible licenses designated in Column B of Table 9 to part 679. The new LLP licenses will be mailed to the address provided to NMFS by the holder of the qualifying LLP license. NMFS has revised the definition of “Maximum LOA (MLOA)” at § 679.2 to ensure that all LLP licenses designated in Column B of Table 9 to part 679 are revised on the effective date of this final rule.

This final rule implements regulations at § 679.4(k)(3)(i)(D)( 2 ) to ensure that the MLOA on an LLP license endorsed for participation in the BSAI longline C/P subsector is not revised if the LLP license holder retains an endorsement to participate in Pacific cod pot fisheries in the BSAI or GOA. Under this final rule, NMFS will establish a process for eligible LLP license holders to surrender a Pacific cod pot gear endorsement on LLP licenses also endorsed to participate in the BSAI longline C/P subsector. Regulations implemented by this final rule will assign an MLOA of 220 feet (67 m) to any of the three LLP licenses listed in Column C of Table 9 to part 679 whose holders surrender the Pacific cod pot gear endorsements on their LLP license. This final rule provides a one-time election to permanently surrender the Pacific cod pot gear endorsements on an LLP license, and NMFS will extinguish the surrendered Pacific cod pot gear endorsements. NMFS will not transfer the endorsements to another person, and the endorsements cannot be used in other areas, with other gears, or for other operational types.

This final rule includes provisions at § 679.4(k)(6)(xi) that describe the requirements for holders of LLP licenses eligible to participate in the BSAI longline C/P subsector to surrender their Pacific cod pot gear C/P endorsements. NMFS will notify in writing the three LLP license holders listed in Column C of Table 9 to part 679 of their option to elect to surrender their Pacific cod pot gear C/P endorsements on their LLP license and receive a 220-foot (67 m) MLOA. Owners of eligible licenses, or their agents, will need to notify NMFS in writing at the address specified at § 679.4(k)(6)(xi) that they elect to surrender the endorsements. The request will need to include a signed statement notifying NMFS that the holder of the LLP license acknowledges that the election is permanent and irreversible and that all pot gear Pacific cod endorsements on that LLP will be extinguished. Each LLP license holder has 36 months from February 6, 2014, to notify NMFS in writing of the one-time permanent election. If the written notification is received by NMFS within the 36 months prior to the deadline, NMFS will issue a revised LLP license to the holder of that LLP license. LLP license holders who choose not to make the one-time election or who do not submit a written notification within the 36-month deadline will retain their current MLOA and continue to be eligible to participate in both the Pacific cod pot fisheries and longline fisheries in the BSAI and GOA.

In order for a vessel to participate in a U.S. fishery, a vessel must obtain a certificate of documentation with a fishery endorsement from either the U.S. Coast Guard or the Maritime Administration (MARAD), as set forth in regulations at 46 U.S.C. 12102(a) and 12151(b). The AFA of 1998, as amended, Title II, Division C, Public Law 105-277, was enacted to increase U.S. citizen participation in U.S. fisheries. The AFA required the Maritime Administration to ensure compliance with the U.S. citizenship ownership and control requirements for U.S.-flag fishing industry vessels of 100 feet or greater in registered length. Therefore, a vessel 100 feet or greater in registered length must receive this documentation from MARAD.

The AFA and MARAD implementing regulations prohibit larger vessels from obtaining a fishery endorsement unless specific conditions are met. Unless an exemption applies, a vessel is not eligible for a fishery endorsement if it is greater than 165 feet in length overall, has more than 750 gross registered tons, or has engines capable of producing more than 3,000 shaft horsepower.

These regulations were intended to limit, but not reduce, fishing capacity in the BSAI; however, the regulations effectively limit the ability of vessel owners to replace vessels currently participating in the BSAI longline C/P subsector with newer vessels of an equivalent size. There are currently nine vessels named on LLP licenses eligible to participate within the BSAI longline C/P subsector that exceed at least one of the thresholds described at 46 CFR 356.47(a) and (c). These vessels are able to participate in the fishery because they received a fishery endorsement prior to September 25, 1997; however, the license holders could not replace vessels named on their LLP licenses with vessels of comparable or additional capacity and continue to participate in the BSAI longline C/P subsector because such vessels would not be eligible for a fishery endorsement.

An exemption from these regulations is possible if the owner of such a vessel demonstrates to MARAD that the regional fishery management council of jurisdiction, established under section 302(a)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, has recommended after October 21, 1998, and the Secretary has approved, conservation and management measures in accordance with regulations implementing the AFA at 46 CFR 356.47, to allow vessels that may exceed the length, horsepower, and tonnage requirements to be used in fisheries under such council's authority. NMFS and MARAD General Counsel consulted to determine what action on the part of the Council and NMFS would satisfy this exemption. NMFS and MARAD General Counsel determined, based on the regulatory requirements established at 46 CFR 356.47(c), that the Council would need to recommend, and the Secretary would need to approve, conservation and management measures that would allow such a vessel to be used in the BSAI longline C/P subsector fisheries. The statutory vessel capacity restrictions are described in more detail in section 1.2.2 of the RIR for this action (See ADDRESSES ).

The Secretary approved Amendment 99 on December 19, 2013, and has issued this final rule to implement Amendment 99; therefore, the Secretary has approved conservation and management measures that permit a vessel to exceed the limits specified at 46 U.S.C. 12113(d) in order to participate in the BSAI longline C/P subsector. Secretarial approval of Amendment 99 and the publication of implementing regulations are intended to provide MARAD with documentation that eligible vessels qualify to receive a fishery endorsement. Following the implementation of this final rule on February 6, 2014, NMFS will notify MARAD that any vessel named on an LLP license endorsed for participation in the BSAI longline C/P subsector, which is greater than 165 feet in registered length, of more than 750 gross registered tons, or that has an engine or engines capable of producing a total of more than 3,000 shaft horsepower, is authorized for use in the EEZ under the jurisdiction of the Council, and is eligible to receive a certificate of documentation consistent with 46 U.S.C. 12113(d) and MARAD regulations at 46 CFR 356.47.

This final rule does not change existing recordkeeping, monitoring and enforcement requirements for participants in the BSAI C/P longline subsector. This action will add a reporting requirement for the LLP licenses identified in Column C to Table 9 to part 679. The holders of these three LLP licenses would need to notify NMFS of their election to permanently surrender all Pacific cod pot gear endorsements in exchange for a 220-foot (67 m) MLOA on an LLP, as described in more detail in the Collection-of-Information Requirements section of this preamble.

No changes were made between the proposed and final regulations. However, NMFS acknowledges one error on page 63954 in the preamble to the proposed rule (78 FR 63951, October 25, 2013). The first column, first paragraph incorrectly states that the MLOA on an LLP license would increase to 200 feet, and not 220 feet. The sentence should read as follows: “Under Amendment 99, the MLOA specified on LLP licenses in the BSAI longline C/P subsector that are not also endorsed for pot gear would be increased to 220 feet (67 m).”

During the public comment period on the Notice of Availability for Amendment 99 and the proposed rule to implement Amendment 99, NMFS received three comments, only one of which was substantive. The same member of the public submitted all three comments. All of the comments expressed a general dislike of fishery management policies that are outside the scope of this action. One comment expressed general discontent with this action and is included below with NMFS' response. No changes were made to this final rule in response to the comment letters received. NMFS' response to the one substantive public comment on Amendment 99 and the proposed rule to implement Amendment 99 is presented below.

Comment: Older vessels should not be replaced with newer, larger, and more efficient vessels because these larger vessels will increase catch to unsustainable levels.

Response: NMFS analyzed whether this action would increase catch of groundfish in Section 1.6.2 of the RIR. Section 1.6.2 of the RIR indicates that NMFS expects that this action will not increase the catch of groundfish by vessels in the BSAI longline C/P subsector in the BSAI or GOA. The preamble to the proposed rule (78 FR 63951, October 25, 2013) notes that management constraints, such as Pacific cod species endorsements on LLP licenses in the BSAI and GOA (see 67 FR 18129, April 15, 2002 for the BSAI; and 76 FR 15826, March 22, 2011 for the GOA), sector allocations for Pacific cod in the BSAI and GOA (see 72 FR 50788, September 4, 2007 for the BSAI; and 76 FR 74670, December 1, 2011 for the GOA), and halibut prohibited species catch limits in the BSAI and GOA (see 78 FR 13813, March 1, 2013 for the BSAI; and 78 FR 13162, February 26, 2013 for the GOA), limit the ability of vessels in the BSAI longline C/P subsector to expand their overall fishing operations in groundfish fisheries.

The preamble to the proposed rule notes that the potential for expanded participation in the Pacific cod pot fishery is constrained by the limitations on LLP licenses with Pacific cod hook-and-line and pot C/P endorsements that are implemented under this final rule (78 FR 63951, October 25, 2013). These provisions are described in the Background and Regulatory Amendments sections of this preamble. Additional information describing the management measures that limit the ability of all vessels, including new vessels, to increase catch in the BSAI longline C/P subsector in the BSAI and GOA are found in Section 1.6.2 of the RIR prepared for this action (See ADDRESSES ).

The NMFS Assistant Administrator determined that Amendment 99 to the BSAI FMP is necessary for the conservation and management of the BSAI groundfish fishery and that it is consistent with the BSAI and GOA FMPs, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws.

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

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under control number 0648-0334. Public reporting burden per response is estimated to be 2 hours for One-time Election to Permanently Surrender Pacific Cod Pot Gear Endorsement for the BSAI and GOA in Exchange for Receiving an LLP with an MLOA of 220 feet Authorizing Participation in the BSAI Pacific cod Longline C/P fisheries. Public reporting burden includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 679 as follows: